Sanhedrin 43a (מג.) — the Talmud in English

And the Gemara answers:

“The performance is explicitly written”!

It is stated explicitly in that same verse:

“And the children of Israel did as the Lord commanded Moses,” which includes everything. And why, then, was it necessary to write separately, “And they took the blasphemer outside the camp”?

Rather, it was certainly written in order to derive from it that they took him outside yet another camp—that is, outside the three camps.

And the Gemara raises an objection:

“But from now on,” if “And they took the blasphemer” is superfluous, then

“And they stoned him with a stone,” which is also stated in that same verse,

“what does he do with it?” That too is superfluous, since everything is already included in “And the children of Israel did as the Lord commanded Moses,” as they were commanded to take him out and kill him?

And the Gemara answers:

“That is needed” for another exposition.

As it is taught:

“And they stoned him with a stone.”

“Him”—this indicates that he is stoned as he is, naked,

and not in his clothing!

for another derivation,

“A stone”—

if he dies from one stone, he has fulfilled the requirement!

And it was necessary for the Torah to write

“a stone” here, with regard to the blasphemer, and

it was necessary for the Torah to write

“stones” in the passage concerning the wood gatherer, as it is stated: “And they stoned him with stones.”

For had the Merciful One written

Stone”—

“a stone” alone,

I would have said: Where he does not die from one stone,

they should not bring another and kill him; that is, they would not bring an additional stone in order to kill him.

here, regarding the blasphemer,

Therefore,

the Merciful One wrote “stones,” to teach that if he does not die from one stone, they bring another stone in order to kill him.

And had the Merciful One written

“stones” alone,

I would have said: At the outset they should bring two, meaning that initially he must be stoned with two stones.

Therefore,

the Merciful One wrote

“a stone,” teaching that initially they stone him with only one stone, and if he does not die from it, they stone him with an additional stone.

And the Gemara discusses this:

But this tanna of the earlier beraita

says “it was stated”; he learned through a gzera shava the law that the blasphemer is taken outside the three camps. How, then, could Rav Pappa disagree with the tanna and say that it is learned from the verse itself? And the Gemara answers: The tanna says, “Were the verse not stated.”

And this is what he is saying: Were the verse not stated, even if we could not learn from the plain meaning of the verse itself that the blasphemer must be taken outside the three camps,

I would say that this is the law by means of a

gzera shava from the bulls that are burned;

now that the verse is stated, the gzera shava is unnecessary.

alone,

Rav Ashi said: We learn from here that the place of stoning was outside the three camps, for

where did Moses reside?

In the camp of the Levites! And the Merciful One said to him:

“Take the blasphemer out,” and from this alone it is implied that he should be taken out from Moses’ location, that is,

outside the camp of the Levites.

And the Holy One, blessed be He, added and said,

“Outside the camp,” to teach that they should take him

outside the camp of Israel.

And the verse

“And they took the blasphemer out” came

for the performance, to say that the children of Israel did as they had been commanded.

And the Gemara raises an objection:

“The performance is explicitly written concerning them,”

“And the children of Israel did as the Lord commanded Moses”! Why, then, is it necessary to write that they took the blasphemer outside the camp?

And the Gemara answers:

“That”—the verse “And the children of Israel did”—

is needed for the laying on of hands and the pushing. This teaches that the children of Israel also performed the laying on of hands and the pushing, since it is not explicit in the verse that they did so, as it says only, “And they took the blasphemer outside the camp and stoned him with a stone.” Therefore, the verse concludes, “as the Lord commanded Moses”: They had been commanded in that passage regarding the laying on of hands, as it is stated, “And all who heard shall lay their hands upon his head”; and they had also been commanded to push the one being stoned and throw him from a height of two stories of the place of stoning, as the Gemara derives below [45a] from the giving of the Torah, as it is stated, “No hand shall touch him, for he shall surely be stoned or surely be thrown down.”

The Rabbis said to Rav Ashi: According to you, who expounds “Take out” separately and “outside the camp” separately, then

all these instances of

“take out”

that are written with regard to the bulls that are burned, as it is stated concerning them, “And he shall take the bull out”—

what do you expound from them? After all, from “outside the camp” alone we derive that they must be taken outside the three camps.

Rav Ashi said:

From here we learn that the place of stoning was outside the three camps. For

And we conclude:

Difficult!

We learned in the Mishna:

“One stands at the entrance to the place of stoning, with the cloths in his hand.”

Rav Huna said: It is obvious to me: Both the stone with which he is stoned and the wood on which he is hanged the one who is stoned [that is, both this and that],

and the sword [the sword]

with which he is killed, one who is liable for execution,

and the cloth with which he is strangled, one who is liable for strangulation—

all of them

come from communal funds.

“And they brought the blasphemer outside”

What is the reason?

Because

with regard to his own property, we do not say to him: Go, bring it, and kill yourself! It is impossible to tell a person to bring for himself the object through which they will put him to death.

But

Rav Huna raised a dilemma: The cloth that they wave, and the horse that runs and stops them—whose are they? Who must provide them?

Perhaps we should say:

Since it is for his rescue, since the cloth and the horse are intended to save him from death, therefore

it is from his own property; he must provide them.

Or perhaps, since the court is obligated to perform a rescue through it, since the court is obligated to ensure the possibility of rescue, therefore they must provide them from their own communal funds?

the verse “And the children of Israel did,”

Furthermore: Regarding that which Rav Hiyya bar Rav Ashi said in the name of Rav Hisda: One who is going out to be executed by a court-imposed death,

they give him to drink a grain [a grain]

of frankincense in a cup of wine, so that his mind becomes confused, so that he becomes intoxicated and does not feel the suffering of death as acutely,

as it is stated [Proverbs 31:6],

“Give strong drink to the one who is perishing, and wine to the bitter of soul.”

And it is taught in a beraita: The prominent women of Jerusalem would

volunteer and bring them, the grain of frankincense and the wine.

And Rav Huna is uncertain: If

the prominent women did not volunteer, from whose funds is it provided—his own or communal funds?

And the Gemara resolves it:

“This certainly stands to reason”: It comes from communal funds, since it is written

“Give,” which implies

from their funds, that others must give it to him.

One person stands

Rav Aha bar Huna asked Rav Sheshet: If one of the students seated before the judges, after the verdict had been concluded with a finding of liability, said:

“I have something to teach in his defense!” but did not manage to say what that defense was,

and became mute, becoming unable to speak,

what is the ruling? Do they overturn the verdict, lest, had he stated the reason for the defense, everyone would have agreed with him, or not?

the weapon

Rav Sheshet waved his hand, making a dismissive gesture toward Rav Aha bar Huna, meaning: What you are asking is nonsensical. If we are concerned in the case of one who

became mute, then

even if someone is at the end of the world as well, with regard to every person sentenced to death, should we also be concerned that perhaps there is someone at the end of the world who knows a defense for him?

The Gemara rejects Rav Sheshet’s challenge, saying that the cases are not comparable.

Because

there, he did not say anything: the person at the end of the world has not yet said anything, so why should we be concerned that perhaps he knows a defense for him? But

here, he did say something: that student has already said that he has a defense to present for him. Therefore, the question is

what—should we be concerned that perhaps he is indeed correct, or not?

Come and hear a resolution of the dilemma from that

which Rabbi Yosei bar Hanina said: If one of the students acquitted him, saying the defense and bringing its reasoning to light,

and died, we regard him as though he were

alive and standing in his place, and we include his opinion in the count of those who acquit and those who find liable.

And the Gemara infers:

“He acquitted him”—yes. Specifically because he also stated the reason for the defense, his opinion is taken into consideration. But

“he did not acquit him,” rather, he said that he had a defense but became mute,

“no.” We do not take his statement into consideration.

The dilemma is resolved.

since the cloth and the horse are intended to save him from death, therefore

And the Gemara rejects the proof: True,

“If he acquitted him, it is obvious to me” that we are concerned for his opinion, in accordance with the statement of Rabbi Yosei bar Hanina. But if he

“said” only that he has a defense, it is still

“a dilemma for you,” for perhaps Rabbi Yosei bar Hanina would also say that we are concerned for his opinion. The fact that he mentioned “acquitted him” is not precise; it is simply because ordinarily one who begins by saying that he has a defense immediately states his reasoning and proofs.

We learned in the Mishna: “Even he says, ‘I have something to teach in my own defense,’ they return him even four or five times, provided that there is substance to his words.”

And the Gemara discusses this:

“And”

that is,

“even”

on the

first

and

second time, when he says that he has a defense for himself, they do not return him unless they see that there is substance to his words?

But it is taught in a beraita: The first and second time, whether there is substance to his words or whether there is no substance to his words, they return him.

From that point onward, only

if there is substance to his words do they return him, but if

there is no substance to his words, they do not return him?

And the Gemara answers:

Rav Pappa said: Interpret it—the Mishna should also be explained in this manner: Only

from the second time onward must there be substance to his words.

And the Gemara discusses this:

“From where do they know?” How do those escorting the defendant to be stoned know whether there is substance to his words, since they are not Torah scholars?

And the Gemara answers:

Abaye said: We assign him a pair of Torah scholars, who go with him to examine his claim,

“If there is substance to his words, yes,” they return him;

“and if not, no,” they do not return him.

This applies only from the second time onward, because beforehand they do not examine whether there is substance to his words.

Therefore, the Gemara asks:

“And why not assign them to him from the outset?” Why should the two Torah scholars not accompany him from the first time? If they see that there is no substance to his words, they would likewise not return him then.

And the Gemara answers: “Because he is frightened, he cannot say everything that he has.” Perhaps during the first instances, because of his fear, he will be unable to remember all his arguments. Therefore, they return him even if there is no substance to his words, because perhaps in the meantime his mind will settle and he will remember his arguments.

Mishna:

They returned him to the court and

found a defense for him, they acquitted him.

But if not, if they did not find a defense for him,

he goes out to be stoned.

And a herald goes out before him on his way to the place of stoning, announcing:

“So-and-so, son of so-and-so, goes out to be stoned because he committed such-and-such a transgression! And so-and-so and so-and-so are his witnesses!”

And the herald concludes: “Anyone who knows a defense for him, let him come and teach it on his behalf!” If someone says that he has a defense for him, they return him to the court, as explained in the preceding Mishna.

Gemara:

Abaye said: And it is necessary to say in the proclamation that he committed such-and-such a transgression

“on such-and-such a day, at such-and-such an hour, and in such-and-such a place.”

The reason is

“perhaps there are people who know, and they will come and invalidate their testimony,” perhaps they will thereby come and establish that the witnesses were edim zomemim.

We learned in the Mishna:

“And a herald goes out before him.”

And we inquire about this:

“Before him”—yes? Does the herald go out only as he makes his way to the place of stoning, but

“initially, no”? Does the herald not go out beforehand? But the herald goes out already forty days earlier!

that student had already said that he had a defense for him. Therefore, the question is

But it is taught in a beraita: On Passover eve they hanged Jesus.

And the herald went out before him for forty days: “Jesus goes out to be stoned because he practiced sorcery and incited and led Israel astray! And anyone who knows a defense for him, let him come and teach it on his behalf!”

And they found no defense for him, and they hanged him on Passover eve?

And the Gemara answers:

Ulla said: But can you understand it? Does Jesus

qualify as one for whom defenses are sought? Is he taught merit at all? He was an inciter,

and the Merciful One said:

“You shall neither spare him nor conceal him”!

Rather, you are compelled to say

that Jesus was close to the government, and the proclamation was not made in accordance with the law, but only out of fear of the government. In fact, the proclamation is issued only on the way to the place of stoning.

The Sages taught: Jesus had five disciples: Mattai,

Nakai,

Netzer,

Buni,

and Todah.

And all of them were judged by the court to be stoned, like Jesus, their teacher.

They brought Mattai when they placed him on trial. He said: “Mattai should be killed? But is it not written” [Psalms 42:3],

“When may I come and appear before God?”

if he acquitted him, it is obvious to me

that his opinion is taken into account, as Rabbi Yosei bar Ḥanina said, nevertheless,

if he only said

he had a defense, it is still

a question for you.

Perhaps Rabbi Yosei bar Ḥanina would also say that his opinion is taken into account in that case, and when he said “acquitted him,” he did not mean that phrase literally. Rather, he mentioned it because generally, when someone begins to say that he has a defense, he immediately states his reasoning and proofs.

We learned in the Mishna:

Even if he himself

says, “I have a defense to present for myself,” they return him to the court even four or five times, provided that there is substance to his words.

The Gemara discusses this:

And

is it true that

even

the

first

and

second

time

that he says he has a defense for himself, they do not return him unless they see substance in his words?

But it was taught:

From the first and second times,

both

when there is substance to his words they return him

and when

there is no substance to his words, they do not return him?

And the Gemara answers:

Rav Pappa said: Explain it

this way as well: Only

from the second time onward

must there be substance to his words.

The Gemara discusses this:

How do they know?

How do those leading the defendant to the place of stoning know whether there is substance to his words, since they are not Torah scholars?

And the Gemara answers:

Abaye said: We give him a pair of Torah scholars,

who go with him in order to examine his claim,

if there is substance to his words, yes,

then they return him;

and if not, no,

they do not return him.

This applies only from the second time onward, since beforehand they do not examine whether there is substance to his words.

Therefore, the Gemara asks:

And let us give them to him from the outset;

why should the two Torah scholars not go with him from the first time? If they see that there is no substance to his words, they would not return him then either.

And the Gemara answers:

Because he is frightened, he cannot say everything he has to say.

Perhaps during the first times, because of his fear, he will be unable to remember all his arguments. Therefore, they return him even if there is no substance to his words, because perhaps in the meantime he will regain his composure and remember his arguments.

Mishna:

They returned him to the court and

found a defense for him, they acquitted him.

But if not,

if they did not find a defense for him,

he goes to be stoned.

And a proclamation goes out before him

on the way to the place of stoning, announcing:

“So-and-so, son of so-and-so, goes out to be stoned because he committed such-and-such an offense! And so-and-so and so-and-so are his witnesses!”

The proclamation concludes:

“Anyone who knows a defense for him should come and present it on his behalf!”

If someone says that he has a defense for him, they return him to the court, as explained in the previous Mishna.

Gemara:

Abaye said: And one must say

the proclamation must also state that he committed such-and-such an offense

on such-and-such a day, at such-and-such a time, and in such-and-such a place.

The reason is

perhaps there are people who know otherwise, and they will come and invalidate the testimony of the witnesses,

perhaps this will enable them to establish that the witnesses were elsewhere at that time and thereby invalidate their testimony.

We learned in the Mishna:

And a proclamation goes out before him.

And we raised a question about this:

Before him, yes,

does the proclamation go out only while he is on the way to the place of stoning, but

previously, no?

Does it not go out earlier? Yet the proclamation already goes out forty days beforehand.

But it was taught: On the eve of Passover they hanged Yeshu.

And a proclamation went out before him for forty days: “Yeshu is going out to be stoned because he practiced sorcery and incited and led Israel astray! Anyone who knows a defense for him should come and present it on his behalf!”

And they found no defense for him, and they hanged him on the eve of Passover?

And the Gemara answers:

Ulla said: Can you understand it

that Yeshu

was a person for whom a defense could be presented?

Would anyone present a defense on his behalf at all? He was an inciter,

and the Merciful One said:

“You shall neither spare nor conceal him”!

Rather,

you are compelled to say

that Yeshu was close to the government.

The proclamation was not issued in accordance with the law, but only because of fear of the government; in fact, the proclamation is issued only while the condemned person is on the way to the place of stoning.

The Sages taught: Yeshu had five disciples: Mattai,

Nakai,

Netzer,

Buni,

and Todah.

And all of them were sentenced by the court to stoning, similar to their teacher Yeshu.

They brought Mattai

when they placed him on trial,

and he said: “Mattai should be killed?

But is it not written

in Psalms 42:3:

‘When may I come and appear before God’?”

They said to him: Yes! Matai should be killed! As it is written [

ibid., 41:6] "

When will he die and his name perish."

They brought Nakai; he said: Should Nakai be killed?

But is it not written [

Exodus 23:7] "

And do not kill the innocent and the righteous"?

They said to him: Yes! Nakai should be killed! As it is written [

Psalms 10:8] "

In secret he kills the innocent" [

It is fitting for “Nakai” to be killed, because he is a murderer who killed in secret. All these answers were merely evasive answers, because they were close to the government and had to respond to their nonsensical words. Rashi].

They brought Netzer; he said: Should Netzer be killed?

But is it not written [

Isaiah 11:1] "

And a shoot from its roots shall blossom"?

They said to him: Yes! Netzer should be killed! As it is written [

ibid., 14:19] "

But you are cast away from your grave like a despised shoot."

They brought Boni; he said: Should Boni be killed?

But is it not written [

Exodus 4:22] "

My firstborn son is Israel"?

They said to him: Yes! Boni should be killed! As it is written [

ibid., 23] "

Behold, I am about to kill your firstborn son."

They brought Todah; he said: Should Todah be killed?

But is it not written [

Psalms 100:1] "

A psalm of thanksgiving"?

They said to him: Yes! Todah should be killed! As it is written [

ibid., 50:23] "

Whoever sacrifices thanksgiving honors Me" [

Whoever kills “Todah” honors Me].