Sanhedrin 162

אמר ליה אדא ברי בתרי קטלי קטלת ליה:

— He replied: 'Adda, my son, will you execute him twice!'<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Obviously not! Therefore under no circumstances can one prohibition take legal hold where another exists, if death is the penalty. R. Jose's admission refers only to unwitting transgression, and is in connection with sacrifices. ');">¹</span>

<big><strong>מתני׳</strong></big> מי שלקה ושנה ב"ד מכניסין אותו לכיפה ומאכילין אותו שעורין עד שכריסו מתבקעת:

<b><i>MISHNAH</i></b>. HE WHO WAS TWICE FLAGELLATED [FOR TWO TRANSGRESSIONS, AND THEN SINNED AGAIN,] IS PLACED BY <i>BETH DIN</i> IN A CELL AND FED WITH BARLEY BREAD, UNTIL HIS STOMACH BURSTS.

<big><strong>גמ׳</strong></big> משום דלקה ושנה ב"ד כונסין אותו לכיפה אמר ר' ירמיה אמר רבי שמעון בן לקיש הכא במלקיות של כריתות עסקינן דגברא בר קטלא הוא וקרובי הוא דלא מיקרב קטליה וכיון דקא מוותר לה נפשיה מקרבינן ליה לקטליה עילויה

<b><i>GEMARA</i></b>. Because he has been twice flagellated <i>Beth din</i> places him in a cell?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Surely that is inequitable! ');">²</span>

א"ל רבי יעקב לר' ירמיה בר תחליפא תא אסברא לך במלקיות של כרת אחת אבל של שתים ושל שלש כריתות איסורי הוא דקא טעים ולא מוותר כולי האי:

— R. Jeremiah answered in the name of Resh Lakish: The reference is to flagellation for an offence punishable by extinction,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' But the witnesses had warned him that he would be flagellated, — a lesser penalty. ');">³</span>

מי שלקה ושנה: שנה אע"ג דלא שילש לימא מתני' דלא כרשב"ג דאי רשב"ג הא אמר עד תלת זימני לא הויא חזקה

so that he is already liable to death [at the hand of God], but the time of his death has not yet come: since, however, he abandoned himself [to sin, by transgressing a third time], we hasten his death. R. Jacob said to R. Jeremiah b. Tahlifa: 'Come, I will interpret it to you. This treats of flagellation for one sin involving extinction [which was twice repeated]: but [if he committed]two or three different sins each involving extinction, It may merely be his desire to experience sin, and not a complete abandonment thereto.'<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' So that there is hope for his reformation; consequently we do not hasten his death. ');">⁴</span>

אמר רבינא אפילו תימא רשב"ג קסבר עבירות מחזיקות

ONE WHO WAS TWICE FLAGELLATED.

מיתיבי עבר עבירה שיש בה מלקות פעם ראשונה ושניה מלקין אותו ושלישית כונסין אותו לכיפה אבא שאול אומר אף בשלישית מלקין אותו ברביעית כונסין אותו לכיפה מאי לאו דכולי עלמא מלקיות מחזיקות ובפלוגתא דרבי ורשב"ג קמיפלגי

Twice, though not thrice; shall we say that the Mishnah does not agree with R. Simeon b. Gamaliel? For if it did, does he not maintain, There is no presumption until a thing has happened three times?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' This is in connection with widowhood: only if a woman has been thrice widowed is there a presumption that it is her destiny to cause her husbands' death, and hence she may not remarry. Rabbi maintains that this presumption may be made even if she has only been twice widowed. ');">⁵</span>

לא דכולי עלמא אית להו דרשב"ג והכא בהא קא מיפלגי דמר סבר עבירות מחזיקות ומר סבר מלקיות מחזיקות

— Rabina said: It may agree even with R. Simeon b. Gamaliel: The Mishnah is of the opinion that transgressions afford a basis for presumption.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Not flagellation. Therefore, if he transgressed thrice, though only twice flagellated, there is a presumption that he is incorrigible. ');">⁶</span>

והדתניא התרו בו ושתק התרו בו והרכין ראשו פעם ראשונה ושניה מתרין בו שלישית כונסין אותו לכיפה אבא שאול אומר אף בשלישית מתרין בו ברביעית כונסין אותו לכיפה

An objection was raised: If one committed an offence involving flagellation, the first and second time he is flagellated; on the third occasion he is placed in a cell. Abba Saul said: Even on the third occasion he is flagellated; but on the fourth, he is placed in a cell.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Tosef. Sanh. XII. ');">⁷</span>

והתם מלקות ליכא במאי קמיפלגי אמר רבינא בכיפה צריכה התראה קמיפלגי

Now presumably, both agree that flagellation affords a basis for presumption, and they differ on the lines of Rabbi and R. Simeon b. Gamaliel?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' The first Tanna agreeing with Rabbi that twice affords presumption, Abba Saul with R. Simeon b. Gamaliel. But since the first Tanna is identical with the Tanna of our Mishnah, it follows that it cannot agree with R. Simeon b. Gamaliel. This refutes Rabina. ');">⁸</span>

ומאי כיפה אמר רב יהודה מלא קומתו והיכא רמיזא אמר ריש לקיש (תהלים לד, כב) תמותת רשע רעה

— No. Both agree with R. Simeon b. Gamaliel, but they differ on this question: One Master<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' The first Tanna. ');">⁹</span>

ואמר ריש לקיש מאי דכתיב (קהלת ט, יב) כי [גם] לא ידע האדם את עתו כדגים שנאחזים במצודה רעה מאי מצודה רעה אמר ר"ל חכה:

holds that transgression affords a basis for presumption, the other Master,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Abba Saul. ');">¹⁰</span>

<big><strong>מתני׳</strong></big> ההורג נפש שלא בעדים מכניסין אותו לכיפה ומאכילין אותו (ישעיהו ל, כ) לחם צר ומים לחץ:

that only flagellation affords it. But what of the following that has been taught, viz.: If he [the transgressor] was warned [of his liability to flagellation], but remained silent, or warned and nodded his head, — the first and second time he is to be warned, but on the third occasion he is placed in a cell. Abba Saul said: The third time too he is warned, but on the fourth, he is placed in a cell.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Tosef. XII. When a warning is given, the offender must explicitly accept it, (cf. supra pp. 494-5), otherwise he cannot be punished. Nevertheless, since he was warned, and shewed by his silence or his nodding that he accepted the warning, there is a presumption that he is a confirmed sinner, and hence the law of Mishnah applies to him. ');">¹¹</span>

<big><strong>גמ׳</strong></big> מנא ידעינן אמר רב בעדות מיוחדת ושמואל אמר שלא בהתראה

Now there he is not flagellated:<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' So that there is no flagellation to afford a basis for presumption. ');">¹²</span>

ורב חסדא אמר אבימי כגון דאיתכחוש בבדיקות ולא איתכחוש בחקירות כדתנן מעשה ובדק בן זכאי בעוקצי תאנים:

wherein then do they differ? — Rabina said: They differ as to whether one must be warned of the cell.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Both agree that he becomes a confirmed sinner when he has thrice transgressed. The first Tanna maintains that once we regard him as such, he is placed in a cell without further ado; but Abba Saul is of the opinion that this too must be preceded by a formal warning. Hence, after sinning three times, it is necessary that he shall sin a fourth time, that he may be warned of the consequences. ');">¹³</span>

ומאכילין אותו לחם צר ומים לחץ: מאי שנא הכא דקתני נותנין לו לחם צר ומים לחץ ומאי שנא התם דקתני מאכילין אותו שעורין עד שכריסו מתבקעת אמר רב ששת אידי ואידי נותנין לו לחם צר ומים לחץ עד שיוקטן מעיינו והדר מאכילין אותו שעורין עד שכריסו מתבקעת:

And what was the form of the cell? — Rab Judah said: A chamber of his [the transgressor's] full height. And where is it alluded to?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' It is assumed that the law is traditional, going back to Moses; nevertheless, an allusion is sought in the Bible. ');">¹⁴</span>

<big><strong>מתני׳</strong></big> הגונב את הקסוה והמקלל בקוסם והבועל ארמית קנאין פוגעין בו כהן ששמש בטומאה אין אחיו הכהנים מביאין אותו לב"ד אלא פרחי כהונה מוציאין אותו חוץ לעזרה ומפציעין את מוחו בגזירין זר ששמש במקדש רבי עקיבא אומר בחנק וחכ"א בידי שמים:

— Resh Lakish quoted: Evil shall slay the wicked.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Ps. XXXIV, 22. ');">¹⁵</span>

<big><strong>גמ׳</strong></big> מאי קסוה אמר רב יהודה כלי שרת וכן הוא אומר (במדבר ד, ז) ואת קשות הנסך והיכא רמיזא (במדבר ד, כ) ולא יבאו לראות כבלע את הקדש ומתו:

Resh Lakish also said: What is meant by, For man also knoweth not his time, as the fishes that are taken in an evil trap;<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Ecc. IX, 12. ');">¹⁶</span>

והמקלל בקוסם: תני רב יוסף יכה קוסם את קוסמו רבנן ואיתימא רבה בר מרי אמרי יכהו קוסם לו ולקונו ולמקנו:

what is 'an evil trap'? — Resh Lakish said: A hook.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' This, though small, captures even large fish; thus it is more subtile and dangerous than a net. Presumably also it is more painful. ');">¹⁷</span>

והבועל ארמית: בעא מיניה רב כהנא מרב

<b><i>MISHNAH</i></b>. ONE WHO COMMITS MURDER WITHOUT WITNESSES IS PLACED IN A CELL AND [FORCIBLY] FED WITH BREAD OF ADVERSITY AND WATER OF AFFLICTION'.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Isa. XXX, 20. ');">¹⁸</span> <b><i>GEMARA</i></b>. How do we know [that he committed murder]? — Rab said: On a 'disjoined' evidence.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' I.e., the murder was witnessed by two persons who were not standing together. In that case, he cannot be executed; hence he is imprisoned. cf. Mak. 6b. ');">¹⁹</span> Samuel said: Without a warning.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' I.e., there were two witnesses, but invalid to impose the usual death sentence, because they did not warn him. ');">²⁰</span> R. Hisda said in Abimi's name: Through witnesses who were disproved as to the minor circumstances [of the crime], but not on the vital points.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' By 'vital points' ([H]) time and place of the crime are meant; by 'minor circumstances' (bedikoth [H]) the weapon, clothes worn by the victim or the murderer, etc. Since the vital evidence has not been disproved, the accused is adjudged a murderer; as, however, the witnesses were disproved on minor details, he cannot be executed, and is therefore placed in a cell. ');">²¹</span> As we learned: It once happened that Ben Zakkai examined [the witnesses] as to the stalks of the figs.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' The witnesses having deposed that the murder took place under a fig tree. Ben Zakkai examined them on the nature of the stalks, Whether thick or thin, etc. v. supra 40a ff. ');">²²</span> AND FED 'BREAD OF ADVERSITY AND WATER OF AFFLICTION'. Why does this Mishnah teach, AND FED WITH BREAD OF ADVERSITY AND WATER OF AFFLICTION', whilst the former teaches, HE IS PLACED BY <i>BETH DIN</i> IN A CELL AND FED WITH BARLEY BREAD UNTIL HIS STOMACH BURSTS? — R. Shesheth answered: In both cases he is fed with 'bread of adversity and water of affliction' for his intestines to shrink [thus blocking the passage], and then he is fed with barley bread until his stomach bursts. <b><i>MISHNAH</i></b>. IF ONE STEALS THE KISWAH,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' V. Gemara. ');">²³</span> OR CURSES BY ENCHANTMENT, OR COHABITS WITH A HEATHEN [LIT. SYRIAN] WOMAN, HE IS PUNISHED BY ZEALOTS.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' I.e., pious men, jealous for the honour of Judaism, may punish him if they apprehend him in the act; but if they did not, they cannot subsequently charge him therewith at Beth din (Rashi). ');">²⁴</span> IF A PRIEST PERFORMED THE TEMPLE SERVICE WHILST UNCLEAN, HIS BROTHER PRIESTS DO NOT CHARGE HIM THEREWITH AT <i>BETH DIN</i>, BUT THE YOUNG PRIESTS TAKE HIM OUT OF THE TEMPLE COURT AND SPLIT HIS SKULL WITH CLUBS. A LAYMAN WHO PERFORMED THE SERVICE IN THE TEMPLE, R. AKIBA SAID: HE IS STRANGLED; THE SAGES SAY: [HIS DEATH IS] AT THE HANDS OF HEAVEN. <b><i>GEMARA</i></b>. What is kiswah? — Rab Judah answered: The service vessels [of the Temple]; and thus it is said, And the vessels [Kesoth]<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' [H] ');">²⁵</span> of libation.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Num. IV, 7. ');">²⁶</span> And where is this alluded to?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' That a zealot who sees the theft must punish, i.e., slay him. ');">²⁷</span> That they come not to see how the holy things are stolen,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' [H] lit., 'swallowed up'. ');">²⁸</span> lest they [the purloiners] die.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Ibid. 20. Nevertheless, this not being the true meaning of the verse, q.v., it is regarded merely as a hint, the actual law being traditional. [The allusion is probably to the vessel employed for water libation, a rite opposed by the Sadducees. The purloiner would accordingly be a member of that sect, v. Krauss, Sanh.-Mak. p. 260.] ');">²⁹</span> OR CURSES BY ENCHANTMENT. R. Joseph learned, [He curses thus:] May the charm [the idol] slay its enchanter.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Referring to God. The meaning of the passage is uncertain. H. Danby, Tractate Sanhedrin, a.l., suggests that [H] may be an abbreviation of some transliterated unorthodox divine name, e.g., [G], or a disguised form of the Tetragrammaton. The offence then will consist in blaspheming the Divine Name under a pseudonym (Sanh. VII, 5). Levy, s.v. oxe translates: May the charmer (= idol) slay its charmer (= God). But the Munich MS. reads [H] = what is like him (cf. [H] supra 56a). Jastrow renders: 'May the carver (i.e., God, invoked as 'carver' instead of creator ex nihilo) strike his carving!' ');">³⁰</span> The Rabbis, others say, Rabbah b. Mari, say: [He curses:] May the charm slay him [his enemy], his Master and his Provider, etc.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' The last two refer to God. This is translated by Levy (loc. cit.): The charmer smite him, his possessor, and Him who gives him possession. The J. a. l. reads: [H] e.g., as the Nabateans curse, viz., Cursed be thou, thy possessor, and Him who gives thee possession. ');">³¹</span> OR COHABITS WITH A HEATHEN WOMAN. R. Kahana propounded a problem to Rab: