Sanhedrin 172

Chapter 172

א להלקותו באנו והני אחריני כולי דבר קא עבדי ליה

1 'We came [merely] to have him flogged', and therefore these last witnesses attest the whole offence [involving execution].<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' V. supra 71a. It is there stated that he was first warned in the presence of three, and then flogged (on the testimony of two witnesses), and only if he offended again is he executed. The second offence too, of course, must be attested by two witnesses. Now, if these last two were proved zomemim, Hezekiah admits that they are executed, for their testimony is complete in itself, in so far as it imposes an additional punishment, as explained here. ');">1

ב מתקיף לה רב פפא אי הכי עידי מכירה נמי ליקטליה מתוך שיכולין עידי גניבה לומר להלקותו באנו וכי תימא דקסבר חזקיה דלא לקי

2 R. Papa objected: If so, the witnesses of the sale [of the abducted person] should likewise be executed, since those of abduction can say, 'We came [merely] to have him flogged':2

ג והא איתמר עידי גניבה בנפש שהוזמו חזקיה ורבי יוחנן חד אמר לוקין וחד אמר אין לוקין ואמרינן תסתיים דחזקיה דאמר לוקין מדאמר חזקיה אין נהרגין

3 nor could you answer3

ד דאי ר' יוחנן כיון דאמר נהרגין הוה ליה לאו שניתן לאזהרת מיתת ב"ד וכל לאו שניתן לאזהרת מיתת ב"ד אין לוקין עליו איהו לא לקי אינהו היכי לקו

4 that Hezekiah is of the opinion that [the abductor] is not flogged,2

ה אלא אמר רב פפא בעידי מכירה דכולי עלמא לא פליגי דנהרגין כי פליגי בעידי גניבה חזקיה אמר אין נהרגין גניבה לחודה קיימא ומכירה לחודה קיימא ר' יוחנן אמר נהרגין גניבה אתחלתא דמכירה היא

5 — since it has been stated: If the witnesses of abduction were proved zomemim — R. Johanan, and Hezekiah [differ]: one maintains that they are flagellated, the other that they are not. Whereon we observed, It may be shewn that it was Hezekiah who ruled that they are flagellated, since he said that they are not executed.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' I.e., if another two witnesses testified to the sale, and then the first two were proved false, they are not executed. The argument is concluded in the next passage. ');">4

ו ומודה רבי יוחנן בעדים הראשונים של בן סורר ומורה שהוזמו שאין נהרגין מתוך שיכולין לומר להלקותו באנו

6 For were it R. Johanan, since however he maintains that they are executed, their injunction5

ז אמר אביי הכל מודים בבן סורר ומורה והכל מודים בבן סורר ומורה ומחלוקת בבן סורר ומורה

7 is one for which a warning of death at the hands of Beth din may be given,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' I.e., they could formally be warned against falsely testifying on the grounds that should they be proved Zomemim after another two witnesses had attested the sale, they would be executed. ');">6

ח הכל מודים בבן סורר ומורה בעדים הראשונים שאין נהרגין מתוך שיכולין לומר להלקותו באנו

8 and for such there is no flagellation.7

ט והכל מודים בבן סורר ומורה בעדים אחרונים שנהרגים מתוך שעדים הראשונים יכולין לומר להלקותו באנו והני כוליה דבר קא עבדי ליה

9 But if he [the accused] is not flagellated, how can they [the false witnesses] be?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' This concludes the proof that Hezekiah must hold that abduction alone is punished by lashes. For since it has been shown that in his opinion witnesses who testify falsely thereto are flogged, it follows that abduction itself is so punished, as it is a general role, stated in Deut. XIX, 19, that the witnesses receive only the punishment they sought to impose. ');">8

י ומחלוקת בבן סורר ומורה שנים אומרים בפנינו גנב ושנים אומרים בפנינו אכל

10 But R. Papa said thus: All agree that the witnesses of the sale [who were proved zomemim] are slain; they differ only with respect to the witnesses of abduction: Hezekiah maintains that they are not executed, abduction being one offence, and selling another;9

יא אמר רב אסי עידי מכירה בנפש שהוזמו אין נהרגין מתוך שיכול לומר עבדי מכרתי

11 whilst R. Johanan holds that they are executed, abduction being the first step towards selling.10

יב אמר רב יוסף כמאן אזלא הא שמעתא דרב אסי כר"ע דאמר דבר ולא חצי דבר א"ל אביי דאי כרבנן נהרגין הא מתוך קאמר

12 But R. Johanan admits that if the first witnesses of a 'stubborn and rebellious' son are proved zomemim, they are not executed, since they can say, 'We came to have him flogged'.

יג אלא אפילו תימא רבנן ובדלא אתו עידי גניבה אי הכי מאי למימרא לא צריכא דאע"ג דאתו לבסוף

13 Abaye said: All agree in [one matter relating to] a 'stubborn and rebellious son'; and all agree in [a second relating to] a 'stubborn and rebellious son'; and there is a dispute [in the case of] a 'stubborn and rebellious' son. [Thus:] 'All agree in [one matter relating to] a "stubborn and rebellious" son, viz., with respect to the first witnesses [proved zomemim], that they are not slain, since they can plead, 'We came to have him flagellated.' 'And all agree in a second matter relating to a "stubborn and rebellious" son,' viz., with respect to the last witnesses, that they are executed, for since the first witnesses could plead. 'We came to have him flogged,' these attest the entire offence [involving death]. And there is a dispute in [the case of] a 'stubborn and rebellious son,' viz., when two testify that he stole, and two that he ate.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' V. supra 71a. Thus each attested half an offence. Hence according to Hezekiah, who agrees with R. Akiba's dictum, 'the whole matter, but not half the matter', they are exempt; but in R. Johanan's view, based on that of the Rabbis, 'the matter, and even half the matter,' they are liable. ');">11

יד ואכתי מאי למימרא לא צריכא דקא מרמזי רמוזי מהו דתימא רמיזא מילתא היא קמ"ל רמיזא לאו כלום הוא:

14 R. Assi said: If the witnesses of the sale of an [abducted] person are proved zomemim, they are not executed, since the [vendor] could plead, 'l sold my slave.'12

טו <big>מתני׳</big> זקן ממרא על פי ב"ד שנאמר (דברים יז, ח) כי יפלא ממך דבר למשפט שלשה בתי דינין היו שם אחד יושב על פתח הר הבית ואחד יושב על פתח העזרה ואחד יושב בלשכת הגזית

15 R. Joseph said: With whom does this dictum of R. Assi agree? — With R. Akiba, who ruled 'the whole matter, but not half the matter.' Abaye said to him, For on the view of the Rabbis they would be executed? But he gives his reason, 'since etc.'13

טז באין לזה שעל פתח הר הבית ואומר כך דרשתי וכך דרשו חבירי כך לימדתי וכך לימדו חבירי אם שמעו אמר להם

16 Hence it may agree even with the Rabbis, providing there were no witnesses of abduction. If so, why state it?14

יז ואם לאו באין להן לאותן שעל פתח עזרה ואומר כך דרשתי וכך דרשו חבירי כך לימדתי וכך לימדו חבירי אם שמעו אמר להם

17 — It is necessary [to state this] only if witnesses [of abduction] subsequently appeared.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' And on the combined testimonies the accused was convicted. Yet, if the first witnesses of the sale were falsified, they are not punished, since they can plead: 'we did not know that others would testify to the kidnapping.' ');">15

יח ואם לאו אלו ואלו באין לב"ד הגדול שבלשכת הגזית שממנו יוצא תורה לכל ישראל שנאמר (דברים יז, י) מן המקום ההוא אשר יבחר ה' חזר לעירו שנה ולמד בדרך שהיה למד פטור ואם הורה לעשות חייב שנאמר (דברים יז, יב) והאיש אשר יעשה בזדון אינו חייב עד שיורה לעשות

18 But even so, why state it? — This is necessary only when they made signs [to each other:]<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Either the intending witnesses of abduction to those of the sale that they were going to give evidence, or the witnesses of the sale to two others in court, urging them to testify to the abduction. ');">16

יט תלמיד שהורה לעשות פטור נמצא חומרו קולו:

19 I might think that signalling is of consequence; therefore he [R. Assi] informs us that it is of no consequence.

כ <big>גמ׳</big> תנו רבנן כי יפלא ממך דבר

20 MISHNAH. 'AN ELDER REBELLING AGAINST THE RULING OF BETH DIN' [IS STRANGLED],<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' I.e., in a matter not explicitly stated in the Torah but for which Beth din must give a ruling, either by Biblical interpretation or their own reasoning. This interpretation is borne out by the general context of the Mishnah. Cf. also R. Judah and R. Simeon's views on same (87a), and the while of the discussion in the Talmud as to the type of rulings in virtue of which one is adjudged a rebellious elder. Krauss, Sanhedrin-Makkot a.l. however points out that the verb [H] is constructed with [H] or [H] of the accusative of person, not [H]. Consequently he translates: The elder (who is declared) rebellious on account of a ruling of the (upper) Beth din. Cp. Rashi, on Mishnah, 84b. ');">17 FOR IT IS WRITTEN IF THERE ARISE A MATTER TOO HARD FOR THEE FOR JUDGEMENT [etc.].18 THREE COURTS OF LAW WERE THERE,19 ONE SITUATE AT THE ENTRANCE TO THE TEMPLE MOUNT,20 ANOTHER AT THE DOOR OF THE [TEMPLE] COURT,21 AND THE THIRD IN THE HALL OF HEWN STONES.22 THEY23 [FIRST] WENT TO THE BETH DIN WHICH IS AT THE ENTRANCE TO THE TEMPLE MOUNT, AND HE [THE REBELLIOUS ELDER] STATED, THUS HAVE I EXPOUNDED AND THUS HAVE MY COLLEAGUES EXPOUNDED; THUS HAVE I TAUGHT, AND THUS HAVE MY COLLEAGUES TAUGHT. IF [THIS FIRST BETH DIN] HAD HEARD [A RULING ON THE MATTER], THEY STATE IT. IF NOT, THEY GO TO THE [SECOND BETH DIN] WHICH IS AT THE ENTRANCE OF THE TEMPLE COURT, AND HE DECLARES, THUS HAVE I EXPOUNDED AND THUS HAVE MY COLLEAGUES EXPOUNDED; THUS HAVE I TAUGHT AND THUS HAVE MY COLLEAGUES TAUGHT. IF [THIS SECOND BETH DIN] HAD HEARD [A RULING ON THE MATTER]. THEY STATE IT; IF NOT, THEY ALL PROCEED TO THE GREAT BETH DIN OF THE HALL OF HEWN STONES WHENCE INSTRUCTION ISSUED TO ALL ISRAEL, FOR IT IS WRITTEN, [WHICH THEY] OF THAT PLACE WHICH THE LORD SHALL CHOOSE [SHALL SHEW THEE].24 IF HE RETURNED TO HIS TOWN AND TAUGHT AGAIN AS HERETOFORE, HE IS NOT LIABLE. BUT IF HE GAVE A PRACTICAL DECISION, HE IS GUILTY, FOR IT IS WRITTEN, AND THE MAN THAT WILL DO PRESUMPTUOUSLY, I.e., one who is not ordained, and hence has no authority to give a ruling at all. ');">25 [SHEWING] THAT HE IS LIABLE ONLY FOR A PRACTICAL RULING. BUT IF A DISCIPLE<a rel="footnote" href="#86b_26">26</a> GAVE A PRACTICAL DECISION [OPPOSED TO THE BETH DIN], HE IS EXEMPT:27 THUS THE VERY STRINGENCY OF HIS [ORDINATION] IS [A SOURCE OF] LENIENCY FOR HIM.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' It was exceedingly difficult to obtain ordination, none under the age of forty receiving it. This very difficulty protected him, since without being ordained he was not liable to the penalty of a rebellious elder. ');">28 GEMARA. Our Rabbis taught: If a thing be outstandingly difficult [yippale] for thee29

Previous Chapter Next Chapter