Sanhedrin 90

ת"ל סקל יסקל:

BUT IF NOT, THE SECOND WITNESS TOOK THE STONE. 'HE TOOK'?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Was it done by one man alone? ');">²</span>

ואם לאו עד השני נוטל את האבן: נוטל והתניא רבי שמעון בן אלעזר אומר אבן היתה שם משוי שני בני אדם נוטלה ונותנה על לבו אם מת בה יצא וליטעמיך תיקשי לך היא גופא משוי שני בני אדם נוטלה ונותנה על לבו

But has it not been taught: R. Simeon b. Eleazar says: 'A stone was there which it took two men to lift, — he lifted that and dropped it on his [the victim's] chest; if it killed him, his duty was fulfilled'?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Obviously two people were required to handle it. ');">³</span> But on your reasoning, that itself is inconsistent! That 'which it took two men to lift' — 'he lifted that and dropped it on his chest!' But it must mean that he lifts it up together with his fellow witness, but drops it [down] by himself in order that it may come down with force.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Because if two threw it they might not both follow exactly the same direction with a consequent loss of force. ');">⁴</span>

אלא דמדלי לה בהדי חבריה ושדי לה איהו כי היכי דתיתי מרזיא:

BUT IF NOT, HE WAS STONED BY ALL ISRAEL, etc. But has it not been taught: It [the stoning] was never actually repeated?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Death having always resulted from the first operation. ');">⁵</span> — Do I then say that it was done? I merely state what might be necessary!

ואם לאו רגימתו כו': והתניא מעולם לא שנה בה אדם מי קאמינא דעביד דאי מיצריך קאמינא

The Master said: 'A stone was there etc.'<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Implying that the same stone was regularly employed for stoning. ');">⁶</span> But has it not been taught: 'The stone with which he [the condemned] was stoned, the gallows on which he was hanged, the sword with which he was beheaded, or the cloth with which he was strangled, are all buried with him'?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' A.Z. 62b. ');">⁷</span>

אמר מר אבן היתה כו' והתניא אחת אבן שנסקל בה ואחת עץ שנתלה עליו ואחד סייף שנהרג בו ואחד סודר שנחנק בו כולן נקברין עמו לא צריכא דמתקני ומייתי אחריני חלופייהו

— It merely means that others were prepared and brought in their place.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' I.e., that a stone was lying there in readiness, and not brought just at the moment when it was needed. ');">⁸</span> 'They are all buried with him.' Surely it has been taught: They are not buried with him!<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Tosef. Sanh. IX. ');">⁹</span>

נקברין עמו והתניא אין נקברין עמו אמר רב פפא מאי עמו עמו בתפיסתו

— R. Papa explained: What is meant by 'with him?' In the earth surrounding his corpse.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Which comes to be regarded as part of the body and must be carried with it when moved. Cf. Nazir 64b. ');">¹⁰</span> Samuel said: If the hand[s] of the witnesses were cut off,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' After they testified. ');">¹¹</span>

אמר שמואל נקטעה יד העדים פטור מאי טעמא דבעינא (דברים יז, ז) יד העדים תהיה בו בראשונה וליכא

he [the condemned] goes free. Why so? — Because it is necessary that The hand of the witnesses shall be first upon him,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Deut. XVII, 7. ');">¹²</span> which is here impossible. But according to this, if they were without hands from the outset,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Before they testified. ');">¹³</span>

אלא מעתה עדים גידמין דמעיקרא הכי נמי דפסילי שאני התם דאמר קרא יד העדים שהיתה כבר

are they also ineligible?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Seeing that the injunction in Deut. XVII, 7 cannot in their case be applicable. ');">¹⁴</span> — There<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' In the case dealt with by Samuel. ');">¹⁵</span>

מיתיבי כל מקום שיעידוהו שנים ויאמרו מעידין אנו באיש פלוני שנגמר דינו בב"ד פלוני ופלוני ופלוני עדיו הרי זה יהרג תרגמא שמואל בהן הן עדיו

it is different, for Scripture states, The hand of the witnesses, implying, the hand which they had previously possessed.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' But if they lack hands at the outset they are eligible to testify. ');">¹⁶</span> An objection is raised; 'Wherever two witnesses testify, saying, We testify against so and so<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' If the condemned person escaped and was recaptured (Mak. 7a). ');">¹⁷</span>

ומי בעינן קרא כדכתיב והתניא (במדבר לה, כא) מות יומת המכה רוצח הוא אין לי אלא במיתה הכתובה בו מנין שאם אי אתה יכול להמיתו במיתה הכתובה בו שאתה ממיתו בכל מיתה שאתה יכול להמיתו ת"ל מות יומת המכה מכל מקום

that he was sentenced by such and such a court, and so and so are his witnesses, he is to be executed'.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Even in the absence of the original witnesses. This proves that the injunction in Deut. XVII, 7 is not indispensably essential, but only desirable when possible. ');">¹⁸</span> — Samuel explained this as referring to a case where the same were also the original witnesses.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Hence the injunction can be carried out. ');">¹⁹</span>

שאני התם דאמר קרא מות יומת

But must [every] verse be [carried out] as written? Has it not been taught: 'He that smote him shall surely be put to death, he is a murderer?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Num. XXXV, 21, ');">²⁰</span> I only know that he may be executed with the death that is decreed for him.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' I.e., decapitation by the sword. ');">²¹</span>

וליגמר מיניה משום דהוה רוצח וגואל הדם שני כתובין הבאין כאחד וכל שני כתובין הבאין כאחד אין מלמדין

But where it is not possible to execute him in the manner prescribed,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' E.g., if he fled, but could be reached by an arrow (Rashi on 72b). ');">²²</span> whence do I know that one may execute him by any means possible? From the verse: He that smote him shall surely be put to death, — in all cases'?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Infra 53a; 72b. Hence it is not necessary to understand the verse literally. ');">²³</span>

רוצח הא דאמרן גואל הדם מאי היא דתניא (במדבר לה, כא) גואל הדם ימית את הרוצח מצוה בגואל הדם ומניין שאם אין לו גואל שב"ד מעמידין לו גואל שנאמר (במדבר לה, יט) בפגעו בו מכל מקום

— There it is different, for Scripture says, He shall surely be put to death.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' [H]. The infinitive strengthens the idea of the verb and denotes an inclusion of other modes of execution if necessary. ');">²⁴</span> Then let us draw an inference from it.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' That just as there, where he should be decapitated, he is nevertheless executed by any means possible, so here too, where he should be hurled down by the hands of the witnesses, he is still to be executed even if their hands have been cut off. ');">²⁵</span>

א"ל מר קשישא בריה דרב חסדא לרב אשי ומי לא בעינן קרא כדכתיב והתנן היה אחד מהן גידם או אילם או חיגר או סומא או חרש אינו נעשה בן סורר ומורה

— Because the references to a murderer, and the 'avenger of blood' are two verses written with the same object, and the teaching of two such verses does not extend to anything else.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' V. p. 458, n. 9. ');">²⁶</span> 'A murderer', as has just been stated. And what is the reference to the 'avenger of blood'? — It has been taught: The avenger of blood shall himself put the murderer to death;<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Num. XXXV, 19, referring to wilful murder. Rashi's interpretation that it refers to accidental homicide where the murderer was found outside the city of refuge is difficult. V. Mishneh Lemelek on Yad, Rozeah I, 2. ');">²⁷</span>

שנאמר (דברים כא, יט) ותפשו בו ולא גידמין (דברים כא, יט) והוציאו אותו ולא חיגרין (דברים כא, ז) ואמרו ולא אילמין (דברים כא, כ) בננו זה ולא סומין (דברים כא, כ) איננו שומע בקולנו ולא חרשין

it is [primarily] the duty of the avenger of blood [to slay the murderer]. And whence do we know that, if he [the murdered man] has no avenger of blood,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' A near kinsman, upon whom devolves the duty of hunting down a murderer to death. ');">²⁸</span> the <i>Beth din</i> must appoint one?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' I.e., the Court is always responsible for prosecuting the murderer, whether there is a relative or not. ');">²⁹</span>

מאי טעמא לאו משום דבעינן קרא כדכתיב לא שאני התם דכוליה קרא יתירא הוא

— From the verse, <i>When he meeteth him</i>,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Ibid. ');">³⁰</span> i.e., in all cases.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Thus this verse too shows that the provisions of an avenging kinsman are not limited to the precise statement of the Bible. ');">³¹</span>

ת"ש אין לה רחוב אין נעשית עיר הנדחת דברי רבי ישמעאל ר' עקיבא אומר אין לה רחוב עושין לה רחוב

Mar Kashisha, the son of R. Hisda, said to R. Ashi: But are we really not to interpret the verse literally? Have we not learnt: If either of them<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' The parents of a 'stubborn and rebellious son'; Deut, XXI, 18ff. ');">³²</span> has a hand or fingers cut off, or is dumb, lame, blind, or deaf, he does not become a 'stubborn and rebellious son';<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' So the law concerning such is not operative. ');">³³</span>

עד כאן לא פליגי אלא דמר סבר רחובה דמעיקרא בעינן ומר סבר רחובה דהשתא נמי כדמעיקרא דמי אבל דכ"ע בעינן קרא כדכתיב

because it is written, And they shall lay hold on him,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Ibid, 19. ');">³⁴</span> — this excludes those with hands or fingers cut off; and they shall bring him out, so excluding lame [parents]; and they shall say, excluding the dumb; this our son,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Showing that they must point him out. ');">³⁵</span>

תנאי היא דתנן אין לו בהן יד בהן רגל אזן ימנית אין לו טהרה עולמית רבי אליעזר אומר נותן על מקומו ויוצא רבי שמעון אומר נותן על שמאלו ויוצא:

excluding the blind; he will not obey our voice, excluding the deaf.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Who are unable to bear his reply to their orders. V. infra 71a. ');">³⁶</span> Why so? Surely because a verse must be literally interpreted! — No. There it is different, because the entire verse is superfluous.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' It could have been written thus: 'And they shall bring him unto the elders of his city, and all the men shall stone him with stones,' as is usual with other cases punishable by stoning, without repeating the indictment. Therefore that verse must certainly be understood literally; but it does not prove that all verses are to be understood exactly as they are written. ');">³⁷</span>

<big><strong>מתני׳</strong></big> כל הנסקלין נתלין דברי רבי אליעזר וחכ"א אינו נתלה אלא המגדף והעובד ע"ז

Come and hear! If it [the city] has no 'public square',<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Cf. Deut, XIII, 17: And thou shalt gather all the spoil of it into the midst of the public square thereof. ');">³⁸</span> it cannot become a condemned city: this is R. Ishmael's view. R. Akiba said: If it has no public square, one is made for it.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Infra 112a, ');">³⁹</span>

האיש תולין אותו פניו כלפי העם והאשה פניה כלפי העץ דברי רבי אליעזר וחכ"א האיש נתלה ואין האשה נתלית אמר (להן) רבי אליעזר והלא שמעון בן שטח תלה נשים באשקלון אמרו לו שמונים נשים תלה ואין דנין שנים ביום אחד:

Now, they differ only in that one holds that 'the public square thereof'<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Cf. n. 5. ');">⁴⁰</span> implies, that it must have been there from the outset [i.e., before sentence]; and the other holds that 'the public square thereof', even if it has only now [sc. after sentence] become one, is to be regarded as though it had been one originally. Yet both agree that the verse must be interpreted literally! — It is a point of difference between Tannaim, for we learnt:<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Nazir 46b, with reference to the purification of a leper. Cf. Lev, XIV, 14: ');">⁴¹</span>

<big><strong>גמ׳</strong></big> ת"ר (דברים כא, כב) והומת ותלית יכול כל המומתין נתלין ת"ל (דברים כא, כג) כי קללת אלהים תלוי מה מקלל זה שבסקילה אף כל שבסקילה דברי רבי אליעזר

If he has no thumb or great toe or right ear, he can never obtain cleansing. R. Eliezer said: He [the priest] applies it [the blood] on the corresponding place, and his duty is discharged. R. Simeon said: He applies it on the left side and his duty is discharged.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' I.e., the leper becomes clean, This proves that in the opinion of R. Eliezer and R. Simeon a verse need not be understood literally, whilst the first Tanna maintains that it must be so interpreted. Hence Samuel agrees with the latter. ');">⁴²</span> <b><i>MISHNAH</i></b>. ALL WHO ARE STONED ARE [AFTERWARDS] HANGED: THIS IS R. ELIEZER'S VIEW, THE SAGES SAY: ONLY THE BLASPHEMER AND THE IDOLATER ARE HANGED. A MAN IS HANGED WITH HIS FACE TOWARDS THE SPECTATORS, BUT A WOMAN WITH HER FACE TOWARDS THE GALLOWS: THIS IS THE VIEW OF R. ELIEZER. BUT THE SAGES SAY: A MAN IS HANGED, BUT NOT A WOMAN. WHEREUPON R. ELIEZER SAID TO THEM: BUT DID NOT SIMEON B. SHETAH HANG WOMEN AT ASHKELON?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Though this southern coastal city was never for any length of time populated by Jews, a fact which makes such an execution most unusual, it was twice surrendered to Jonathan the Maccabee (cf. Mace. X, 36; XI, 60) and later to Alexander Jannaeus (Simeon's brother-in-law). It is therefore not improbable that Jews made their home there, despite the view of Schurer. [V. Klausner, [H] II, 134. Derenbourg, however, op. cit., p. 69, n. 1, maintains that Simeon Maccabeus has been here confused with Simeon b. Shetah, as it was only in the days of the former that Ashkelon had a large Jewish population, and it is also known from other sources that he visited Ashkelon several times.] ');">⁴³</span>

וחכ"א מה מקלל זה שכפר בעיקר אף כל שכפר בעיקר

THEY RETORTED: [ON THAT OCCASION] HE HANGED EIGHTY WOMEN, NOTWITHSTANDING THAT TWO [MALEFACTORS] MUST NOT BE TRIED ON THE SAME DAY.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Hence this occurrence cannot be brought forward as a valid precedent, owing to its extraordinary nature. Witchcraft amongst Jewish women prevailed at that time to an alarming extent, and in order to prevent a combined effort on the part of their relations to rescue the culprits, he had to execute all of them at once. He hanged them, then, to prevent such practices and to avoid rescue, but his action is no precedent, and in itself was actually illegal, as the Sages pointed out. ');">⁴⁴</span> <b><i>GEMARA</i></b>. Our Rabbis taught: [Scripture states,] And if he be put to death, then thou shalt hang him on a tree:<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Deut. XXI, 22. ');">⁴⁵</span>

במאי קא מיפלגי רבנן דרשי כללי ופרטי רבי אליעזר דריש ריבויי ומיעוטי

I might think that all who are put to death are to be hanged: therefore Scripture states, For he is hanged [because of] a curse against God.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' [H] (E.V. For he that is hanged is a reproach unto God,) is so interpreted by the Mishnah, i.e., he was a blasphemer. ');">⁴⁶</span> Just as the blasphemer in question is executed by stoning, so all who are stoned [must be subsequently hanged]: this is R. Eliezer's view. But the Sages say: Just as the blasphemer in question denied the fundamental principle [of faith].<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' I.e., the unity of God. ');">⁴⁷</span>

רבנן דרשי כללי ופרטי והומת ותלית כלל כי קללת פרט אי הוו מקרבי להדדי אמרינן אין בכלל אלא מה שבפרט הני אין מידי אחרינא לא

So all who deny the fundamental principle [of faith].<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Are to be hanged. 'All' can only mean an idolater. ');">⁴⁸</span> Wherein do they differ?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' On what principle of exegesis — the practical difference, of course, being obvious, ');">⁴⁹</span> — The Rabbis<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' The Sages. ');">⁵⁰</span> employ [the rule of] the general and the particular; whilst R. Eliezer employs [the rule of] extension and limitation.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' These two hermeneutical rules form one of R. Ishmael's thirteen principles by which the law is expounded. The former rule [H] means that when a general term (which may denote an indefinite number of things) is followed by a particular (specifying a definite thing), the law is restricted to the specified thing alone. A particular is then regarded, not as an illustrative example of the preceding general, but as its explanation, so indicating that the content of the general is restricted solely to that of the particular. According to the other theory [H], the general retains its significance as applying to many things, but the particular limits the scope of the preceding general so as to include in it only things which are similar and to exclude such as are not similar thereto. The application of these exegetical principles, however, is dependent on the two terms following each other in the same passage. If they are found in two different passages, the rule is somewhat varied, as explained here in the Talmudic discussion. ');">⁵¹</span> 'The Rabbis employ [the rule of] the general and the particular.' [Thus:] And if he be put to death then thou shalt hang him, is a general proposition; for he is hanged [because of] a curse against God is the particular. Now, had these two clauses been placed beside each other,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' I.e., in the same verse. ');">⁵²</span> we should have said, the general includes nothing [but] the particular, i.e., only this man<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' The blasphemer. ');">⁵³</span> and no one else.