Sanhedrin 174

Chapter 174

א דין בתו מאנוסתו
1 Viz., [incest with] one's daughter by an outraged woman. For Raba said, R. Isaac b. Abudimi said unto me: We learn identity of law from the fact that hennah ['they'] occurs in two related passages, and likewise zimmah ['wickedness'].<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' V. supra 51b. From that gezerah shawah we learn that such incest is punishable by extinction, where capital punishment cannot be imposed. Since there is no dispute in this at all, it must be assumed that the rebellious elder denies the validity of this particular gezerah shawah (Tosaf.). ');"><sup>1</sup></span>
ב דאמר רבא א"ל רב יצחק בר אבודימי אתיא הנה הנה
2 "'Between blood and blood" — the blood of a <i>niddah</i>, childbirth, and gonorrhoea'. 'The blood of a niddah', — this enters into the dispute of Akabia b. Mahalalel and the Rabbis. For we learnt: A greenish [discharge of] blood: Akabia b. Mahalalel declares it unclean, and the Sages declare it clean.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Nid. 19a. Now, if the rebellious elder rules as the former, he involves her in an offence of niddah, which is punished by extinction. E.g., if after two days of this greenish discharge there was a one-day normal red-blooded flow. Now a niddah had to wait a minimum of seven days from the beginning of her menstruous flow of blood (v. p. 577, n. 2). On the view of Akabiah b. Mahalalel, but not of the Rabbis, the greenish discharge is regarded as blood and the two days of greenish discharge are counted as part of the seven. Hence by following the former she becomes clean, and cohabits two days earlier than warranted by the latter, according to which she is still a niddah. ');"><sup>2</sup></span>
ג אתיא זימה זימה
3 'The blood of childbirth,' — this depends on the dispute between Rab and Levi. For it has been stated: Rab said, It [all] issues from one and the same source,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' I.e., the blood discharge within eighty days after childbirth. V. Lev. XII, 1-5. ');"><sup>3</sup></span>
ד בין דם לדם בין דם נדה דם לידה דם זיבה דם נדה בפלוגתא עקביא בן מהללאל ורבנן דתנן דם הירוק עקביא בן מהללאל מטמא וחכמים מטהרין
4 the Torah declaring it unclean [during the first fourteen days], and clean [the following sixty six days]. Levi said, It proceeds from two different sources: [at the end of fourteen days] the unclean [source] is closed and the clean one opened: [at the end of eighty days] the source of clean [blood] is closed and that of unclean [blood] opened.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' In Nid. 35b it is explained that they differ practically if there is a continuous issue from the end of the fourteenth into the beginning of the fifteenth, or from the eightieth into the eighty-first day. According to Rab, notwithstanding this, the blood of the fifteenth is clean, and that of the eighty first unclean. Since Levi however maintains that normally there are two different sources, there should be a definite break between the two, in the absence of which the blood of the fifteenth is unclean, whilst that of the eighty first is clean. Thus a rebellious elder, by flouting the ruling of the Beth din either way causes the injunction of niddah to be violated. ');"><sup>4</sup></span>
ה דם לידה בפלוגתא דרב ולוי דאתמר רב אמר מעין אחד הוא התורה טימאתו והתורה טיהרתו
5 'And the blood of gonorrhoea [zibah]'. — This enters into the dispute of R. Eliezer and R. Joshua. For we learnt: If a woman was in labour for three days within the eleven,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' V. p. 577, n. 2. ');"><sup>5</sup></span>
ו ולוי אמר שני מעיינות הן נסתם הטמא נפתח הטהור נסתם הטהור נפתח הטמא:
6 then ceased for twenty four hours [lit., 'from time to time' — from an hour on one day to the same on the next]. and then gave birth, she is regarded as a woman bearing with a gonorrhoeic discharge: this is R. Eliezer's opinion. R. Joshua said, [The cessation must be] a night and a day, as the night and day of the Sabbath. The cessation referred to is cessation from labour, not from blood[-discharge].<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Nid. 36b. As was stated on p. 577 n. 2, if a woman has blood discharges on three days within the eleven between the menses, she becomes a zabah. If however, this is caused by labour pangs, she is not a zabah, providing however, that her travail continues until giving birth. But if three days of labour and discharge are succeeded by one day free from pain, and then she gives birth, the interruption proves that the issue of the first three days was not the result of labour, but of gonorrhoea, and hence she is a zabah, and subject to the laws thereof, which supersede those of childbirth, the issue during the sixty-six days (v. p. 578) being considered unclean. Now, R. Eliezer and R. Joshua differ as to the meaning, of 'one day'. R. Eliezer maintains that it means a day of 24 hours; but R. Joshua holds that it is a calendar day. i.e., a night and a day. E.g., if she was free from pain from 12 noon on one day to 12 noon on the next, according to R. Eliezer she is a zabah. But on the view of R. Joshua, since she had suffered on the same day. viz., until 12 noon it is not a complete day of cessation, and hence she is not a zabah. As a zabah, cohabitation may be forbidden her on pain of extinction when for mere confinement it would be permitted. ');"><sup>6</sup></span>
ז דם זיבה בפלוגתא דר"א ורבי יהושע דתנן קישתה שלשה ימים בתוך אחד עשר יום אם שפתה מעת לעת וילדה הרי זו יולדת בזוב דברי ר"א
7 '"Between ruling and ruling" — whether they be capital or civil cases, or cases involving flagellation.' Civil cases depend on the dispute between Samuel and R. Abbahu. For Samuel said, If two [judges] gave a [civil] ruling, their action is valid, but that they are dubbed 'an impudent court', whilst R. Abbahu maintained: All agree that their decision is invalid.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Extinction may be involved therein in the following way: — If as a result of their decision money was withdrawn from A to B, on Samuel's view, it rightfully belongs to B: on R. Abbahu's, it does not. Now if B married a woman with this money as kiddushin, according to Samuel the marriage is valid, and cohabitation with another man is punishable by death or extinction in the absence of witnesses; but according to R. Abbahu, the kiddushin is invalid, for if one marries a woman with money or goods not belonging to him, his act is null. Hence, if the Beth din accepted Samuel's view, whilst the rebellious elder accepted R. Abbahu's, he declares a married woman free to others. Now further, if another man C also married the same woman, in Samuel's opinion the second marriage is invalid, and if B subsequently died, she is a free woman. But on R. Abbahu's view, this second marriage is valid, since the first was null. Hence, if the Beth din ruled as R. Abbahu, and the rebellious elder as Samuel, he declares her free from C, when in reality she is married to him. ');"><sup>7</sup></span>
ח ור' יהושע אומר לילה ויום כלילי שבת ויומו ששפתה מן הצער ולא מן הדם
8 'Capital cases' — in this the dispute of Rabbi and the Rabbis is involved. For it has been taught: Rabbi said, Then thou shalt give life for life<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Ex. XXI, 23. ');"><sup>8</sup></span>
ט בין דין לדין בין דיני ממונות דיני נפשות דיני מכות דיני ממונות בפלוגתא דשמואל ורבי אבהו דאמר שמואל שנים שדנו דיניהם דין אלא שנקראין בית דין חצוף ורבי אבהו אמר לדברי הכל אין דיניהן דין
9 — this refers to monetary compensation. You say, monetary compensation: but perhaps this is not so, life being literally meant? — 'Giving' is stated below:<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Viz., in the verse under discussion. ');"><sup>9</sup></span>
י דיני נפשות בפלוגתא דרבי ורבנן דתניא רבי אומר (שמות כא, כג) ונתת נפש תחת נפש ממון
10 It is also stated above:<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Viz., If&nbsp;… no mischief follow&nbsp;… he shall pay (lit., 'give') as the judges determine, Ibid, 22. ');"><sup>10</sup></span>
יא אתה אומר ממון או אינו אלא נפש ממש נאמר נתינה למעלה ונאמר נתינה למטה מה להלן ממון אף כאן ממון
11 just as the latter refers to money, so the former too.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' V. supra 79a. If one intended killing one person but killed another instead, Rabbi maintains that he must make monetary compensation to the heirs, whilst the Rabbis rule that he is financially exempt. Hence, if the heirs seized the money, according to Rabbi, it belongs to them, according to the Sages it does not. — Extinction is then involved as explained p. 579. n. 3. ');"><sup>11</sup></span>
יב דיני מכות בפלוגתא דרבי ישמעאל ורבנן דתנן מכות בג' משום רבי ישמעאל אמרו בכ"ג
12 'Cases involving flagellation. — This is dependent on the dispute of R. Ishmael and the Rabbis. For we learnt: Flagellation [is imposed by [a court of] three. On the authority of R. Ishmael it was said, by twenty-three.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' V. supra 2a. Hence, in his view, if a court of three had him flagellated, they acted ultra vires, and must compensate him. If he seized this compensation money, on R. Ishmael's view, it belongs to him, on the Rabbis', it does not. Extinction is then involved as in p. 579, n. 3. ');"><sup>12</sup></span>
יג בין נגע לנגע בין נגעי אדם נגעי בתים נגעי בגדים
13 '"Between [leprous] plague spots and plague spots", including leprosy in man, houses, and garments. Leprosy in man depends on the dispute of R. Joshua and the Rabbis. For we learnt: If the bright spot preceded the white hair, he is unclean, If the reverse, he is clean.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' V. Lev. XIII, 2ff. ');"><sup>13</sup></span>
יד נגעי אדם בפלוגתא דרבי יהושע ורבנן דתנן אם בהרת קדם לשער הלבן טמא אם שער לבן קדם לבהרת טהור ספק טמא רבי יהושע אומר כהה מאי כהה אמר רבא כהה טהור
14 [If the order is] in doubt, he is unclean; R. Joshua said, It is as though darkened.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Neg. IV, 11. ');"><sup>14</sup></span>
טו נגעי בתים בפלוגתא דרבי אלעזר ברבי שמעון ורבנן דתנן רבי אליעזר ברבי שמעון אומר לעולם אין הבית טמא עד שיראה כשני גריסין על שתי אבנים בשתי כתלים בקרן זוית ארכו כשני גריסין ורחבו כגריס
15 What does this mean? — Raba<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Var. lec. Rabbah. ');"><sup>15</sup></span>
טז מאי טעמא דר' אלעזר בר"ש כתיב קיר וכתיב קירות איזהו קיר שהוא כקירות הוי אומר זה קרן זוית
16 said, [When the spot is] darkened, he is clean.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Thus R. Joshua maintains that if the order is doubtful, he is clean, and consequently permitted to enter the Sanctuary, whilst on the view of the Rabbis, he is forbidden on pain of extinction. ');"><sup>16</sup></span>
יז נגעי בגדים בפלוגתא דר' (יונתן) בן אבטולמוס ורבנן דתניא ר' (יונתן) בן אבטולמוס אומר מנין
17 'Leprosy in houses.' — This enters into the dispute of R. Eleazar, son of R. Simeon and the Rabbis. For we learnt: R. Eleazar, son of R. Simeon said: A house never becomes unclean unless a plague spot appears the size of two beans on two stones in two walls, and at the angle of the walls; it must be two beans in length and one in breadth.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Neg. XII, 3. ');"><sup>17</sup></span> Why so? Because the Bible refers to the 'walls' [of the house]<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Lev. XIV, 37, 39. ');"><sup>18</sup></span> and also to the 'wall':<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Ibid. 37. ');"><sup>19</sup></span> where is one wall as two? At its angle.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' But according to the Rabbis it is unclean even if the leprous outbreak is not at the angle, and renders anyone who enters unclean too. V. supra note 3. ');"><sup>20</sup></span> 'Leprosy in garments.' — This depends on the dispute of R. Nathan b. Abtolemos and the Rabbis. For it has been taught: R. Nathan b. Abtolemos said: Whence do we know