Sanhedrin 161

לא תימא ליה לאבוך הכי דתניא הרי שהיה אביו עובר על דברי תורה לא יאמר לו אבא עברת על דברי תורה אלא אומר לו אבא כך כתיב בתורה סוף סוף היינו הך אלא אומר לו אבא מקרא כתוב בתורה כך (הוא):

speak not thus to your father;<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' I.e., explicitly telling him that he was wrong. ');">¹</span>

<big><strong>מתני׳</strong></big> מי שנתחייב בשתי מיתות בית דין נידון בחמורה עבר עבירה שנתחייב שתי מיתות נידון בחמורה ר' יוסי אומר נידון בזיקה הראשונה שבאה עליו:

for it has been taught: If one was [unwittingly] transgressing a precept of the Torah, his son must not say 'Father, you transgress a Biblical precept', but say, 'The Torah writes thus.'<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' I.e., he states the Biblical law. ');">²</span>

<big><strong>גמ׳</strong></big> פשיטא אלא איתגורי איתגור

But after all, does it not amount to the same thing? — But he must say this, 'Father, the following verse is written in the Torah.'<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' But not directly state the law, leaving it for his father to draw the inference. This does not shame him. ');">³</span>

אמר רבא הכא במאי עסקינן כגון שעבר עבירה קלה ונגמר דינו על עבירה קלה וחזר ועבר עבירה חמורה סלקא דעתא אמינא כיון דנגמר דינו לעבירה קלה האי גברא קטילא הוא קמ"ל

<b><i>MISHNAH</i></b>. HE WHO INCURS TWO DEATH PENALTIES IMPOSED BY <i>BETH DIN</i> IS EXECUTED BY THE SEVERER. IF HE COMMITTED ONE SIN FOR WHICH A TWOFOLD DEATH PENALTY IS INCURRED, HE IS EXECUTED BY THE SEVERER. R. JOSE SAID: HE IS JUDGED ACCORDING TO THE FIRST INTERDICT WHICH LAY UPON HIM.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' This is explained below. ');">⁴</span>

בעא מניה (אבוה) דרב יוסף בר חמא מרבה בר נתן מנא הא מילתא דאמור רבנן מי שנתחייב שתי מיתות ב"ד נידון בחמורה דכתיב (יחזקאל יח, י) והוליד בן פריץ שופך דם [וגו'] אל ההרים אכל ואת אשת רעהו טמא ואל הגלולים נשא עיניו

<b><i>GEMARA</i></b>. Is it not obvious [that he is executed by the severer]: shall he then profit [by his additional crime]? Raba answered: The circumstances are these: First he committed the lighter offence, for which he was sentenced; then the more serious one. I might think, since he was already under sentence for the lighter offence, he is as a dead man [and cannot be further sentenced] — We are therefore taught otherwise.

והוליד בן פריץ שופך דם בסייף את אשת רעהו טימא זו אשת איש בחנק ואל הגלולים נשא עיניו זו עבודת כוכבים בסקילה וכתיב (יחזקאל יח, יג) מות יומת דמיו בו יהיה בסקילה

The father<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Var. lec., 'brother'. ');">⁵</span>

מתקיף לה רב נחמן בר יצחק אימא כולהו בסקילה והוליד בן פריץ שופך דם זה בן סורר ומורה דבסקילה אשת רעהו טמא זו נערה המאורסה דבסקילה ואל הגלולים נשא עיניו זו עבודת כוכבים דבסקילה

of R. Joseph b. Hama inquired of Rabbah b. Nathan: Whence do we know this law stated by the Rabbis viz., ONE WHO INCURS TWO DEATH PENALTIES PASSED BY <i>BETH DIN</i> IS EXECUTED BY THE SEVERER? — [He answered:] From the verse, If he [sc. the righteous man] beget a son that is a robber, a shedder of blood,&nbsp;… [who] hath eaten upon the mountains, and defiled his neighbour's wife.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Ezek. XVIII, 10f. ');">⁶</span>

א"כ מאי קמ"ל יחזקאל דילמא תורה קא מהדר א"כ איבעי ליה לאהדורה כי היכי דאהדרה משה רבינו

Now, 'If he beget a son that is a robber, a shedder of blood, — this [murder] is punished by decapitation; 'and defiled his neighbour's wife', — this is adultery, punished by strangulation; 'and hath lifted up his eyes to the idols',<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Ibid 12. ');">⁷</span>

דרש רב אחא בר' חנינא מאי דכתיב (יחזקאל יח, ו) אל ההרים לא אכל שלא אכל בזכות אבותיו ועיניו לא נשא אל גלולי בית ישראל שלא הלך בקומה זקופה

refers to idolatry, for which stoning is incurred. And it is written, He shall surely die, his blood shall be upon him,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Ibid. 13. ');">⁸</span>

ואת אשת רעהו לא טימא שלא ירד לאומנות חבירו ואל אשה נדה לא קירב שלא נהנה מקופה של צדקה וכתיב (יחזקאל יח, ט) צדיק הוא חיה יחיה כשהיה רבן גמליאל מגיע למקרא הזה היה בוכה ואמר מאן דעביד לכולהו הוא דחיי בחדא מינייהו לא

which indicates stoning.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' 'His blood shall be upon him' always means stoning, v. p. 357 n. 7. Thus we see that the severest penalty is imposed; and it must be under the circumstances posited by Raba, for otherwise the verse is unnecessary. ');">⁹</span>

א"ל ר"ע אלא מעתה (ויקרא יח, כד) אל תטמאו בכל אלה הכי נמי בכולהו אין בחדא מינייהו לא אלא באחת מכל אלה הכי נמי באחת מכל אלה:

R. Nahman b. Isaac objected: May it not refer to a series of offences all punishable by stoning? Thus: 'If he beget a sort a robber, a shedder of blood', refers to a wayward and rebellious son,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' So called, because he ultimately becomes a murderer, v. supra 72a. ');">¹⁰</span>

עבר עבירה: תניא כיצד אמר רבי יוסי נידון בזיקה ראשונה הבאה עליו חמותו ונעשית אשת איש נידון בחמותו אשת איש ונעשית חמותו נידון באשת איש

who is stoned; 'and defiled his neighbour's wife', to a betrothed maiden, whose ravisher too is stoned; 'and hath lifted up his eyes to the idols', to idolatry, for which stoning is likewise incurred? — If so, what does Ezekiel teach us?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' For then it is obvious. ');">¹¹</span>

אמר ליה רב אדא בר אהבה לרבא חמותו ונעשית אשת איש נידון בחמותו

But perhaps he was merely revising the Torah?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' His coreligionists having forgotten it; but not intending to teach any new law. ');">¹²</span>

לידון נמי אאיסור אשת איש דהא אמר ר' אבהו מודה ר' יוסי באיסור מוסיף

— Then he should have revised it [all] just as Moses had revised it.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' [In Deuteronomy.] ');">¹³</span> R. Aha b. Hanina gave the following exposition: What is meant by, [But if a man be just and do that which is lawful and right, etc.] and hath not eaten upon the mountains?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Ibid. 6. ');">¹⁴</span> I.e., he did not eat through his forbears' merit;<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' His own merit being sufficient that God should sustain him. 'Mountains' is interpreted as metaphorically referring to one's ancestors; cf. Micah VI, 2, which may be so translated. ');">¹⁵</span> neither hath he lifted up his eyes to the idols of the house of Israel, that he did not walk with haughty mien; neither hath defiled his neighbor's wife, indicating that he did not [competitively] enter his neighbour's profession; neither hath come near to a menstruous woman, meaning that he did not benefit from the charity fund.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' It being wrong to do so unless one is absolutely compelled. ');">¹⁶</span> And it is written, He is just, he shall surely live.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Ibid. 9. ');">¹⁷</span> When R. Gamaliel read this verse he wept, saying, 'Only he who does all these things shall live, but not merely one of them!' Thereupon R. Akiba said to him, 'If so, Defile not yourselves in all these things.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Lev. XVIII, 24. ');">¹⁸</span> is the prohibition against all [combined] only, but not against one?' [Surely not!] But it means, in one of these things; so here too, for doing one of these things [shall he live]. IF HE COMMITTED ONE SIN FOR WHICH A TWOFOLD DEATH PENALTY IS INCURRED, etc. It has been taught: When did R. Jose rule, HE IS JUDGED ACCORDING TO THE FIRST INTERDICT WHICH LAY UPON HIM? E.g., if a woman was first interdicted as a mother-in-law<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' I.e., if one marries a widow's daughter, so that the widow is forbidden to him only as a mother-in-law. ');">¹⁹</span> and then became a married women, he is judged [for incest with her] as for his mother-in-law only. If she was first forbidden to him as a married woman and then became his mother-in-law, he is punished for a married woman.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Because R. Jose maintains that a second prohibition cannot become operative where one is already in existence. Adultery with a married woman is punished by strangling; incest with one's mother-in-law by burning. ');">²⁰</span> R. Adda b. Ahaba said to Raba: 'If she was first his mother-in-law and then became a married woman, he is judged as for his mother-in-law only'; but should he also not be punished for the interdict attaching to her as a married woman? For R. Abbahu said: R. Jose agrees in regard to a more extensive prohibition [that it becomes operative where a prohibition already exists].<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' As his mother-in-law she was forbidden to him only; on remarriage, the prohibition was extended to all men. Since the second prohibition is thus wider in scope than the first, it is operative even where the first already exists. ');">²¹</span>