|  |  | Previous Folio / Sanhedrin Directory / Tractate List / Navigate Site # Babylonian Talmud: Tractate Sanhedrin ### Folio 45a GEMARA. 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 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'?1 Shall we say, 'otho' but not 'othah,' [her]? but it is written, Then shalt thou bring forth that man or that woman!2 What then is the significance of 'otho'. — That only he3 [is stoned] without his garments, but she4 is stoned in her clothes. R. Judah5 said: 'Otho' implies without clothes, and there is no |  |  |
Dilling Exhibit 49 Begins
|  |  | distinction of sex.6 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:7 The Priest seizes her garments,8 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,9 Rabbah said: In the other case, this was the reason: lest she should come forth from the Beth din innocent and the young priests conceive a passion for her; but here, she is about to be executed! And should you object, But through her their passions might be inflamed for others, 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?10 — 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:11 but here, no greater warning is possible than this [sc. the execution].12 And should you say, Let us wreak both13 upon her, behold R. Nahman said in Rabbah b. Abbahu's name: Scripture says Love thy neighbour as thyself:14 choose an easy death for him.15 Shall we say that R. Nahman's statement is the subject of a conflict between Tannaim?16 — No: all agree with R. Nahman, but they |  |  |
Dilling Exhibit 50 Begins
|  |  | differ on the following point: One Master17 holds that [the avoidance of] personal humiliation is far preferable to lack of bodily pain,18 and the other holds the reverse. MISHNAH. THE PLACE OF STONING WAS TWICE A MAN'S HEIGHT.19 ONE OF THE WITNESSES PUSHED HIM BY THE HIPS, [SO THAT] HE WAS OVERTURNED ON HIS HEART. HE WAS THEN TURNED ON HIS BACK.20 IF THAT CAUSED HIS DEATH, HE HAD FULFILLED [HIS DUTY];21 BUT IF NOT, THE SECOND WITNESS22 TOOK THE STONE23 AND THREW24 IT ON HIS CHEST. IF HE DIED THEREBY, HE25 HAD DONE [HIS DUTY]; BUT IF NOT, HE [THE CRIMINAL] WAS STONED BY ALL ISRAEL,26 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.27 GEMARA. A Tanna taught: And with his own height,28 there were three [men's heights] in all. Yet do we really require so much height?29 For the following contradicts it: 'Just as a pit to be reckoned as causing death must be ten handbreadths [deep],30 so must all other [excavations] be sufficient to cause death, viz., ten handbreadths'?31 — R. Nahman said in Rabbah b. Abbahu's name: Scripture states, Love thy neighbour as thyself;32 i.e., choose an easy33 death for him. But if so, it [sc. the place of stoning] should be still higher! — [That, however, is not so] to prevent disfiguration.34 ONE OF THE WITNESSES PUSHED HIM: Our Rabbis taught: Whence do we know that it [the execution]35 was accomplished by hurling down?36 — Scripture states, And he shall be cast down.37 And whence the necessity of stoning? — Scripture states, He shall be stoned.38 And whence do we know that both stoning and hurling down [were employed]?39 — From the verse, he shall surely be stoned or thrown down.40 And whence do we know that if he died through being hurled down, it is enough? — Scripture states, or cast down.41 Whence do we know the same procedure is to be followed for [all subsequent] generations? To Part b Original footnotes renumbered. See Structure of the Talmud Files In a separate pronoun, instead of using the pronominal suffix. Deut. XVII, 5, with reference to idolatry which is punishable by sinning. I.e., a man. I.e., a woman. Who requires only partial covering of a woman. Since 'Otho' serves for one exclusion, that of clothes — it cannot serve as excluding women from that requirement, v. supra 43a. Sotah 8a. In connection with the procedure for a woman suspected of infidelity (sotah). Cf. Num.V, 11ff. Hence it is R. Judah and not the Rabbis who are apprehensive that the sight of her may incite to unchaste thought. For Rabbah's distinction only reconciled R. Judah's two views, but left the difficulty of the Rabbis' views untouched. Ezek. XXIII, 48. The procedure with the Sotah therefore was only instituted as a deterrent. Hence there is no need to add humiliation. Humiliation and stoning. Lev. XIX, 18. One entailing as little humiliation as possible. 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. I.e., the Sages. Lit., 'bodily ease'. Though being clothed delays death and increases pain, yet the humiliation of nakedness is harder to beat. I.e., six cubits, the normal height of man to the shoulders being three cubits, 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.] I.e., the witness, the obligation of execution lying primarily upon him. According to the Naples ed. he himself takes etc. and only if that failed to cause death did the second witness take part. 'The' stone, because it was prepared beforehand. This was a very heavy stone, which it required two men to lift. Lit., 'placed'. Sc., the second witness. I.e., all the bystanders. Deut. XVII, 7. He was pushed down from a standing position. To cause instant death. Cf. M. B.K. 50b. Why is the height of three men required in this case? Lev. XIX, 18. I.e., a quick death. A fall from a greater height would unnecessarily disfigure the body. Of those who approached Mt. Sinai, Ex. XIX, 12ff. 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. Ex. XIX, 13. Ibid; cf. Deut. XXII, 24, where stones are expressly mentioned in connection with 'stoning', In case death did not result from the hurling down alone. Ibid. 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? Tractate List / Glossary / / Bible Reference ### Sanhedrin 45b — Because Scripture states, He shall surely be stoned.1 BUT IF NOT, THE SECOND WITNESS TOOK THE STONE. 'HE TOOK'?2 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'?3 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.4 BUT IF NOT, HE WAS STONED BY ALL ISRAEL, etc. But has it not been taught: It [the stoning] was never actually repeated?5 — Do I then say that it was done? I merely state what might be necessary! The Master said: 'A stone was there etc.'6 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'?7 — It merely means that others were prepared and brought in their place.8 'They are all buried with him.' Surely it has been taught: They are not buried with him!9 — R. Papa explained: What is meant by 'with him?' In the earth surrounding his corpse.10 Samuel said: If the hand[s] of the witnesses were cut off,11 he [the condemned] goes free. Why so? — Because it is necessary that The hand of the witnesses shall be first upon him,12 which is here impossible. But according to this, if they were without hands from the outset,13 are they also ineligible?14 — There15 it is different, for Scripture states, The hand of the witnesses, implying, the hand which they had previously possessed.16 An objection is raised; 'Wherever two witnesses testify, saying, We testify against so and so17 that he was sentenced by such and such a court, and so and so are his witnesses, he is to be executed'.18 — Samuel explained this as referring to a case where the same were also the original witnesses.19 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?20 I only know that he may be executed with the death that is decreed for him.21 But where it is not possible to execute him in the manner prescribed,22 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'?23 — There it is different, for Scripture says, He shall surely be put to death.24 Then let us draw an inference from it.25 — 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.26 '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;27 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,28 the Beth din must appoint one?29 — From the verse, When he meeteth him,30 i.e., in all cases.31 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 them32 has a hand or fingers cut off, or is dumb, lame, blind, or deaf, he does not become a 'stubborn and rebellious son';33 because it is written, And they shall lay hold on him,34 — 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,35 excluding the blind; he will not obey our voice, excluding the deaf.36 Why so? Surely because a verse must be literally interpreted! — No. There it is different, because the entire verse is superfluous.37 Come and hear! If it [the city] has no 'public square',38 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.39 Now, they differ only in that one holds that 'the public square thereof'40 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:41 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.42 MISHNAH. 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?43 THEY RETORTED: [ON THAT OCCASION] HE HANGED EIGHTY WOMEN, NOTWITHSTANDING THAT TWO [MALEFACTORS] MUST NOT BE TRIED ON THE SAME DAY.44 GEMARA. Our Rabbis taught: [Scripture states,] And if he be put to death, then thou shalt hang him on a tree:45 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.46 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].47 So all who deny the fundamental principle [of faith].48 Wherein do they differ?49 — The Rabbis50 employ [the rule of] the general and the particular; whilst R. Eliezer employs [the rule of] extension and limitation.51 '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,52 we should have said, the general includes nothing [but] the particular, i.e., only this man53 and no one else. - To Next Folio - Original footnotes renumbered. See Structure of the Talmud Files In the future tense. [Ms.M. adds 'or he shall surely be thrown down.'] Was it done by one man alone? Obviously two people were required to handle it. Because if two threw it they might not both follow exactly the same direction with a consequent loss of force. Death having always resulted from the first operation. Implying that the same stone was regularly employed for stoning. A.Z. 62b. I.e., that a stone was lying there in readiness, and not brought just at the moment when it was needed. Tosef. Sanh. IX. Which comes to be regarded as part of the body and must be carried with it when moved. Cf. Nazir 64b. After they testified. Deut. XVII, 7. Before they testified. Seeing that the injunction in Deut. XVII, 7 cannot in their case be applicable. In the case dealt with by Samuel. But if they lack hands at the outset they are eligible to testify. If the condemned person escaped and was recaptured (Mak. 7a). 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. Hence the injunction can be carried out. Num. XXXV, 21, I.e., decapitation by the sword. E.g., if he fled, but could be reached by an arrow (Rashi on 72b). Infra 53a; 72b. Hence it is not necessary to understand the verse literally. [H]. The infinitive strengthens the idea of the verb and denotes an inclusion of other modes of execution if necessary. 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. V. p. 458, n. 9. 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. A near kinsman, upon whom devolves the duty of hunting down a murderer to death. I.e., the Court is always responsible for prosecuting the murderer, whether there is a relative or not. Ibid. Thus this verse too shows that the provisions of an avenging kinsman are not limited to the precise statement of the Bible. The parents of a 'stubborn and rebellious son'; Deut, XXI, 18ff. So the law concerning such is not operative. Ibid, 19. Showing that they must point him out. Who are unable to bear his reply to their orders. V. infra 71a. 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. Cf. Deut, XIII, 17: And thou shalt gather all the spoil of it into the midst of the public square thereof. Infra 112a, Cf. n. 5. Nazir 46b, with reference to the purification of a leper. Cf. Lev, XIV, 14: 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. 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.] 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. Deut. XXI, 22. [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. I.e., the unity of God. Are to be hanged. 'All' can only mean an idolater. On what principle of exegesis — the practical difference, of course, being obvious, The Sages. 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. I.e., in the same verse. The blasphemer. Tractate List / Glossary / / Bible Reference |  |  |