Sanhedrin 68a — the Talmud in English

The Gemara asks:

But

this matter,

Rabbi Akiva learned from Rabbi Joshua

and

it

—this matter of planting cucumbers—whereas below it is demonstrated that this is not so?

And it was taught in a beraita: When Rabbi Eliezer fell ill, Rabbi Akiva and his colleagues entered to visit him. He was sitting in

the

canopy

[a canopy consists of four posts, with a curtain spread over them].

And they were sitting in his reception hall

because they did not know whether they could enter to him on account of his illness

. And that day was the eve of Shabbat. And Hurkanos, his son, entered to remove

the

tefillin

of his father. Because he held that Shabbat is not a time for tefillin. And if so, it is forbidden to put them on, lest he go out with them into the public domain, and it will be found that he carries from one domain to another.

His father, Rabbi Eliezer, rebuked him

Rabbi Eliezer

and he went out

the son

under reprimand. He said to them

Hurkanos

to

Rabbi Akiva and

his colleagues

who were waiting there:

It seems to me that my father’s mind has become confused,

and he is close to death. For had his mind been settled, he would have removed the tefillin and would not have sent me out under reprimand!

Rabbi Eliezer heard this and

said to them:

It is not my mind that has become confused, but rather

his mind and his mother’s mind have become confused.

And why? —

How do they leave aside

they

an offense punishable by stoning,

meaning that they are not occupied with matters of Shabbat that involve stoning,

and

instead

they are occupied with

something that is only

a rabbinic prohibition.

For one who puts on tefillin on Shabbat does not perform a prohibited labor. And even if he goes out into the public domain, there is no carrying labor here. It is forbidden only because of a rabbinic prohibition.

When the Sages saw that his mind was settled, they entered and sat before him at a distance of four cubits

for he was ostracized, and it is forbidden to sit within four cubits of one who is ostracized.

He said to them

Rabbi Eliezer:

Why have you come?

They said to him: We have come to study Torah.

He said to them: And until now, why did you not come? They said to him: We did not have free time. He said to them: I wonder

I am puzzled

whether they will die their own deaths

a natural death, or whether they will be put to death through sufferings!

Rabbi Akiva said to him: What will be my death?

Meaning, in what manner will I die?

Rabbi Eliezer said to him: Your death

will be more difficult than theirs.

For you are my disciple, and your heart is open like a hall. Had you come to me to study, you would have learned much Torah!

Rabbi Eliezer took

his

two arms and placed them upon his heart

and

said: Woe to you, my two arms, which are like two Torah scrolls that are rolled up

and conceal everything written in them; so too, the Torah in my heart will disappear and be concealed, because they neither accepted nor learned from me.

Rabbi Eliezer continued:

I learned much Torah, and I taught much Torah.

I learned much Torah —

and I did not diminish from my teachers

from what they possessed in excess of me—that is, I did not lessen the difference between me and them except slightly—

even

like a dog lapping from the sea.

And he further said:

I taught much Torah, and my disciples did not diminish me

—

they did not receive from my wisdom and did not lessen the difference between me and them—

except like

what the

brush

placed

in its tube removes.

can remove.

And not only that, but I expound three hundred laws concerning a bright patch

in the laws of the appearances of afflictions,

and no person ever asked me anything about them,

meaning that no person was able to descend to the end of my understanding and ask me about these laws.

And not only that, but I expound three hundred laws, and some say

and there are those who say that Rabbi Eliezer said:

three thousand laws concerning

the matters of sorcery of

planting cucumbers

meaning, concerning this sorcery through which the entire field becomes filled with cucumbers,

and no person ever asked me anything about them, except Akiva ben Yosef!

And this was the matter:

Once, he and I were walking on the road. He said to me

Akiva ben Yosef:

Rabbi, teach me

how

planting cucumbers

is performed through sorcery.

I said one matter

of this sorcery,

and the entire field became filled with cucumbers!

He said to me: Rabbi, you have taught me their planting

through the sorcery. Now

teach me their uprooting!

I said one matter, and they all gathered

all the cucumbers

in one place!

They said to him

the Sages who were with him: What is the status of

the ball

a ball covered with leather, whose inside is filled with compressed wool?

And the amus

something resembling a leather shoe, which is compressed inside with wool and hair and is closed on all its sides. It served as a pattern for shoemakers, and they made shoes on it.

And the amulet

something resembling a small leather pouch, filled inside, which they would hang on the neck for adornment.

And the bundle of pearls —

they sew the pearl inside leather and hang it on the animal’s neck for healing.

And a small weight —

a weight made of lead, which they wrap in leather so that it will not wear away and become diminished in measure.

All these,

what is

their status?

For Rabbi Eliezer and the Sages disagreed in the Order of Purities [tractate Kelim, chapter 23] whether leather vessels made to be filled permanently, such as these, which are made to remain filled constantly, contract impurity or not. The opinion of the Sages is that they do not contract impurity, since they are made to be filled; they are not considered a receptacle.

Whereas the opinion of Rabbi Eliezer is that they do contract impurity. For Rabbi Eliezer holds that everything that has a receptacle contracts impurity, even if this receptacle is made in order to fill it.

Rabbi Eliezer and the Sages further disagreed: if the ball and the amus were torn and the cavity inside them became visible, the Sages concede that these vessels contract impurity, since now, after they were torn, they have a receptacle.

And now they disagreed concerning the immersion of these vessels: does the compressed wool inside them interpose with regard to immersion, or does it not interpose?

The opinion of the Sages is that it interposes. Whereas Rabbi Eliezer holds that it does not interpose, because both the leather on the outside and the wool inside are all one vessel.

And now the Sages asked Rabbi Eliezer what the status of all these is: did Rabbi Eliezer remain with his opinion, or perhaps now does he concede to the Sages?

Rabbi Eliezer said to them:

Rabbi Eliezer said: All these vessels made of leather are

impure,

and their purification,

that is, their immersion, is

with what they are.

They immerse them as they are, even though the wool is inside. And the wool does not interpose. I maintain my opinion, and I do not concede here to the Sages who disagreed with me.

They asked him further:

A shoe

that was made on the amus and is already ready, and can be removed from there, only

that

it is still

on the amus—what is its status,

does it contract impurity?

They also disagreed about this. The opinion of the Sages is that it contracts impurity, since it is already complete and requires no skilled labor, because even an ordinary person can remove it from the amus. But Rabbi Eliezer holds that it is pure, because as long as it has not been removed from the amus, its work is not complete, and it does not contract impurity.

Rabbi Eliezer said to them: It is

the shoe

—pure, and his soul departed in purity!

Rabbi Joshua stood on his feet and said: The vow is released, the vow is released!

The ostracism with which they had ostracized Rabbi Eliezer was released.

At the conclusion of Shabbat,

Rabbi Akiva

encountered him

on their way

from Caesarea to Lod

where they were carrying the dead man’s bier and accompanying him.

And

Rabbi Akiva was striking his flesh

because of the grief,

until his blood flowed to the ground.

He began a lament over him

in which they all stood around the dead man for the eulogy,

and said: [II Kings 2:12]

“

My father, my father, the chariot of Israel and its horsemen.”

I have many coins, but I have no money changer to cause them to be accepted.

That is, I have many questions, but I have no one to ask!

And from all this we have learned:

it is evident

it is proved from here that Rabbi Akiva

learned from Rabbi Eliezer

the laws of planting cucumbers, and not from Rabbi Joshua, as was brought in the Mishna.

And the Gemara answers: Indeed,

he learned it from Rabbi Eliezer, but he did not understand it

he learned it without understanding the matter.

Afterward

later

he learned it

and

learned its explanation from Rabbi Joshua

and he explained the understanding of the matter to him.

The Gemara asks:

How could he do this,

how did Rabbi Eliezer perform an act involving planting cucumbers,

when we learned

in our Mishna:

One who performs an act —

is liable?!

And the Gemara answers: Since he did this

in order to learn

to teach Rabbi Akiva these matters, and not as an act of sorcery —

it is different,

and it is permitted.

For the Master said: [Deuteronomy 18:9–10]

“

You shall not learn to perform.”

In order

to perform —

you may not learn.

But you may learn in order to understand and to instruct

the matter to students.

We will return to you, chapter “Four Deaths.”

Its nature

A wayward and rebellious son is a son who deviates from the proper path; and “rebellious” means that he refuses to heed his father’s words. He is a glutton and a drunkard, and after he is admonished and flogged, he does not retract and continues in his rebelliousness—he is liable to stoning.

As the Torah says (Deuteronomy 21): “If a man has a son who is wayward and rebellious, he does not hearken to the voice of his father or the voice of his mother, and they admonish him, but he does not hearken to them. Then his father and his mother shall seize him and bring him out to the elders of his city and to the gate of his place. And they shall say to the elders of his city: ‘This son of ours is wayward and rebellious; he does not hearken to our voice; he is a glutton and a drunkard.’ And all the men of his city shall pelt him with stones and he shall die; and you shall eradicate the evil from your midst, and all Israel shall hear and fear.”

Its rationale

The Ramban, of blessed memory, wrote in his commentary on the Torah: “Behold, there are two punishments applicable to him. The first is that he demeans his father and mother and rebels against them; and the second is that he is a glutton and a drunkard—he violates what we were commanded: ‘You shall be holy’ (Leviticus 19)! And it is further stated (Deuteronomy 13): ‘You shall serve Him, and cleave to Him...’ We were commanded to know God in all our ways, whereas a glutton and a drunkard does not know the way of God.”

In general, he has not yet committed a capital offense, but he is judged on account of his ultimate end, as our Sages mentioned. This is the meaning of “and all Israel shall hear and fear”: He was not executed because of the magnitude of his sin, but in order to discipline the community through him and prevent him from becoming a stumbling block to others.

Its warning

From where is there a warning concerning a wayward and rebellious son? The verse says (Leviticus 19): “You shall not eat over the blood” (Sanhedrin 63a).

Rashi explained: Do not eat an eating for which you will be put to death.

The Rambam wrote (Sefer HaMitzvot, negative commandment 195): “He warned us against being gluttonous and drunken in food and drink during the period of youth and under the conditions specified in the law of the wayward and rebellious son. This is what He said: ‘You shall not eat over the blood.’”

The explanation is that a wayward and rebellious son is among those liable to a court-imposed death penalty, and the Torah’s stated mode of execution for him is stoning. It has already been explained... that everyone who is liable to a court-imposed death penalty is subject to a negative commandment... Therefore, once we know that a gluttonous and drunken son—under the aforementioned conditions—is sentenced to stoning, we necessarily know that this act is what he was warned against, and the punishment has thereby been explained.

Therefore, it is necessary to investigate the warning, since the Torah does not punish unless it first warns.

And what is the warning? The wording of the Gemara of Sanhedrin is: “From where is there a warning concerning a wayward and rebellious son? The verse says: ‘You shall not eat over the blood’”—that is to say: Do not eat an eating that leads to the shedding of blood.

This is the eating of the wayward and rebellious son for which he is liable to death; and when he eats that evil meal in those improper ways, he has already violated a negative commandment.

Its laws

The laws of the wayward and rebellious son—when and how he becomes liable to stoning, as explained in this chapter—are numerous and apply only under specific, highly restrictive conditions. So much so that there are tanna’im who maintain: “There never was and never will be a wayward and rebellious son; why, then, was this written? Expound it and receive reward!”

These restrictive laws, some of which appear unreasonable, are derived from a scriptural decree, as they said in the Jerusalem Gemara (halakha 1):

Rabbi Yasa said: All these matters do not accord with reason but are the reverse [all the matters stated concerning the wayward and rebellious son are contrary to logical reasoning; logically, we would have said the opposite of these matters—Penei Moshe].

It was taught: You can know that this is so. Who would logically be liable—the son or the daughter? You must say: the daughter [it is logically more appropriate to hold the daughter liable, since this behavior is not characteristic of her, than the son, for whom it is characteristic—Penei Moshe]. Yet the Torah exempted the daughter and held the son liable!

Who would logically be liable—the minor or the adult? You must say: the adult [that is, the older one; logically, he should be held more liable than one younger than he—Penei Moshe]. Yet the Torah exempted the adult and held the minor liable!

Who would logically be liable—the one who steals from others or the one who steals from his father? You must say: the one who steals from others [for this is the more severe form of bad upbringing—Penei Moshe]. Yet the Torah exempted the one who steals from others and held liable the one who steals from his father and mother, to teach you that all these matters are solely a royal decree [and you are not permitted to question it or seek the rationale for the matter—Penei Moshe].

Our Mishna explains who becomes a wayward and rebellious son, and at what time [age].