Sanhedrin 76b (עו:) — the Talmud in English

Abaye said:

Indeed,

this is what he is saying:

Rav Kahana said in the name of Rabbi Akiva:

Who is a poor, wicked, cunning person? —

This is one who postpones marrying off his adult daughter.

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

The Gemara now brings another statement 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 that Rav said: One who marries off his daughter to an old man, one who marries a woman to his minor son, and one who returns a lost object to a gentile —

the verse says concerning him [Deuteronomy 29]

Deuteronomy 29]

“In order to add the watered to the thirsty; the Lord will not be willing to forgive him.”

The word “to add” means joining, and the verse speaks of joining one who is satiated with something to one who thirsts for it, like an old man who is satiated with marital relations and a young woman who thirsts for them, and like one who joins a mature woman who thirsts for marital relations with a minor who is unfit for marital relations, so that it is as though he is satiated from 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 a Jew, he demonstrates that the mitzva of returning a lost object is not important to him because it is a mitzva of his Creator; rather, he performs it according to his own understanding.

Accordingly, “the watered” refers to idol worshippers, who consider themselves satiated and do not thirst for their Creator, whereas “the thirsty” refers to the Congregation of Israel, which thirsts and yearns to fear its Creator and to fulfill His mitzvot.

The Gemara raises an objection to Rav Yehuda, who said that it is improper to marry a woman to his minor son, from a beraita:

which is taught:

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

bringing her beautiful jewelry,

one who guides his sons and daughters on an upright path,

and one who marries them off close to the time of their maturity,

while they are still minors —

the verse says concerning him [Job 5]

Job 5]

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

The Gemara answers:

Close to the time of their maturity is different.

During this short period there is no concern that his wife will commit adultery.

The Sages taught: One who loves his neighbors, draws his relatives close, marries his sister’s daughter, and lends a sela to a poor person in his hour of distress —

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

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 do not hide yourself from your own flesh” refers to one who marries his sister’s daughter and draws his relatives close. Loving one’s neighbors is also included in this, as the verse says in Proverbs [20]: “Better is a close neighbor than a distant brother.” “

“Is it not to share your bread with the hungry” also includes one who lends a sela to a poor person in his hour of distress.

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

both he and they” —

“him and them” —

he, and one of them; this is the statement of Rabbi Yishmael.

Because Rabbi Yishmael maintains that the word “they” means “one of them,” and does not mean “both of them,” according to him the verse says as follows: And a man who takes a woman [his wife, and afterward] takes her mother shall be burned by fire, he and his mother-in-law, if his wife is [still alive].

Rabbi Akiva says: “They” means “both of them,” the two of them, and this is what the verse says: They shall be burned by fire

Them” means “both of them,” and this is what the verse says: They shall be burned with fire

he and both of them.

The Gemara will immediately explain his statement, for certainly his wife is not burned together with her mother-in-law, as his wife did not sin.

The Gemara explains:

What is the practical difference between them?

With regard to what halakhic difference did Rabbi Akiva and Rabbi Yishmael disagree?

Abaye said:

They did not disagree with regard to the halakha, but only

with regard to the meaning of the exposition,

that is, how the prohibition concerning his mother-in-law’s mother is to be expounded;

that is the difference between them.

Rabbi Yishmael maintains: “He and they” —

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

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

his mother-in-law’s mother

is derived

by means of the gzera shava “lewdness, lewdness,”

as it is brought,

as we learned above: From where is it derived that the upper category is to be made like the lower category?

Rabbi Akiva maintains: “He and they” —

he and both of them,

that is, if he had intercourse with two women who are prohibited because of the relationship of a woman and her mother—for example, after marrying his wife, he had intercourse with his mother-in-law and with his mother-in-law’s mother.

And

according to him,

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 means of a gzera shava.

Whereas

Rava said:

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

his mother-in-law after his wife’s death

is the difference between them,

that is the difference between them.

Rabbi Yishmael maintains: With regard to his mother-in-law after his wife’s death —

the punishment is burning,

as during his wife’s lifetime. And this is what the verse says: He shall be burned, and “they” means one of them. That is, even if only one of them remains, because his wife died and his mother-in-law remains, the prohibition and punishment for his mother-in-law still continue as during his wife’s lifetime.

And Rabbi Akiva maintains:

After his wife’s death, she is not prohibited by the severe prohibition applicable to a mother-in-law, and there is no liability for death on her account; rather, it is merely

a prohibition alone,

that of “Cursed is one who lies with his mother-in-law.” For according to him, the meaning of the verse “they” is both of them, and the verse says: 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 remains, when only his mother-in-law remains after his wife’s death.

Mishna:

And these are executed

by the death of the sword —

1.

A murderer.

2.

And the inhabitants of an apostate city,

where the majority of the city’s inhabitants were led astray to engage in idol worship.

The Mishna now explains the laws of a murderer:

1.

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

and killed him.

2.

The Mishna now explains the law called “confinement”:

If the head of his fellow was in water, or his fellow was in a fire,

and he held him down,

he forcibly held his head in such a way that the head would remain

in the water,

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

or

he forcibly held his fellow, who was in the fire, so that he could not escape from the fire but would remain

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

he is liable.

3. But if he

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

he is exempt,

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

4.

One who incited a dog against him, or incited a snake against him —

is exempt,

because inciting is not considered killing with one’s hands, but merely indirect causation.

5.

One who caused a snake to bite 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:

Shmuel said: Why was the term “hand” not stated with regard to iron

as it was stated with regard to a stone? Because

iron kills in any amount.

It was also taught in a beraita in this manner. Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi says: It is revealed and known before the One who spoke and brought the world into being that iron kills in any amount; therefore, the Torah did not specify a measure for it.

The Gemara adds:

And this applies only when it pierces through and through.

That is, when the sharp point of the iron is thrust into the body of the murdered person. But if he struck the victim with the length of the iron implement, and not with its point, it does not kill in any amount. Therefore, in that case, it is necessary to assess whether such a blow has the force to kill.

We learned in the Mishna:

And he held him down in the water

or in 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.

The Gemara explains:

The first clause,

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

teaches us a novelty, and

also

the latter clause,

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

teaches us a novelty.

The first clause teaches us a novelty: Even though he did not push him,

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

since he cannot rise from there, and he dies —

he is liable.

The latter clause teaches us a novelty: Even though he pushed him, since he could rise from there, and he died —

he is exempt.

The Gemara now discusses the foundation of the law of “confinement”: What is its source, and in what circumstances does it apply?

“He held him down”—from where do we derive it

that he is liable for his act as a murderer who killed with his hands?

Shmuel said: The verse states [Numbers 35]

Numbers 35]

“Or in enmity,” to include one who confines,

one who confines his fellow in his place, preventing him from rising out of the water or fire, so that he dies as a result of remaining in that place.

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

holding his fellow’s animal in a position exposed to the sun and not allowing it to move from the sun into the shade,

and it died

there from the heat of the sun.

Ravina held him liable

to pay for its damages,

while Rav Aḥa bar Rav exempted him.

The Gemara explains their dispute:

Ravina held him liable

by means of a

kal va-chomer: If, with regard to a murderer, where the unwitting act was not treated like the intentional act,

as one who unwittingly kills his fellow is exempt from execution and is liable only to exile,

and

with regard to whom

duress was not treated like willful action,

nevertheless

one who confines is liable on his account

to the death penalty, like a murderer, even though he merely caused his death and did not kill him with his hands.