Sanhedrin 76b — the Talmud in English

Abaye said:

Indeed,

this is what he is saying:

Rav Kahana in the name of Rabbi Akiva:

Who is a poor, wicked, cunning person? —

This is one who delays marrying off his adolescent daughter.

And that is, because of his poverty he acts wickedly and does not marry off his daughter.

The Gemara now brings another saying that Rav Kahana said in the name of Rabbi Akiva:

And Rav Kahana said in the name of Rabbi Akiva: Be careful of one who advises you according to his own way,

for in advising you he intends his own benefit.

Rav Yehuda said in the name of Rav: One who marries off his daughter to an old man, and one who marries a woman to his minor son, and one who returns a lost object to a gentile —

about him the Scripture says [Deuteronomy 29]

Deuteronomy 29]

“In order to add the saturated to the thirsty; the Lord will not desire to forgive him.”

The word “add” means joining, and the Scripture speaks of joining one who is satiated with a thing to one who is thirsty for the thing, like an old man who is satiated from marital relations and a young woman who thirsts for him, and like one who joins a mature woman who thirsts for marital relations with a minor who is unfit for marital relations, and he is as though he were satiated by her.

And likewise one who returns a lost object to a gentile: although there is no mitzva to return his lost object to him, by joining and equating a gentile with an Israelite, he demonstrates that the mitzva of returning a lost object is not important to him because of the mitzva of his Creator, but rather that he does it according to his own understanding.

And accordingly, it should be explained that “the saturated” are idolaters, who feel themselves satiated and are not thirsty for their Creator, whereas “the thirsty” is the Congregation of Israel, which thirsts and longs for fear of its Creator and to fulfill His mitzvot.

It was objected to Rav Yehuda in the name of Rav, who says that it is not proper to marry a woman to his minor son, from a beraita:

which was taught:

One who loves his wife as his own body, and honors her more than his own body,

who brings her fine ornaments,

and guides his sons and daughters on an upright path,

and marries them off close to their maturity,

while they are still minors —

about him the Scripture says [Job 5]

Job 5]

“And you will know that peace is in your tent, and you will inspect your dwelling, and you will not sin!”

And the Gemara answers:

Close to their maturity is different.

For during this short time there is no concern that his wife will commit adultery.

The Sages taught: One who loves his neighbors, brings his relatives near, marries his sister’s daughter, and lends a sela to a poor person at the time of his distress —

about him the Scripture says [Isaiah 58]: “Is it not to break your bread for the hungry, and impoverished wanderers you shall bring home? When you see a naked person, you shall cover him, and from your flesh you shall not hide yourself.

Isaiah 58]: “Is it not to share your bread with the hungry, and to bring the poor who are cast out into your house? When you see the naked, clothe him, and do not conceal yourself from your own flesh.”

Then you shall call, and the Lord will answer.” “

And from your flesh you shall not hide yourself” — this is one who marries his sister’s daughter and brings his relatives near. And the love of his neighbors is also included in this, as the Scripture says in Proverbs [20]: “Better is a nearby neighbor than a distant brother.” “

Is it not to break your bread for the hungry” — this also includes one who lends a sela to a poor person at the time of his distress.

The Sages taught: [Leviticus 20] “They shall be burned with fire

Leviticus 20] “They shall be burned with fire,”

him and them” —

him, and one of them; these are the words of Rabbi Ishmael.

Because Rabbi Ishmael holds that the word “them” means “one of them,” and does not mean “both of them,” according to him the Scripture says as follows: And a man who takes a woman [his wife, and afterward] takes her mother, they shall burn him and his mother-in-law with fire, if his wife [is alive].

Rabbi Akiva says: “

‘Them’ means ‘both of them,’ the two of them,” and so the Scripture says: They shall burn with fire

him and both of them.

And the Gemara will immediately explain his words, for certainly they do not burn his wife together with her mother-in-law, because his wife did not sin.

And the Gemara explains:

What is the difference between them?

In what legal practical difference did Rabbi Akiva and Rabbi Ishmael disagree?

Abaye said:

They did not disagree regarding the halakha, but only

the meaning of the expositions,

how the prohibition of his mother-in-law’s mother should be expounded,

is the difference between them.

Rabbi Ishmael holds: “Him and them” —

him and one of them, since in the Greek language they call one “hina.” And

the intention of the Scripture is only his mother-in-law, whereas the law of burning for

his mother-in-law’s mother —

is derived

from the gezerah shavah “lewdness, lewdness”

it comes,

as we learned above: From where [do we derive] to make above like below?

Rabbi Akiva holds: “Him and them” —

him and both of them,

that is, if he had intercourse with two women forbidden because of “a woman and her mother,” for example, after he married his wife he had intercourse with his mother-in-law and with his mother-in-law’s mother.

And

according to his words,

his mother-in-law’s mother is written here.

That is, his mother-in-law’s mother is explicitly stated here, in the Torah, and there is no need to derive it by a gezerah shavah.

Whereas

Rava said,

according to everyone, his mother-in-law’s mother was not stated explicitly in the Torah, and their disagreement concerns the practical halakha, and not the meaning of the exposition; rather, the prohibition and punishment of

his mother-in-law after death

of his wife

is the difference between them.

Rabbi Ishmael holds: His mother-in-law after death —

by burning,

as during his wife’s lifetime. And so the Scripture said: He shall burn him, and “them,” one of them. That is, even if only one of them remains, since his wife died and his mother-in-law remained, the prohibition and punishment of his mother-in-law still continue as during his wife’s lifetime.

And Rabbi Akiva holds:

After his wife’s death, she is not forbidden with the severe prohibition applicable to a mother-in-law, and there is no liability for death on her account, but only a transgression

of a prohibition alone,

that of “Cursed is the one who lies with his mother-in-law.” This is because according to him the meaning of the Scripture’s “them” is both of them, and the Scripture said: As long as both of them exist, there is the severe prohibition of intercourse with one’s mother-in-law, whose punishment is stoning. But not after only one of them remains, when only his mother-in-law remains after his wife’s death.

Mishna:

And these are those executed

by the death of the sword —

a.

The murderer.

b.

And the inhabitants of an idolatrous city,

whose majority of inhabitants were led astray to worship idolatry.

And now the Mishna explains the laws of a murderer:

a.

A murderer who struck his fellow with a stone or with iron,

and killed him.

b.

And now the Mishna explains the law called “one who confines”:

If his fellow’s head was inside water, or his fellow was inside fire,

and held him down,

he overpowered his head forcefully in such a way that his head would remain

inside the water,

so that he could not raise his head out of the water,

or

he overpowered his fellow who was inside the fire so that he could not leave the fire, but would remain

inside the fire, and he could not rise from there, and he died —

he is liable.

c. But if he

pushed him into the water, or into the fire, and he could rise from there, and he died —

he is exempt,

because since he could rise from there, the act of pushing him into the water or fire is not considered an act of killing.

d.

If he incited the dog against him, or incited the snake against him —

he is exempt,

since incitement is not considered killing directly, but only indirect causation.

e.

If he brought the snake upon him,

bringing the snake to his fellow in such a way that the snake’s teeth reached his fellow’s hand, and then the snake bit him,

Rabbi Yehuda holds him liable, and the Sages exempt him,

as will be explained in the Gemara.

Gemara:

Samuel said: Why was “hand” not stated with regard to iron

as “hand” was stated with regard to a stone? Because

iron kills with any amount.

It was also taught so: Rabbi says: It is revealed and known before the One who spoke and the world came into being that iron kills with any amount; therefore the Torah did not give a measure for it.

And the Gemara adds:

And this applies when it pierces through and through.

That he thrusts the point of the iron alone into the body of the murdered person. But if he struck the murdered person with the length of the iron utensil, and not with its point, it does not kill with any amount; therefore, in that case, one must estimate whether such a blow has the force to kill.

We learned in the Mishna:

And held him down inside the water

or inside the fire, and he could not rise from there, and he died, he is liable. If he pushed him into the water or into the fire, and he could rise from there, and he died, he is exempt.

And the Gemara explains:

The first clause,

which says that if he held him down forcefully and he could not rise from there, he is liable,

comes to teach us a novelty, and

also

the latter clause,

which says that if he pushed him with his hands and he could rise from there, he is exempt,

comes to teach us a novelty.

The first clause comes to teach us a novelty: Even though it was not he who pushed him,

but rather he fell into the water on his own, and he held his head down so that he could not leave the water,

since he cannot rise from there, and he died —

he is liable.

The latter clause comes to teach us a novelty: Even though he pushed him, since he can rise from there, and he died —

he is exempt.

And now the Gemara discusses the foundation of the law of “one who confines”: What is its source, and in what circumstances does it apply?

“Held him down”—from where [is this derived]

that he is liable for his act according to the law of a murderer who kills directly?

Samuel said: For the verse says [Numbers 35]

Numbers 35]

“Or out of enmity,” to include one who confines,

who confines his fellow in his place, so that he does not rise from the water or the fire, and because of his remaining in this place he dies.

There was a certain man who confined his fellow’s animal in the sun,

who confined his fellow’s animal while it was standing in the sun, so that he did not allow it to pass from the sun to the shade,

and it died

there from the heat of the sun.

Ravina holds him liable

to pay for its damages,

Rav Aḥa bar Rav exempted him.

And the Gemara explains their disagreement:

Ravina holds him liable

by force of

a kal va-chomer: Just as a murderer, with regard to whom unintentional action was not made like intentional action,

for one who kills his fellow unintentionally is exempt from death and liable only for exile,

and

with regard to whom he did not make

compulsion like intention,

nevertheless

he made one who confines liable

for the punishment of death according to the law of a murderer, even though he only caused his death and did not murder him directly.