Sanhedrin 81

Chapter 81

א תנהו ענין למלקות

1 we must refer it to flogging.1 The school of Hezekiah taught: And if a man come presumptuously upon hisneighbour to slay him with guile;2

ב דבי חזקיה תנא (שמות כא, יד) וכי יזיד איש על רעהו להרגו בערמה שהתרו בו ועדיין הוא מזיד

2 — this implies that they warned him, yet he remained with wilfulintent.3 The school of R. Ishmael taught:And they that found him gatheringsticks:<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Num. XV, 33; here too, the deduction follows from the use of the present part. ([H]), i.e., 'he went on gathering sticks after he was found (and warned). This shows the need for warning in the case of stoning ');">4

ג דבי רבי ישמעאל תנא (במדבר טו, לג) המוצאים אותו מקושש עצים שהתרו בו ועדיין הוא מקושש

3 that implies that they warnedhim, yet he continued gathering. The school of Rabbi taught: Because [lit.,'for the word that'] he hath humbled [his neighbour's wife'],<a rel="footnote" href="#56a_5">5</a> teaching,[it is] by reason of 'the word' [that he isstoned].6

ד דבי רבי תנא (דברים כב, כד) על דבר אשר ענה על עסקי דיבור

4 And [these verses] are allnecessary: for had the Divine Law stated [this provision] only in referenceto a man's sister, one might have said that it applied only to those liableto flogging, but not to those liable todeath,7 therefore the Divine Law wrote,If a man come presumptuously etc.8

ה וצריכא דאי כתב רחמנא אחותו הוה אמינא חייבי מלקות אין חייבי מיתות לא כתב רחמנא כי יזיד

5 Again, had this verse only been written, I might have thought that it [sc.a warning) is necessary only for decapitation, which is a milder form ofdeath; but for stoning, which is severer, one might hold that it is not[required]: thus all are necessary. But why need two [intimations]<a rel="footnote" href="#56a_9">9</a> in respectof stoning? — According to R.Simeon,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Who holds that burning is a severer death; consequently, the warning here cannot be deduced from the reference to stoning, since it might be thought that in the case of a severer punishment, warning is not required. ');">10

ו ואי כתב רחמנא וכי יזיד הוה אמינא הני מילי סייף דקיל אבל סקילה דחמורה אימא לא צריכא

6 to extend [the law of warning]to cases of burning;11 whilst theRabbis12

ז ותרתי בנסקלין למה לי לר"ש לאתויי נשרפין

7 [answer]: (Scripture [sometimes]takes the trouble of stating alaw13 which can be deduced a minori.But Scripture should have intimated it for stoning [only], and then theseother cases14

ח לרבנן מילתא דאתיא בק"ו טרח וכתב לה קרא ולכתוב רחמנא בנסקלין וליתו הנך וליגמרו מיניה הכא נמי מילתא דאתיא בקל וחומר טרח וכתב לה קרא:

8 could have been inferredfrom it! — Here too [the same answer must be given]: Scripture [sometimes]takes the trouble of stating a law which can be deduced a miniori. 'Did he admit his liability to death?' Whence do we infer this? Raba — othersstate, Hezekiah — said: Scripture states, Shall he that is todie15

ט התיר עצמו למיתה: מנא לן אמר רבא ואיתימא חזקיה אמר קרא (דברים יז, ו) יומת המת עד שיתיר עצמו למיתה

9 be put todeath;16 [He is not put to death]unless he [previously] admitted his liability todeath.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' This is deduced from the expression, [H], the dead, instead of 'murderer'. In accepting the warning then, he is regarded as dead de jure, even before appearing in court, since the warning involves the consequences of the evil deed. ');">17

י אמר רב חנן עדי נערה המאורסה שהוזמו אין נהרגין מתוך שיכולים לומר לאוסרה על בעלה באנו

10 R. Hanan said: Witnesses against a betrotheddamsel18 who were proved Zomemim,are not executed,19

יא והא אתרו בה דלא אתרו בה ואי לא אתרו בה היכי מיקטלא

11 since they mayplead, We came forward [to testify] only to render her ineligible for her[intended] husband.20 But they mustsurely have warned her!21

יב באשה חבירה ואליבא דרבי יוסי בר' יהודה דתניא רבי יוסי ברבי יהודה אומר חבר אין צריך התראה לפי שלא נתנה התראה אלא להבחין בין שוגג למזיד

12 — Thistreats of a case where they did not warn her. But if so, how could she beput to death at all?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' And in that case the witnesses too are not liable, since it is written, And ye shall do unto him as he thought (plotted) to do unto his brother (Deut. XIX, 19), i.e., they are punished only as the accused would have been punished. ');">22 This refersto an educated woman, and is based on the view of R. Jose son of R. Judah.For it has been taught: R. Jose son of R. Judah said: A scholar needs nowarning, for warning was instituted only in order to distinguish betweenwilfulness and unwilfulness.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' If the murderer was not warned he could plead ignorance of the death penalty. A scholar could not raise such a point in his defence. Hence this woman would have been liable to death, and in consequence, the false witnesses too, but for the plea stated above. ');">23

יג וכיון דאינהו לא מיקטלי איהי היכי מיקטלא הויא לה עדות שאי אתה יכול להזימה וכל עדות שאי אתה יכול להזימה לא שמה עדות

13 Butsince they are not executed, how could she be? For this becomes evidenceto which the law of Zomem cannot beapplied,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' I.e., even if their evidence is proved to be false, the law of retaliation cannot operate, because of their possible defence that they intended only to make her ineligible for her intended husband, and not to bring the death penalty upon her. ');">24 and such is notadmissible!25

יד הכי נמי קאמר מתוך שאין נהרגין שיכולין לומר לאוסרה על בעלה באנו אף היא אינה נהרגת דהויא לה עדות שאי אתה יכול להזימה

14 — He [R. Hanan] actuallymeant it thus: Since they are not executed, for they can plead, 'We cameonly to make her ineligible for her [intended] husband,' she too cannot beexecuted, because it is evidence to which the law of Zomem cannot be applied.Then in the case of an educated woman, who, as we know, is to be executedon the view of R. Jose son of R. Judah, how, is thatpossible?26 — If she misconductedherself twice.27

טו אלא באשה חבירה דקיימא לן דמיקטלא אליבא דר' יוסי בר' יהודה היכי משכחת לה כשזינתה וחזרה וזינתה

15 But they [the witnesses]can still plead, We came only to render her forbidden to her secondparamour!28 — [The case in questionis one] where the misconduct was repeated with the firstadulterer,29

טז והא יכולין לומר לאוסרה על בועלה שני באנו שזינתה מבועל ראשון אי נמי שזינתה מקרוביה

16 or one of misconductwith one of her relations.30 But why state this only of a 'betrothed damsel': surely the same appliesto a married woman too! — True: but [the purpose here is to teach that]even in such a case, though she has not yet lived with her husband, theycan plead, We came forward only to make her ineligible for her [intended]husband.

יז מאי שנא נערה מאורסה דנקט אפילו נשואה נמי אין אלא אפילו האי דלא יתבא תותיה יכולין לומר לאוסרה על בעלה באנו

17 R. Hisda said: If one testified that he [the accused] slew him with a sword,and another, that he slew him with a dagger, it [the evidence] isinadmissible.31 If one says, His clotheswere black, and the other, His clothes were white; the evidence isadmissible.32

יח אמר רב חסדא אחד אומר בסייף הרגו ואחד אומר בארירן הרגו אין זה נכון אחד אומר כליו שחורין ואחד אומר כליו לבנים הרי זה נכון

18 An objection is raised: 'Certain'33 implies that the evidence must be certain;if one witness says, He slew him with a sword, and the other says, With adagger; or if one says, His clothes were black, and the other, They werewhite, the evidence is not'certain'?34

יט מיתיבי נכון שיהא נכון אחד אומר בסייף הרגו ואחד אומר בארירן הרגו אחד אומר כליו שחורין ואחד אומר כליו לבנים אין זה נכון תרגמה רב חסדא בסודר שחנקו בו דהיינו סייף וארירן

19 — R. Hisda interpretedthis as referring to the [colour of] the cloth with which he strangled him,which comes under the same category as sword or dagger. Come and hear! If the one says that his sandals were black, and the other,that they were white, the evidence is notcertain'!35

כ ת"ש אחד אומר סנדליו שחורין ואחד אומר סנדליו לבנים אין זה נכון התם נמי כגון שבעט בו בסנדלו והרגו

20 — There too the meaningis, that he kicked him with his sandal and killedhim.36 Come and hear! IT ONCE HAPPENED THAT BEN ZAKKAI CROSS-EXAMINED [THE WITNESSES]AS TO THE STALKS OF THE FIGS. — Rami b. Hama replied: The meaning is, thata man cut off a fig on the Sabbath, for which he was to be put todeath.37

כא ת"ש מעשה ובדק בן זכאי בעוקצי תאנה אמר רמי בר חמא כגון שעקץ תאנה בשבת דעלה קא מיקטיל

21 But has it not been taught:They said to him, 'He killed him beneath a fig-tree'? — But, said Rami b.Hama: It was a case where he [the accused] pierced his victim with the sharpend of a fig branch. Come and hear! He questioned [the witnesses]: Were the stalks of this figtree thin or thick? And were the figs [themselves] black orwhite?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' I.e., ripe or unripe. Now surely, he could not have killed anyone with the figs. This proves that the meaning is that the witnesses deposed that the accused had killed his victim under or near a fig-tree, and thus this again refutes R. Hisda. ');">38

כב והא תניא אמרו לו תחת תאנה הרגו אלא אמר רמי בר חמא כגון ששפדו בייחור של תאנה

22 But, answered R. Joseph:Would one raise an objection from Ben Zakkai! Ben Zakkai had a differentview, since he assimilated bedikoth tohakiroth.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' And maintained that just as contradictions on the latter invalidated the evidence, so on the former. The general view, however, disagrees with this, and R. Hisda's dictum was likewise in accordance with the general view. ');">39 Now, who was this BenZakkai? Shall we say, R. Johanan b. Zakkai? Was he then [a member] of theSanhedrin?40

כג ת"ש אמר להן תאנה זו עוקציה דקין עוקציה גסין תאנים שחורות תאנים לבנות אלא אמר רב יוסף מבן זכאי לותיב איניש שאני בן זכאי דבדיקות כחקירות משוי ליה

23 Has it not beentaught:41 The whole lifetime of R.Johanan b. Zakkai was a hundred and twenty years. Forty years he engagedin business; forty years he studied, and forty years he taught. And it hasalso been taught: Forty years before the destruction of the Temple, the Sanhedrinwere exiled42

כד מאן בן זכאי אילימא רבי יוחנן בן זכאי מי הוה בסנהדרי והתניא כל שנותיו של רבי יוחנן בן זכאי מאה ועשרים שנה ארבעים שנה עסק בפרקמטיא מ' שנה למד ארבעים שנה לימד

24 and took up residencein Hanuth.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' [H] A place on the Temple Mount outside the hewn chamber where they had temporary residence. (Derenbourg, Essai, p. 467, and Krauss, REJ, LXIII, 66f., identify it with the 'Chamber of the sons of Hanan' (a powerful priestly family, cf. Jer. XXXV, 4) mentioned in J. Pe'ah I, 5.] ');">43 Whereon R. Isaac b. Abudimisaid: This is to teach that they did not try cases ofKenas.44

כה ותניא ארבעים שנה קודם חורבן הבית גלתה סנהדרי וישבה לה בחנות ואמר ר' יצחק בר אבודימי לומר שלא דנו דיני קנסות דיני קנסות ס"ד אלא שלא דנו דיני נפשות

25 'Cases of Kenas!' Can youreally think so!<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' That these, like capital charges, could be tried only in the chief seat of the Sanhedrin — the Hall of Hewn Stones! These cases could, in fact, be tried anywhere in Palestine. ');">45 Say rather, Theydid not try capitol charges.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' V. A.Z. 8b on Deut. XVII, 10: And thou shalt do according to the tenor of the sentence which they shall declare unto thee, from that place; this implies that it is the place that conditions the authority of the Sanhedrin in respect of the death sentence. [J. Sanh. I, 1 has, 'the right to try capital cases was taken away from them, i.e., by the Romans. For a full discussion of the subject v. Juster. op. cit, II, 138ff.] ');">46

כו ותנן משחרב בית המקדש התקין רבן יוחנן בן זכאי

26 Againwe learnt:47 When the Temple wasdestroyed, R. Johanan enacted [so andso].48

כז אלא בן זכאי דעלמא הכי נמי מסתברא דאי ס"ד רבן יוחנן בן זכאי קרי ליה ר' בן זכאי

27 But the reference is to someother Ben Zakkai. Reason too supports this: for were R. Johanan b. Zakkaimeant, would Rabbi49 have called himmerely Ben Zakkai!50

כח והתניא מעשה ובדק רבן יוחנן בן זכאי בעוקצי תאנים אלא תלמיד היושב לפני רבו הוה ואמר מילתא ומסתבר להו טעמיה

28 Yet has it notbeen taught: It once happened that R. Johanan b. Zakkai examined [witnesses]as to the stalks on the figs?51 —He must therefore have been a disciple sitting before hisMaster,52 when he made this statementthe reasoning of which was so acceptable to them [the Rabbis]

Previous Chapter Next Chapter