Sanhedrin 26b (כו:) — the Talmud in English

They said to him—the people of Sennacherib to Shevna:

your camp,

your faction,

the group on your side, which wrote to us in a note that they wished to submit—

where

are they!?

Shevna said

to them:

They have reneged on me,

they withdrew from their promise to me.

They said to him: If so, you are merely mocking us

you are making us an object of ridicule and laughter.

They pierced his heels and suspended him from the tails of their horses, and dragged him over thorns and briers,

and his honor was transformed into disgrace.

Rabbi Elazar said: Shevna was a man who pursued pleasure,

he followed the desires of his heart [and some explain: homosexual relations]. And we derive a homiletic interpretation:

It is written here,

with regard to Shevna,

“Go, come to that steward,” and it is written there,

with regard to Bathsheba,

“And she became his stewardess,”

for King David in his old age, to warm him; this demonstrates that sokhen denotes bodily pleasures.

The Gemara expounds another homiletic interpretation there in the Book of Psalms, concerning King Hezekiah and Shevna’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 concerning the exposition of the verse.

One

of them

said: If

the foundations [the righteous, as will be explained below], namely

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 one

of them

said: If

the foundations, namely

the Temple,

are destroyed

by Sennacherib on Shevna’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 “to set,” that which one places within the walls of his heart], namely

the thoughts of that wicked man

Shevna [about whom it was said earlier: “For behold, the wicked,” etc.],

are not destroyed,

Hezekiah, who is

righteous, what has he accomplished,

where is the reward for his deeds—his mitzvot, good deeds, and dissemination of Torah? The verse is expounded as follows: Surely the foundations must be destroyed, for if not, what has the righteous accomplished?

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

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

it is understandable, because

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

the term “foundations” being related to shitah, placing something within the walls of one’s heart.

And according to the one who says that it refers to the Temple, it is also

understandable.

As 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 Foundation Stone,

because from there 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,

this is not explained:

where do we find

where have we found

righteous men who are called

“foundations,”

“foundations”?

The Gemara explains:

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

and they are the righteous, upon whom the world is founded.

And if you wish,

and if you prefer,

say

I will say:

from here,

from this verse:

“He has made wonderful His counsel, He has magnified wisdom,”

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

The Gemara brings further expositions concerning the fact that Torah is called “wisdom.”

Rav Ḥanan said: Why is it called

the

Torah “wisdom”? Because it weakens a person’s strength.

Alternatively:

Torah is called

“wisdom”

because

it was given secretly, because of Satan,

who acted as an accuser and said that it should suffice for the celestial beings [the angels], and that the Tablets should not be given into Moses’ hands.

Alternatively:

Tushiyya is an acronym for tohu shiyya, meaning

“things of chaos,”

for Torah study consists merely of speech and reading, without action, and contains no tangible activity,

yet

nevertheless

the world is founded

[founded]

upon them.

The Gemara expounds another verse in which “wisdom” is written, interpreting it as referring to Torah.

Ulla said: A thought

that troubles a person because of concern about his livelihood

can cause

him to forget

even words of Torah

that he had learned,

as it is stated: “He frustrates the schemes of the crafty, and their hands cannot accomplish wisdom,”

and we derive: The Holy One, blessed be He, provides sustenance to the crafty, thereby frustrating their thoughts and worries; these thoughts cause the work of their hands—the “wisdom,” which is Torah—not to be accomplished.

[Rashi explained it differently: “A thought” means calculations that a person makes for himself: “If I do this and this, I will achieve this and this,” for example, “By such-and-such a day I will finish studying such-and-such tractates.” These thoughts can cause the matter to be nullified, and they remain crafty men whose hands cannot accomplish wisdom.]

Rabba said:

But

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

And we derive:

A counsel that contains the word of the Lord,

namely, Torah studied for its own sake,

shall stand forever.

We learned in our Mishna:

Rabbi Yehuda said: When

is this so? When they have no occupation other than gambling; but if they have an occupation other than gambling, they are fit.

The Gemara rules the halakha.

Rabbi Abbahu said that Rabbi Elazar said: The halakha is in accordance with Rabbi Yehuda.

And

further

Rabbi Abbahu said that Rabbi Elazar said: All of them,

all those disqualified from bearing witness who were mentioned in our Mishna [and in the beraita],

require an announcement by the court,

meaning that the court must announce and publicize that they are disqualified from bearing witness; and as long as they have not been publicly declared disqualified, they are not disqualified.

The Gemara discusses whether a

shepherd

is disqualified only after a public announcement, or whether he is disqualified even without an announcement.

They disagreed about this

question:

Rav Aḥa and Ravina; one

of them

said: He requires an announcement,

like all those disqualified from bearing witness.

And one

the other of them

said: He does not require an announcement,

since his transgression is public knowledge.

The Gemara clarifies their opinions:

Granted, according to the one who says: He does not require an announcement,

it is understandable, for

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

even though we have not seen him lead his animals into another person’s field

is disqualified

automatically, and there is no need to announce his disqualification.

But according to the one who says that he requires an announcement,

this is not understood:

what

is the meaning of

“an ordinary shepherd is disqualified,”

when he has still not been publicly declared disqualified?

And the Gemara answers: With regard to other people disqualified from bearing witness, they are not publicly declared disqualified until witnesses come and testify about their transgression. But with regard to a shepherd, the novelty is

that ordinarily,

even though no one testified about him that he led his flock into another person’s field,

we announce his disqualification,

as explained above. All this applies specifically after he has been publicly declared disqualified; as long as he has not been so declared, he is not disqualified.

In this connection, the Gemara relates:

There was a certain

deed of gift

upon which two robbers had signed,

two witnesses disqualified because they had committed robbery.

Rav Pappa bar Shemuel thought to validate

the deed, despite the fact that robbers had signed it,

for

since

we had not publicly declared them disqualified,

they had not been disqualified.

Rava said to him:

The deed is invalid, because

although

it is true

that an announcement is required,

this applies

to a robber

by rabbinic law,

such as those mentioned in our Mishna [and in the beraita]. But with regard to

a robber by Torah law,

who forcibly snatches property directly from one person’s hand, as did these two who signed the deed of gift—

do we require an announcement?

The deed is invalid.

Mnemonic: Debar and forbidden relations, theft.

The Gemara explains additional laws concerning those disqualified from bearing witness, as summarized by the mnemonic of the tradition.

Rav Naḥman said: Those who eat “something else,”

those who accept charity from gentiles —

are disqualified from bearing witness,

because they profane the Name of the Lord for the sake of greed for money, and they are like a robber motivated by greed.

And these words

apply when they accept charity

publicly,

for then it is a profanation of the Name of

the Lord. But

those who accept charity

privately are not

disqualified.

And

what we said, that

publicly

they are disqualified,

we likewise did not say

that it applies

except

in a case

where it is possible for him

to be able

to obtain sustenance

by receiving food [charity]

privately, yet he humiliates himself

and degrades himself by accepting it

publicly.

But if

it is not possible for him

to receive it privately, he is not disqualified, because

it is his life

he is doing so to preserve his life, and whatever a person gives for his life is not considered the conduct of a robber motivated by greed.

Rav Naḥman said: One who is suspected with regard to all forbidden sexual relations

one who violated a prohibition involving a forbidden sexual relation —

is fit to bear witness,

for he is not wicked because of “greed”—the desire for money—and the Torah prohibited only a wicked person motivated by “greed,” as it is stated: “Do not join your hand with a wicked person to be a corrupt witness.”

Rav Sheshet said: My master,

answer me, my master:

Forty lashes on his shoulders,

he is liable to receive lashes,

and he is fit?!

Even if he is not actually given lashes prescribed by Torah law because he was not forewarned, he is nevertheless a transgressor and receives rabbinic lashes—makkat mardut, rebellious lashes—for lashes are administered on account of an unfavorable report. But the Rif and other early authorities hold that the passage refers to one who actually had relations with a forbidden woman. The expression “one who is suspected,” explains the Ran, means that although he had relations with a forbidden woman and is therefore “suspected with regard to forbidden sexual relations,” he is nevertheless not suspected of giving false testimony. Rav Naḥman considers him fit because even if he is suspected of a severe prohibition such as forbidden sexual relations, he is not suspected of giving false testimony: forbidden sexual relations are matters in which “a person’s inclination overpowers him,” more than with carrion or other prohibitions, and consequently he is still not suspected of giving false testimony. The Rif’s version of the Gemara likewise has Rav Naḥman answer Rav Sheshet: “There, his inclination overpowers him.” See below, in the discussion of a habitual sinner who eats non-kosher meat. [See page 27, note 6, where the dispute among the early authorities is explained: If a habitual sinner who eats non-kosher meat defiantly, and is not a robber motivated by greed, is disqualified from bearing witness, is this because he is suspected of giving false testimony, or is it a scriptural decree? Rabbi Shmuel Rozovsky proves from Tosafot and from the discussion here that the reason for the disqualification is that he is suspected. For the Rif and Tosafot answered that with regard to forbidden sexual relations, his inclination overpowers him. But if the disqualification were due to a scriptural decree, what difference would it make whether his inclination overpowers him? In either case he is wicked. This is understandable if the reason for disqualification is suspicion: One who engages in forbidden sexual relations need not be suspected of giving false testimony. Even if one wishes to force an explanation that Tosafot hold that Rav Naḥman follows Rava, who holds that one who transgresses not out of appetite is not disqualified, and therefore the fact that he is suspected with regard to forbidden sexual relations does not make him suspected by Rava with regard to false testimony, the same is nevertheless proven from the other early authorities. 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 follows Rav Sheshet in matters of prohibitions. Were it not for this principle—or if he held that this is not a matter of prohibitions but a monetary matter, as many early authorities maintain—he would rule in accordance with Rav Naḥman, even though the clear halakha follows Abaye, that a habitual sinner who eats out of appetite is disqualified. How, then, could Rav Naḥman deem him fit? It is clearly implied that although he is wicked and liable to 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 sins defiantly is not disqualified by a scriptural decree; rather, the Torah deemed him suspect, and where there is no suspicion, he remains fit. This is explicit in the words of the Geonim cited by the Nimukei Yosef—Rav Naḥshon Gaon and the author of the Ittur—who rule in accordance with Rav Naḥman, even though they certainly rule in accordance with Abaye. This is the language of the author of the Ittur: “Although the established halakha is in accordance with Abaye, who said that we do not require a wicked person motivated by greed, etc., 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 about whether one who is suspected with regard to a relatively minor matter—for example, one who eats non-kosher meat defiantly—is suspected of giving false testimony, which is a more severe transgression. 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 has relations with a forbidden woman, for which he is liable to a court-imposed death penalty, 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 to bear witness because “his inclination overpowers him.” It is possible for him to be suspected with regard to the forbidden relation over which his inclination overpowers him, while not being suspected of giving false testimony, with regard to which his inclination does not overpower him. Rav Sheshet answered him that he is nevertheless wicked and disqualified because of a severe transgression, and “his person is disqualified from bearing witness.” It is therefore clear that the Ran understands that Rav Naḥman and Rav Sheshet disagree in this inquiry: Rav Naḥman holds that a wicked person who is not wicked because of greed is disqualified by Torah law only when he is suspected [of giving false testimony], whereas Rav Sheshet holds that he is disqualified by virtue of a scriptural decree.

Rava said:

Even if Rav Naḥman holds that he is fit, this applies specifically to other testimony, such as testimony concerning monetary matters and the like. But

Rav Naḥman concedes with regard to testimony

that he gives concerning a

woman—

that he is disqualified,

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

Ravina said, and some say

that it was

Rav Pappa who said:

Rava said that he is disqualified from giving testimony concerning a woman

only

when he testifies concerning a woman

to take her out,

to remove her from the presumptive status she had as a married woman, testifying that her husband died or divorced her. In that case, he is considered to be giving false testimony, lest he has set his eyes upon her, since he is suspected of sexual transgression.

But

if he testifies concerning a woman

to bring her in,

to place her under the prohibition of a married woman—for example, he testifies that she became betrothed to a certain man—

we have no concern:

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

The Gemara raises an objection:

Is it obvious

that, according to Rav Naḥman, he is deemed credible to say that she is betrothed? What suspicion could we have concerning him?

The Gemara answers: This is not obvious, because one might have thought that we suspect him of having set 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 taught us this,

what might you have said?

We would have said:

This

married woman

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

and he desires her clandestinely . Therefore,

he teaches us

Ravina that we do not suspect him to that extent. Rather,

as she stands, so

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) states that a laborer who performs his work in the field of the landowner is permitted by Torah law to eat produce still attached to the ground at the time the work is completed, when the produce is being plucked from the field; but this does not apply to a sharecropper, who receives his proportional share of the produce.

Rav Naḥman says that a sharecropper who works in the field and receives a portion of the grain, if he eats from the field’s produce at the time the work is completed, is not disqualified from bearing witness, even though he is eating from the landowner’s produce and is therefore a robber. The reason is that he grants himself permission, mistakenly thinking that it is permitted to him; he is still not considered a transgressor, and he is not suspected of giving false testimony.

And

further,

Rav Naḥman said: One who steals

during the month of

Nisan,

which is the harvest season,

and one who steals

during the month of

Tishrei,

which is the season of grape harvesting and gathering,

is not called a thief.

And these matters

apply specifically

to a sharecropper,

if he is a sharecropper and takes from the landowner only

a small amount,

because during these months he labors extensively in the field and grants himself permission, thinking that because of his labor he is permitted to take a small amount beyond what is due to him as his sharecropper’s portion.

And

only if he takes—[steals]

produce whose work has been completed,

thinking of himself as a laborer , and grants himself permission, thinking that the landowner does not object.

But a field laborer—that is, a worker 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.

The Gemara relates a similar incident:

The field laborers,

the laborers who worked in the 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 from bearing witness.

And one

of them

stole a cluster of dates,

a cluster of dates, also a small amount, and

he disqualified him

Rav Zevid from bearing witness.

After having stated that a transgressor who thinks that he is not committing a transgression is nevertheless not disqualified from bearing witness, the Gemara relates another incident concerning this matter.

Those gravediggers

who

buried a person,

who happened to bury

the dead on the first day of the Festival of Atzeret,

thereby violating several prohibitions against labor on the Festival.

He excommunicated them,

Rav Pappa excommunicated them,

and

also

disqualified them from bearing witness,

because they did so out of greed for money, and they were like a robber who commits robbery for monetary gain .

And he declared them fit

to bear witness,

Rav Huna, son of Rav Yehoshua,

as will be explained.

Rav Pappa said to

Rav Huna: How can you declare them fit? Are they not wicked? They are certainly wicked.

Rav Huna answered him: They are not considered wicked, because

they think

mistakenly

that they are performing a mitzva,

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

Rav Pappa raised an objection to him:

But I have already excommunicated them!

I already excommunicated them for this transgression, and they already know that it is prohibited and that the Sages view the matter negatively, yet they continue to transgress and repeat this offense. Why, then, do you say that they think they are performing a mitzva ? Rav Huna answered him: Even though they are excommunicated, they still mistakenly think that they are performing a mitzva. As for the reason they were excommunicated,

they think

it is because

the Sages are providing us with atonement:

the Sages excommunicate us so that we may attain atonement for the desecration of the Festival, but the Sages do not want us to desist. They continue in their mistaken belief that it is permitted to bury on the Festival, and are willing to remain excommunicated in order to attain atonement. Since they do not recognize their sin, they are not disqualified from bearing witness.

The Gemara now discusses the halakha concerning a conspiring witness.

It was stated:

we learned: