Sanhedrin 89

Chapter 89

א <big><strong>גמ׳</strong></big> תנו רבנן האיש מכסין אותו פרק אחד מלפניו ואשה שני פרקים בין מלפניה בין מלאחריה מפני שכולה ערוה דברי ר' יהודה וחכמים אומרים האיש נסקל ערום ואין האשה נסקלת ערומה
1 <b><i>GEMARA</i></b>. <font>Our Rabbis taught: One part of a man was covered, [viz.,] in front and two parts of a woman, [viz.,] in front and behind, because she is wholly shameful [when naked]: this is</font> R. Judah's opinion. The Sages said: A man is stoned naked, but not a woman, What is the Rabbis' reason? — Scripture states, And they shall stone otho [him]. Why state 'otho'?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' In a separate pronoun, instead of using the pronominal suffix. ');"><sup>1</sup></span> Shall we say, 'otho' but not 'othah,' [her]? but it is written, Then shalt thou bring forth that man or that woman!<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Deut. XVII, 5, with reference to idolatry which is punishable by sinning. ');"><sup>2</sup></span> What then is the significance of 'otho'. — That only he<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' I.e., a man. ');"><sup>3</sup></span>
ב מאי טעמייהו דרבנן אמר קרא (ויקרא כד, יד) ורגמו אותו מאי אותו
2 [is stoned] without his garments, but she<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' I.e., a woman. ');"><sup>4</sup></span> is stoned in her clothes. R. Judah<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Who requires only partial covering of a woman. ');"><sup>5</sup></span>
ג אילימא אותו ולא אותה והכתיב (דברים יז, ה) והוצאת את האיש ההוא או את האשה ההיא אלא מאי אותו אותו בלא כסותו הא אותה בכסותה רבי יהודה אומר אותו בלא כסותו לא שנא איש ולא שנא אשה
3 said: 'Otho' implies without clothes, and there is no &nbsp; &nbsp; distinction of sex.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Since 'Otho' serves for one exclusion, that of clothes — it cannot serve as excluding women from that requirement, v. supra 43a. ');"><sup>6</sup></span> Are we to assume that the Rabbis are apprehensive of unchaste thoughts, and that R. Judah is not? But we know in fact that they both hold the reverse, for we learnt:<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Sotah 8a. ');"><sup>7</sup></span> <font>The Priest seizes her garments,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment','In connection with the procedure for a woman suspected of infidelity (sotah). Cf. Num.V, 11ff. ');"><sup>8</sup></span></font>
ד למימרא דרבנן חיישי להרהורא ורבי יהודה לא חייש להרהורא והא איפכא שמענא להו דתנן הכהן אוחז בבגדיה אם נקרעו נקרעו ואם נפרמו נפרמו עד שמגלה את לבה וסותר את שערה רבי יהודה אומר אם היה לבה נאה לא היה מגלהו ואם היה שערה נאה לא היה סותרו
4 it does not matter if they are rent or torn open, until he uncovers her bosom and unloosens her hair. R. Judah said: If her bosom was beautiful, he did not expose it, and if her hair was comely, he did not loosen it,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Hence it is R. Judah and not the Rabbis who are apprehensive that the sight of her may incite to unchaste thought. ');"><sup>9</sup></span> Rabbah said: In the other case, this was the reason: lest she should come forth from the <i>Beth din</i> innocent and the young priests conceive a passion for her;</font> but here, she is about to be executed! And should you object, But <font>through her their passions might be inflamed for others</font>, Rabbah said: We have it on tradition that evil inclination moves a man only towards what his eyes see. Raba said: Is there only an inconsistency between R. Judah's two statements and not between those of the Rabbis?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' For Rabbah's distinction only reconciled R. Judah's two views, but left the difficulty of the Rabbis' views untouched. ');"><sup>10</sup></span>
ה אמר רבה התם היינו טעמא שמא תצא מב"ד זכאה ויתגרו בה פירחי כהונה הכא הא מקטלא וכי תימא אתי לאיתגרויי באחרנייתא אמר רבה גמירי אין יצר הרע שולט אלא במי שעיניו רואות
5 — But, said Raba, R. Judah's two statements are not contradictory, even as we have solved the difficulty. And the Rabbis' views are also not opposed: Scripture says, That all women may be warned and not to do after your lewdness:<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Ezek. XXIII, 48. The procedure with the Sotah therefore was only instituted as a deterrent. ');"><sup>11</sup></span> but here, no greater warning is possible than this [sc. the execution].<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Hence there is no need to add humiliation. ');"><sup>12</sup></span> And should you say, Let us wreak both<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Humiliation and stoning. ');"><sup>13</sup></span>
ו אמר רבא דר' יהודה אדר' יהודה קשיא דרבנן אדרבנן לא קשיא אלא אמר רבא דרבי יהודה אדר' יהודה לא קשיא כדשנין
6 upon her, behold R. Nahman said in Rabbah b. Abbahu's name: <i>Scripture says Love thy neighbour as thyself</i>:<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Lev. XIX, 18. ');"><sup>14</sup></span> choose an easy death for him.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' One entailing as little humiliation as possible. ');"><sup>15</sup></span> Shall we say that R. Nahman's statement is the subject of a conflict between Tannaim?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' R. Judah and the Sages, inasmuch as the former, by requiring only partial covering of the woman and so enhancing her humiliation, does not seem to be of that opinion. ');"><sup>16</sup></span>
ז דרבנן אדרבנן נמי לא קשיא אמר קרא (יחזקאל כג, מח) ונוסרו כל הנשים ולא תעשינה כזמתכינה הכא אין לך ייסור גדול מזה
7 — No: all agree with R. Nahman, but they &nbsp; &nbsp; differ on the following point: One Master<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' I.e., the Sages. ');"><sup>17</sup></span> holds that [the avoidance of] personal humiliation is far preferable to lack of bodily pain,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Lit., 'bodily ease'. Though being clothed delays death and increases pain, yet the humiliation of nakedness is harder to beat. ');"><sup>18</sup></span> and the other holds the reverse.
ח וכ"ת ליעביד בה תרתי אמר רב נחמן אמר רבה בר אבוה אמר קרא (ויקרא יט, יח) ואהבת לרעך כמוך ברור לו מיתה יפה
8 <b><i>MISHNAH</i></b>. THE PLACE OF <font>STONING</font> WAS TWICE A MAN'S <font>HEIGHT.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' I.e., six cubits, the normal height of man to the shoulders being three cubits, ');"><sup>19</sup></span></font> ONE OF THE WITNESSES PUSHED HIM BY THE HIPS, [SO THAT] HE WAS OVERTURNED ON HIS HEART. HE WAS THEN TURNED ON HIS BACK.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' To see whether the drop brought his death forthwith. [So Abraham de Boton on Maim. Yad, Sanh. XV, 1. Rashi explains: Because it is degrading (for the dead) to be on the face, v. Tosaf. Yom. Tob. The rendering could accordingly be: One of the witnesses pushed him down on the hips. If (however) he overturned (i.e., fell) on his heart, he was turned on his back, v. Hoffmann.] ');"><sup>20</sup></span> IF THAT CAUSED HIS DEATH, HE HAD FULFILLED [HIS DUTY];<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' I.e., the witness, the obligation of execution lying primarily upon him. ');"><sup>21</sup></span>
ט לימא דרב נחמן תנאי היא לא דכולי עלמא אית להו דרב נחמן והכא בהא קמיפלגי מר סבר בזיוני דאיניש עדיפא ליה טפי מניחא דגופיה ומר סבר ניחא דגופיה עדיף מבזיוני:
9 BUT IF NOT, THE SECOND WITNESS<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' According to the Naples ed. he himself takes etc. and only if that failed to cause death did the second witness take part. ');"><sup>22</sup></span> TOOK THE STONE<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' 'The' stone, because it was prepared beforehand. This was a very heavy stone, which it required two men to lift. ');"><sup>23</sup></span> AND THREW<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Lit., 'placed'. ');"><sup>24</sup></span>
י <big><strong>מתני׳</strong></big> בית הסקילה היה גובה שתי קומות אחד מן העדים דוחפו על מתניו נהפך על לבו הופכו על מתניו ואם מת בה יצא
10 IT ON HIS CHEST. IF HE DIED THEREBY, HE<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Sc., the second witness. ');"><sup>25</sup></span> HAD DONE [HIS DUTY]; BUT IF NOT, HE [THE CRIMINAL] WAS STONED BY ALL ISRAEL,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' I.e., all the bystanders. ');"><sup>26</sup></span> FOR IT IS WRITTEN: THE HAND OF THE WITNESSES SHALL BE FIRST UPON HIM TO PUT HIM TO DEATH, AND AFTERWARDS THE HAND OF ALL THE PEOPLE.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Deut. XVII, 7. ');"><sup>27</sup></span>
יא ואם לאו השני נוטל את האבן ונותנו על לבו אם מת בה יצא ואם לאו רגימתו בכל ישראל שנאמר (דברים יז, ז) יד העדים תהיה בו בראשונה להמיתו ויד כל העם באחרונה:
11 </font> <b><i>GEMARA</i></b>. A Tanna taught: And with his own height,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' He was pushed down from a standing position. ');"><sup>28</sup></span> there were three [men's heights] in all. Yet do we really require so much height?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' To cause instant death. ');"><sup>29</sup></span>
יב <big><strong>גמ׳</strong></big> תנא וקומה שלו הרי כאן שלש ומי בעינן כולי האי ורמינהו מה בור שהוא כדי להמית עשרה טפחים אף כל כדי להמית עשרה טפחים
12 For the following contradicts it: 'Just as a pit to be reckoned as causing death must be ten handbreadths [deep],<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Cf. M. B.K. 50b. ');"><sup>30</sup></span> so must all other [excavations] be sufficient to cause death, viz., ten handbreadths'?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Why is the height of three men required in this case? ');"><sup>31</sup></span> — R. Nahman said in Rabbah b. Abbahu's name: Scripture states, Love thy neighbour as thyself;<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Lev. XIX, 18. ');"><sup>32</sup></span>
יג אמר רב נחמן אמר רבה בר אבוה אמר קרא (ויקרא יט, יח) ואהבת לרעך כמוך ברור לו מיתה יפה אי הכי ליגבהיה טפי משום דמינוול:
13 i.e., choose an easy<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' I.e., a quick death. ');"><sup>33</sup></span> death for him. But if so, it [sc. the place of stoning] should be still higher! — [That, however, is not so] to prevent disfiguration.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' A fall from a greater height would unnecessarily disfigure the body. ');"><sup>34</sup></span> ONE OF THE WITNESSES PUSHED HIM: Our Rabbis taught: Whence do we know that it [the execution]<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Of those who approached Mt. Sinai, Ex. XIX, 12ff. ');"><sup>35</sup></span>
יד אחד מן העדים דוחפו: תנו רבנן מניין שבדחייה ת"ל (שמות יט, יג) ירה ומנין שבסקילה ת"ל סקל
14 was accomplished by hurling down?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' In Scripture stoning is first mentioned, as that was the means of bringing about the actual death. Here hurling down is dealt with first as that is preliminary to the other. ');"><sup>36</sup></span> — Scripture states, And he shall be cast down.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Ex. XIX, 13. ');"><sup>37</sup></span> And whence the necessity of stoning? — Scripture states, He shall be stoned.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Ibid; cf. Deut. XXII, 24, where stones are expressly mentioned in connection with 'stoning', ');"><sup>38</sup></span>
טו ומנין שבסקילה ובדחייה ת"ל (שמות יט, יג) סקל יסקל או ירה יירה ומנין שאם מת בדחייה יצא תלמוד לומר או ירה יירה מניין שאף לדורות כן
15 And whence do we know that both stoning and hurling down [were employed]?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' In case death did not result from the hurling down alone. ');"><sup>39</sup></span> — From the verse, he shall surely be stoned or thrown down.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Ibid. ');"><sup>40</sup></span> And whence do we know that if he died through being hurled down, it is enough? — Scripture states, or cast down.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Because if stoning were always necessary in addition to the hurling down, even when the latter alone had caused death, why state or cast down? ');"><sup>41</sup></span> Whence do we know the same procedure is to be followed for [all subsequent] generations?
Previous ChapterNext Chapter