Sanhedrin 80

ואימא חדא חדא כדכתיבא דא"כ ליכתבינהו רחמנא בחדא כיון דכולהו בהדי הדדי כתיבא מהדדי ילפי וכיון דילפי מהדדי כמאן דכתיב בחדא דמי

But perhaps we should say that each case is as written,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' I.e., three questions are to be put to the case of the condemned city; two in a charge of idolatry, and two for Zomemim. ');">¹</span> for if it be so,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' That seven are necessary in each individual charge. ');">²</span>

והא לא דמיא להדדי (סימן פל"ט סיי"ף התרא"ה)

the Divine Law should have stated them in a single case?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Whence the procedure for all other capital charges would follow. ');">³</span> — Since all [seven] are severally prescribed,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' I.e., in the three charges taken together. [Our text is difficult. Yad Ramah reads [H] 'Since all have been prescribed for the purpose of enquiry']. ');">⁴</span>

עיר הנדחת להנך תרתי לא דמיא שכן ממונן פלט ע"ז להנך תרתי לא דמיא שכן בסייף עדים זוממין להנך תרתי לא דמיא שכן צריכים התראה

[the requirements of] each is inferred from the other,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' I.e., since close examination is stated in the case of each, the three charges are assimilated to each other, and therefore the questions that are to be put in one case are to be put in the others too (Rashi) ');">⁵</span> and that being so, it is as though all [seven] were written with reference to each. But surely they [the cases in question] are not similar to each other!<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' How then assimilate the three charges to each other? ');">⁶</span>

בהיטב היטב ילפינן מהדדי וגזירה שוה מופנה דאי לא מופנה איכא למיפרך לאיי אפנויי מופני מדהוה ליה למיכתב ודרשו וחקרו ושני קרא בדיבוריה בהיטב שמע מינה לאפנויי

(Mnemonic: <i>Spared, Sword, Warning</i>.) Thus: The condemned city is unlike the other two,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' That of the idolater and the Zomemim. ');">⁷</span> for their possessions [the condemned's, in the latter two charges,] are spared.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' This act of leniency may indicate a greater degree of leniency in general, therefore a more rigid inquiry might be necessary, this too being in favour of the accused; but in the case of the condemned city, where the possessions of the condemned are destroyed, the inquiries might be less exacting, since the general tendency there is to greater severity. Hence only the number explicitly stated, as above, may be necessary. ');">⁸</span>

ואכתי מופנה מצד אחד הוא בשלמא הנך תרתי מופנה הוא משום דהוה ליה למכתב אלא עיר הנדחת מאי הוה ליה למכתב הא כתיבא כולהו

Again, idolatry differs from the other two cases, for in them [execution is] by the sword.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Deut. XIII, 16, with regard to the condemned city. V. also Deut. XIX, 21, where a false charge of murder seems to be referred to, which is punished by decapitation, which is therefore also the punishment of the Zomemim. This is a milder form of death than stoning, the penalty for idolatry. Cf. infra 49b. ');">⁹</span> Again, witnesses proved <i>Zomemim</i> are unlike the other two cases, since they require a formal warning?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' I.e., before conviction is possible but in the case of Zomemim, no previous warning is required. V. Keth. 33a and Rashi's interpretation a.l., which is based on the verse. Ye shall do unto him as he had purposed to do unto his brother. Since then the cases are dissimilar, how could the procedure in all capital cases be learnt from one? ');">¹⁰</span>

התם נמי אפנויי מופנה מדהוה ליה למכתב דרוש תדרוש או חקור תחקור ושני קרא בדיבוריה בהיטב שמע מינה לאפנויי

— We infer it<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' That the requirements of each case are transferred to the others ');">¹¹</span> from the identical use of 'diligently'<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Which is common to all the three verses cited. ');">¹²</span>

ואתו נחנקין בק"ו מנסקלין ומנהרגין ואתו נשרפין בקל וחומר מנסקלים

and the gezerah-shawah<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' V. Glos. ');">¹³</span> is free,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' I.e., the words of the text which form the basis of the analogy are pleonastic and not legally essential. ');">¹⁴</span>

הניחא לרבנן דאמרי סקילה חמורה אלא לרבי שמעון דאמר שריפה חמורה מאי איכא למימר

for otherwise, it [the deduction] could be refuted.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' As shown above. It is a principle of exegesis that if the two terms of the analogy are not altogether similar the deduction of the gezerah shawah is not valid. V. also p. 363, n. 3. ');">¹⁵</span> And it is truly free: since Scripture could have read,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' With reference to the Zomemim. ');">¹⁶</span>

אלא אמר רב יהודה (דברים יג, טו) והנה אמת נכון והנה אמת נכון הא חד סרי שבע לשבע חקירות דל תלת לגזירה שוה פשא להו חדא

And they shall inquire and they shall search,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Which is the expression used in respect of a condemned city. ');">¹⁷</span> and yet changes its expression [by employing the word] 'diligently',<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' I.e., instead of 'they shall search', the second question was expressed by 'diligently'. ');">¹⁸</span>

לר"ש לאתויי נשרפין לרבנן מילתא דאתיא בק"ו טרח וכתב לה קרא

it follows that the purpose thereof was to leave it free.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' I.e., though the main purpose of the verse is to indicate the number of questions to be put, this alteration of expression serves the subsidiary purpose too of intimating that the verse is free, so as to permit an analogy to be drawn. ');">¹⁹</span> But it [the analogy] is free only on one side!<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' I.e., the word 'diligently' which forms the basis of the analogy is pleonastic only in one of the two terms that are compared, regarding idolatry and Zomemim as one term, and a condemned city as the other. Hence the analogy can be rejected. (This is a matter of dispute on the part of various teachers; v. p. 363, n. 3.) ');">²⁰</span>

מגדף בה רבי אבהו אימא לאתויי שמנה חקירות ושמנה חקירות מי איכא אלמה לא והאיכא לאתויי בכמה בשעה ותניא נמי הכי היו בודקין אותו בשמנה חקירות

[For] granted that it is free in these two cases,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Sc. idolatry and Zomemim. ');">²¹</span> since [another expression] could have been used:<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' E.g., make a search. The modification of the expression therefore denotes a basis for the analogy. ');">²²</span>

הניחא לאביי אליבא דר"מ דאמר אין אדם טועה ולא כלום ולהך לישנא נמי דאמר אדם טועה משהו שפיר אלא לאביי אליבא דר' יהודה דאמר אדם טועה חצי שעה ולרבא דאמר טעו אינשי טובא מאי איכא למימר

in the case of the condemned city,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Where there is the expression search. ');">²³</span> what else could have been written:<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Instead of 'diligently'. ');">²⁴</span>

אלא לאתויי בכמה ביובל

for are not all [three]<a rel="footnote" href="#56a_25">²⁵</a> employed?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Hence 'diligently' cannot be regarded as pleonastic and consequently the analogy can be refuted. ');">²⁶</span>

היינו באיזה שבוע אלא לאתויי באיזה יובל ואידך כיון דאמר באיזה שבוע לא בעי באיזה יובל:

— There too it [sc. 'diligently'] is truly free, for Scripture could have read, Inquiring thou shalt inquire,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' [H]. ');">²⁷</span> or searching thou shalt search;<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' [H] [H] The connection of the infinitive with the verb to convey emphasis is a common feature in the Bible. Cf. Ex. XXII, 3: Deut. XV, 10, 14. ');">²⁸</span>

רבי יוסי אומר: תניא אמר להם רבי יוסי לחכמים לדבריכם מי שבא ואמר אמש הרגו אומר לו באיזו שבוע באיזו שנה באיזו חדש בכמה בחדש

and varies the idiom by the use of 'diligently'; it may therefore be inferred that this was in order to leave it free.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Hence it is free on both sides, and so cannot be rejected. ');">²⁹</span> Now,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Since the need of the seven questions has been established in cases punishable by stoning or decapitation, viz., idolatry and witnesses proved Zomemim. ');">³⁰</span>

אמרו לו לדבריך מי שבא ואמר עכשיו הרגו אומר לו באיזה יום באיזה שעה באיזה מקום

we infer [the same requirement for charges punishable by] strangulation a minori from cases punishable by stoning or decapitation.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Strangulation is regarded as a milder form of death than the former two, hence the seven questions are certainly necessary there. (V. p. 259, n. 2). ');">³¹</span> Again, the same is deduced for cases of burning a minori from those of stoning.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Stoning is severer than burning, and decapitation milder. ');">³²</span>

אלא אע"ג דלא צריך רמינן עליה כדרבי שמעון בן אלעזר ה"נ אע"ג דלא צריך רמינן עליה כדרבי שמעון בן אלעזר

This [however] is right on the view of the Rabbis that stoning is severer [than burning]. But what is to be said on the view of R. Simeon that burning is the severer?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' I.e., how then can we deduce a seven-fold inquiry from cases involving a milder to those involving a severer punishment? ');">³³</span> — Rab Judah therefore said: [Scripture states,] Behold if it be truth and the thing certain,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Deut XIII, 15, with reference to the condemned city. ');">³⁴</span>

ור' יוסי אמש הרגו שכיח ברוב עדיות עכשיו הרגו לא שכיח ברוב עדיות:

[and again] Behold if it be truth and the thing certain:<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Ibid. XVII, 4, with reference to the idolater. ');">³⁵</span> this gives eleven [expressions implying inquiry].<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' For 'if it be truth' implies that a question is put to ascertain it; likewise,'and (if) the thing (be) certain' implies another question; hence the two sentences imply another four questions, in addition to the seven. ');">³⁶</span>

מכירים אתם אותו: תנו רבנן מכירים אתם אותו נכרי הרג ישראל הרג התריתם בו קיבל עליו התראה התיר עצמו למיתה המית בתוך כדי דיבור

Seven [are employed] to indicate the seven queries: then subtracting the three needed for the <i>gezerah shawah</i>,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Sc. concerning the word 'diligently' in the cases of idolatry, Zomemim, and the condemned city. ');">³⁷</span> one still remains, whose purpose according to R. Simeon, is to include the cases of burning,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' That there too the witnesses must be examined with the seven queries of time and place. ');">³⁸</span>

העובד ע"ז את מי עבד לפעור עבד למרקוליס עבד ובמה עבד בזיבוח בקיטור בניסוך בהשתחואה

whereas according to the Rabbis,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' For, as stated above, they declared the need of seven queries in the cases of charges punishable by burning a minori from stoning. What need then of the eleventh expression, which likewise indicates the case of burning? Hence this assumption must be made. ');">³⁹</span> [the necessary explanation is that] Scripture [sometimes] takes the trouble of stating a fact which can be deduced a minori. R. Abbahu ridiculed this [explanation]: Perhaps it [the eleventh expression] indicates an eighth query!<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' How can it be taken for certain that its purpose is to extend the law of seven queries to charges of burning? ');">⁴⁰</span>

אמר עולא מניין להתראה מן התורה שנאמר (ויקרא כ, יז) ואיש אשר יקח את אחותו בת אביו או בת אמו וראה את ערותה אטו בראייה תליא מילתא אלא עד שיראוהו טעמו של דבר אם אינו ענין לכרת

But are eight queries [hakiroth] conceivable?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' I.e., can one ask a further question through which false witnesses may be declared Zomemim? ');">⁴¹</span> Why not? Surely, What part of the hour, may be added [as the eighth question]! And indeed, it has been taught even so: 'They examined him with eight queries.' Now, that is correct<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' I.e., that eight queries are conceivable, each of which may serve the purpose of refuting the witnesses. ');">⁴²</span> according to Abaye on R. Meir's ruling, viz., A man is [to be treated as] not liable to make even the slightest error.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' In regard to the exact time (Pes. 11b). So that, should the witnesses be refuted over a matter of half an hour, e.g., if they stated that they witnessed a murder at 4:30, and other witnesses testify that they were elsewhere, we do not assume that they might have witnessed the murder at 4 or 5, and erred in half an hour, but declare them Zomemim. Hence a purpose is served by questioning them on the precise part of the hour. ');">⁴³</span> And even according to the version which states, A man is liable to make a slight error: it is also right.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' To add another query as regards the precise part of the hour. ');">⁴⁴</span> But according to Abaye on R. Judah's ruling, viz., A man is liable to err to the extent of half an hour, and according to Raba, who said, People are liable to err to even a greater extent, what can you say? — Well then, [the eleventh expression] may be intended to add, 'Which year of the Jubilee' as a query. But that is identical with: 'In what septennate?'! — Rather this is the additional question: 'In what Jubilee? And the other Tanna? — 45 Since he [the witness] tells us in which septennate, it is necessary to ask: 'In which Jubilee?'<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Since it is highly improbable that evidence would be postponed from one Jubilee to another (Rashi) (Or. one includes the other, v. Yad Ramah]. — It may be observed that owing to the discussion on the possibility or need of eight questions, R. Abbahu's objection remains unanswered, unless it be assumed that R. Simeon who maintains that burning is severer than stoning also agrees with the Tanna of the Mishnah that only seven questions are put. ');">⁴⁶</span> R. JOSE SAID etc. it has been taught: R. Jose said to the Sages: According to your view, one who comes and testifies, 'He killed him last night,' must be asked: 'In which septennate? In what year? In what month? On what day of the month?' They retorted: And according to your view, one who comes and declares, 'He killed him just now,' is to be asked: 'On what day? At what hour? And where?' But [you too must answer that] even though the questions may be unnecessary, they are put to them [the witnesses], in accordance with the view of R. Simeon b. Eleazar;<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Cf. supra. 32b. 'They shall take the witnesses from one place to another in order to confuse them.' ');">⁴⁷</span> so here too,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' I.e., to defend our view. ');">⁴⁸</span> even if they are unnecessary, they are put to them [the witnesses], in accordance with R. Simeon b. Eleazar's view. And R. Jose?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' How does he maintain his objection, seeing that it may rightly be raised against his own view too? ');">⁴⁹</span> — 'He killed him last night,' is a frequent testimony; whereas, 'He has killed him just now,' is rare.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Therefore R. Jose maintains that the latter possibility may be disregarded. ');">⁵⁰</span> DID YE KNOW HIM? Our Rabbis taught: [The following questions are asked]: Do ye know him? Did he kill a heathen? Did he kill an Israelite? Did ye warn him? Did he accept your warning?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' By saying, e.g., 'I know that I am warned not to do so.' ');">⁵¹</span> Did he admit his liability to death?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' By answering you, e.g., 'Even though I shall be punished by such and such a death, yet I will commit this crime.' ');">⁵²</span> Did he commit the murder within the time needed for an utterance?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Such as a greeting from a disciple to teacher, e.g., 'Peace be unto thee, my Master and Teacher'. V. B.K. 73b; Mak. 6a. If the murder was delayed longer, the plea that he forgot the warning might be accepted. (Rashi) ');">⁵³</span> Where he committed idolatry, [the witness is asked:] Which [idol] did he worship? Did he worship Peor?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Num. XXV, 1-9. Worshipped by obscene rites. V. infra 60a, and Rashi, on Num. loc. cit., also p. 410, n. 1. ');">⁵⁴</span> Did he worship Merkolis?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' [H], Roman, Mercurius, Greek, Hermes, the patron deity of wayfarers. V. p. 410, n. 2. ');">⁵⁵</span> How did he worship? By sacrifice, offering incense, libations, or prostration? 'Ulla said: Where is the need of warning intimated in the Torah? — In the verse, And if a man shall take his sister, his father's daughter, or his mother's daughter, and see her nakedness.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Lev. XX, 17. ');">⁵⁶</span> Does guilt then depend upon [mere] seeing? Hence it must mean [that he is liable to punishment] only if he 'sees' the reasonableness thereof.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' I.e., if the witnesses previously warn him that his proposed action is forbidden on pain of kareth. ');">⁵⁷</span> And since this is inapplicable to <i>Kareth</i>,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' [H]; excision — punishment by Heaven, where no warning is needed, since God knows whether the culprit was aware of the forbidden nature of his action or not. ');">⁵⁸</span>