|  |  | Previous Folio / Sanhedrin Directory / Tractate List / Navigate Site # Babylonian Talmud: Tractate Sanhedrin ### Folio 71a he is punished.1 HE DOES NOT BECOME A 'STUBBORN AND REBELLIOUS SON,' UNLESS HE EATS MEAT AND DRINKS WINE. Our Rabbis taught: If he ate any food but meat, and drank any drink but wine, he does not become a stubborn and rebellious son' — unless he eats meat and drinks wine, for it is written. He is a glutton and a drunkard; and though there is no absolute proof, there is a suggestion for this, as it is written, Be not among the winebibbers, among gluttonous eaters of flesh.2 And it is also said, For the drunkard and glutton shall come to poverty; and drowsiness shall clothe a man with rags.3 R. Zera said: whoever sleeps in the Beth Hamidrash,4 his knowledge shall be reduced to tatters,5 for it is written, and drowsiness shall clothe a man with rags. MISHNAH. IF HE STOLE OF HIS FATHER'S AND ATE IT IN HIS FATHER'S DOMAIN, OR OF STRANGERS AND ATE IT IN THE DOMAIN OF THE STRANGERS, OR OF STRANGERS AND ATE IN HIS FATHER'S DOMAIN, HE DOES NOT BECOME A 'STUBBORN AND REBELLIOUS SON,' — UNTIL HE STEALS OF HIS FATHER'S AND EATS IN THE DOMAIN OF STRANGERS. R. JOSE, SON OF R. JUDAH SAID: UNTIL HE STEALS OF HIS FATHER'S AND MOTHER'S. GEMARA. IF HE STOLE OF HIS FATHER'S AND ATE IT IN HIS FATHER'S DOMAIN: though this is easily within his reach, he is afraid;6 OR OF STRANGERS AND ATE IT IN THE DOMAIN OF STRANGERS: though he is not afraid, yet it is not easily within his reach; how much more so IF HE STOLE OF STRANGERS AND ATE IN HIS FATHER'S DOMAIN, this not being easily attainable, and he, in addition, is afraid. UNTIL HE STEALS OF HIS FATHER'S AND EATS IT IN THE DOMAIN OF STRANGERS, which is easily within his reach and does not cause him fear. R. JOSE, SON OF R. JUDAH SAID: UNTIL HE STEALS OF HIS FATHER'S AND MOTHER'S. But how can his mother possess aught, seeing that whatever a woman acquires belongs to her husband? — R. Jose. son of R. Hanina answered: It means that he steals from a meal prepared for his father and mother. But did not R. Hanan b. Molad say in R. Huna's name: He is not liable unless he buys meat and wine cheaply and consumes them? — But say thus: from the money set aside for a meal for his father and mother.7 An alternative answer is this: a stranger had given her something and said to her, 'I stipulate that your husband shall have no rights therein.' MISHNAH. IF HIS FATHER DESIRES [TO HAVE HIM PUNISHED], BUT NOT HIS MOTHER; OR THE REVERSE, HE IS NOT TREATED AS A 'STUBBORN A REBELLIOUS SON', UNLESS THEY BOTH DESIRE IT. R. JUDAH SAID: IF HIS MOTHER IS NOT FIT FOR HIS FATHER, HE DOES NOT BECOME A 'STUBBORN AND REBELLIOUS SON'. GEMARA. What is meant by 'NOT FIT'? Shall we say that she is forbidden to him under penalty of extinction or capital punishment at the hand of Beth din;8 but after all, his father is his father, and his mother is his mother? — But he means not physically like his father. It has been taught likewise: R. Judah said: If his mother is not like his father in voice, appearance and stature, he does not become a rebellious son. Why so? — The Writ saith, he will not obey our voice,9 and since they must be alike in voice, they must be also in appearance and stature. With whom does the following Baraitha agree: There never has been a 'stubborn and rebellious son',10 and never will be. Why then was the law written? That you may study it and receive reward. — This agrees with R. Judah.11 Alternatively, you may say it will agree with R. Simeon. For it has been taught: R. Simeon said: Because one eats a tartemar of meat and drinks half a log of Italian wine, shall his father and mother have him stoned? But it never happened and never will happen. Why then was this law written? — That you may study it and receive reward. R. Jonathan said: 'I saw him12 and sat on his grave'. With whom does the following agree? Viz., It has been taught: 'There never was a condemned city, and never will be.' — It agrees with R. Eliezer. For it has been taught, R. Eliezer said: No city containing even a single mezuzah 13 can be condemned. Why so? Because the Bible saith [in reference thereto], And thou shalt gather all the spoil of it in the midst of the street thereof and shalt burn [them].14 But if it contains a single mezuzah, this is impossible, because it is written, [And ye shall destroy the names of them — i.e., the idols — …] Ye shall not do so unto the Lord your God.15 R. Jonathan said: I saw it, [a condemned city] and sat upon its ruins. With whom does the following agree: There never was a leprous house [to need destruction], and never will be?16 Then why was its law written? — That you may study it and receive reward. With whom does it agree? — With R. Eliezer son of R Simeon. For we learnt: R. Eliezer son of R. Simeon said: A house never becomes unclean unless a plague spot appears, the size of two beans, on two stones in two walls, and at the angle of the walls; It must be two beans in length, and one in breadth. Why so? Because the Bible refers to the walls [of the house]17 and also to the wall:18 where is one wall as two? At its angle.19 It has been taught: R. Eliezer son of R. Zadok said: There was a place within a Sabbath's walk20 of Gaza, which was called the leprous ruins. R. Simeon of Kefar Acco21 said: I once went to Galilee and saw a place, which was marked off, and was told that leprous stones were thrown there! MISHNAH. IF ONE OF THEM [HIS FATHER OR HIS MOTHER] HAD A HAND OR FINGERS CUT OFF, OR WAS LAME, DUMB, BLIND OR DEAF, HE DOES NOT BECOME A 'STUBBORN AND REBELLIOUS SON', BECAUSE IT IS WRITTEN, 'THEN SHALL HIS FATHER AND HIS MOTHER LAY HOLD ON HIM', — THIS EXCLUDES THOSE WITH HANDS OR FINGERS CUT OFF; 'AND BRING HIM OUT', EXCLUDING LAME PARENTS; 'AND THEY SHALL SAY', EXCLUDING THE DUMB; 'THIS OUR SON', EXCLUDING THE BLIND;22 'HE WILL NOT OBEY OUR VOICE, EXCLUDING THE DEAF.23 HE IS ADMONISHED IN THE PRESENCE OF THREE AND FLAGELLATED. IF HE TRANSGRESSES AGAIN AFTER THIS, HE IS TRIED BY A COURT OF TWENTY THREE, AND CANNOT BE SENTENCED TO STONING UNLESS THE FIRST THREE ARE PRESENT, BECAUSE IT IS WRITTEN, 'THIS OUR SON', IMPLYING, 'THIS ONE WHO WAS WHIPPED IN YOUR PRESENCE'. GEMARA. This proves that the Bible must be taken literally as it is written!24 — [No; for] here it is different, To Part b Original footnotes renumbered. See Structure of the Talmud Files This refers to a priest, who was forbidden to enter the Sanctuary after indulging in strong drink (Lev. X, 9). Prov. XXIII, 20. Ibid. 21. V. Glos. I.e., he shall forget most of it, retaining only scraps — perhaps R. Zera found an inclination among his disciples to dose off whilst he was teaching. To do this often, and hence will not be led into evil ways. [In which money the mother has an exclusive share, as alimentation is part of the husband's obligations to the wife.] E.g., if his mother was his father's sister or daughter. Deut. XXI, 20. Since 'voice' is in the singular, they must both have a similar voice, so that they sound as one, In the Biblical sense, to be executed. Since it is obviously impossible that his father and mother should be so exactly alike. A rebellious son who was executed at his parents' demand. [H] an encased strip of parchment, on which is written the first two sections of the Shema' (v. Glos.). This is fixed to the doorpost. Deut. XIII, 17. Ibid. XII, 4. V. Lev. XIV, 34 et seq. Lev. XIV, 37. Ibid. 37. Such a combination of circumstances must be so rare as to amount to an impossibility. 2000 cubits out of town. [Caphare Accho in lower Galilee, v. Hildesheimer, Beitrage, p. 81.] 'This our son' implies that they see him. For when they order him, and he replies, they cannot say for certain that he declined to obey them when ordered, even if they subsequently see that their order was disregarded. V. supra 45b. Tractate List / Glossary / / Bible Reference ### Sanhedrin 71b since the entire verse is superfluous.1 HE IS ADMONISHED IN THE PRESENCE OF THREE. Why so? Are not two sufficient? — Abaye answered: The Mishnah means this: He is admonished in the presence of two,2 and ordered lashes by a court of three.3 Where are lashes stated for a stubborn and rebellious son? — As in R. Abbahu's exegesis. For R. Abbahu said: we draw an analogy between and they shall chastise him, written twice;4 and [the meaning of] and they shall chastise him is deduced from [the fact that] ben5 [occurs in this passage], and then a further analogy is drawn between the word ben written here and in And it shall be if the wicked man be worthy6 to be beaten.7 IF HE TRANSGRESSES AGAIN AFTER THIS, HE IS TRIED BY A COURT OF TWENTY THREE etc. But is not this verse [sc. This our son] needed to teach, 'This', excluding blind parents?8 — if so, the Bible should have written, 'He is9 our son'. Why state, This our son?10 [Hence] deduce there from both. MISHNAH. IF HE [THE REBELLIOUS SON] FLED BEFORE HIS TRIAL WAS COMPLETED, AND THEN HIS NETHER HAIR GREW ROUND,11 HE IS FREE. BUT IF HE FLED AFTER HIS TRIAL WAS COMPLETED, AND THEN HIS NETHER HAIR GREW ROUND, HE REMAINS LIABLE. GEMARA. R. Hanina said: A Noachide who blasphemed the Divine Name and then became a proselyte, escapes punishment, since the judicial procedure and death are [thereby] changed.12 Shall we say that [the Mishnah] supports him? IF HE FLED BEFORE HIS TRIAL WAS COMPLETED AND THEN HIS NETHER HAIR GREW ROUND, HE IS FREE. Why so? Surely because since he has changed [in age] he has [also] changed [in liability]!13 — No, here [in the Mishnah] it is different, for should he transgress now, he is not liable at all.14 Come and hear: BUT IF HE FLED AFTER HIS TRIAL WAS COMPLETED, AND THEN HIS NETHER HAIR GREW ROUND, HE REMAINS LIABLE.15 — You speak of one who is actually sentenced! But once sentenced, he is [already] as dead.16 Come and hear: A Noachide who slew his neighbour [likewise a |  |  |
Dilling Exhibit 83 Begins
|  |  | gentile] or violated his wife, and then became converted, is exempt. But if he did this to an Israelite, he is punished. But why so? Should we not say: Since he is changed [in respect of judicial procedure] he is changed [in respect of liability too]? — The change must be in respect of both the judicial procedure and the death penalty: but this Noachide's status has altered only in respect of the former, but not of the latter. Granted that this is true of a murderer: before [conversion] his penalty was decapitation, and it is so now too. But [the violation of] a married woman was punishable before [conversion] by decapitation, but now by strangulation? — [This refers to] the violation of a betrothed maiden, for which stoning is decreed in both cases. But 'if he did this to an Israelite' is parallel to 'or violated his neighbour's wife!'17 — The lesser [punishment] is included in the greater.18 Now this agrees with the view of the Rabbis that decapitation is severer [than stoning]; but on the view of R. Simeon that stoning is the greater punishment, what can you say? — R. Simeon concurs with the Tanna of the School of Manasseh, who says that wherever death is decreed for the Noachide, it is by strangulation. Now, this is true of adultery, the penalty for which both before and after [conversion] is strangulation.19 But murder was punishable before by strangulation; now by decapitation! — The lesser is included in the greater.20 Shall we say that the following supports him? [For it was taught:] If she [sc. a betrothed maiden] sinned [by committing adultery], and then attained puberty [becoming a bogereth], she is strangled.21 Now, why not stoned?22 Surely, because since she is changed [physiologically], she is likewise changed [in respect of punishment];23 how much more so in this case,24 where a complete change has taken place? — [This does not support him,] for R. Johanan said to the tanna:25 Read, she is stoned. MISHNAH. A 'STUBBORN AND REBELLIOUS SON' IS TRIED ON ACCOUNT OF HIS ULTIMATE DESTINY: LET HIM DIE INNOCENT AND LET HIM NOT DIE GUILTY. FOR THE DEATH OF THE WICKED BENEFITS THEMSELVES AND THE WORLD;26 OF THE RIGHTEOUS, INJURES THEMSELVES AND THE WORLD. WINE AND SLEEP OF THE WICKED BENEFIT THEMSELVES AND THE WORLD;27 OF THE RIGHTEOUS, INJURE THEMSELVES AND THE WORLD.28 THE SCATTERING OF THE WICKED BENEFITS THEMSELVES AND THE WORLD;29 OF THE RIGHTEOUS, INJURES THEMSELVES AND THE WORLD. THE ASSEMBLING OF THE WICKED INJURES THEMSELVES AND THE WORLD; OF THE RIGHTEOUS, BENEFITS THEMSELVES AND THE WORLD. THE TRANQUILLITY OF THE WICKED INJURES THEMSELVES AND THE WORLD;30 OF THE RIGHTEOUS, BENEFITS THEMSELVES AND THE WORLD. - To Next Folio - Original footnotes renumbered. See Structure of the Talmud Files For the Bible could have written, 'And ye shall bring him out unto the gate of that city, and stone him.' Hence, the rest must have been inserted as limiting clauses. But if a verse is not superfluous in itself, it may be that it need not be literally interpreted. So that they may be witnesses thereof since he cannot be executed on his parents' testimony alone. As all who are sentenced to lashes; v. supra 2a. R. Abbahu said this in reference to the slanderer of a woman's honour: whence do we know that he is punished by lashes? Because the Bible writes, And they (the elders) shall chastise him. Deut. XXII, 18. By analogy with And they shall chastise him, said with reference to a rebellious son (ibid. XXI, 18), we learn that the same treatment is meted out to both. [H] 'son'. i c Heb. bin — the letters do not differ from ben, the meaning is the same. Deut. XXV, 2. There, flagellation is explicitly prescribed. By analogy, the same applies to a rebellious son, and by a further analogy, to the slanderer. V. Mishnah. That would imply, 'he who was lashed in your presence.' Which implies that they actually point to him (Rashi). [Yad Ramah reverses the interpretation]. So that he is beyond the age limit; v. supra 68b. A Noachide is tried by one judge, and on the testimony of one witness only, and is executed even if no formal admonition preceded his offence; a Jew is tried by a court of twenty three, on the testimony of at least two, and only after formal admonition. Moreover, a gentile is decapitated, whereas a Jew is stoned. Hence, the same principle holds good here. But in the case under discussion, blasphemy after conversion is also punishable, though the procedure differs. In spite of his changed status. This refutes R. Hanina's dictum. Therefore his altered status does not free him. 'His neighbour's wife' must refer to a nesu'ah, since the sacredness of betrothal alone is not recognised by heathens. Consequently, 'if he did this to an Israelite must also refer to a nesu'ah. I.e., this does refer to a nesu'ah, whose violation before conversion is punished by decapitation; after conversion, by stoning. But the latter being more lenient than the former, it is regarded as included therein; hence his death has not changed. But in blasphemy, the change is from decapitation to stoning. Which is the reverse. According to the last answer. Decapitation being more lenient than strangulation. V. Keth. 45a. In accordance with the penalty of a na'arah. Though here it does not exempt her entirely, since strangulation, to which a bogereth is liable, is included in stoning, the punishment of a na'arah. Of blasphemy. [R. Shila, who recited the Baraitha, Keth. 45a.] It benefits them, in that they sin no more. For whilst drinking and sleeping they can do no evil. Because their time can be better spent, with greater advantage to themselves and to others. Being scattered, they cannot take counsel together for evil. As it gives them the opportunity of devising evil. Tractate List / Glossary / / Bible Reference |  |  |