Sanhedrin 81b — the Talmud in English

He said to him

Rava to Rav Adda:

Adda, my son

Adda, my son! And is it so that

you have killed him with two executions

and do you wish to put him to death with two deaths!? But he has already become liable for burning; and although the prohibition of a married woman has also fallen upon him, he is judged with the more severe [punishment], and one does not add another death upon him.

Mishna:

One who was flogged and repeated

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

The court bring him into a cell

a place made according to the height of the condemned person,

and they feed him

there

barley

which swells in his intestines,

until his belly bursts.

Gemara:

And we raise an objection: Is it so that

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

Rabbi Yirmeya said that Rabbi Shimon ben Lakish said:

Here we are dealing with lashes for transgressions punishable by excision,

when he was flogged and repeated for transgressions for which he is liable for excision—and the Mishna is dealing with [lashes for such transgressions]; and for that reason they bring him into a cell,

for he is a man fit for death

for Heaven will cut him off,

and it is only that his death is not near

but his death has not yet drawn near,

and since he is renouncing his life

since he abandons himself to transgressions,

we bring his death near upon him

we bring his death nearer upon him.

Rabbi Yaakov said to Rabbi Yirmeya bar

Taḥlifa:

Come, I shall explain it to you

come and I shall explain the law of the Mishna to you:

It was taught only

with lashes for one excision,

that is to say: specifically if he repeated the same transgression itself,

but i

f the lashes with which he was flogged were

for two and for three

transgressions punishable by excision,

that is, several transgressions, they do not bring him into a cell, because

he is merely tasting prohibitions and is not renouncing himself to such an extent

he wishes to taste the taste of those transgressions, but this is not abandoning himself to transgressions to such a degree.

We learned in the Mishna:

One who was flogged and repeated

the court brings him into a cell:

It follows:

he repeated

to be flogged

even though he did not do so a third time

to be flogged, we hold him to be presumed wicked; and if so:

Shall we say that our Mishna

that is, shall we say that our Mishna

is not in accordance with Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel; for if it is Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel, he said: until three times there is no presumption

until three times this is not a presumption, and according to him we should bring him into a cell only when he has been established as one who is flogged three times?

Ravina said:

You may even say

that our Mishna is

Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel

and nevertheless, since he was flogged twice, and they warned him before the third time and he transgressed, they bring him into a cell, because

he holds

the tanna of our Mishna:

transgressions

that he committed after a warning of lashes are what

establish

him as wicked, and not the lashes with which he was flogged; and he has transgressed three times after a warning of lashes.

It was raised as an objection

to Ravina from that which was taught in a beraita:

If he committed a transgression for which there are lashes:

The first and second time they flog him, a

nd 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 they bring him into a cell.

Is it not that everyone

both the first tanna and Abba Shaul—hold:

lashes

are what

establish

him with regard to bringing him into a cell,

and they disagree concerning Rabbi

who holds that a presumption is established after two times—

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 reason is that he holds “lashes establish,” and he holds like Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel, that there is no presumption except after three times; if so, it is reasonable that the first tanna of the beraita and the tanna of our Mishna, who hold that after two times they bring him into a cell, do not hold this because they hold “transgressions establish,” but they too agree that “lashes establish” [like Abba Shaul]; rather, they hold like Rabbi, who holds that after two times a presumption is established.

And we answer:

No, everyone

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

holds like Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel

that a presumption is established after three times,

and here they disagree about this:

For one master

the first tanna and the tanna of our Mishna—

holds: transgressions establish.

And the other master

Abba Shaul—

holds: lashes establish.

And we raise an objection to the two explanations stated above in explaining the dispute between Abba Shaul and the Sages:

And that which was taught:

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

If

they warned him and he was silent

indicating by his conduct that he accepted the warning, but he did not accept it explicitly

; and

again

they warned him and he inclined his head,

thereby hinting that he accepted it:

The first and second times they warn him

and 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 make him liable for lashes, are nevertheless effective for this matter: if he does so a third time, they bring him into a cell, because he has been established as wicked, having transgressed after a warning of lashes.

Abba Shaul says: even the third time they warn him

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

the fourth time they bring him into a cell.

And

it is difficult: Behold,

there are no lashes there,

as it was said: lashes establish him, and one may make him liable only on the fourth time; and necessarily, even according to Abba Shaul, transgressions establish him; if so,

over what do they disagree!?

Ravina said

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

Everyone holds that “transgressions establish,” and everyone holds that a presumption is established after three times; and when he committed three transgressions, we must make him liable to enter a cell. Rather,

they disagree over whether entry into a cell requires a warning—

That is to say: Indeed, when he transgressed three times after the warning with which they warned him for lashes, he becomes wicked, so as to make him liable to enter a cell; but Abba Shaul holds: they bring him into a cell only when they warned him for that purpose, and therefore he is not liable on the third time, but on the fourth time, when they warn him concerning the cell.

And what is

“a cell,”

what is this cell into which we bring him?

Rav Yehuda said:

The height of the cell is

the full

height of

his stature

of the one who has become liable.

And where is it hinted

where is there a hint in Scripture 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—

evil,”

that is to say: One who has been established as wicked, his death is his evil; and we learn: one who has been established as wicked is fit for death.

Incidentally to the words of Reish Lakish, the Gemara brings another statement of his:

And

he further

Reish Lakish said:

What is the meaning of that which is written:

“For even

before the time and the calamity arrive,

man does not know his time,

for they will come suddenly,

like fish caught in an evil trap”—

What is

“an evil trap”?

Reish Lakish said: A hook

it is nothing more than something like a needle, and a large fish is caught upon it—

That is to say: like large fish suddenly caught on a small and weak hook; and it is unlike one caught in nets through ambushes and stratagems.

Mishna:

One who kills a person without witnesses,

they bring him into a cell, and they 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 concerning it: Since there are no witnesses to his killing, how do we

know

that he killed!?

He said

—Rav

explained:

In what circumstance are we dealing here?

With incomplete testimony,

that is: for example, two people saw him, one from this window and the other from another window, and their testimony does not join to make him liable for a court-imposed death, although the matter is true; therefore they bring him into a cell.

And Shmuel said:

For example, he killed

without a warning.

And Rav Ḥisda said in the name of Avimi: for example, there was contradiction in the examinations but no contradiction in the inquiries,

there was a contradiction between the witnesses, but this contradiction was not in one of the seven inquiries with which the witnesses are examined; rather, in all of these they agreed with one another, but in the examinations in which they examined him there was a contradiction between them,

and as we learned

above, 40a:

An incident occurred, and Ben Zakkai examined the stalks of figs,

for they testified concerning him that he killed him beneath a fig tree, and Ben Zakkai examined [whether] this fig tree had thick stalks or thin stalks; and this examination is an extra examination, and although if they were contradicted through it they do not execute him with the death stated for him, nevertheless they bring him into a cell.

We learned in the Mishna:

And they feed him constricted bread and compressed water:

And we raise an objection:

What is different

with regard to the cell

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

with regard to the cell

there,

in the preceding Mishna,

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

He said

—Rav

Sheshet

answered:

Both this and that,

they give him constricted bread and compressed water until his intestines become smaller

the contents of his intestines,

and afterward

afterwards

they feed him barley

which swells in his intestines,

until his belly bursts

since the contents of his intestines have become smaller.

Mishna:

One who steals the kasva,

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

And

likewise

one who curses through a sorcerer,

that is to say: one who curses the Name by the name of idolatry, and it will be explained further in the Gemara.—

And

likewise

one who has intercourse with an Aramean woman

a gentile woman—

One who does one of these:

zealots [

upright people who are zealous for the zeal of the Omnipresent and avenge His vengeance ]

strike

him, they kill him at the moment when they see him performing the deed.

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

A kohen who performed service

in the Temple

in impurity, his kohen brothers do not bring him before the court

to flog him,

but the young kohanim [

young men whose beard hair begins to sprout in them ]

take him outside the courtyard

because of the impurity,

and split

there

his skull with billets

of wood.

A non-kohen who performed service in the Temple:

Rabbi Akiva says:

his death is by

strangulation

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 kesova... “zealots strike him”:

And we explain:

What is “

kesova”?

Said

Rav Yehuda explained:

sacred vessel; and so he

says [

in Numbers 4:7], concerning the dismantling of the Tabernacle and its carrying: “And over the table of the Presence they shall spread a cloth of blue, and place upon it the bowls and the ladles and the tubes

and the cups of the libation [

they are rods that were on the table, and arched over the bread of the Presence ]”.

The Gemara asks:

And where is it hinted,

where is its death hinted in Scripture?

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

And they shall not come to see as the swallowing [

it is an expression of stealing, for they swallow up and hide ]

the sacred object, and they shall die.”

We learned in the Mishna:

And one who curses with a sorcerer...

zealots strike him:

Rav Yosef taught

a beraita that explains there what “one who curses with a sorcerer” is: such as one who curses toward Above and says, “

May the sorcerer strike [

that is, the name of idolatry ]

his sorcerer [

he intends toward Above ],” for this sorcerer is important in his eyes, as having the power to curse through it.

The Sages —

and some say Rabba bar Mari —

say:

such as one who curses his fellow and says, “

May the sorcerer strike him, him and his Acquirer and his Acquired [

that is, the Holy One, blessed be He, who acquires the world and grants His goodness to created beings ]”.

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 ]: