Sanhedrin 81b (פא:) — the Talmud in English

He said to

Rava to Rav Adda:

Adda, my son [Adda, my son]! Is it that

you wish

to kill him with two executions [Do you wish to put him to death with two executions]!? He has already become liable for burning; and although the prohibition of a married woman also applies to him, he is judged by the more severe punishment, and one does not impose an additional execution upon him.

[do you wish to execute him twice]!? He has already become liable for burning, and although the prohibition against a married woman also applies to him, he is judged by the more severe penalty, and an additional execution may not be imposed upon him.

Mishna:

One who was flogged and repeated his offense,

who was flogged twice for two transgressions and then transgressed a third time:

The court brings him into a cell [a place constructed according to the height of the person being judged],

[a place constructed according to the height of the person being judged],

and feeds him

there

barley,

which expands in his intestines,

until his belly bursts.

Gemara:

And we raise an objection: Is it that

merely because he was flogged and repeated his offense, the court brings him into a cell!?

Rabbi Yirmeya said that Rabbi Shimon ben Lakish said:

Here we are dealing with lashes for offenses punishable by karet,

when he was flogged and repeated offenses for which he is liable for karet; the Mishna is discussing such a case, and that is why they bring him into a cell,

as he is a man liable to die [for Heaven will cut him off],

[for Heaven will excise him],

and it is only that his death has not yet drawn near [but his death has not yet approached],

[rather, his death has not yet come close],

and since he is surrendering his life [since he abandons himself to transgressions],

[since he abandons himself to transgressions],

we bring his death closer upon him [we bring his death closer upon him].

[we hasten his death].

Rabbi Yaakov said to Rabbi Yirmeya bar

Taḥlifa:

Come, I will explain it to you [Come and I will explain the law of the Mishna to you]:

[come and I will explain the law of the Mishna to you]:

It was taught only

with regard to lashes for one karet,

meaning: specifically when he repeated the very same transgression,

but i

f the lashes that he received

were for two or three

offenses punishable by karet,

that is, for several transgressions, he is not brought into a cell, because

he is merely sampling prohibitions and is not abandoning himself to such an extent [he wishes to experience the taste of those transgressions, but this does not mean that he abandons himself to transgressions to such a degree].

[he wishes to taste the flavor of those offenses, but he is not abandoning himself to transgressions to such a great degree].

We learned in the Mishna:

One who was flogged and repeated his offense

the court brings him into a cell:

This implies: He

repeated

the offense warranting lashes;

even though he did not commit it a third time,

we consider him to have the status of a wicked person; and if so:

Shall we say that our Mishna [shall we say that our Mishna]

[does our Mishna say]

is not in accordance with Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel? For if it were in accordance with Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel, he said: Until three times, it does not constitute an established pattern [until three times, this is not an established pattern], and according to him we should bring him into a cell only when he has established a pattern of being flogged three times?

[until three times, this is not considered an established pattern], and according to him we should place him in a cell only when he has established a pattern of receiving lashes three times?

Ravina said:

You may even say that our Mishna is according to

that our Mishna is in accordance with

Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel, and nevertheless, since he was flogged twice, and they forewarned him before the third time and he transgressed, they bring him into a cell, because

the reason is that

he holds that the tanna of our Mishna:

that the tanna of our Mishna:

the transgressions

that he committed after a warning of lashes are what

establish him as wicked, and not the lashes that he received; and he has transgressed three times after a warning of lashes.

him as wicked, and not the lashes that he received; and he has transgressed three times after being forewarned about lashes.

Meytivi

to Ravina from that which was taught:

If one committed a transgression punishable by lashes:

The first and second time, they flog him, and

when he transgressed a

third time, they bring him into a cell; Abba Shaul says: Even the third time, they flog him,

and only

the fourth time do they bring him into a cell.

Rashi wrote: Since they flogged him for the third offense, although he has now acquired the status of a wicked person, we do not bring him into a cell [immediately], because we do not judge him with two punishments. ; ; and:

Is that not so, that everyone—

both the first tanna and Abba Shaul—holds that

the sets of lashes

are what

establish

him with regard to bringing him into a cell,

and they disagree about the dispute of Rabbi

who holds that an established pattern is formed after two occurrences—

and Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel?

That is to say: Since we find that Abba Shaul indeed holds that only after three sets of lashes do they bring him into a cell, and his reasoning is that “the sets of lashes establish” and that he follows Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel, who holds that an established pattern is formed only after three occurrences, it follows logically that the first tanna of the beraita and the tanna of our Mishna, who hold that they bring him into a cell after two occurrences, do not hold that “the transgressions establish.” Rather, they too agree that “the sets of lashes establish” [as Abba Shaul holds], but they follow Rabbi, who holds that an established pattern is formed after two occurrences.

And we answer:

No, everyone—

Abba Shaul, the first tanna, and the tanna of our Mishna—

accepts the position of Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel,

that an established pattern is formed after three occurrences,

and here they disagree about this:

One—

the first tanna and the tanna of our Mishna—

holds: The transgressions establish.

See the Yad Ramah, which elaborates on the wording of our Mishna, “One who was flogged and repeated his offense,” rather than “One who transgressed and repeated his offense.”

And the other—

Abba Shaul—

holds: The sets of lashes establish.

And we raise an objection to the two explanations stated above concerning the dispute between Abba Shaul and the Sages, from that which was taught:

And it was taught:

A warning is effective to render a person liable only when he explicitly accepts upon himself lashes or death.

If

they forewarned him and he remained silent,

thereby appearing to accept the warning but without explicitly accepting it,

; and

then

they forewarned him and he nodded his head,

thereby hinting that he accepted it:

The first and second time they forewarn him

but they do not flog him, and the

third time they bring him into a cell—

That is to say: These two warnings, although they are not effective to render him liable for lashes, are nevertheless effective for this purpose: if he does so a third time, they bring him into a cell, because he has been established as a wicked person who transgressed after a warning of lashes.

Abba Shaul says: Even the third time they forewarn him

but they do nothing to him, and only when he does so

the fourth time do they bring him into a cell.

And

the difficulty is:

There are no lashes there,

since it was stated that the sets of lashes establish him and he cannot be held liable until the fourth time. It is therefore necessarily the case that even according to Abba Shaul the transgressions establish him; and if so,

about what do they disagree!?

Additional explanation: The Gemara rejects by means of this beraita the two possibilities mentioned above in explaining their dispute: the first, that everyone agrees that the sets of lashes establish him, and that they disagree in the dispute between Rabbi and Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel; the second, that they disagree whether the sets of lashes establish him or the transgressions establish him. According to both explanations above, Abba Shaul at any rate holds that “the sets of lashes establish.” Yet from this beraita it is clear that even according to Abba Shaul, “the transgressions establish,” and nevertheless he is not brought into a cell until the fourth time. If so, what is the basis of their dispute, such that these Sages hold that he enters the cell on the third time, whereas Abba Shaul holds that he enters only on the fourth time? One cannot say that everyone holds that the transgressions establish, and that Abba Shaul follows Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel while the Sages follow Rabbi, because if so, according to Abba Shaul he should enter on the third time, since he committed three transgressions, whereas according to the Sages he should enter on the second time, since he committed two transgressions ; ; and:

Ravina said

to explain the dispute between the first tanna and the tanna of our Mishna and Abba Shaul:

Everyone agrees that “the transgressions establish,” and everyone agrees that an established pattern is formed after three occurrences. When he committed three transgressions, we should render him liable to be placed in a cell. Rather, they disagree about whether a warning is required for the cell—

That is to say: Indeed, when he transgressed three times after the warning given to him for lashes, he becomes wicked and liable to be placed in a cell. But Abba Shaul holds that they bring him into a cell only when they warned him specifically for that purpose; therefore, he is not liable on account of the third occurrence, but only on account of the fourth, when they warn him that he will be placed in a cell.

That is, indeed, when he transgressed three times after being forewarned that he would receive lashes, he became wicked in a manner that makes him liable to be placed in a cell. But Abba Shaul holds that they place him in a cell only when they forewarned him specifically about that consequence. Therefore, he is not liable for the third transgression, but only for the fourth, when they forewarn him that he will be placed in a cell.

And what is this “

; and:

cell,”

what is this cell into which we bring him?

Rav Yehuda said:

Its height is

the full

height of

his stature,

that of the person who has been rendered liable.

And where is it hinted [where is there a hint in the verse] that the wicked person should be put to death in a cell?

[where is there an indication in the verse] that the wicked person is to be put to death in a cell?

Reish Lakish said:

As it is written: “

The death of the wicked is

evil”—that is to say: For one who has been established as wicked, his evil is his death; and we learn from this that one who has been established as wicked is liable to die.

that is, the death of one who has established himself as wicked is his evil; from this we learn that one who has established himself as wicked is fit for execution.

In connection with Reish Lakish’s statement, the Gemara cites another statement of his:

And

further

Reish Lakish said:

What is the meaning of that which is written: “

For even” [before the time and calamity arrive]

[before the time and calamity arrive]

a person does not know his time, [for they will come suddenly]

[for they will come suddenly,]

like fish caught in an evil trap”—

What is an “

evil trap”?

Reish Lakish said: A fishhook [it is nothing more than something like a needle, yet a large fish is caught on it]—

[it is merely like a needle, and a large fish is caught on it]—

That is to say: Like large fish that are suddenly caught on a small and weak fishhook, unlike one caught in nets through ambush and stratagems.

Mishna:

One who kills a person without witnesses,

they bring him into a cell and feed him

there

constricted bread and

compressed water,

that is to say, a small amount of bread and drink.

Gemara:

And we raise an objection to this: Since there are no witnesses to his killing, how

do we know [how do we know that he killed]!?

[from where do we know that he killed]!?

He said,

explained

Rav:

What are we dealing with here?

With disjoined testimony,

that is, for example, two people saw him, one from one window and the other from another window, and their testimony cannot be joined to render him liable for a court-imposed execution, although the matter is true; therefore, they bring him into a cell.

And Shmuel said: It is a case where he killed

without a warning.

without forewarning.

a. Rashi wrote: “With disjoined testimony”: Two people testify against him, and their testimony is true, but his death is not entrusted to the court—for example, two people saw him, one from one window and one from another, as it says in tractate Makkot [6b], that he is not executed on the basis of such testimony. Nevertheless, here we learned that he is brought into a cell ; ; and:

And Rav Ḥisda said in the name of Avimi: It is a case where the witnesses contradicted one another in the examinations but did not contradict one another in the inquiries,

there was a contradiction between the witnesses, but this contradiction did not concern one of the seven inquiries with which witnesses are interrogated. In all those matters they agreed with one another, but in the examinations, in which they examined him there, there was a contradiction between them,

and as we learned [above, 40a]:

[above, on page 40a]:

There was an incident in which ben Zakkai examined them concerning the stems of figs

[they testified that he killed him beneath a fig tree, and ben Zakkai examined them: Were the stems of this fig tree thick or thin?]. This is an extra examination, and although if they contradicted one another in it he is not executed with the death prescribed for him, they nevertheless bring him into a cell.

We learned in the Mishna:

And they feed him constricted bread and compressed water:

And we ask:

What is different

with regard to a cell

here, where it teaches: They give him constricted bread and compressed water, and what is different

with regard to a cell

there,

in the preceding Mishna,

where it teaches: They feed him barley until his belly bursts!?

He said,

Rav

Sheshet answered:

This and that—

both here and there—

they give him constricted bread and compressed water until his intestines become small [his intestines],

[his intestines],

and afterward [and afterward]

[and afterward]

they feed him barley,

which expands in his intestines,

until his belly bursts

because his intestines have become small.

Mishna:

One who steals the kesava,

one who steals a Temple service vessel from the Temple, as will be explained in the Gemara.

And

likewise

one who curses by means of a sorcerer,

that is to say, one who blesses the Name using the name of an idolatry, as will be explained further in the Gemara. —

And

likewise

one who engages in intercourse with an Aramean woman [a gentile woman]—

[a gentile woman] —

One who performs one of these actions:

zealots [righteous people who are zealous for the honor of the Omnipresent and avenge His vengeance]

people of integrity who zealously defend the honor of the Omnipresent and avenge it]

strike

him,

they kill him at the moment when they see him performing the act.

A kohen who performed the Temple service

in the Temple

in a state of ritual impurity is not brought by his fellow kohanim before the court

to administer lashes to him,

but young kohanim [young men whose beard is beginning to grow]

young men whose beards have begun to grow]

take him outside the Temple courtyard

because of the impurity,

and split

there

his skull with blocks

of wood.

A non-kohen who performed the service in the Temple:

Rabbi Akiva says:

His death is by

strangulation

administered by the court.

And the Sages say:

His death is

at the hands of Heaven.

Gemara:

We learned in the Mishna: One who steals the kasva... zealots strike him:

And we explain:

What is “

kasva”?

Rav

explained:

a sacred Temple vessel; and so it

says [Numbers 4:7], concerning the dismantling and carrying of the Tabernacle: “And they shall spread a cloth of blue over the Table of the Bread of the Presence, and place upon it the bowls, the pans, the jars, and the vessels for the pouring of libations”

[Numbers 4:7], concerning the dismantling and carrying of the Tabernacle: “They shall spread a cloth of sky-blue wool over the table of the Presence, and place upon it the bowls, the pans, the jars, and the cups for libations,

[the vessels for the pouring of libations]

[These were rods that were on the Table and arched over the Bread of the Presence].

The Gemara asks:

And where is it hinted in Scripture,

where is his death hinted at in the verse?

And we explain: For it is written [Numbers 4:20]: “

And they shall not come to see when the holy vessels are swallowed up

[Swallowed up is an expression of theft, as they conceal and hide them]

and die.”

We learned in the Mishna:

And one who curses with a sorcerer’s name...

zealots strike him:

Rav Yosef taught

a beraita that explains what is meant there by one who curses with a sorcerer’s name: For example, one who curses upward and says, “

May the sorcerer strike

[that is, the name of an idolatry]

his sorcerer

[he intends this toward Heaven],” because this sorcerer is important in his eyes, as he believes that it possesses the power to curse through it.

The Sages —

and some say, Rabba bar Mari —

say:

For example, one who curses his fellow and says, “

May the sorcerer strike him, him and his Creator and his Possessor

[that is, the Holy One, blessed be He, who acquired the world and grants His goodness to His creatures].”

We learned in the Mishna:

And one who has intercourse with an Aramean woman

zealots strike him:

Rav Kahana asked Rav [Rav Kahana asked Rav]:

[Rav Kahana asked Rav]: