Sanhedrin 37b — the Talmud in English

And they add and say to them:

And lest you say: ![](pamud.bmp "

exact location on the page") "

What have we to do with this trouble—

to involve ourselves in this concern, even for the sake of the truth"; do not say so—

For has it not already been stated: "

And he is a witness, whether he has seen or known, if he does not tell

and he shall bear his iniquity"? Thus, the obligation to testify is imposed upon you, and you bear iniquity if you do not tell what you saw.

And lest you say:

In any event,

what have we to do to become liable

[to become obligated and be punished]

for this one's blood,

that he should die through us, and it is preferable for us to stand by "if he does not tell, he shall bear his iniquity"; do not say so—

For has it not already been stated: "

When the wicked perish there is song,"

and you will not become liable and be punished through the death of this wicked man.

Gemara:

We learned in the Mishna: How do they intimidate the witnesses? In capital cases, they would bring them in and intimidate them: Lest you say, “From estimation,” or, “From hearsay”—one witness [testifying] from another witness:

The Sages taught: How

“from estimation”?

He says to them,

the one who intimidates them:

Perhaps this is how you saw it: He pursued his fellow into a ruin, and you pursued him, and you found a sword in his hand

of this one,

and its blood was dripping

[blood was dripping from the sword],

and the slain man was convulsing—

if this is how you saw it, you saw nothing.

It was taught: Rabbi Shimon ben Shetah said:

I shall see consolation

[as though he said: I shall not see the consolation of Israel and its redemption]

if not

that

I saw

with another witness

one man pursuing his fellow into a ruin, and I pursued him, and I saw a sword in his hand, and its blood was dripping, and the slain man was convulsing—

And I said to him: Wicked one! Who killed this man?

Either I or you,

for it is certain that you are the one who killed him—

But what can I do, for your blood is not delivered into my hand

to kill you on the basis of our seeing,

for the Torah said: "

By the testimony of two witnesses shall the dead man be put to death,"

and the meaning is: specifically witnesses who saw the act itself— but

the Knower of thoughts

will exact payment from that man who killed his fellow

[that is, from you]!

The Sages said:

They

did not move from there until a snake came and bit

that murderer

and he died.

And we raise an objection:

And

for

such as this one—

that the murderer is liable to the sword for his act—

is he a son of a snake?

That is: Is one who became liable to the sword, but cannot be put to death, bitten by a snake?

But did Rav Yosef not say, and did

he not likewise teach

in the school of Hezekiah:

from the school of Hezekiah:

From the day the Temple was destroyed,

even though the Sanhedrin ceased, the four forms of execution did not cease.

And we inquire about it: Is it so that

they did not cease,

the four forms of execution, with the cessation of the Sanhedrin?

But

certainly

they ceased!?

Rather,

this is the intention:

the law of the four forms of execution did not cease.

That is: One who became liable to one of the four forms of execution is visited by a punishment at the hands of Heaven resembling the execution to which he was liable. How so?

One who became liable to stoning,

which is carried out by pushing him from the height of two stories, so that he falls and dies:

either he falls from the roof, or an animal

throws him to the ground and

tramples him.

One who became liable to burning: either he falls into a fire, or a snake bites him,

and the venom of a snake burns him.

One who became liable to execution

[by the sword]:

either he is delivered to the government,

whose practice is to kill by the sword,

or bandits—

whose practice is to kill by the sword—

come upon him.

One who became liable to strangulation: either he drowns in a river,

which is a death by strangulation,

or he dies of seronchi

[diphtheria], and this death too is through strangulation.

It is thus explained that the substitute for execution by the sword at the hands of the Sanhedrin is [execution] by the government or by bandits, whereas a snakebite is the substitute for burning. If so, why did a snake bite one who became liable to the sword!?

They said,

the members of the academy, to resolve [the difficulty]:

That one had another transgression in him

[that murderer had another transgression for which he became liable to burning, and in place of that execution the snake bit him; and therefore he died through the substitute for burning and not through the substitute for the sword, because]

the Master said: One who became liable to two court-imposed executions

is

judged by the more severe,

and burning is more severe than the sword.

We learned in the Mishna: “Regarding capital witnesses… they intimidate them, lest you say

‘from estimation’

or ‘from hearsay, one witness from another witness’”:

And we infer: Since we learned this intimidation—that they should not say “from estimation”—only in our Mishna, which deals with capital witnesses, and we did not learn this in the earlier Mishna at 29a, which deals with intimidating monetary witnesses, it follows:

It is in capital cases that we do not make an estimation

[witnesses cannot testify on the basis of estimation];

but in monetary cases we do make an estimation,

and therefore they do not intimidate the witnesses concerning this—

According to whom

is our Mishna?

According to Rabbi Aha!?

Is our Mishna according to Rabbi Aha, who holds that the law of estimation distinguishes between capital testimony and monetary testimony!?

For it was taught: Rabbi Aha says:

A rutting camel

[mating with the female]

among the camels, and a dead camel is found beside it—it is known that this one killed it,

and its owner is liable to pay the owner of the dead camel for its damage, because it is an estimation that this one killed it, since this is their manner when they are aroused for mating: to strike those standing beside them.

It is thus explained that, according to Rabbi Aha, estimation is effective for monetary witnesses.

And we answer:

And according to your reasoning—

that you infer from the fact that they intimidate capital witnesses in this way but not monetary witnesses that, indeed, in monetary cases they may testify even from estimation—“Lest you say…

one witness from another witness”

which it teaches

in the Mishna only concerning capital cases, and they do not intimidate them in this way concerning monetary cases, since this intimidation was not mentioned in the earlier Mishna at 29a—would you also say here, according to our Mishna:

It is in capital cases that we do not say,

that is, they do not testify “one witness from another witness”;

but in monetary cases we do say

the testimony, even if it is based on another witness!?

And

surely this is necessarily not so, for

we learned

above, at 29a:

If

the witness testified:

He

[the borrower]

said to us

that “

I owe him,”

that is, the borrower said to us in this wording, “I owe him,” but the borrower did not say this in the presence of the claimant, so that it would be considered an admission by a litigant—

Or the witness said: “

A certain man said to us

that he

[the borrower]

owes him,”

which means that he testifies “one witness from another witness”—

It is nothing, until he says

the witness: “

He admitted it to him in our presence

[that is: the claimant and I were there when he admitted it]

that he owes him two hundred zuz.”

And if so, it is explained that even in monetary cases, “one witness from another witness” is invalid, and nevertheless we do not find that the witnesses are intimidated not to testify “one witness from another witness” except in capital cases and not in monetary cases—

Apparently,

it is demonstrated from here:

even though they are invalid—

“one witness from another witness”—even

in monetary cases,

nevertheless

we say to them, “Lest you say, ‘one witness from another witness,’” only

in capital cases,

in capital cases,

in order to increase the words and elaborate in the intimidation, whereas in monetary cases we are not so concerned to intimidate them at such length.

Here too—

concerning testimony from estimation—we cannot prove from the fact that they administer this intimidation only in capital cases that in monetary cases they may testify from estimation, because

even though they are invalid in monetary cases,

as in capital cases, nevertheless

we say

to them, “Lest you say, ‘from estimation,’” only

in capital cases;

and our Mishna is according to the Rabbis, who invalidate testimony from estimation even in monetary cases.

We learned above: “How do they intimidate the witnesses? Regarding capital witnesses…

Know

that capital cases are not like monetary cases. In monetary cases, a person gives money and thereby achieves atonement. In capital cases, his blood and the blood of his descendants hang upon him until the end of the world. For so we find with Cain, who killed his brother, as it is stated, ‘The bloods of your brother cry out.’ It does not say, ‘The blood of your brother,’ but, ‘The bloods of your brother’: his blood and the blood of his descendants. Alternatively, ‘The bloods of your brother’ means that his blood was cast upon the trees and upon the stones.” Thus far the Mishna.

The Gemara explains why Cain’s blood was cast upon the trees and the stones:

Rav Yehuda, son of Rabbi Hiyya, said,

because it is written “bloods,” in the plural,

this teaches that Cain made wounds upon wounds and gashes upon gashes in his brother Abel,

because

he did not know from where the soul departs, until he reached his neck,

and killed him. Therefore, his blood was cast in every direction.

And

further

Rav Yehuda, son of Rabbi Hiyya, said

concerning this matter:

From the time that the earth opened its mouth and received the blood of Abel, it has not opened it again.

As it is stated

[Isaiah 24:16]:

“From the wing of the earth

we have heard songs: glory to the righteous .”

It is thus explained that the song of the earth is recited

And it is explained that the song of the earth is said

“from the wing” of the earth, and not from the “mouth” of the earth.

He challenged him

[he raised an objection to him],

Hezekiah, his brother:

Did it not state in the section of Korah, [Numbers 16:32]

“And the earth opened its mouth”?

He said to him,

indeed,

for evil, it opened

its mouth even afterward, but

for good it did not open.

And

further

Rabbi Yehuda, son of Rabbi Hiyya, said

concerning this matter:

Exile atones for half of a sin.

We learn this from the passage concerning Cain.

And we learned this from the section of Cain.

At first it is written, “And I shall be a wanderer and a fugitive,” and at the end it is written, “And he dwelt in the land of Nod.”

That is, at first his punishment was to wander and flee, but afterward, once he was exiled, his exile atoned for half, and he no longer needed to wander; he remained in the land of Nod.

Further concerning atonement through exile:

Rav Yehuda said: Exile atones for three things:

the sword, famine, and plague .

As it is said

in Jeremiah, at the time of the siege of the Chaldeans upon Jerusalem [38:2]:

“So said the Lord: He who remains in this city shall die by the sword, by famine, and by plague, but he who goes out and falls to the Chaldeans who are besieging you shall live, and his soul shall be his spoil.”

And it is explained that one who is exiled and goes out from his place will be saved from the sword, famine, and plague.

And now, according to Rabbi Yehuda, exile is effective only for being saved from a decree of death by means of the sword, famine, and plague, but it is not effective for restoring the person to his previous state.

But

Rabbi Yohanan said: Exile atones for everything,

even for restoring the person to his previous state.

As it is said

concerning Jeconiah, king of Judah [Jeremiah 22:30]:

“So said the Lord: Write this man childless,

a man who shall not prosper in his days, for no man of his offspring shall prosper, sitting upon the throne of David and ruling again over Judah.”

And it is explained that the Holy One, blessed is He, decreed upon him that he would not father sons after his descent to Babylon, and no man of his offspring would sit upon the royal throne.

And

if

after he was exiled it is written, [I Chronicles 3:17]

I Chronicles 3:17]

“And the sons of Jeconiah: Assir, Shealtiel his son,”

then certainly these sons were born to him after he descended to Babylon, for the Sages expounded that he called his son

“Assir”

because

his mother conceived him in the prison.

And

“Shealtiel”

because

El planted him

in his mother’s womb

not in the manner of those who are planted. [

that is, she conceived not in the natural manner],