Sanhedrin 45b — the Talmud in English

The verse teaches: “

He shall surely be stoned or

he shall surely be shot,” in the future tense, for it does not say, “Stone, stone; shoot, shoot,” and it comes to teach that the same shall be done also for future generations.

We learned in the Mishna:

And if not, the second [witness] takes the stone

and places it upon his heart.

And the Gemara discusses: How is it possible that the second witness alone

takes

the stone, when it was exceedingly heavy?

But it was taught in a beraita: Rabbi Shimon ben Elazar says: There was a stone

there, in the place of stoning, whose weight was

the burden of [

like the burden of]

two people.

He would

take it and place it upon the heart

of the one to be stoned.

If he died through it, he was released.

And how could one person lift it by himself?

And the Gemara answers:

And according to your reasoning,

that you raise a difficulty from the beraita,

raise the difficulty for you from its very self:

if so, the beraita itself is difficult, for how is it possible that a stone which is

the burden of two people

would be

taken

by one person

and placed upon his heart?

Rather,

you are compelled to explain it:

that he lifts it together with his fellow, and he throws it.

His fellow assists him in lifting the stone, and afterward he throws it alone upon the one to be stoned,

so that it should come forth with force,

so that the throwing should be with great force. Two cannot throw at once with force, because when one throws, the second obstructs him; but one person can throw with all his strength.

We learned in the Mishna:

And if not, his stoning

by all Israel.

And the Gemara raises a difficulty:

But it was taught: No person ever repeated it

for they never needed to stone him a second time, because he always died from the first stone. What, then, does the Mishna mean when it says that at times all Israel stoned him?

And the Gemara answers:

Did I say that it was performed?

Does the Mishna say that this is what happened?

I said: If it is required.

The Mishna merely says that if it happened that he did not die from one stone, all Israel should stone him.

The master said

in the beraita:

There was a stone

there, implying that that same stone was always used for stoning those liable to stoning.

And raise a difficulty:

But it was taught: One is the stone with which he was stoned, and one is the wood upon which he was hanged

after he had been stoned,

and one is the sword with which he was killed

—the one liable for execution by the sword,

and one is the cloth with which he was strangled

—the one liable for strangulation—

all of them are buried with him.

And how is it possible that the same stone with which one person was stoned should again be used for stoning?

And the Gemara answers:

It is not necessary; they prepare [another stone] and bring others in its place.

The intention of the beraita is to say that a stone was always prepared there for stoning—not that this was the same stone, but rather that each time, after a stoning, they immediately brought another stone in its place.

And the Gemara raises a difficulty concerning what is written in the beraita, that all of them were

buried with him.

But it was taught:

All these

are not buried with him!?

And the Gemara answers:

Rav Pappa said: What is “

with him”? —

With him in his seizure.

Not actually with him in the grave, but within four cubits of him.

Shmuel said: If the hand of the witnesses was severed

before he was stoned, he is

exempt

from stoning.

What is the reason?

Because

I require

that this be fulfilled in him: “

The hand of the witnesses shall be upon him first

to put him to death,”

but it is not so.

It is impossible to fulfill this, and therefore he is exempt from stoning. And the Gemara raises a difficulty:

If that is so, witnesses whose hands were originally severed,

who were already lacking hands before they testified,

are they likewise invalid!?

Are we also to invalidate them from testifying?

If so, why did Shmuel specifically state the case of the hand of the witnesses being severed only after they had already testified?

And the Gemara answers:

That case is different,

when it was severed after their testimony; therefore he is exempt, because

the verse says “

the hand of the witnesses,” with the definite article,

so that at the time of stoning they must have that same hand

which was

theirs

already

from the beginning of their testimony.

But when the hand was severed before their testimony, there is no deficiency in this, since this is their hand from the outset.

It was objected:

from that which we learned in tractate Makkot [7a]:

Any place where two testify about him,

two witnesses who come before any court,

and say: We testify concerning a certain man that his sentence was completed in such-and-such a court, and so-and-so

and so-and-so

were

his witnesses,

and he fled before they took him out to be executed,

he shall be put to death

by this court.

But here, certainly “the hand of the witnesses shall be upon him first” is not fulfilled, for the original witnesses are not present here at all. Necessarily, the Torah stated this only as a mitzva, but it does not prevent the execution.

And this is difficult for Shmuel, who exempts the one to be stoned when the hand of the witnesses was severed?

And the Gemara answers:

Shmuel explained it

—Shmuel explains it according to his own position—

with these being his witnesses.

These witnesses who testify about him that his sentence was completed in such-and-such a court are the same witnesses who testified about him there, and the sentence was completed on their testimony. Therefore it is also possible to fulfill the law that “the hand of the witnesses shall be upon him first.”

And we consider this matter:

Do we require the verse as it is written?

Is it so that everywhere the Torah says to perform something in a particular manner, this prevents fulfillment even after the fact, also when it is impossible to perform the matter in that manner?

But it was taught:

It is stated [Numbers 35:21]: “

The murderer shall surely be put to death; he is a murderer.”

I have only

learned that they kill the murderer

with the death written concerning him,

by the sword.

From where [do we know] that if you cannot put him to death with the death written concerning him, you put him to death with any death by which you can put him to death?

The verse teaches: “

The murderer shall surely be put to death.”

And we interpret the repetition of the wording as teaching that he is to be put to death

in any event,

with another form of death.

Thus, it is not specifically necessary to require “the verse as it is written”; rather, if it is impossible to fulfill the Torah’s command in its stated form, it may be fulfilled in another form as well.

If so, why does Shmuel exempt him when it is impossible to fulfill “the hand of the witnesses shall be upon him first”? And the Gemara answers:

That case is different

in the case of a murderer,

for the verse says “

shall surely be put to death,”

for the Torah explicitly expanded the law, that it is not specifically necessary to kill him with the death written concerning him.

But where we do not have an explicit expansion, it is specifically necessary to require “the verse as it is written.”

And the Gemara discusses:

And let us derive from it?

Why should we not learn from there, for the entire Torah, that “the verse as it is written” is not required?

And the Gemara answers:

Because murderer and blood redeemer are two verses that come as one,

for in both of them “the verse as it is written” is not required,

and whenever two verses come as one, they do not teach.

And we explain:

Murderer—

this is what we said.

The Torah expanded the law to put him to death by any death that is possible.

What is the matter of the blood redeemer?

Where do we find concerning the blood redeemer that “the verse as it is written” is not required?

For it was taught:

It is stated [ibid. 19]: “

The blood redeemer shall put

the murderer

to death when he encounters him.”

We have learned that

there is a mitzva concerning the blood redeemer

that the relative of the murdered person put the murderer to death.

And from where [do we know] that if he has no redeemer, the court appoints a redeemer for him?

As it is stated: “

When he encounters him,”

which implies that anyone who encounters him may kill him,

in any event,

even if he is not the blood redeemer, but was appointed in his place.

Mar Kashisha, son of Rav Hisda, said to Rav Ashi: And do we not require

—is it not the case throughout the Torah that we say it is specifically necessary to require

the verse as it is written?

But we learned

concerning the stubborn and rebellious son [below 71a]:

If one of them,

his father or his mother,

was lacking a hand, mute, lame [

crippled]

or blind or deaf, he does not become a stubborn and rebellious son.

As it is stated: “

And they shall seize him”—

but not those lacking hands.

For they cannot grasp him with their hands. “

And they shall bring him out”—

but not the lame,

who cannot bring him out. “

And they shall say”—

but not the mute.

“This son of ours,”

implying that they see that he is their son—

but not the blind. “

He does not listen to our voice”—

but not the deaf,

who cannot know whether he listens to their voice or not; even if he says that he does not accept their words, they do not hear this.

And Mar Kashisha, son of Rav Hisda, proves:

What is the reason

that the Mishna excludes all these from the law of a stubborn and rebellious son?

Is it not

the case that

because we require “

the verse as it is written”? And this is a proof for Shmuel! The Gemara rejects this:

No,

that is not the reason, but

that is not the reason. Rather,

that case is different, for the entire verse is superfluous.

The verse could have said: “And they shall bring him out to the gate of that city, and stone him.” Why all this length? Rather, it is in order to expound all these exclusions; but generally, we do not require “the verse as it is written.”

Come and hear

a proof that throughout the Torah we require “the verse as it is written,” from that which was taught concerning a city led astray:

If it does not have

that city

a square [

a place where the inhabitants of the city gather],

it does not become a city led astray,

because it is impossible to fulfill in it: “And you shall gather all its spoil into the midst of its square,”

the words of Rabbi Yishmael.

Rabbi Akiva says:

If

it does not have a square, they make a square for it,

and then they make it a city led astray.

And the Gemara proves:

They disagree only up to this point—

Rabbi Yishmael and Rabbi Akiva—

but one master

—Rabbi Yishmael—

holds: We require its original square,

for the Torah refers to a square that existed there previously, and not one that is made now.

And the other master,

Rabbi Akiva,

holds: Its present square is also considered like its original one.

A square made now is also considered as though it had existed there previously, and through it the law of “its square” is fulfilled.

But everyone

agrees that

we require “

the verse as it is written.”

The law of “its square” is indispensable for making it a city led astray.

And the Gemara answers:

It is a dispute between tannaim.

The matter is subject to a dispute between tannaim:

For we learned

in tractate Nega'im: If

he does not have

the leper

a right thumb

or

a right great toe

or

a right ear

upon which to place some of the blood and oil of his offerings, then

he does not have

this leper

everlasting purification.

For the law of the Torah must be fulfilled as it is written, specifically upon the right thumbs and the right ear.

Rabbi Eliezer said: He places

the blood and the oil

upon its place

of the thumb and the ear,

and he emerges

having fulfilled his obligation.

Rabbi Shimon says: He places on

the thumb and the ear

of his left hand, and goes out.

The last two tannaim hold that when it is impossible to fulfill “the verse as written,” it does not invalidate.

Mishna:

All those who are stoned are hanged

after they have been stoned and died,

the words of Rabbi Eliezer.

And the Sages say: Only the one who blasphemes

the Name

and the one who worships idolatry.

The man

is hanged with

his face toward the people.

And the woman

is hanged with

her face toward the tree

on which she is hanged,

the words of Rabbi Eliezer.

And the Sages say:

Only

the man is hanged, but the woman is not hanged

at all.

He said to them,

Rabbi Eliezer:

But did not Shimon ben Shetah hang women [

sorceresses ]

in Ashkelon?

The Sages said to him:

There is no proof from there, for

eighty women

he

hanged

on one day,

and

behold,

two people are not judged

to death

on one day

in the same court, because it is impossible for them to seek the merit of each and every one.

And how did Shimon ben Shetah judge them?

Rather, Shimon ben Shetah did this because of the needs of the hour, since the daughters of Israel were rampant in sorcery, and he hanged them in order to publicize the matter. Therefore, he also judged all of them on one day, so that their relatives would not have time to prevent their execution.

Gemara:

The Sages taught:

It is stated [Deuteronomy 21:22]: “And if there shall be in a man a sin deserving the judgment of death,

and he is put to death and you hang him

on a tree.”

Could it be that all those put to death are hanged?

The verse says

in the following verse: “You shall not leave his corpse on the tree, for you shall surely bury him on that day.

For a curse of God is he who is hanged.”

That is, he is hanged because he blasphemed the Name, and it is disgraceful toward Heaven that passersby continually mention that so-and-so blasphemed the Name; therefore, he must be buried.

It follows that the Torah is speaking here about the transgression of blasphemy.

And from here we learn:

Just as this blasphemer, whose

punishment is

by stoning,

is hanged,

so too everyone

whose

punishment is

by

stoning

is hanged,

the words of Rabbi Eliezer.

And the Sages say:

This is how we expound it:

Just as this blasphemer, who denied the fundamental principle, so too everyone

who

denied the fundamental principle

is hanged.

And you have nothing to include except one who worships idolatry, and not all those liable for stoning.

And the Gemara explains:

In what do they disagree?

The Sages expound generalities and particulars.

Wherever the Torah first states something generally and afterward explains it, the Sages expound it according to the hermeneutical principle of generality and particular.

Rabbi Eliezer expounds inclusions and exclusions.

He expounds this according to the hermeneutical principle of inclusion and exclusion.

And the difference between them is that with a generality and a particular, nothing is included in the generality except what is in the particular; that is, the particular explains the generality, meaning only it and no more, and even something similar to the particular is not included from the generality.

Whereas with inclusion and exclusion, the exclusion does not uproot the inclusion completely, but merely narrows it somewhat: not everything is included, but only what is stated in the exclusion and everything similar to it.

Accordingly, in our matter,

the Sages expound generalities and particulars,

namely: “

And he is put to death and you hang him” —

a generality,

that all those put to death are hanged. “

For a curse” —

a particular,

that only the blasphemer is hanged.

And

if they were close to one another,

if the generality and the particular had been adjacent to one another, we would expound it as a genuine generality and particular, and we would

say: Nothing is included in the generality except what is in the particular; these, yes, and nothing else,

so that only the blasphemer would be hanged and no other person put to death.