Sanhedrin 81a — the Talmud in English

Do not say to your father in this manner

do not tell your father in the wording that you said, and thereby inform him that he is mistaken

for

behold

it was taught: If it was the case that his father was transgressing the words of Torah, he should not

embarrass him and

say to him "

Father, you have transgressed the words of Torah,"

but he should say to him

in the language of astonishment

Father,

is it so that

this is what is written in the Torah"?

And you, too, should not have said to him explicitly, "Do not change this or that."

And we raise an objection against it:

In the end—

since he says to him in the language of astonishment, "Father, is it so that this is what is written in the Torah"—

it is the same thing;

even in this wording he is embarrassing him, for he says to him, "Is what you are doing proper"!?

Rather

he should say to him

this: Father, a verse is written in the Torah thus

and thus, and the father himself will take to heart why his son is mentioning this verse to him.

Mishna:

One who became liable to two court-imposed deaths

behold, he is

judged by the more severe

of them.

If he committed a transgression for which he became liable

to

two deaths,

such as his mother-in-law who was a married woman, behold, he is

judged by the more severe,

that is, by burning, and not by strangulation like an ordinary married woman.

Rabbi Yosei says:

If he committed a transgression for which he became liable to two deaths, behold, he is

judged according to the first bond that came upon him,

by that prohibition with which he was first required to be careful and from which to withdraw he is judged, but not by the prohibition that came upon him last, even though it is more severe, [and this will be explained further in the Gemara], because Rabbi Yosei holds: “One prohibition does not take effect upon another prohibition,” even a severe prohibition upon a lenient prohibition, and it follows that he is not liable to two deaths.

Gemara:

We learned in the Mishna: One who became liable to two court-imposed deaths is judged by the more severe:

And we raise an objection against it: It is

obvious

that he should be judged by the more severe,

but has he gained by gaining

[is he to profit from the fact that he became liable to an additional death]? Certainly, since if he had transgressed only the more severe offense he would have been judged by it, he should not be exempt from it because he became liable to an additional death!?

He said

and answered

Rava:

Here, with what are we dealing? With a case where he committed a lenient transgression, and his verdict was concluded for a lenient transgression, and

after his verdict for death had been concluded

he returned and committed a severe transgression,

and the Mishna teaches that they make him liable for the severe transgression and he is executed for it; and this is a novel ruling, because:

It might enter your mind to say: Since his verdict was concluded for a lenient transgression, this man is a dead man,

and there is no liability to impose death upon him—

it teaches us

that he is judged for it and dies by it.

He asked him

his father

his brother

of Rav Yosef bar Hama, from Rabbah bar Natan:

From where is this matter that the Sages stated

[from where is the source for what the Sages said]:

One who became liable to two court-imposed deaths

and his verdict was first concluded for the lenient death, and afterward he transgressed the severe offense, for which he

is judged by the more severe?

Rabbah bar Natan said to him:

For it is written

[Ezekiel 18]: “

And if a man is righteous and does justice and righteousness, he has not eaten upon the mountains, and has not lifted his eyes to the idols of the House of Israel, and has not defiled his fellow’s wife, and has not approached a menstruating woman. And he has wronged no man; he has restored his debtor’s pledge; he has not robbed; he has given his bread to the hungry, and covered the naked with a garment. He has not given with interest, nor taken increase; he has withdrawn his hand from injustice; he has performed true justice between one man and another. He has walked in My statutes, and observed My ordinances, to perform truth; he is righteous; he shall surely live, says the Lord God”—

And he fathered

[the righteous man

a violent son who sheds blood

and committed one of these things [and the son committed one of the following transgressions against his brother]. But he [this son] did not do all these things [all the good deeds performed by his father and mentioned earlier in the passage], for he also

ate upon the mountains, and defiled his fellow’s wife.

He wronged the poor and needy, robbed robberies, and did not restore a pledge,

and lifted his eyes to the idols;

he committed an abomination. He gave with interest and took increase, and shall not live; he performed all these abominations; he shall surely be put to death; his blood shall be upon him.” “

And he fathered a violent son who sheds blood”:

this means a murderer whose death is

by the sword. “

He defiled his fellow’s wife”:

this is a married woman,

for one who comes upon her is

by strangulation. “

And he lifted his eyes to the idols”:

this is idolatry,

which is

by stoning—

And it is written

at the end of the matter: “

He shall surely be put to death; his blood shall be upon him,”

that is,

by stoning,

for this is how this expression is interpreted throughout the Torah.

It is necessarily the case that his verdict had already first been concluded for the lenient one among them, and nevertheless he is liable to stoning; for if not, what would Ezekiel have taught us by saying that he is liable to stoning?

Rav Naḥman bar Yitzḥak challenged this:

Say that all of them are punishable by stoning

[perhaps all the transgressions mentioned are punishable by stoning]!? How? “

And he fathered a violent son who sheds blood”:

this is a wayward and rebellious son

for

his liability is

by stoning. “

He defiled his fellow’s wife”:

this is a betrothed young woman, for

one who comes upon her is

by stoning,

and she is called “his fellow’s wife” on account of her eventual status. “

And he lifted his eyes to the idols”:

this is idolatry, which is punishable by stoning.

And we answer:

If so, what does Ezekiel teach us

when all of them are punishable by stoning, for it is certainly the case that he is liable to stoning?

And we still raise an objection:

Perhaps Ezekiel was reviewing Torah

!? Perhaps he intended only to repeat the commandments of the Torah, to warn Israel concerning them!?

And we answer:

If so, it should have been necessary for him

for Ezekiel

to review it in the manner in which Moses our teacher reviewed it

[he should have repeated it in the wording with which Moses repeated the Torah], meaning: he should have said explicitly “a wayward and rebellious son,” and explicitly “a betrothed young woman,” and should not have used wording that could lead to error.

Rav Aḥa bar Ḥanina expounded: What is the meaning of that which is written

in that passage in Ezekiel concerning the righteous man:

“He has not eaten upon the mountains”:

that is,

he did not eat for the sake of his ancestors,

so that he would not need the merit of his ancestors, since he is pious.

“And he has not lifted his eyes to the idols of the House of Israel”:

that he did not walk with an erect posture.

“And he has not defiled his fellow’s wife”:

that he did not descend to his fellow’s trade.

“And he has not approached a menstruating woman”:

that he did not derive benefit from the charity fund,

for this is disgraceful for a proper person.

And it is written

concerning one who refrains from all these things: “

He is righteous; he shall live.”

When Rabban Gamliel reached this verse, he would weep and say: The one who does all of them is the one who lives; if he does only one of them, he does not

[one who refrains from all these things is alive, but one who refrains from only one of these things is not alive].

Rabbi Akiva said to him:

Rabbi Akiva said to him:

But from now on,

with regard to that which is written at the end of the portion of forbidden sexual relations, “

Do not defile yourselves through all these things, for through all these things the nations became defiled...,”

likewise

you will say:

through all of them, but not through one of them,

that the verse warned only not to become defiled through all the forbidden sexual relations together, but did not warn not to become defiled through one of them!?

Rather,

certainly, “

through one of all these things,”

here

also “

through one of all these things.”

We learned in the Mishna:

We learned in the Mishna:

If he committed a transgression

for which he became liable to two deaths, he is judged by the more severe; Rabbi Yosei says: He is judged according to the first bond that came upon him:

It was taught: How did Rabbi Yosei say: He is judged according to the first bond that came upon him:

If the woman whom he came upon was his

mother-in-law,

and she

became a married woman,

he is judged for his mother-in-law.

But if she was

a married woman

[which is punishable by strangulation],

and

afterward

became his mother-in-law

when he married her daughter, and he came upon her afterward, behold, he is

judged for a married woman,

even though this death is more lenient than burning, because the prohibition of a mother-in-law does not take effect upon him, since she was already forbidden to him as a married woman.

He said

and challenged

Rav Adda bar Ahava to Rava:

How did we learn: “

His mother-in-law became a married woman; he is judged for his mother-in-law”!?

He should also be judged for the prohibition of a married woman, for Rabbi Abbahu said: Rabbi Yosei concedes with regard to a prohibition

that

adds

to the previous prohibition; that is, if through the second prohibition the woman became forbidden even to someone to whom she had not been forbidden by virtue of the first prohibition—and this is such a case, since upon her marriage she became forbidden to everyone to whom she had not been forbidden—then this prohibition, too, takes effect upon her; and if so, he should be liable because of a married woman even according to Rabbi Yosei!?