Sanhedrin 26b — the Talmud in English

The people of Sennacherib said to Shebna:

your faction,

“Your faction,”

the group of yours that wrote to us in a note that they wished to make peace,

“where

are they”!?

Shebna

said to them:

“They have retracted from me,”

they have withdrawn from their promise to me.

They said to him: “If so, you are making us a mockery and a laughingstock.”

You are making us an object of ridicule and laughter.

They pierced his heels and hung him by the tails of their horses, and they dragged him over the thorns and the barkanin,

and his honor was turned into disgrace.

Rabbi Elazar said: Shebna was a man of pleasure,

he followed the desire of his heart [and some explain: male intercourse]. And we derive:

it is written here

concerning Shebna:

“Go, come in to this sokhen,” and it is written there

concerning Bathsheba:

“And she became his sokhenet,”

for King David in the time of his old age, to warm him; therefore, sokhen is an expression referring to bodily pleasures .

The Gemara derives there another exposition in the Book of Psalms concerning King Hezekiah and Shebna’s rebellion against him.

It is further written there:

“When the foundations are destroyed, what has the righteous accomplished?”.

And

Rav Yehuda and Rav Eina

disagreed in expounding the verse

. One

of the two

said: If

the foundations [the righteous, as will be explained below], which are

Hezekiah and his faction—

are destroyed,

the Holy One, blessed be He, who is

righteous, what has He accomplished?

What reward does He pay the righteous?

And the other

of the two

said: If

the foundation, which is

the Temple—

is destroyed

by Sennacherib on Shebna’s advice, the Holy One, blessed be He, who is

righteous, what has He accomplished?

Where are His wonders?

And Ulla said: If

the foundations [from the expression “he set,” what one places in the walls of his heart], which are

the thoughts of that wicked man

Shebna [about whom it was said previously: “For behold, the wicked…”]],

are not destroyed,

Hezekiah, who is

righteous, what has he accomplished?

Where is the reward for his deeds—mitzvot, good deeds, and spreading Torah? And it is expounded: Surely the foundations must be destroyed, for if not, what has the righteous accomplished?

Now the Gemara explains where we find that the righteous are called “foundations.”

Granted, according to the one who says: These are the thoughts of that righteous man,

it is satisfactory, for

this is what is written: “When the foundations are destroyed,”

“foundations” being from the expression “setting”—what he sets in the walls of his heart.

And according to the one who says: the Temple, also

it is satisfactory.

For we learned

in our Mishna:

There was a stone there

in the Temple, in the place of the Ark,

from the days of the early prophets, and it was called the Foundation Stone,

from which the world was founded, as it is stated: “He spoke and summoned the earth… from Zion, the perfection of beauty,” and we derive that the world was created from Zion.

But according to the one who says

that the foundations are

Hezekiah and his faction,

it is not explained

where do we find

where we find

righteous ones who are called

who are called

“foundations”?

And the Gemara explains:

for it is written: “For the pillars of the earth are the Lord’s, and He set the world upon them,”

and these are the righteous upon whom the world is founded.

And if you wish,

and if you wish,

say:

I say:

from here,

from this verse,

“He made counsel wonderful, He made wisdom great,”

“tushiyya” is Torah, for the world is founded upon Torah and those who study it.

And the Gemara brings further expositions concerning the fact that Torah is called “tushiyya.”

Rav Hanan said: Why was it called

of

Torah tushiyya? Because it weakens a person’s strength .

Alternatively:

Torah is called

“tushiyya,”

because

it was given secretly, because of the Satan

who prosecuted and said that it should suffice for the celestial beings [the angels], and that the tablets should not be delivered into Moses’ hand.

Alternatively:

“tushiyya” is an acronym for “chaos, it is placed,” meaning,

“things of chaos,”

for Torah study is merely speech and reading, without action, and there is no tangible handling in it,

yet

nevertheless

the world is founded [

founded ]

upon them.

The Gemara expounds another verse in which “tushiyya” is written, and it is expounded concerning Torah.

Ulla said: A thought

of a person that troubles him concerning worry over his sustenance

is capable

of causing him to forget

even words of Torah

that he studied,

as it is stated: “He frustrates the thoughts of the crafty, and their hands do not perform tushiyya,”

and we derive: The Holy One, blessed be He, provides sustenance for the crafty, and thereby frustrates their thoughts and worries, for these thoughts cause the power of their hands not to perform tushiyya, which is Torah.

[In another wording Rashi explained: “A thought” means calculations that a person makes for himself: “If I do such and such, such and such will come into my hand,” for example: “By a certain day I will finish studying such and such tractates.” These thoughts are capable of nullifying the matter, and he remains empty-handed, so that his hands do not perform tushiyya] .

Rabba said:

But

if they are occupied with Torah for its own sake, it does not prevail, as it is stated: “Many are the thoughts in a man’s heart, but the counsel of the Lord shall stand.”

And we derive:

counsel in which there is the word of the Lord,

that is, Torah for its own sake,

shall stand forever.

We learned in our Mishna:

Rabbi Yehuda said: When

when they have no occupation other than it; but if they have an occupation other than it, they are fit.

The Gemara rules the halakha.

Rabbi Abbahu said in the name of Rabbi Elazar: The halakha is in accordance with Rabbi Yehuda .

And

further

Rabbi Abbahu said in the name of Rabbi Elazar: All of them,

all those disqualified as witnesses who were taught in our Mishna [and in the beraita],

require proclamation in the court ,

so that the court proclaims and publicizes that they are disqualified as witnesses; and as long as they have not been proclaimed concerning, they are not disqualified .

The Gemara discusses whether

a shepherd

is disqualified only after a proclamation, or whether he is disqualified even without a proclamation.

They disagreed concerning it

concerning this question,

Rav Aḥa and Ravina; one

of the two

said: He requires a proclamation

like all those disqualified as witnesses.

And the other

of the two

said: He does not require a proclamation,

since his transgression is public knowledge to all.

The Gemara clarifies their opinion—

Granted, according to the one who says: He does not require a proclamation,

it is satisfactory, for

this is what Rav Yehuda said in the name of Rav: An ordinary shepherd

even though we have not seen him bringing the animals into another person’s field,

is disqualified

automatically, and it is not necessary to proclaim his disqualification.

But according to the one who says: He requires a proclamation,

it is not understood;

what

is the meaning of

“an ordinary shepherd is disqualified”?

After all, they have not yet proclaimed concerning him.

And he answers: Regarding the other disqualified persons, they do not proclaim concerning him until witnesses come to testify about his transgression; whereas regarding a shepherd, the novelty is

that ordinarily,

even though they have not testified concerning him that he brought his flock into another person’s field,

we proclaim concerning him,

as explained above. And all this applies specifically after they have proclaimed concerning him; and as long as they have not proclaimed concerning him, he is not disqualified.

And concerning the same matter, the Gemara relates—

A certain

document of

a gift, upon which two robbers had signed,

two people disqualified as witnesses because they had robbed.

Rav Pappa bar Shmuel thought to declare it fit,

to qualify the document, despite the fact that robbers had signed it,

for after all

for

we had not proclaimed concerning them

that they had not proclaimed concerning them.

Rava said to him:

The document is disqualified, because

although

it is true

that we require a proclamation,

but this is said

concerning a robber

by rabbinic law,

such as those taught in our Mishna [and in the beraita]; whereas

concerning a robber by Torah law,

who snatches directly from hand to hand—as did these two who signed the gift document—

do we require a proclamation?

And the document is disqualified.

A mnemonic: D-B-R and forbidden sexual relations, G-N-B.

The Gemara explains further laws concerning those disqualified as witnesses, whose mnemonic of the teachings is as follows.

Rav Naḥman said: Those who eat something else,

those who receive charity from gentiles —

are disqualified as witnesses,

since they profane the Name of because of desire for money, and they are like one wicked through robbery.

And these words

refer to when they receive charity

publicly,

for then it is profanation of the Name,

but

those who receive charity

privately do not

they are not disqualified.

And

what we said, that

publicly

they are disqualified,

we likewise said only

also not stated

rather

in a situation

in which it is possible for him

that he is able

to obtain sustenance

to receive food [charity]

privately, and he disgraces himself

and degrades himself by receiving

publicly.

But if

it is not possible for him

he is unable to receive privately, he is not disqualified, and the reason is

that it is his life-preservation;

he does this to sustain his life, and whatever a person gives for his life is not within the category of one wicked through robbery.

Rav Naḥman said: One suspected regarding all forbidden sexual relations

one who transgressed a prohibition of forbidden sexual relations —

is fit as a witness,

for he is not wicked on account of “robbery”—desire for money—and the Torah prohibited only one wicked through “robbery,” as it is stated: “Do not place your hand with the wicked to be a witness of robbery.”

Rav Sheshet said: “Answer me, my master,”

answer me, my master,

“forty [lashes] upon his shoulders

he is liable for lashes,

and he is fit?!”

And even if they do not actually give him lashes by Torah law because he was not warned, nevertheless he is a transgressor and receives rabbinic lashes [lashes of rebelliousness], for one is lashed on account of a bad reputation . But the Rif and other early authorities hold that it refers to one who actually had intercourse with the forbidden woman. And the expression “one suspected,” the Ran explains, means that although he had intercourse with the forbidden woman and is “suspected” regarding forbidden sexual relations, nevertheless he is not suspected of giving false testimony. Rav Naḥman’s reason for qualifying him is that even if he is suspected regarding a severe prohibition such as forbidden sexual relations, nevertheless he is not suspected of giving false testimony, since forbidden sexual relations are a matter in which “a person’s inclination overpowers him,” more than with carrion and other prohibitions; consequently, he is still not suspected of giving false testimony. The Rif indeed has this version in the Gemara, that Rav Naḥman answered Rav Sheshet: “There, his inclination overpowers him.” And see below, in the discussion concerning one who eats carcasses. [See folio 27, note 6, where the dispute of the early authorities is explained: whether the reason that one who eats carcasses defiantly, and is not wicked through robbery, is disqualified as a witness is that he is suspected of giving false testimony, or whether it is a scriptural decree. The GRSH proves from the Tosafot and from the discussion here that the reason for the disqualification is that he is suspected. For the Rif and Tosafot answered that regarding forbidden sexual relations his inclination overpowers him; and if he is disqualified because of a scriptural decree, what difference is there whether his inclination overpowers him or does not overpower him? In any event, he is wicked. It is understandable if the reason for the disqualification is that he is suspected: one can say that one who engages in forbidden sexual relations is not “suspected” of giving false testimony. Even if we wish to strain and explain that the Tosafot hold that Rav Naḥman agrees with Rava, who holds that one who transgresses a prohibition not for pleasure is not disqualified, and therefore the fact that he is suspected regarding forbidden sexual relations does not make him, according to Rava, suspected of giving false testimony, nevertheless this is proven from the other early authorities. For the Rif writes that Rav Naḥman holds that his inclination overpowers him, and rules in accordance with Rav Sheshet only because of the principle that the halakha is in accordance with Rav Sheshet in matters of prohibitions. Without this principle [or if he held that this was not a law of prohibitions but a monetary law, as many early authorities hold], he would rule in accordance with Rav Naḥman, even though the clear halakha is in accordance with Abaye, that one who transgresses for pleasure is disqualified. If so, how does Rav Naḥman qualify him? It clearly follows that even though he is wicked and liable for lashes and karet, nevertheless, if we find a reason that he is not suspected of giving false testimony—for example, “his inclination overpowers him”—he is not disqualified. Thus, one who transgresses defiantly is not disqualified because of a scriptural decree; rather, the Torah suspected him, and where there is no suspicion, he is fit. This is explicit in the words of the Geonim cited in the Nimukei Yosef, Rav Naḥshon Gaon and the author of the Itur, who rule in accordance with Rav Naḥman as the halakha, even though they certainly rule in accordance with Abaye. And this is the wording of the author of the Itur: “Although we hold in accordance with Abaye, who says that we do not require one wicked through robbery, here it is different, because his inclination overpowers him.” The Ran explains that the dispute between Rav Naḥman and Rav Sheshet is unrelated to the dispute between Abaye and Rava. Abaye and Rava disagree only as to whether one suspected regarding a relatively minor matter, such as eating carcasses defiantly, is suspected of giving false testimony, which is a more severe transgression than it; Abaye holds that he is suspected, while Rava holds that he is not suspected. But one who transgresses a prohibition more severe than false testimony is certainly suspected of giving false testimony. Therefore, one who had intercourse with a forbidden woman, for which he is liable to execution by the court, is certainly suspected of giving false testimony, and there is no dispute here between Abaye and Rava. Nevertheless, Rav Naḥman holds that he is fit as a witness because “his inclination overpowers him.” It is possible that he is suspected regarding the forbidden woman, concerning whom his inclination overpowers him, but is not suspected regarding false testimony, concerning which his inclination does not overpower him. Rav Sheshet answered him that nevertheless he is wicked and disqualified because of a severe transgression, and “his person is disqualified as a witness.” It is explained that the Ran holds that in this inquiry Rav Naḥman and Rav Sheshet disagree: Rav Naḥman holds that one wicked who is not wicked through robbery is disqualified by Torah law only when he is suspected, while Rav Sheshet holds that he is disqualified because of a scriptural decree.

Rava said:

Even if Rav Naḥman holds that he is fit, this is specifically with regard to other testimonies, such as testimony concerning money and the like, but

Rav Naḥman concedes with regard to testimony

that he gives concerning an

woman—

that he is unfit,

because he is suspected of giving false testimony, as will be explained.

Ravina said, and some say

or Rav Pappa said this:

We said

Rava did not say to disqualify him from testimony concerning a woman

except

when he testifies concerning a woman

to take her out,

to remove her from her presumptive status, that she was a married woman, by testifying that her husband died or divorced her, for then he is considered to be giving false testimony, lest he cast his eyes upon her, since he is suspected with regard to forbidden sexual relations.

But

if he testifies concerning a woman

to bring her in,

to bring her into the prohibition of a married woman—for example, by testifying that she became betrothed to so-and-so—

we have no concern,

we have no suspicion concerning him, and he is fit to testify.

And the Gemara raises an objection:

It is obvious,

that according to Rav Naḥman he is trustworthy to say that she is betrothed; what suspicion could we have concerning him?

The Gemara answers this: It is not obvious, because we might have had a hava amina that we suspect him, that he cast his eyes upon her, and since he is a transgressor, he desires her specifically when she is a married woman.

For if Ravina [or Rav Pappa] had not informed us of this,

what might you say,

we would say:

this

married woman

is preferable to him, as it is written, “Stolen waters are sweet”,

and he desires her through theft , therefore

he teaches us

Ravina that we do not suspect him to such an extent, but

as she stands thus,

as long as she is unmarried, she is preferable to him. Because then

she is available to him,

she will be within his reach.

The Mishna in tractate Bava Metzia (87a) says that a laborer who performs his work in the field of the landowner is permitted by Torah law to eat from what is attached to the ground at the time of the completion of the work, when they are picking from the field, but not a sharecropper, who receives his proportionate share of the produce.

And Rav Naḥman says that a sharecropper who works in the field and receives a share of the grain, if he ate from the produce of the field at the time of the completion of the work, is not disqualified from testimony. Even though he eats from the produce of the landowner, and he is therefore a robber, the reason is that he grants himself permission, mistakenly thinking that it is permitted to him, and he is still not in the category of a transgressor, and he is not suspected of giving false testimony.

And

he further

Rav Naḥman said: A thief

in the month of

Nisan,

which is the time of the harvest,

and a thief

in the month of

Tishrei,

which is the time of the grape harvest and the ingathering,

is not called a thief.

And these words

are said specifically

with regard to a sharecropper,

if he is a sharecropper, and takes from the landowner only

a small amount,

for in these months he labors greatly in it and grants himself permission, thinking that because of his labor it is permitted for him to take a small amount more than what is due to him in his share as a sharecropper,

and

only if he takes [steals]

something whose work has been completed,

for he considers himself like a laborer , and grants himself permission and thinks that the landowner does not object.

But a peasant—that is, a laborer—who does not share in the produce has no reason to grant himself permission, and if he steals even a small amount, he is disqualified.

And the Gemara recounts such an incident—

His peasants,

the peasant laborers who worked in his fields,

of Rav Zevid, one

of them

stole a kav

a kav

of barley,

of barley, which is a small amount,

and he disqualified him

Rav Zevid disqualified him from testimony.

And one

of them

stole a cluster of dates,

a cluster of dates, also a small amount,

and he disqualified him

Rav Zevid disqualified him from testimony.

After we have said that a transgressor who thinks that he is not committing a transgression is still not disqualified from testimony, the Gemara recounts another incident concerning this matter.

Those gravediggers

those gravediggers

who buried the dead,

it happened that they buried

the dead on the first day of the festival of Shavuot,

and transgressed several prohibitions of labor on the festival.

He excommunicated them,

Rav Pappa excommunicated them

and

also

disqualified them from testimony,

for they do this because of desire for money, and they are like a violent robber .

And he declared them fit,

and made them fit for testimony

Rav Huna, son of Rav Yehoshua,

as will be explained.

Rav Pappa said to him,

to Rav Huna: How can you declare them fit? Are they not wicked? They are, after all, wicked.

And Rav Huna answered him: They are not in the category of wicked people, because

they think

they mistakenly think

that they are performing a mitzva,

that they are performing the mitzva of burying the dead, and therefore they are not suspected of giving false testimony.

And Rav Pappa raises an objection to him:

But I am excommunicating them!

They have already been excommunicated for this transgression, and they already know that it is forbidden and that the matter is viewed negatively by the Sages, and nevertheless they transgress and repeat this transgression; why, then, do you say that they think they are performing a mitzva ? Rav Huna answered him: Even though they are excommunicated, they still err and think that they are performing a mitzva, and the reason they were excommunicated is that

they think,

because

the Sages are performing atonement for us,

that the Sages excommunicate us so that we may attain atonement for the desecration of the festival, but the Sages do not want us to repent. And they continue in their error that it is permitted to bury on the festival, and are willing to be excommunicated in order to attain atonement. And since they do not recognize their sin, they are therefore not disqualified from testimony.

And now the Gemara discusses the law of a disqualified conspiring witness.

It was stated,

we learned: