|  |  | Previous Folio / Sanhedrin Directory / Tractate List / Navigate Site # Babylonian Talmud: Tractate Sanhedrin ### Folio 90a They1 differ only in respect of one who uproots the fundamental [prohibition] of idolatry,2 or who partially confirms and partially annuls [the prohibition] of idolatry,3 since the Divine Law said, […to seduce thee] from [min] the way [which the Lord thy God commanded thee to walk in],4 implying even part of the way.5 But if one [a false prophet] fundamentally uproots any other precept,6 all agree that he is strangled;7 whilst if he partially annuls and partially confirms any other precept, all agree that he is exempt. R. Hamnuna objected; [It has been taught] [Because he hath spoken…to seduce thee from the way which the Lord thy God commanded thee] to walk; this refers to positive commands;8 therein [bah]: to negative commands.9 But should you say that this refers to idolatry, — how is a positive command conceivable in respect of idolatry? — R. Hisda explained it [as referring to], And ye shall overthrow their altars.10 R. Hamnuna said; They11 differ in respect of one who uproots the fundamental injunction, whether of idolatry or other precepts, or who partially annuls and partially confirms [the prohibition of] idolatry, since the Torah said, from the way, implying even part of the way;12 but if he partly confirms and partly annuls any other precept, all agree that he is exempt. Our Rabbis taught: If one prophesies so as to eradicate a law of the Torah, he is liable [to death]; partially to confirm and partially to annul it. — R. Simeon exempts him. But as for idolatry, even if he said, 'Serve it to-day and destroy it to-morrow,'13 all declare him liable. Now, Abaye agrees with R. Hisda,14 and reconciles this with him; Raba holds with R. Hamnuna, and explains it according to his views. 'Abaye, agrees with R. Hisda, and reconciles it with him.' [Thus:] If one prophesies so as to uproot a law of the Torah, all agree that he is strangled; partially to confirm and partially to annul it, — R. Simeon exempts him, and the Rabbis likewise.15 But as for idolatry, even if he said, 'Serve it to-day and destroy it to-morrow', he is liable — each according to his views.16 'Raba holds with R. Hamnuna, and explains it according to his opinion'; If one prophesies to uproot an injunction of the Torah, whether idolatry or any other precept, he is liable, — each according to his views. Partially to confirm and partially to annul it. R. Simeon declares him exempt, and also the Rabbis.17 But as for idolatry, even if he said, 'Serve it to-day and destroy it to-morrow,' he is liable — each according to his views. R. Abbahu said in R. Johanan's name; In every matter, if a prophet tells you to transgress the commands of the Torah, obey him,18 with the exception of idolatry; should he even cause the sun to stand still in the middle of the heavens for you [as proof of Divine inspiration], do not hearken to him. It has been taught: R. Jose the Galilean said: The Torah understood the extreme depths [of depravity inherent in] idolatry,19 therefore the Torah gave him [the false prophet] power therein, that should he even cause the sun to stand still in the middle of the heavens, thou must not hearken to him.20 R. Akiba said; God forbid that the Almighty should cause the sun to stand still at the behest of those who transgressed His will, but [the Torah refers to one] as Hananiah the son of Azur, who was originally a true prophet and [only] subsequently became a false prophet.21 LIKEWISE [WITNESSES, PROVED] ZOMEMIM, [IN AN ACCUSATION OF ADULTERY AGAINST] A PRIEST'S DAUGHTER, — AND HER PARAMOUR. Whence do we know this? — R. Abba the son of R. Ika said; For it has been taught: R. Jose said; Why does Scripture state, Then shall ye do unto him, as he had thought to have done unto his brother?22 For all falsified witnesses23 [spoken of] in the Torah, — the zomemim and the paramours are assimilated to them;24 but in the case of a priest's daughter. 'She [profaneth]' teaches, 'She' is executed by burning, but not her paramour. Hence, I do not know whether the zomemim are likened to him or to her:25 but when the Writ saith … 'to have done unto his brother', it teaches, to his 'brother,' but not to his sister.26 ## CHAPTER XI 27 |  |  |
Dilling Exhibit 96 Begins
|  |  | MISHNAH. ALL ISRAEL28 HAVE A PORTION IN THE WORLD TO COME,29 FOR IT IS WRITTEN, THY PEOPLE ARE ALL RIGHTEOUS; THEY SHALL INHERIT THE LAND FOR EVER, THE BRANCH OF MY PLANTING, THE WORK OF MY HANDS, THAT I MAY BE GLORIFIED.'30 BUT THE FOLLOWING HAVE NO PORTION THEREIN: HE WHO MAINTAINS THAT RESURRECTION IS NOT A BIBLICAL DOCTRINE,31 THE TORAH WAS NOT DIVINELY REVEALED, |  |  |
Dilling Exhibit 97 Begins
|  |  | AND AN EPIKOROS.32 R. AKIBA ADDED: ONE WHO READS UNCANONICAL BOOKS.33 ALSO ONE WHO WHISPERS [A CHARM] OVER A WOUND AND SAYS, I WILL BRING NONE OF THESE DISEASES UPON THEE WHICH I BROUGHT UPON THE EGYPTIANS: FOR I AM THE LORD THAT HEALETH THEE.'34 ABBA SAUL SAYS: ALSO ONE WHO PRONOUNCES THE DIVINE NAME AS IT IS SPELT.35 THREE KINGS AND FOUR COMMONERS HAVE NO PORTION IN THE WORLD TO COME: THE THREE KINGS ARE JEROBOAM, AHAB, AND MANASSEH.36 R. JUDAH SAID: MANASSEH HATH A PORTION THEREIN, FOR IT IS WRITTEN, 'AND HE PRAYED UNTO |  |  |
Dilling Exhibit 98 Begins
|  |  | HIM, AND WAS INTREATED OF HIM, AND HE HEARKENED TO HIS SUPPLICATION AND THEY RESTORED HIM TO JERUSALEM, TO HIS KINGDOM.37 THEY [THE SAGES] ANSWERED HIM: THEY RESTORED HIM TO HIS KINGDOM, BUT NOT TO [HIS PORTION IN] THE WORLD TO COME. FOUR COMMONERS, VIZ., BALAAM, DOEG, AHITOPHEL, AND GEHAZI.38 GEMARA. And why such [severity]? — A Tanna taught: Since he denied the resurrection of the dead, therefore he shall not share in that resurrection, for in all the measures [of punishment or reward] taken by the Holy One, blessed be He, the Divine act befits the [human] deed.39 As it is written, Then Elisha said, Hear ye the word of the Lord; Thus saith the Lord, To-morrow about this time shall a measure of fine flour be sold for a shekel, and two measures of barley for a shekel, in the gates of Samaria.40 And it is written, Then a lord on whose hand the king leaned answered the man of God, and said, Behold, if the Lord made windows in heaven, might this thing be? And he said, Behold, thou shalt see it with thine eyes, but shalt not eat thereof.41 To Part b Original footnotes renumbered. See Structure of the Talmud Files R. Simeon and the Rabbis, whether the seducing prophet is stoned or strangled. Stating in the name of God that idolatry is permissible, or even meritorious, as it is written … saying, let us go after other gods. Deut. XIII, 3. V. infra. Ibid. 6. Since min ([H]), is partitive and denotes limitation. The verses adduced by the Rabbis and R. Simeon refer to these cases. E.g., stating as a Divine communication that the Sabbath was no longer to be kept holy. Because this is prohibited in Deut. XVIII, 20: But the prophet, which shall presume to speak a word in my name, which I have not commanded him to speak … shall die. Unspecified death means strangulation. 'To walk' implies to do, not to abstain from doing. This is deduced in the Sifre by gezerah shawah. Ibid. XII, 3. V. p. 597, n. 7. He regards the deduction of 'to walk', which refers to positive commands, as applying to all precepts. That is partial annulment. Missing footnote. R. Simeon is mentioned for this reason; According to him, the death from which he is exempt is obviously strangulation. Consequently the first clause, teaching that he is liable, must mean to strangulation, and R. Simeon not being mentioned there, that is the general opinion. Had the second clause simply stated that he is exempt, it would imply from stoning or strangulation, according to either the Rabbis or R. Simeon, and hence the liability of the first clause would be the same. I.e., In the opinion of the Rabbis, to stoning; of R. Simeon, to strangulation. In R. Hamnuna's view, R. Simeon is particularly mentioned to shew that he is exempt even from strangulation, a more lenient death than stoning; hence certainly from stoning. E.g., as in the case of Elijah, who ordered sacrifices to be offered on Mount Carmel. Or, the wiles by which idolatry attracts. Since Scripture says, and giveth thee a sign or a wonder, it follows that the false prophet must have been endowed with such powers. The 'sign' being given during his first phase, and he supported himself thereon in his second. Deut. XIX, 19: 'unto his brother' is redundant. [In cases of incest including adultery Lec. var. who are sentenced to death.] [I.e., the zomemim, to the death they sought to impose on the women, and the paramours, to that of the women the had dishonoured.] V. p. 347. n. 2. I.e., he is executed by her paramour's death, not her own. In the Jerusalem Talmud this is the tenth chapter, whilst 'These are strangled', which in the Babylonian version is the tenth, is there the eleventh. H. Danby, Sanhedrin, Introduction VIII, 2, defends the order of the Bab. Tal. as correct. Rashi likewise states: 'Having first dealt with those who are executed by Beth din by one of the four modes of execution, the Mishnah proceeds to enumerate those who have no portion in the world to come.' Maimonides in his commentary places this as the tenth chapter (v. also his Introduction to Seder Zera'im), and Asheri does likewise. This order is adopted in the printed editions of the Mishnah and in the Jerusalem Talmud (cp. also Mak. 2a). This is not a dogmatic assertion that only Israel has a portion in the world to come, but is closely connected with the preceding chapters, and asserts that even those who were executed by Beth din are not shut out from the future world, as is stated in VI, 2. The conception of what is to be understood by the future world is rather vague in the Talmud. In general, it is the opposite of [H], this world. In Ber. I, 5, 'this world' is opposed to the days of the Messiah. Whether the Messianic era is thus identical with the future world, and these again with the period of resurrection, is a moot point (v. infra, 91b). The following quotation from G. Moore, 'Judaism' (Vol. 2, p. 389) is apposite: 'Any attempt to systematize the Jewish notions of the hereafter imposes upon them an order and consistency which does not exist in them.' Isa. LX, 22. Lit., 'that resurrection is not intimated in the Torah.' The doctrine of resurrection was denied by the Sadducees and the Samaritans. It was to oppose these that the doctrine was emphatically asserted in the second of the Eighteen Benedictions (v. W.O. Oesterley. The Jewish Background of Christian Liturgy, Oxford, 1925, 60ff.). According to the present text, however, the reference is not to one who denies the fact of resurrection, but that it is intimated in the Torah. (On the importance of conceding the Biblical origin of this tenet, v. p. 604, n. 12.) But D.S. omits the phrase as interpolated, and he is supported by the Tosef. XIII, 5. In the first place, the word denotes an adherent of the Epicurean philosophy, and then, one who lives a licentious and dissolute life. The word has also been derived from [H] (cf. [H]) to be unbridled, and it is frequently used as a synonym of min (q.v. p. 604, n. 12), heretic. The Gemara defines it as one who speaks disparagingly of the Bible and its disciples. Lit., 'the external books'. Graetz, Gesch. IV, p. 99, regards this as referring to un-Jewish, particularly Gnostic literature. Weiss takes a similar view. The pernicious influence of Gnosticism, particularly as it impaired the pure monotheism of Judaism, made the Rabbis very anxious to stem its spread, and hence R. Akiba's dictum. (Weiss maintains that Elisha b. Abuia's revolt against the Rabbis was in some measure occasioned by the influence of Gnosticism.) On this view, ordinary reading is referred to. There are indications, however, that something more is meant. The J. Tal. a.l. adds: 'E.g.. the books of Ben Sira and Ben La'anah. But the reading of Homer and all subsequent books is as the reading of a letter.' In spite of the fact that the Bab. Tal. forbids the books of Ben Sira, it is evident from the discussion that all its contents were well-known, and Sira's wisdom is frequently quoted by the Talmudists. It is also difficult to see why greater exception should be taken to Sira than to Homer. To obviate these difficulties the theory has been put forward that the prohibition is against reading these uncanonical works publicly, treating them as the Scripture and expounding them to the community. Private reading, however, would on this theory not come within the ban. (V. Krochmal More Nebuche ha-Zeman, XI, 5.) Ex. XV, 26. Lit., 'according to its letters'. Jeroboam, the son of Nebat, who is frequently stigmatised in the Bible as having 'sinned and caused Israel to sin'. Ahab, the son of Omri, a later King; v. I Kings. XXI, 21. Manasseh, the son of Hezekiah, King of Judah; v. II Kings. XXI. II Chron. XXXIII, 13. Balaam: v. Num. XXXI. 8, 16; Doeg the Edomite: v. I Sam. XXI, 22; Ahitophel: v. II Sam. XV; Gehazi: v. II Kings V, 20. Lit., 'Measure for measure'. II Kings VII, 1. Ibid. 2. Tractate List / Glossary / / Bible Reference ### Sanhedrin 90b And it is [further] written, And so it fell unto him: for the people trod upon him in the gate, and he died.1 But perhaps this was the result of Elisha's curse, for Rab Judah said in Rab's name: The curse of a Sage, even if unmerited, is fulfilled? — If so, Scripture should have written, they trod upon him and he died. Why, trod upon him in the gate? — [To show that it was] on account of matters pertaining to the gate.2 How is resurrection derived from the Torah? — As it is written, And ye shall give thereof the Lord's heave offering to Aaron the priest.3 But would Aaron live for ever; he did not even enter Palestine, that terumah 4 should be given him?5 But it teaches that he would be resurrected, and Israel give him terumah. Thus resurrection is |  |  |
Dilling Exhibit 99 Begins
|  |  | derived from the Torah. The school of R. Ishmael taught: To Aaron [means to one] like Aaron: just as Aaron was a haber,6 so his sons must be haberim.7 R. Samuel b. Nahmani said in R. Jonathan's name: Whence do we know that terumah must not be given to a priest and 'am ha-arez?8 From the verse, Moreover he commanded the people that dwelt in Jerusalem to give the portion of the Levites, that they might hold fast to the law of the Lord:9 [thus,] whoever holds fast to the law of the Lord, has a portion; whoever does not, has no portion. R. Aha b. Adda said in Rab Judah's name: One who gives terumah to an ignorant priest is as though he had placed it before a lion: just as a lion may possibly tear his prey and eat it and possibly not,10 so is an ignorant priest — he may possibly eat it undefiled and possibly defiled. R. Johanan said: He even causes his [sc. the ignorant priest's] death, for it is written, and die therefore, if they profane it.11 The School of R. Eliezer b. Jacob taught: He also embroils him in a sin of general trespass,12 for it is written, Or suffer them to bear the iniquity of trespass when they eat their holy things.13 It has been taught: R. Simai said: Whence do we learn resurrection from the Torah? — From the verse, And I also have established my covenant with them, [sc. the Patriarchs] to give them the land of Canaan:14 '[to give] you' is not said, but 'to give them' [personally]; thus resurrection is proved from the Torah.15 (Mnemonic: ZeDeK, GaM, GeSHeM, KaM.)16 Sectarians [minim]17 asked Rabban Gamaliel: Whence do we know that the Holy One, blessed be He, will resurrect the dead? He answered them from the Torah, the Prophets, and the Hagiographa, yet they did not accept it [as conclusive proof]. 'From the Torah': for it is written, And the Lord said unto Moses, Behold, thou shalt sleep with thy fathers and rise up [again].18 'But perhaps,' said they to him, '[the verse reads], and the people will rise up?' 'From the prophets': as it is written, Thy dead men shall live, together with my dead body shall they arise. Awake and sing, ye that dwell in the dust: for thy dew is as the dew of herbs, and the earth shall cast out its dead.19 But perhaps this refers to the dead whom Ezekiel resurrected?20 'From the Hagiographa': as it is written, And the roof of thy mouth, like the best wine of my beloved, that goeth down sweetly, causing the lips of those that are asleep to speak.21 But perhaps it means merely that their lips will move, even as R. Johanan said: If a halachah is said in any person's name in this world, his lips speak in the grave, as it is written, causing the lips of those that are asleep to speak? [Thus he did not satisfy them] until he quoted this verse, which the Lord sware unto your fathers to give to them;22 not to you, but to them is said; hence resurrection is derived from the Torah. Others say that he proved it from this verse, But ye that did cleave unto the Lord your God are alive every one of you this day;23 just as you are all alive to-day, so shall you all live again in the world to come.24 The Romans asked R. Joshua b. Hananiah: Whence do we know that the the Holy One, blessed he He, will resurrect the dead and knows the future? — He replied: Both are deduced from this verse, And the Lord said unto Moses, Behold thou shalt sleep with thy fathers, and rise up again; and this people shall go a whoring etc.25 But perhaps 'will rise up, and go a whoring'? — He replied: Then at least you have the answer to half, viz., that He knows the future. It has been stated likewise: R. Johanan said on the authority of R. Simeon b. Yohai: Whence do we know that the Holy One, blessed be He, will resurrect the dead and knoweth the future? From, Behold, Thou shalt sleep with thy fathers, and … rise again etc. It has been taught: R. Eliezer, son of R. Jose, said: In this matter I refuted the books of the sectarians,26 who maintained that resurrection is not deducible from the Torah. I said to them: You have falsified your Torah,27 yet it has availed you nothing. For ye maintain that resurrection is not a Biblical doctrine, but it is written, [Because he hath despised the word of the Lord, and hath broken his commandment], that soul shall utterly be cut off28 [Heb. hikkareth tikkareth]; his iniquity shall be upon him.29 Now, [seeing that] he shall utterly be cut off in this world, when shall his iniquity be upon him? surely in the next world.30 R. Papa said to Abaye: Could he not have deduced both [this world, and the next] from he shall be utterly cut off?31 — They would have replied: The Torah employed human phraseology. This is disputed by Tannaim: That soul shall utterly be cut off [hikkareth] he shall be cut off in this world and [tikkareth] in the next: this is R. Akiba's view. R. Ishmael said: But the verse has previously stated, he reproacheth the Lord, and that soul shall be cut off are there then three worlds? But [interpret thus]: and [that soul] shall be cut off — in this world: hikkareth, he is to be cut off — in the next; whilst as for [the repetition] tikkareth, that is because the Torah employs human phraseology.32 How do both R. Ishmael and R. Akiba utilize his iniquity shall be upon him? — For that which has been taught: I might think that [this is so] even if he repented: therefore Scripture saith, his iniquity is upon him: I decreed [that he shall be cut off] only if his iniquity is still in him. Queen Cleopatra33 asked R. Meir, 'I know that the dead will revive, for it is written, And they [sc. the righteous] shall [in the distant future] blossom forth out of the city [Jerusalem] like the grass of the earth.34 But when they arise, shall they arise nude or in their garments?' — He replied, 'Thou mayest deduce by an a fortiori argument [the answer] from a wheat grain: if a grain of wheat, which is buried naked, sprouteth forth in many robes, how much more so the righteous, who are buried in their raiment!' An emperor said to Rabban Gamaliel: 'Ye maintain that the dead will revive; but they turn to dust, and can dust come to life?' - To Next Folio - Original footnotes renumbered. See Structure of the Talmud Files Ibid. 20. I.e., Elisha had prophesied that wheat and barley would be sold cheaply at the gate of Samaria, and he denied it. Num. XVIII, 28. V. Glos. The priestly dues were rendered only in Palestine. V. Glos. Hence this verse is to teach that the priestly dues are not to be rendered to an ignoramus, and affords no basis for resurrection. Lit., 'people of the earth,' peasants, and then denoting the ignorant and irreligious in general. II Chron. XXXI, 4. I.e., when a lion steals an animal and mauls it, we do not know whether it was to appease his hunger, or merely to satisfy his blood lust. Lev. XXII, 9. I.e., a sin which leads to guilt in a number of ways. Ibid. 16. Ex. VI, 4. The promise could be literally fulfilled only by the Patriarchs' resurrection. An apt mnemonic, meaning lit., 'As to the Righteous, also the Body Riseth.' Term used generally as a designation for Judeo-Christians. Herford, Christianity in the Talmud, pp. 232-4, conjectures that this discussion took place in Rome, whither R. Gamaliel journeyed in 95 C.E., since this is followed by 'The Romans asked R. Joshua.' He maintains that both sides accepted the fact of resurrection of the dead, the dispute being whether it is intimated in the Torah. The importance of the debate lay in the fact that the Christians maintained that the resurrection of the dead was consequent upon the resurrection of Christ this doctrine of course would be weakened if it could be shewn that resurrection was already taught in the Torah. Deut. XXXI, 16. Isa. XXVI, 19. V. Ezek. XXVII. Cant. VII, 9. As the entire Song is interpreted by the Rabbis as a dialogue between God and Israel, the last phrase is understood to refer to the dead, whom God will cause to speak again. Deut. XI, 21. Ibid. IV, 4. This is deduced from 'this day', which is superfluous. Deut. XXXI, 16. Herford, op. cit. states that [H] is an error for [H] Cutheans, Samaritans, as is proved by parallel passages in the Sif.; cf. 87a, and D.S. [The words 'to them', from which R. Gamaliel (p. 605) deduced the resurrection are left out in the Samaritan text.] [H]. Num. XV, 31. I.e., at the resurrection. V. next passage in text. V. supra 64b. [Not of 'Anthony and Cleopatra' fame. Bacher, Agada der Tanaiten, I, 68, n. 2, regards [H] (Cleopatra, the Queen) as a corruption of [H] the Patriarch of the Samaritans (v. Gen. Rab. XCIV, 6). Cp. Koh. Rab. V, 12, where the disputant of the belief of the resurrection of the dead with R. Meir is a Samaritan, [H].] Ps. LXXII, 16: the bracketed addition gives the sense according to Rabbinic interpretation; v. Keth. 111a. Tractate List / Glossary / / Bible Reference |  |  |