Sanhedrin 43a — the Talmud in English

And the Gemara answers:

“Doing” is explicitly written! ![](pamud.bmp "

exact page location")

“And the Children of Israel did as the Lord commanded Moses”,

and this includes everything; and why was it necessary to write separately, “And they brought out the blasphemer outside the camp”?

Rather, certainly it is in order to expound from it that they brought him outside yet another camp, that is, outside the three camps.

And the Gemara raises an objection:

“But from now on”,

if “And they brought out the blasphemer” is superfluous, then

“And they stoned him with a stone”,

which is also stated in that verse,

what do they do with it?

For it too is superfluous, since everything is already included in “And the Children of Israel did as the Lord commanded Moses,” for they were commanded to bring him out and kill him?

And the Gemara answers:

“That one is needed”,

for this verse comes for another exposition,

as it was taught:

“And they stoned him with a stone.”

“Him”—

it implies as he is, that they stone him naked,

and not in his garment!

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

“

Stone”—

so that if he dies from one stone, he is released!

And it was necessary to write “

stone”

here, regarding the blasphemer,

and it was necessary to write “

stones”

in the section of the wood-gatherer, as it is stated, “And they stoned him with stones.”

For had the Merciful One written only “

stone”

,

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

stone,

they should not bring another and kill him,

they would not bring an additional stone in order to kill him.

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 only “

stones”

,

I would have said: From the outset, let them bring two

stones, for from the outset he must be stoned with two stones.

Therefore

the Merciful One wrote “

stone,”

for from the outset they stone him only with one stone, and if he does not die from it, they stone him with an additional stone.

And the Gemara discusses:

But this tanna,

the one of the earlier beraita,

said

“it was stated,”

he learned through a gzera shava the law of bringing out the blasphemer outside the three camps; and how can Rav Pappa disagree with the tanna and say that it is learned from the verse itself? And the Gemara answers:

He said, “If it had not been stated.”

The tanna meant:

And this is what he said: “If the verse had not been stated,”

even if we could not learn from the meaning of the writing itself that the blasphemer must be brought outside the three camps,

I would say

that this is the law, from

a gzera shava

from the bulls that are burned;

now that the verse has been stated, a gzera shava is not needed.

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 stoning court was outside the three camps, for

where did Moses sit?

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

Bring out the blasphemer,”

and from this alone it is implied that they should bring him out from Moses’ place, that is,

outside the camp of the Levites.

And the Holy One, blessed is He, added and said, “

outside the camp,”

to teach that they should bring him

outside the camp of Israel.

And the verse, “

And they brought out the blasphemer,”

comes

for the doing,

to say that the Children of Israel did as they had been commanded.

And the Gemara raises an objection:

Doing is explicitly written concerning them: “

And the Children of Israel did as the Lord commanded Moses”!

And why is it necessary to write that they brought the blasphemer outside the camp?

And the Gemara answers:

That one,

the verse of “And the Children of Israel did,”

is needed for the laying on of hands and the pushing.

For 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 this, for it is stated only, “And they brought out the blasphemer outside the camp and stoned him with a stone.” Therefore the verse concluded, “They did as the Lord commanded Moses,” for they were commanded in that section regarding the laying on of hands, as it is stated, “And all who heard shall lay their hands upon his head,” and they were also commanded to push the one being stoned and cast him down from a height of two stories of the stoning court, as the Gemara expounds below [45a] from the giving of the Torah, as it is stated, “You shall not touch him by hand, for he shall surely be stoned or surely be cast down.”

The Sages said to Rav Ashi: “According to you,”

who expound “bring out” separately and “outside the camp” separately, then

all these “

bring out”

that are written regarding the bulls that are burned,

as it is stated concerning them, “And he shall bring out the bull,”

what do you expound from them,

for it is only from “outside the camp” that we expound that they must be brought outside the three camps?

And we conclude:

Difficult!

We learned in the Mishna:

One stands

at the entrance of the stoning court, with the cloths in his hand.

Rav Huna said: It is obvious to me: both the stone with which he was stoned and the wood upon which he was hanged

the one being stoned [that is, both this and that],

and the sword

the blade

with which he was killed,

the one who was liable for execution,

and the cloth with which he was strangled,

the one who was liable for strangulation,

all of them

come

from communal funds.

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

What is the reason?

Because

with his own, we do not say to him: “Go, bring it, and kill yourself!”

For it is impossible to say to a person that he should bring for himself something by means of which they will kill him.

But

Rav Huna raised a question: The cloth that they wave, and the horse that runs and stops them—from whose funds are they?

Who must provide them?

Shall we say

since it is for his rescue,

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

it is from his own,

he must provide them.

Or perhaps, since the court is obligated to perform rescue with it,

since the court is obligated to ensure the possibility of rescue for him, therefore they must provide them from their own funds?

And furthermore: that which Rav Hiyya bar Ashi said in the name of Rav Hisda: One who goes out to be executed

by a court-imposed death,

they give him a grain

of incense

of frankincense in a cup of wine so that his mind should become confused,

so that he should become intoxicated and not feel the pain of death so much,

as it is stated

[Proverbs 31:6], “

Give strong drink to the perishing and wine to the bitter of soul.”

And it was taught: Noble women in Jerusalem

would volunteer and bring them,

the grain of frankincense and the wine.

And Rav Huna is uncertain: if

the noble women did not volunteer, from whose funds

does it come, whether from his own or from communal funds?

And the Gemara resolves:

This is certainly logical, that

it comes

it comes from communal funds,

for

since it is written “

Give,”

it implies

from theirs, that others must give it to him.

that others must give it to him.

Rav Aha bar Huna asked Rav Sheshet: If one of the students said

who sit before the judges, after the judgment had been concluded for liability,

“I have something to teach in his defense!”

but he did not manage to say what that defense was,

and became mute,

he became unable to speak,

what is the law?

Do they overturn the judgment, lest if he had stated the reason for the defense they would all have agreed with his words, or not?

Rav Sheshet waved his hand,

he waved his hand in a dismissive gesture toward Rav Aha bar Huna, meaning: what you are asking is nothing; if we are concerned in the case of one who

became mute,

then

even one at the end of the world as well,

in every case of those sentenced to death, we should be concerned lest there be someone at the end of the world who knows some defense for him?

And the Gemara rejects Rav Sheshet’s perplexity, that this is not comparable.

For

there, he did not say,

that person at the end of the world has still said nothing; why should we be concerned lest he know some defense for him? But

here, he said,

that student already said that he had something to teach in his defense, and therefore there is a question:

what

is the law? Is there concern lest the truth is indeed with him, or not?

Come and hear,

to resolve the question, from this

which Rabbi Yosei bar Hanina said: One of the students who acquitted,

who stated the matter of the defense and brought its reason to light,

and died, we regard him as though

he were

alive and standing in his place,

and we add his view to the count of those who acquit and those who convict.

And the Gemara infers:

“Acquitted”—yes.

Precisely because he stated also the reason for the defense, his view is taken into consideration. But

“did not acquit”,

rather, he said that he had a defense without explaining it, and became mute,

no.

We are not concerned on his account. And the question is resolved.

And the Gemara rejects the proof: indeed,

if he acquitted, it is obvious to me

that we are concerned for his view, as Rabbi Yosei bar Hanina said; but if he

said

only, still

it remains a question for you, perhaps even then Rabbi Yosei bar Hanina would say that we are concerned for his view, and what he mentioned “acquitted” is not precise, but only because ordinarily one who begins to say that he has something to teach in defense immediately states his reason and proofs.

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 he

who says, “I have something to teach in my own defense,” they bring him back even four or five times, provided there is substance in his words.

And the Gemara discusses:

And

if

even

on the

first

and

second

time

he says that he has a defense for himself, they also do not bring him back unless they see that there is substance in his words?

But it was taught: The first and second time, whether there is substance in his words or whether there is no substance in his words, they bring him back.

From this point onward,

only

if there is substance in his words do they bring him back,

but if

there is no substance in his words, they do not bring him back?

And the Gemara answers:

Rav Pappa said: Explain it

also as referring to the Mishna as follows: only

from the second time onward

must there be substance in his words.

And the Gemara discusses:

From where do they know?

From where do those who lead the defendant to stoning know whether there is substance in his words or not, since they are not Torah scholars?

And the Gemara answers:

Abaye said: We give him a pair of Sages,

two Torah scholars who go with him in order to examine him,

if there is substance in his words, yes,

then they bring him back, and

if not, no,

they do not bring him back.

And this is only from the second time onward, for before that they do not examine him to see whether there is substance in his words.

Therefore the Gemara asks:

And why not give them to him from the outset,

why should the two Torah scholars not go with him already the first time, and if they see that there is no substance in his words, they would not bring him back then either?

And the Gemara answers:

Since he is frightened, he cannot say everything that he has.

Perhaps in the first instances, because of the fear, he will not manage to recall all his claims; therefore they bring him back even if there is no substance in his words, because perhaps in the meantime his mind will settle and he will recall his claims.

Mishna:

They brought him back to the court and

found a defense for him, they released him.

And if not,

if they did not find a defense for him,

he goes out to be stoned.

And a proclamation goes out before him

on his way to the stoning court, and proclaims:

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

And the proclamation concludes:

“Anyone who knows a defense for him, let him come and teach it on his behalf!”

And if he says that he has a defense, they bring him back to the court, as explained in the previous Mishna.

Gemara:

Abaye said: And it is necessary to say

the proclamation must also say that he committed such-and-such transgression

on such-and-such day, at such-and-such hour, and in such-and-such place.

And the reason is

perhaps there are those who know, and they will come and discredit them,

perhaps through this they will come to discredit his witnesses.

We learned in the Mishna:

And a proclamation goes out before him.

And we inquire about it:

“Before him”—yes,

does the proclamation go out only on his way to the stoning court, but

beforehand, no?

Is it not so beforehand? Surely the proclamation already goes out forty days earlier?

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

And the proclamation went out before him for forty days: “Yeshu 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 the eve of Passover?

And the Gemara answers:

Ulla said: And can you understand it thus:

Was Yeshu

one for whom defenses are sought,

and do they teach a defense on his behalf at all? Surely he was an inciter,

and the Merciful One said, “

You shall neither pity nor conceal him”?!

Rather,

you are compelled to say

that Yeshu was close to the government,

and the proclamation was not made according to the law, but out of fear of the government; in truth, they issue the proclamation only on the way to the stoning court.

The Sages taught: Yeshu had five students: Matay.

Nakai.

Netzer.

Buni.

And Todah.

And all of them were judged in the court for stoning, like Yeshu, their master.

They brought Matay,

when they placed him on trial,

he said: “Matay should be killed?

But is it not written

[Psalms 42:3], “

When shall I come and appear before God”?

They said to him: Yes! Matai shall be killed? For it is written [

there, 41:6] "

When will he die and his name perish."

They brought Nakai. He said: Nakai shall be killed?

! And is it not written [

Exodus 23:7] "

And an innocent and righteous person you shall not kill"?

They said to him: Yes! Nakai shall be killed! For it is written [

Psalms 10:8] "

In secret the innocent is killed" [

He is fit to be killed as an “innocent,” because he is a murderer and killed in secret. All these answers were merely answers, because they were close to the government, and they needed to respond to their words of folly. Rashi].

They brought Netzer. He said: Netzer shall be killed?

! And is it not written [

Isaiah 11:1] "

And a branch from his roots shall bear fruit"?

They said to him: Yes! Netzer shall be killed! For it is written [

there, 14:19] "

But you have been cast away from your grave like a despised branch."

They brought Boni. He said: Boni shall be killed?

! And is it not written [

Exodus 4:22] "

My son, My firstborn, Israel"?

They said to him: Yes! Boni shall be killed! For it is written [

there, 23] "

Behold, I am killing your son, your firstborn."

They brought Toda. He said: Toda shall be killed?

! And is it not written [

Psalms 100:1] "

A psalm for thanksgiving"?

They said to him: Yes! Toda shall be killed! For it is written [

there, 50:23] "

Whoever slaughters thanksgiving honors Me" [

Whoever kills “Toda” honors Me].