Sanhedrin 160

אלא למ"ד זה וזה גורם מותר מאי איכא למימר

but on the view that such is permitted, what can you say?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' The calf is the product of a cow and an ox, but the ox is permitted; therefore, on the latter view, even if conceived after sentence, it should still be permitted. ');">¹</span>

אלא אמר רבינא אימא אם עד שלא נגמר דינה עיברה וילדה ולדה מותר ואם עד שלא נגמר דינה עיברה ומשנגמר דינה ילדה ולדה אסור עובר ירך אמו הוא:

— But Rabina said: Read thus: If the calf was conceived and born before its mother was condemned, it is permitted: but if conceived before sentence and born after sentence, it is forbidden, because the embryo is a thigh [i.e., part] of its mother.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' In this case it is forbidden, not because it is the product of its mother, but because before birth it is part and parcel of its mother, and the prohibition of the latter applies to the embryo too. ');">²</span>

כל חייבי מיתות: ש"מ מותרה לדבר חמור הוי מותרה לדבר קל

IF A NUMBER OF CONDEMNED PERSONS DIFFERING IN THEIR DEATH SENTENCES ETC. … [THEY ARE EXECUTED BY THE MOST LENIENT DEATH]. This proves that a warning of a greater penalty is ipso facto a warning for a smaller one too!<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' For each culprit must have been warned, and presumably, the warning had stated to which manner of death he would be liable. Since the Mishnah rules that they are all executed by the most lenient death, it follows that the warning in respect of a particular death is regarded as a warning in respect of an easier death too. Otherwise, they could not be executed. ');">³</span>

א"ר ירמיה הכא במאי עסקינן כגון שהתרו בו סתם והאי תנא הוא דתניא ושאר חייבי מיתות שבתורה אין ממיתין אותן אלא בעדה ועדים והתראה ועד שיודיעוהו שהוא חייב מיתת ב"ד רבי יהודה אומר עד שיודיעוהו באיזה מיתה הוא נהרג

— R. Jeremiah said: [This is no proof, for] the Mishnah treats of a case where he was warned in general terms,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' I.e., the culprit had been warned that he was liable to death, but not of the manner of execution. ');">⁴</span>

ת"ק יליף ממקושש ורבי יהודה אומר מקושש הוראת שעה היתה:

and it agrees with the following Tanna. For it has been taught: But others liable to any death penalty decreed in the Torah<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' I.e., excluding a mesith, who requires no warning. ');">⁵</span>

הנסקלין בנשרפין: מתני ליה רב יחזקאל לרמי בריה הנשרפין בנסקלין ר"ש אומר ידונו בסקילה שהשריפה חמורה

are executed only on the testimony of [at least two] witnesses, by a 'congregation' [i.e., a full <i>Beth din</i> of twenty three], and after a warning, which warning must have stated that he 'was liable to death at the hands of <i>Beth din</i>. R. Judah said: They [the witnesses] must have informed him by which death he would be executed.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Tosef. Sanh. XI. ');">⁶</span>

אמר ליה רב יהודה אבא לא תיתנייה הכי מאי איריא דשריפה חמורה תיפוק ליה דרובה נסקלין נינהו אלא היכי אתנייה

The first Tanna deduces his ruling from 'the gatherer [of sticks', who had not been warned how he would be executed, but was nevertheless stoned]. Whereas R. Judah maintains that 'the gatherer' [was executed] on an ad hoc decision.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' V. p. 527, n. 8. ');">⁷</span>

הנסקלין בנשרפין ר"ש אומר ידונו בסקילה שהשריפה חמורה אי הכי אימא סיפא וחכ"א ידונו בשריפה שהסקילה חמורה תיפוק ליה דרובה נשרפין נינהו

IF CRIMINALS CONDEMNED TO STONING [BECAME MIXED UP] WITH OTHERS CONDEMNED TO BURNING. R. Ezekiel taught his son Ram: If criminals condemned to burning [became mixed up] with others condemned to stoning — R. Simeon said, they are stoned, because burning is severer. Thereupon Rab Judah said to him, 'Father, teach it not thus: Why state the reason because burning is severer? This follows from the fact that the majority are for stoning.'<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' For 'if criminals condemned to burning became mixed up with others condemned to stoning' implies that the latter were in the majority, as the smaller number is lost (i.e., 'mixed up') in the larger. ');">⁸</span>

התם רבנן הוא דקאמרו ליה לר"ש לדידך דאמרת שריפה חמורה לא סקילה חמורה

How then should I teach it'? The son replied, 'Thus: IF CRIMINALS CONDEMNED TO STONING [BECAME MIXED UP] WITH OTHERS CONDEMNED TO BURNING, — R. SIMEON SAID, THEY ARE STONED, BECAUSE BURNING IS SEVERER.' If so, consider the second clause, BUT THE SAGES SAY, THEY ARE BURNED, BECAUSE STONING IS MORE SEVERE. But does it not follow from the fact that the majority are to be burnt? — There the Rabbis oppose R. Simeon: You say, burning is severer; but that is not so, for stoning is severer.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' But their ruling could be deduced from the fact that the majority are to be burnt. ');">⁹</span>

אמר ליה שמואל לרב יהודה שיננא

Samuel said to Rab Judah: You keen scholar,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Others translate: 'man of long teeth'. ');">¹⁰</span>