Sanhedrin 170

מידי דהוה לאחר מיתה

— It is the same as after death.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' For if one curses his father even after death he is liable. So here too (v. Rashi). ');">¹</span>

מאי הוה עלה אמר רבה בר רב הונא וכן תנא דבי רבי ישמעאל לכל אין הבן נעשה שליח לאביו להכותו ולקללו חוץ ממסית שהרי אמרה תורה (דברים יג, ט) לא תחמול ולא תכסה עליו:

What is our final decision? — Rabbah son of R. Huna said, and a Tanna of the school R. Ishmael &nbsp; &nbsp; [taught] likewise; For no offence may a son be appointed an agent to smite or curse his father, excepting if he be a mesith, since it is written, neither shalt thou spare nor conceal him.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Deut. XIII, 9. ');">²</span>

<big><strong>מתני׳</strong></big> המכה אביו ואמו אינו חייב עד שיעשה בהן חבורה זה חומר במקלל מבמכה שהמקלל לאחר מיתה חייב והמכה לאחר מיתה פטור:

<b><i>MISHNAH</i></b>. <font>HE WHO STRIKES HIS FATHER OR HIS MOTHER IS LIABLE ONLY IF HE WOUNDS THEM</font>. IN THIS RESPECT, CURSING IS MORE STRINGENT THAN SMITING, FOR, HE WHO CURSES [HIS PARENTS] AFTER DEATH IS LIABLE, <font>WHILST HE WHO SMITES THEM AFTER DEATH IS NOT</font>.

<big><strong>גמ'</strong></big> ת"ר (ויקרא כ, ט) אביו ואמו קלל לאחר מיתה שיכול הואיל וחייב במכה וחייב במקלל מה מכה אינו חייב אלא מחיים אף המקלל אינו חייב אלא מחיים

<b><i>GEMARA</i></b>. Our Rabbis taught: His father or his mother he hath cursed:<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Lev. XX, 9. ');">³</span>

ועוד ק"ו ומה מכה שעשה בו שלא בעמך כבעמך לא חייב בו לאחר מיתה מקלל שלא עשה בו שלא בעמך כבעמך אינו דין שלא חייב בו לאחר מיתה

[his blood shall be upon him]. This means, even after death.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' It is so interpreted because it is superfluous, since the beginning of the verse states, For everyone that curseth his father or his mother shall surely be put to death. ');">⁴</span>

ת"ל אביו ואמו קלל לאחר מיתה

For I would think, since he is liable for smiting and for cursing; so also for cursing. Moreover, an ad majus reasoning [would seem to prove the contrary]: If for smiting, where [a parent] 'not of thy people' is assimilated to one 'of thy people',<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' V. supra. Because in Ex. XXI, 15, dealing with this, no mention is made that the parents must be 'of thy people'. ');">⁵</span>

הניחא לר' יונתן דמייתר ליה קרא אביו ואמו אלא לר' יאשיה מאי איכא למימר

there is nevertheless no punishment for doing so after his death; then cursing, where one 'not of thy people' is assimilated to 'of thy people', is surely not punishable if done after death! Therefore the Writ saith, He hath cursed his father or his mother. Now this accords with R. Jonathan, to whom the verse, His father or his mother, he hath cursed, is superfluous; but on R. Joshiah's view, what can be said? For it has been taught: For [ish ish] any man<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment','[H] Lit., 'A man, a man', ');">⁶</span>

דתניא (ויקרא כ, ב) איש איש מה ת"ל איש איש לרבות בת טומטום ואנדרוגינוס אשר יקלל את אביו ואת אמו אין לי אלא אביו ואמו אביו שלא אמו אמו שלא אביו מניין ת"ל אביו ואמו קלל אביו קלל אמו קלל דברי ר' יאשיה

[that curseth his father or his mother shall surely be put to death].<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Lev. XX, 9. ');">⁷</span>

ר' יונתן אומר משמע שניהן כאחד ומשמע אחד ואחד בפני עצמו עד שיפרט לך הכתוב יחדיו

Now, Scripture could have said, A man [ish]; what is taught by 'any man' ['ish ish']? The inclusion of a daughter, a <i>tumtum</i>, and a hermaphrodite [as being subject to this law]. 'That curseth his father and his mother': from this I know only [that he is punished for cursing] his father and his mother: whence do I know [the same] if he cursed his father without his mother or his mother without his father? — From the passage, His father and his mother he hath cursed, implying, a man that cursed his father, a man that cursed his mother. This is R. Joshiah's opinion. R. Jonathan said: The [beginning of the] verse alone implies either the two together or each separately, unless the verse had explicitly stated 'together'.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' V. supra 66a for notes. ');">⁸</span>

מנא ליה נפקא ליה מומקלל אביו ואמו מות יומת

Whence then does he [R. Joshiah] learn [the law under discussion]?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Since on his view it is not superfluous. ');">⁹</span>

ואידך ההוא מיבעי ליה לרבות בת טומטום ואנדרוגינוס

— He derives it from the verse, And he that curseth his father or his mother shall surely put to death.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Ex. XXI, 17, which is superfluous in view of Lev. XX, 9. ');">¹⁰</span>

ותיפוק ליה מאיש איש דברה תורה כלשון בני אדם

And the other?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' R. Jonathan: how does he interpret this verse? ');">¹¹</span>

וליתני חומר במכה מבמקלל שהמכה עשה בו שלא בעמך כבעמך משא"כ במקלל קסבר מקשינן הכאה לקללה

— He utilises it to include a daughter, a <i>tumtum</i>, and a hermaphrodite. But why not derive this from 'any man' [ish ish]? — The Torah employed human speech.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' In which this repetition is common. Hence it has no special significance. ');">¹²</span>

לימא הני תנאי כהני תנאי דתני חדא כותי אתה מצווה על הכאתו ואי אתה מצווה על קללתו ותניא אידך אי אתה מצווה לא על קללתו ולא על הכאתו

[Now, reverting to the Mishnah:] Should it not [also] teach: smiting is a graver offence than cursing, since with respect to the smiting 'not of thy people' is as 'of thy people', which is not the case with respect to cursing?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' The difficulty is this: since the Mishnah teaches an aspect of the greater severity of cursing, it should also state the reverse. ');">¹³</span>

סברוה דכולי עלמא כותים גירי אמת הן מאי לאו בהא קמיפלגי דמר סבר מקשינן הכאה לקללה ומר סבר לא מקשינן הכאה לקללה

— The [Tanna of the Mishnah] maintains that smiting is assimilated to cursing.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' So that they are alike in this respect. ');">¹⁴</span>

לא דכ"ע לא מקשינן הכאה לקללה והכא בהא קמיפלגי מר סבר כותים גירי אמת הן ומר סבר כותים גירי אריות הן

Shall we say that these Tannaim<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Viz., those of the Mishnah and of the Baraitha. ');">¹⁵</span>

אי הכי היינו דקתני עלה ושורו כישראל אלא שמע מינה בהיקישא פליגי ש"מ:

differ on the same lines as the following? Viz., One Baraitha was taught: As for a Cuthean, you are enjoined against smiting him, but not against cursing him. But another [Baraitha] taught: You are enjoined neither against smiting nor cursing him. Now, the hypothesis is that all agree that the Cutheans were true proselytes:<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Originally, though in the course of time they had deteriorated. ');">¹⁶</span>

<big><strong>מתני'</strong></big> הגונב נפש מישראל אינו חייב עד שיכניסנו לרשותו רבי יהודה אומר עד שיכניסנו לרשותו וישתמש בו שנאמר (דברים כד, ז) והתעמר בו ומכרו הגונב את בנו רבי ישמעאל בנו של ר' יוחנן בן ברוקה מחייב וחכמים פוטרין גנב מי שחציו עבד וחציו בן חורין ר' יהודה מחייב וחכמים פוטרין:

hence presumably the grounds of their dispute are these. One Master holds that smiting is likened to cursing, and the other Master that it is not!<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Hence, on the former view, one is not forbidden to smite him, since he is not 'of thy people' as taught in the second Baraitha, but on the latter, no distinction is drawn between him and an Israelite — as taught in the first Baraitha. ');">¹⁷</span>

<big><strong>גמ׳</strong></big> ותנא קמא לא בעי עימור א"ר אחא בריה דרבא עימור פחות משוה פרוטה איכא בינייהו

— No! All agree that smiting is not likened to cursing, but this is the cause of their dispute: — The one Master maintains, Cutheans are true proselytes;<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Therefore they are as Jews. ');">¹⁸</span>

בעי ר' ירמיה גנבו ומכרו ישן מהו מכר אשה לעוברה מהו יש דרך עימור בכך או אין דרך עימור בכך

the other Master holds that they are [sham] proselytes [driven to conversion through fear of] lions.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' V. II Kings XVII, 24-29. Therefore they are not Jews at all. ');">¹⁹</span>

ותיפוק ליה דליכא עימור כלל לא צריכא ישן דזגא עליה אשה דאוקמא באפי זיקא דרך עימור בכך או אין דרך עימור בכך מאי תיקו

If so, how can the [Baraitha] further state, But his ox is as one belonging to an Israelite?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' I.e., if his ox gored or was gored, the same law applies to it as to one of Jewish ownership, whereas an ox of non-Jewish ownership is differently treated, v. B.K. 38a. This proves that the Cuthean is regarded as a real Jew. ');">²⁰</span>

ת"ר (דברים כד, ז) כי ימצא איש גונב נפש מאחיו אין לי אלא איש שגנב אשה מניין ת"ל וגונב איש

Hence this proves that the dispute is in respect of the analogy.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Whether 'smiting' is assimilated to 'cursing'. ');">²¹</span>

אין לי אלא איש שגנב בין אשה ובין איש ואשה שגנבה איש אשה שגנבה אשה מניין ת"ל ומת הגנב ההוא מכל מקום

This proves it.

תניא אידך כי ימצא איש גונב נפש מאחיו אחד הגונב את האיש ואחד הגונב את האשה ואחד גר ואחד עבד משוחרר וקטן חייב גנבו ולא מכרו מכרו ועדיין ישנו ברשותו פטור מכרו לאביו או לאחיו או לאחד מן הקרובים חייב הגונב את העבדים פטור

<b><i>MISHNAH</i></b>. 'HE WHO KIDNAPS A JEW'<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Lit., 'a soul of Israel'. ');">²²</span> INCURS NO LIABILITY UNLESS HE BRINGS HIM INTO HIS OWN DOMAIN. R. JUDAH SAID: UNLESS HE BRINGS HIM INTO HIS OWN DOMAIN AND PUTS HIM TO SERVICE. FOR IT IS WRITTEN, [IF A MAN BE FOUND STEALING ANY OF HIS BRETHREN OF THE CHILDREN OF ISRAEL,] AND PUT HIM TO SERVICE, AND SELL HIM.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Deut. XXIV, 7. ');">²³</span> IF HE ABDUCTS HIS OWN SON. — R. ISHMAEL THE SON OF R. JOHANAN B. BEROKA DECLARED HIM LIABLE, BUT THE SAGES EXEMPTED HIM. IF HE KIDNAPPED A SEMI-SLAVE AND SEMI-FREEMAN,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' E.g., if he had belonged to two masters, one of whom had manumitted him. ');">²⁴</span> — R. JUDAH DECLARES HIM LIABLE, BUT THE SAGES ACQUIT [HIM]. <b><i>GEMARA</i></b>. But does not the first Tanna require putting to service [as a condition of punishment]?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Surely he must, since Scripture explicitly states it. ');">²⁵</span> — R. Abba the son of Raba said: They differ in respect of service worth less than a <i>perutah</i>.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' The first Tanna maintains that even the smallest service renders the kidnapper liable, and therefore does not mention it, whilst R. Judah holds that the service most be worth at least a perutah. ');">²⁶</span> R. Jeremiah propounded: What if one kidnapped and sold a person asleep? What if one sold a [pregnant] woman for the expected child?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' I.e., only the child, when born, but not the woman. ');">²⁷</span> Is this a sort of service or not? But, [surely,] can this not be solved from the fact that there is no service at all? — It is necessary [to propound this] only if he [the kidnapper] leaned upon the sleeper, or, in the case of a [pregnant] woman, if she was placed in front of a wind:<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' To act as a shield; since the stouter she is, the more effectively is this done, the fetus is actually put to use. ');">²⁸</span> now, does this constitute service or not? This problem remains unsolved. Our Rabbis taught: If a man be found stealing any of his brethren of the children of Israel. From this I know [the law] only if a man abducted: whence do I know it of a woman? From the verse And one that stealeth a man.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Ex. XXI, 16. The subject being unspecified, it applies to both sexes, although the verb is masculine. ');">²⁹</span> From [these verses] I know [the law] only if a man kidnapped a man or a woman,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Since the object of 'steal' in Deut. XXIV, 7, where the kidnapper is a man, is nefesh, a soul, applicable to both man and woman. ');">³⁰</span> and of a woman who abducted a man.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' For Ex. XXI, 16 speaks of 'one' stealing a man. ');">³¹</span> Whence do I know it if a woman abducted a woman? From the verse, Then that thief shall die:<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Deut. Ibid. ');">³²</span> implying, in all cases [of theft].<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Since thief is superfluous, being understood from the context. ');">³³</span> Another [Baraitha] taught: If a man be found stealing any of his brethren: whether a man, woman, proselyte, manumitted slave or minor be abducted, he is liable. If he stole him, but did not sell him, or if he sold him, but he is still in his [sc. the victim's] own house, he is exempt. If he sold him to his [sc. the victim's] father, brother, or to one of his relations, he is liable. He who steals slaves is exempt.