Sanhedrin 81bסנהדרין פ״א ב
The William Davidson Talmudתלמוד מהדורת ויליאם דוידסון
Save 'Sanhedrin 81b'
Toggle Reader Menu Display Settings
81bפ״א ב

אמר ליה אדא ברי בתרי קטלי קטלת ליה:

Rava said to him: Adda my son, will you kill him with two death penalties? Rabbi Yosei concedes that the prohibition of engaging in intercourse with a married woman takes effect in addition to the prohibition of engaging in intercourse with his mother-in-law. If he had violated the transgression unwittingly, he would have been liable to bring two sin-offerings. But if he violated the transgression intentionally, it is impossible to execute him by strangulation after executing him by burning.

מתני׳ מי שלקה ושנה ב"ד מכניסין אותו לכיפה ומאכילין אותו שעורין עד שכריסו מתבקעת:

MISHNA: One who was flogged for violating a prohibition and then repeated the violation and was flogged again assumes the status of a forewarned transgressor. The court places him into the vaulted chamber [lakippa] and feeds him barley bread until his belly ruptures due to the low-quality food, and he dies.

גמ׳ משום דלקה ושנה ב"ד כונסין אותו לכיפה אמר ר' ירמיה אמר רבי שמעון בן לקיש הכא במלקיות של כריתות עסקינן דגברא בר קטלא הוא וקרובי הוא דלא מיקרב קטליה וכיון דקא מוותר לה נפשיה מקרבינן ליה לקטליה עילויה

GEMARA: Due to the fact that he was flogged and repeated the violation does the court place him into the vaulted chamber for the duration of his life and advance his death? Rabbi Yirmeya says that Rabbi Shimon ben Lakish says: Here, we are dealing with lashes administered for violations of prohibitions punishable by excision from the World-to-Come [karet]. As when one violates such a prohibition, the man is essentially liable to be punished with death at the hand of Heaven, but his death is not advanced by the court, as it is administered by the heavenly court. And in this case, since he surrenders his life through his repeated transgressions, we advance his execution upon him by placing him in the vaulted chamber.

א"ל רבי יעקב לר' ירמיה בר תחליפא תא אסברא לך במלקיות של כרת אחת אבל של שתים ושל שלש כריתות איסורי הוא דקא טעים ולא מוותר כולי האי:

Rabbi Ya’akov said to Rabbi Yirmeya bar Taḥlifa: Come and I will explain to you the circumstances of this halakha. It is in a case where he was flogged with lashes for repeatedly violating one prohibition punishable with karet that he is considered to have surrendered his life. But if he received lashes for violating two or for violating three different prohibitions punishable with karet, he is not placed in the vaulted chamber, as he merely is tasting the taste of prohibition and wants to enjoy the different experiences, and he is not thereby surrendering his life to that extent.

מי שלקה ושנה: שנה אע"ג דלא שילש לימא מתני' דלא כרשב"ג דאי רשב"ג הא אמר עד תלת זימני לא הויא חזקה

§ The mishna teaches: One who was flogged for violating a prohibition and then repeated the violation, the court places him into the vaulted chamber. The Gemara infers: He is placed in the vaulted chamber if he repeated the violation, doing it a second time, even if he did not again repeat the violation, doing it a third time. Let us say that the mishna is not in accordance with the opinion of Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel, as if it is in accordance with the opinion of Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel, doesn’t he say: Presumptive status is not established until the action is performed three times? In his opinion, only after violating the prohibition three times would one assume the status of a forewarned transgressor.

אמר רבינא אפילו תימא רשב"ג קסבר עבירות מחזיקות

Ravina rejects that proof and says: Even if you say that the mishna is in accordance with the opinion of Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel, the tanna holds that transgressions, not lashes, establish the presumptive status of a transgressor. Therefore, the mishna that teaches: One who was flogged for violating a prohibition and then repeated the violation and was flogged, is placed in the vaulted chamber only after he violated the prohibition a third time, is in accordance with the opinion of Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel.

מיתיבי עבר עבירה שיש בה מלקות פעם ראשונה ושניה מלקין אותו ושלישית כונסין אותו לכיפה אבא שאול אומר אף בשלישית מלקין אותו ברביעית כונסין אותו לכיפה מאי לאו דכולי עלמא מלקיות מחזיקות ובפלוגתא דרבי ורשב"ג קמיפלגי

The Gemara raises an objection from a baraita: If one performed a transgression that has lashes as its punishment, the first and the second time, the court flogs him; and the third time, the court places him in the vaulted chamber. Abba Shaul says: Even the third time the court flogs him; and the fourth time, the court places him in the vaulted chamber. What, is it not that everyone agrees that lashes establish the presumptive status of a transgressor, and it is concerning the dispute of Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi and Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel, whether presumptive status is established after two or three times, that the Rabbis and Abba Shaul disagree?

לא דכולי עלמא אית להו דרשב"ג והכא בהא קא מיפלגי דמר סבר עבירות מחזיקות ומר סבר מלקיות מחזיקות

The Gemara rejects that parallel. No, it can be explained that everyone, the Rabbis and Abba Shaul, agrees with the opinion of Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel that presumptive status is established after three times, and here it is with regard to this matter that they disagree: That one Sage, the Rabbis, holds: Transgressions establish the presumptive status of a transgressor, and after he is flogged twice and performs the transgression a third time, the court places him in the vaulted chamber; and one Sage, Abba Shaul, holds: Lashes establish the presumptive status of a transgressor, and it is only after he performs the third transgression and is flogged for that transgression that he assumes the status of a forewarned transgressor, and when he performs the transgression a fourth time, he is placed in the vaulted chamber.

והדתניא התרו בו ושתק התרו בו והרכין ראשו פעם ראשונה ושניה מתרין בו שלישית כונסין אותו לכיפה אבא שאול אומר אף בשלישית מתרין בו ברביעית כונסין אותו לכיפה

The Gemara questions that interpretation of the dispute. And that which is taught in a baraita: With regard to a case where witnesses forewarned him that he was about to violate a prohibition punishable by lashes and he was silent and did not acknowledge that he accepted the forewarning, and likewise a case where the witnesses forewarned him and he bowed his head but did not explicitly acknowledge that he accepted the forewarning, the first and second time they forewarn him the court does not flog him, because he did not accept the forewarning. If this scenario occurs a third time, the court places him in the vaulted chamber. Abba Shaul says: Even the third time the witnesses forewarn him the court does not flog him; and the fourth time, the court places him in the vaulted chamber.

והתם מלקות ליכא במאי קמיפלגי אמר רבינא בכיפה צריכה התראה קמיפלגי

And there, in the case in the baraita, there are no lashes, as he did not explicitly acknowledge acceptance of the forewarning. The reference is to a case where one violated the transgression several times, and if their dispute is not with regard to the number of times required to establish presumptive status, with regard to what matter do they disagree? Ravina says: It is with regard to whether placing an individual into a vaulted chamber requires forewarning that they disagree. The Rabbis hold that once he disregarded the forewarning three times, the court places him in a vaulted chamber. Abba Shaul holds that after he is forewarned three times that he will be flogged if he performs the transgression, he requires additional forewarning, before the fourth time, that he will be placed in a vaulted chamber if he performs the transgression again.

ומאי כיפה אמר רב יהודה מלא קומתו והיכא רמיזא אמר ריש לקיש (תהלים לד, כב) תמותת רשע רעה

The Gemara clarifies: And what is the nature of this vaulted chamber? Rav Yehuda says: It is a small chamber that is the full height of the transgressor, and it does not allow him to move in it. The Gemara asks: And where is this punishment intimated? Reish Lakish said that it is intimated in the verse: “Evil shall kill the wicked” (Psalms 34:22). Ultimately, an evildoer finds his demise through his evil, and the result is this harsh form of death.

ואמר ריש לקיש מאי דכתיב (קהלת ט, יב) כי [גם] לא ידע האדם את עתו כדגים שנאחזים במצודה רעה מאי מצודה רעה אמר ר"ל חכה:

The Gemara cites a related statement. And Reish Lakish says: What is the meaning of that which is written: “For man also knows not his time, like fish snared in an evil net” (Ecclesiastes 9:12)? What is the nature of this evil net? Reish Lakish says: It is a hook; although it is small and the fish is much larger, the fish cannot escape it.

מתני׳ ההורג נפש שלא בעדים מכניסין אותו לכיפה ומאכילין אותו (ישעיהו ל, כ) לחם צר ומים לחץ:

MISHNA: With regard to one who kills a person not in the presence of witnesses and it is impossible to judge him in court, the court places him into a vaulted chamber and feeds him sparing bread and scant water (see Isaiah 30:20).

גמ׳ מנא ידעינן אמר רב בעדות מיוחדת ושמואל אמר שלא בהתראה

GEMARA: The Gemara asks: If there are no witnesses, from where do we know that he killed a person and is liable to be punished? Rav says: The tanna of the mishna is speaking about a case of disjointed testimony, where the witnesses were not together and they witnessed the murder from different vantage points. The court cannot convict a person for committing a murder based on that type of testimony even though it is clear that the witnesses are telling the truth. And Shmuel says: The tanna of the mishna is speaking about a case where the witnesses testified that they witnessed the murder but there was no forewarning, and therefore the court cannot convict him.

ורב חסדא אמר אבימי כגון דאיתכחוש בבדיקות ולא איתכחוש בחקירות כדתנן מעשה ובדק בן זכאי בעוקצי תאנים:

And Rav Ḥisda says that Avimi says: The tanna of the mishna is speaking of a case where the witnesses contradicted each other in the examinations that involve matters peripheral to the murder but did not contradict each other in the interrogations, which are integral to the murder, i.e., time and place. Therefore, it is clear to the court that the accused is guilty and consequently they place him in the vaulted chamber. As we learned in a mishna (40a): There was an incident and ben Zakkai examined the witnesses with regard to the stems of figs on the fig tree beneath which the murder took place. Rabban Yoḥanan ben Zakkai questioned the witnesses about the thickness of the stems in order to determine whether they would contradict each other in this peripheral detail in order to save the accused (see 41a).

ומאכילין אותו לחם צר ומים לחץ: מאי שנא הכא דקתני נותנין לו לחם צר ומים לחץ ומאי שנא התם דקתני מאכילין אותו שעורין עד שכריסו מתבקעת אמר רב ששת אידי ואידי נותנין לו לחם צר ומים לחץ עד שיוקטן מעיינו והדר מאכילין אותו שעורין עד שכריסו מתבקעת:

The mishna teaches: And feeds him sparing bread and scant water. The Gemara asks: What is different in the mishna here that the tanna teaches that the court gives him sparing bread and scant water in the vaulted chamber, and what is different in the previous mishna there that the tanna teaches that the court feeds him barley bread until his belly ruptures; are these two different punishments? Rav Sheshet says: Both this and that are one punishment; first, the court gives him sparing bread and scant water until his intestines contract due to his starvation diet, and then the court feeds him barley bread that expands in his innards until his belly ruptures.

מתני׳ הגונב את הקסוה והמקלל בקוסם והבועל ארמית קנאין פוגעין בו כהן ששמש בטומאה אין אחיו הכהנים מביאין אותו לב"ד אלא פרחי כהונה מוציאין אותו חוץ לעזרה ומפציעין את מוחו בגזירין זר ששמש במקדש רבי עקיבא אומר בחנק וחכ"א בידי שמים:

MISHNA: With regard to one who steals a kasva, and one who curses with a sorcerer, and one who engages in intercourse with an Aramean woman, zealots strike him and kill him. Although the Torah does not say that one who performs one of these actions is liable to be executed, it is permitted for anyone who zealously takes the vengeance of the Lord to do so. In the case of a priest who performed the Temple service in a state of ritual impurity, his priestly brethren do not bring him to court for judgment; rather, the young men of the priesthood remove him from the Temple courtyard and pierce his skull with pieces of wood. In the case of a non-priest who performed the service in the Temple, Rabbi Akiva says: His execution is by strangulation, and the Rabbis say: He is not executed with a court-imposed death penalty; rather, he is liable to receive death at the hand of Heaven.

גמ׳ מאי קסוה אמר רב יהודה כלי שרת וכן הוא אומר (במדבר ד, ז) ואת קשות הנסך והיכא רמיזא (במדבר ד, כ) ולא יבאו לראות כבלע את הקדש ומתו:

GEMARA: The Gemara asks: What is the kasva mentioned in the mishna? Rav Yehuda says: It is a term used to describe any service vessel utilized in the Temple. And likewise, it is stated: “And the jars [kesot] with which to pour libations” (Numbers 4:7). The Gemara asks: And where is it intimated that one who steals a service vessel is liable to be killed by zealots? The Gemara answers that it is intimated in the verse: “But they shall not come to see the sacred items as they are being covered [kevala], lest they die” (Numbers 4:20). The Gemara interprets the term kevala as one who ingests, i.e., who takes (see Job 20:15), and the verse thereby teaches that one who steals a service vessel is liable to be killed.

והמקלל בקוסם: תני רב יוסף יכה קוסם את קוסמו רבנן ואיתימא רבה בר מרי אמרי יכהו קוסם לו ולקונו ולמקנו:

The mishna teaches: And one who curses with a sorcerer is among those liable to be killed by zealots. Rav Yosef teaches that the reference is to one who says: Let the sorcerer strike his sorcerer, meaning one who curses God in the name of idol worship. He does not explicitly say God’s name, but he believes that a sorcerer can curse the sorcerer who provided him with his powers, i.e., the Divine Presence. The Rabbis, and some say that it was Rabba, son of Mari, say that the reference is to one who says: Let the sorcerer strike him, i.e., the individual with whom he is quarreling, and his Creator and his Provider. Since he curses God, it is permitted for zealots to kill him.

והבועל ארמית: בעא מיניה רב כהנא מרב

The mishna teaches that one who engages in intercourse with an Aramean woman is among those liable to be killed by zealots. Rav Kahana asked of Rav: