Sanhedrin 45a (מה.) — the Talmud in English

Gemara:

The man is covered with one section

that is, a small portion of him

in front.

And

the

the woman

is covered

with two sections, both in front and behind, because she is entirely naked

since the place of nakedness is visible even from behind her,

the words of

Rabbi Yehuda.

And the Sages say: The man is stoned naked, but the woman is not stoned naked.

And the Gemara asks:

What is the reason of the Sages

that the woman is not stoned naked?

And the Gemara answers:

The verse says [Leviticus 24:14],

“

And they shall stone him.”

What is the meaning of

“him”?

What does this come to exclude, indicating that only him, but not her, is to be stoned?

If you say

that only

him, but not her,

is stoned—that the woman is not subject to stoning at all—

That cannot be said.

But it is explicitly written [Deuteronomy 17:5],

“

And you shall take that man or that woman,

and you shall stone them with stones, and they shall die”!

Rather, what does

“

him”

come to exclude? It teaches that only him do they stone

without his clothing

for “him” indicates him as he is, naked].

But her

they stone

with her clothing.

Whereas

Rabbi Yehuda says: “Him” does not come to exclude “her”; rather, it states the law itself:

“him”—

without his clothing.

He is stoned naked.

And since there is no exclusion here concerning the woman, we return automatically to the principle that Scripture equated a woman with a man with regard to all punishments stated in the Torah. Therefore,

it makes no difference whether it is a man or whether it is a woman

who is stoned naked.

And the Gemara asks:

Does this mean that the Sages are concerned about sinful thoughts, whereas Rabbi Yehuda is not concerned about sinful thoughts!?

Are we to explain their dispute as follows: The Sages maintain that we are concerned lest people entertain sinful thoughts about the woman when they see her being stoned naked. Otherwise, there would be no reason for the Sages to say that the woman is not stoned naked, for although the Torah does not require that she be stoned naked, we should nevertheless have independently done so, in order that she die more quickly and not suffer?

And Rabbi Yehuda maintains that we are not concerned about the men’s sinful thoughts, and therefore permits stoning her naked?

That cannot be said,

for we have heard precisely the opposite from them.

Elsewhere we find that their views are the reverse with regard to concern about sinful thoughts.

As we learned

in tractate Sota (7a):

The priest takes hold of her garments

of the sota at the place of the neckline and pulls them;

if they are torn,

in an ordinary tear,

they are torn,

and he need not be concerned about that.

And if they come apart

into many tears,

they come apart.

Until he uncovers her heart.

And

likewise

he undoes

the braids of

her hair.

All this is done in order to disgrace the sota.

Rabbi Yehuda says: If her heart was beautiful—

he would not

the priest

uncover it. And if her hair was beautiful, he would not undo it.

This is because we are concerned that those present might entertain sinful thoughts.

Thus, their views here are the opposite: The Sages are not concerned about sinful thoughts, whereas Rabbi Yehuda is concerned about sinful thoughts.

And the Gemara answers:

Rabba said: There

in the case of the sota,

this is the reason

that Rabbi Yehuda is concerned about sinful thoughts:

Perhaps she will leave

the sota

the court acquitted.

For the waters will examine her and show that she is pure,

and

then

the young priests will provoke her [the

young members of the priesthood who see her in this state in the Temple courtyard], and they will pursue her all her days.

But

here, she is being killed.

She is stoned immediately, and therefore there is no concern that they will entertain sinful thoughts about her.

And if you would say that they will be provoked with regard to other women,

if you say that there is concern that, because they saw her naked, their inclination will be aroused with regard to other women—

But

Rabba said: It is a tradition

I have received from my teachers that

the evil inclination exercises control only over one whose eyes see.

Therefore, there is no concern that they will be provoked with regard to other women.

Rava said: Is it only

And is it only

Rabbi Yehuda’s statement that contradicts Rabbi Yehuda’s statement,

whereas

the Sages’ statement does not contradict the Sages’ statement?

Was the difficulty only a contradiction in Rabbi Yehuda’s words? There is also a contradiction in the view of the Sages, and Rabba does not resolve it.

Rather, Rava said: The contradiction between Rabbi Yehuda and Rabbi Yehuda is not difficult, as we explained

as Rabba explained.

The contradiction between the Sages and the Sages is also not difficult.

Because

the verse says [Ezekiel 23:48],

“

And I shall put an end to lewdness in the land, and all women shall take warning and not practice your lewdness.”

There is a mitzva to disgrace the sota and uncover her heart, so that other women will take a lesson from her and become modest. This applies even if she is pure and did not commit adultery; nevertheless, she acted immodestly by secluding herself with another man.

But

here, you have no greater suffering than this.

The women see how she is stoned, and therefore there is no need to disgrace her further by stoning her naked. In any event, the reason is never concern about sinful thoughts.

And if you would say: Let us inflict both upon her,

if you would still object that, with regard to one who is stoned, we should say that she be stoned naked, so that this will serve as a warning to the women by her being humiliated in addition to being killed—

Rav Naḥman said that Rabba bar Avuha said: The verse says

“

And you shall love your fellow as yourself”—

choose for him

a favorable death!

And do not disgrace him.

And the Gemara objects:

Shall we say that Rav Naḥman’s statement is subject to a dispute between tannaim!?

Are we to say that Rav Naḥman’s exposition—that one must choose a favorable death for him—is disputed by tannaim? For apparently Rabbi Yehuda disagrees, as he maintains that she is stoned naked, despite the humiliation this causes her.

And the Gemara answers:

No;

rather,

everyone accepts Rav Naḥman’s statement;

they all agree with his exposition.

And here, they disagree about this matter—

the Sages and Rabbi Yehuda:

One master holds: A person’s humiliation is more distressing to him than the comfort of his body.

The Sages maintain that a person finds humiliation more difficult than bodily pain. Therefore, it is preferable for the woman to be stoned while clothed and not be humiliated, even though this causes her the distress of dying more slowly. This is the favorable death that we choose for her.

And one master holds: The comfort of his body is preferable to his humiliation.

A person finds it more difficult to endure bodily pain than humiliation. Therefore, the favorable death is for her to be stoned naked so that she will die quickly, despite the humiliation this causes her.

Mishna:

The place of stoning was as high as two stories

of a person’s height, and from there they would throw him to the ground.

One of the witnesses pushes him on his hips

that is, from behind him.

And if

he turned over onto his heart,

falling with his face toward the ground,

the witness turns him

onto his hips,

so that his back will face the ground, because it is degrading for him to lie in that position with his face toward the ground.

And if he dies from it

from the fall alone,

he has fulfilled his obligation.

The mitzva of stoning has been fulfilled in his case.

And if not,

if he has not yet died, the

second witness takes the stone and places it upon his heart,

throwing it forcefully upon his heart.

If he dies from it, he has fulfilled his obligation.

And if not, all Israel stone him,

as all Israel add stones to stone him.

As it is stated [Deuteronomy 17:7],

“

The hand of the witnesses shall be first against him to put him to death, and the hand of all the people

afterward.”

Gemara:

A tanna taught: And his height as well.

One must add to the height of the place of stoning the height of the stoned person himself, since they would throw him while he was standing, and not while he was sitting. Thus, together with the two stories of the place of stoning,

there are three

stories here.

And the Gemara asks:

Do we really require all this?

Is such a height necessary to cause death?

And they raise a contradiction

from that which we learned in tractate Bava Kamma (50b): If one dug a pit, or a ditch, or a cave, and an ox or a donkey fell into it, he is liable. If so, why does the Torah state “pit”? It teaches you:

Just as a pit is sufficient to cause death

—just as a pit must have sufficient depth to cause death, namely,

ten handbreadths,

since an ordinary pit is at least ten handbreadths deep—

so too, any

type of excavation must be such that

it is sufficient to cause death.

That is, its depth must be at least

ten handbreadths.

For one is not liable for less than this.

It follows that a fall from a height of only ten handbreadths is sufficient to cause death, so why was it necessary to throw the stoned person from a height of two stories?

And the Gemara answers:

Rav Naḥman said that Rabba bar Avuha said: The verse says

“

And you shall love

your fellow as yourself— -

choose for him a favorable death!

So that he will die quickly and his suffering will be alleviated; therefore, they throw him from such a great height.

And the Gemara objects:

If so, let us make it even higher!

Let us make the place of stoning still higher, thereby making death even easier for him?

And the Gemara answers:

Because it would disfigure him.

If it were excessively high, it would result in disgrace, as his body would be shattered into pieces.

We learned in the Mishna:

One of the witnesses pushes him.

The Sages taught: From where is it derived that there is pushing?

Those who touched Mount Sinai at the time of the giving of the Torah were described as subject to the punishment, “No hand shall touch him, for he shall surely be stoned or surely be cast down.” From where is it derived that they are put to death by being pushed from a high place?

The verse states

“cast down,”

an expression of throwing, as it is stated, “He cast it into the sea.”

And from where

is it derived that they are subject

to stoning?

The verse states

“stoned,”

an expression of pelting with stones, as it is stated, “The people of his city shall stone him with stones, and he shall die.”

And from where is it derived that there is both stoning and pushing?

That if he was not killed by one of them—for example, they pushed him and he did not die—they perform both upon him?

The verse states

“he shall surely be stoned or surely be cast down,”

and from the repetition of the expression, as it was not written merely “for he shall be stoned or cast down,” we derive that at times they perform both upon him.

And from where is it derived that if he dies from the pushing

alone,

he has fulfilled his obligation

and it is not necessary to stone him further?

The verse states

“or surely be cast down.”

The word “or” serves to divide, indicating that both are not always required; sometimes it is either this or that.

From where is it derived that this applies for all generations as well,

that in every case of one liable to stoning they also perform pushing, although only stoning is stated concerning them?