Sanhedrin 89a (פט.) — the Talmud in English

And if we hold

that the upper knot is by Torah law,

meaning that according to Torah law the ritual fringes must be tied together to the garment, if so

it is defective from the outset

itself for as soon as he initially tied the additional thread together with the other threads, all the ritual fringes became invalid.

And the Gemara asks:

If so, phylacteries as well

how is it possible for adding something to make them defective?

For

if he made four compartments,

if he first made four compartments from a single piece of leather, as required for the head phylacteries, whose four compartments must be made from one piece of leather,

and brought another one and placed it beside them,

and afterward added another compartment beside them, if so,

this one stands separately and that one stands separately,

since the added compartment is not made from the same leather as the four compartments, it is as though it stands on its own and cannot invalidate them.

And if he made five compartments

if he initially made five compartments from one piece of leather, if so

defective

from the outset they are,

since the phylacteries were invalid from the outset, and this is not called “and if he added, he made them defective”?

The Gemara answers: Actually, it is speaking of one who added the fifth compartment afterward, externally, and nevertheless it invalidates the phylacteries—not because of the addition itself, but because

Rabbi Zeira said: An outer compartment

of the four compartments of the phylacteries

that does not see the air,

for example, if he added a compartment or another object alongside it,

is invalid,

because the outer compartment must see the air.

Thus, the condition of “and if he added, he made them defective” is fulfilled with regard to phylacteries: initially the phylacteries were valid, and through the addition they became invalid.

Mishna:

They do not execute him

the rebellious elder

in the court of his city, nor in the court at Yavne,

when the Sanhedrin was exiled there before the destruction, and even if they had previously issued their ruling to him while they were still in the Chamber of Hewn Stone, and after they were exiled to Yavne he continued to rule contrary to their ruling, nevertheless they do not execute him in the Great Court at Yavne, because the people did not assemble there as they did in Jerusalem, as the Mishna proceeds to explain.

Rather, they bring him up to the Great Court in Jerusalem [

which would return there for the pilgrimage],

and guard him until

the pilgrimage,

and execute him during the pilgrimage

so that the matter would be publicized to all Israel who had come up for the pilgrimage.

As it is stated

in the passage concerning the rebellious elder [Deuteronomy 17:13]: “

And all

the people

shall hear, and fear, and shall not act presumptuously any more,”

for his execution must be publicized to the masses so that no one will again dare to do this,

the words of Rabbi Akiva.

Rabbi Yehuda says: One does not prolong the judgment of this man

by waiting for him until the pilgrimage,

but they execute him immediately, and write and send messengers to every place

saying: “

So-and-so has incurred the death penalty from the court,”

because he ruled contrary to the Sanhedrin. In this way the verse, “and all shall hear and fear,” is fulfilled.

Gemara:

The Sages taught: They do not execute him in the court of his city, nor in the court at Yavne, but they bring him up to the Great Court in Jerusalem, and guard him until the pilgrimage, and execute him during the pilgrimage, as it is stated: “

And all the people shall hear and fear,”

the words of Rabbi Akiva.

Rabbi Yehuda said to him: Is it stated

“and all

the people shall see and fear,”

so that they would see with their own eyes when he was executed?

But it is stated only

“shall hear and fear,”

and if so,

why prolong the judgment of this man!?

Rather, they execute him immediately and write and send to every place: So-and-so has incurred the death penalty from the court.

The Sages taught: Four require proclamation

when the court executes them; a proclamation is made about them: So-and-so was executed by the court for committing this transgression, in order to deter others from doing likewise.

a.

The inciter

to worship idols.

b.

The wayward and rebellious son.

c.

The rebellious elder.

d.

False witnesses who were refuted.

For with regard to all of these it is stated: “They shall hear and fear.”

And the Gemara adds:

In all of them it is written

with regard to the first three it is stated: “

And all the people

shall hear and fear,” or: “

And all Israel

shall hear and fear.” Whereas

with regard to false witnesses who were refuted it is written: “

And those who remain

shall hear and fear.”

The reason is that it is not applicable to write with regard to false witnesses that all the people will fear becoming false witnesses, since

not everyone is fit to testify.

There are people who are disqualified from testimony altogether, such as robbers, interest-bearing lenders, and merchants dealing in produce of the Sabbatical Year.

Mishna:

The Mishna continues explaining those liable for death by strangulation, who were listed at the beginning of the chapter.

A false prophet

is one

who prophesies what he did not hear,

a matter that was not stated at all to any prophet.

And one who prophesies what was not said to him,

but was said in prophecy to another prophet, and he heard it from him and then claims that the prophecy was said to him.

Each of these two

is put to death by human hands,

by strangulation.

But one who suppresses his prophecy,

who does not wish to state the prophecy that he was commanded to prophesy, such as Jonah son of Amittai.

And one who disregards the words of a prophet,

who does not act upon what the prophet told him to do.

And a prophet who violates his own words,

that which he was commanded in prophecy.

Each of these three

is put to death at the hands of Heaven.

As it is stated

concerning them: “

I will require it of him,”

meaning death at the hands of Heaven.

One who prophesies in the name of idolatry and says: So said the idolatry—even if he correctly directed the halakha, declaring the impure impure and the pure pure

nevertheless, he is liable to death by strangulation, since he said this in the name of idolatry.

One who has relations with a married woman, once she has entered

the betrothed woman's

authority of the husband for marriage,

for example, when her father handed her over to the husband's agents and she is still on the way,

even though she has not yet had relations,

still,

one who has relations with her—

is liable to strangulation,

as is the law of a married woman. Since she has already left her father's authority, she no longer has the status of a betrothed young woman—concerning whom it is stated, “to commit harlotry in her father's house,” for which the punishment is stoning—but rather has the status of a married woman, whose punishment is strangulation.

And the false witnesses who were refuted concerning a priest's daughter, and the man who had relations with her [

as explained in the Mishna at the beginning of the chapter], are also liable to strangulation.

For all false witnesses who were refuted

witnesses who gave false testimony and were refuted through contradictory testimony

are brought first to that death,

they are sentenced to the same death that they sought to impose upon the defendant through their testimony,

except for false witnesses who were refuted concerning a priest's daughter,

who are not sentenced to the death that they plotted to inflict upon her, namely burning, but to the death that they plotted to inflict upon her husband, namely strangulation.

And

so

the man who had relations with her,

the priest's daughter, differs from other men who have forbidden relations, who are sentenced to the same death as the woman with whom they had relations; he is sentenced to strangulation, even though she is sentenced to burning.

Gemara:

The Sages taught: Three are put to death by human hands, and three are put to death at the hands of Heaven.

a.

One who prophesies what he did not hear.

b.

And one who prophesies what was not said to him.

c.

And one who prophesies in the name of idolatry.

All of these

are put to death by human hands.

a.

One who suppresses his prophecy.

b.

And one who disregards the words of a prophet.

c.

And a prophet who transgresses his own words.

All of these

die at the hands of Heaven.

The Gemara discusses this:

From where are these matters derived?

Rav Yehuda said in the name of Rav: For the verse says [Deuteronomy 18:20], “

”

But the prophet who will presumptuously speak a word in My name” —

this is one who prophesies what he did not hear,

a matter that was not said at all to any prophet.

And afterward it is stated, “

and

that which I did not command him to speak,” which implies: I commanded only him not to speak,

whereas I did command another to speak:

this is one who prophesies what was not said to him,

but was said to another,

.

And afterward it is stated, “

And that which he will speak in the name of other gods” —

this is one who prophesies in the name of idolatry.

And it is written

later, “

And that prophet shall die.”

And every death stated anonymously in the Torah means nothing other than strangulation.

Thus, we have learned that these three are put to death by strangulation.

One who suppresses his prophecy, one who disregards the words of a prophet, and a prophet who transgresses his own words,

for

they die at the hands of Heaven.

We learn this—

As it is written [there, 19]: “And the

man who

will not heed

My words,” meaning one who disregards the words of the prophet, as he does not heed his voice.

And read into it: “

who will not cause to be heard,”

meaning that the prophet himself does not make his prophecy heard; this is one who suppresses his prophecy.

And read into it also: “

“

who will not heed My words,”

meaning that the prophet himself did not heed his prophecy; this is a prophet who transgresses his own words.

And it is written

later, “

I will require it of him” —

that is,

at the hands of Heaven.

We learned in the Mishna:

One who prophesies what he did not hear.

The Gemara explains:

For example, Zedekiah ben Chenaanah,

who was one of the false prophets whom Ahab asked to prophesy for him whether he should go up to war against Ramoth-gilead; and they all falsely prophesied to him that he should go up and succeed—

As it is written [I Kings 22:11]: “

And Zedekiah ben Chenaanah made for himself

horns of iron

and said: So says the Lord: With these you shall gore Aram until they are consumed.”

And the Gemara asks:

What could he have done?

What could Zedekiah ben Chenaanah have done, for the

spirit

of

Naboth [who was killed by Ahab because he refused to sell him his vineyard]

who had been killed by Ahab because he refused to sell him his vineyard]

misled him

and caused him to prophesy in this manner?

As it is written [there, 21]: “

The Lord said: Who will entice Ahab so that he will go up and fall at Ramoth-gilead? And the spirit went out and stood before the Lord and said: I will entice him.

And he said …

and I shall be a lying spirit in the mouth of all his prophets …

And he said

[the Lord]:

You shall entice him, and you shall prevail; go out and do so.”

The Gemara explains the verse:

Rav Yehuda said: What is the meaning of “

Go out”?

Go out from My presence!

For after he prophesied falsely, he could no longer remain in the presence of the Holy One, blessed be He, because of the verse, “One who speaks lies shall not be established before My eyes.”

What is the meaning of “

spirit”?

What spirit was it?

Rabbi Yohanan said: It was the spirit of Naboth the Jezreelite,

for since Ahab had killed him, his spirit pursued Ahab in order to entice him and cause him to stumble.

Thus, Naboth’s spirit entered the mouths of all the false prophets to prophesy in this manner. What, then, was Zedekiah ben Chenaanah’s guilt?

The Gemara answers:

He should have investigated carefully;

Zedekiah ben Chenaanah should have understood that this was a false prophecy,

in accordance with the statement of Rabbi Yitzhak, as Rabbi Yitzhak said: One formulation can arise to several prophets,

meaning that one prophetic content can enter the hearts of several prophets; however,

two prophets do not prophesy in one formulation,

as their wording is not identical, but each prophet prophesies in different language.

And there is proof of this, for

Obadiah said

in his prophecy concerning Edom [Obadiah 1:3],

“The arrogance of your heart has beguiled you,”

whereas

if

Jeremiah said

also in his prophecy concerning Edom [Jeremiah 49:16], “

Your terror, the arrogance of your heart, has beguiled you.”

Thus, although the content of the prophecy was similar for both of them, its formulation was nevertheless different.

But these

all the false prophets with Ahab—

since they all said it in the same manner,

as it is stated: “Behold now, all the words of the prophets are with one mouth good for the king”—

learn from this

that Zedekiah ben Chenaanah should have understood that

they were saying nothing at all,

but that it was a false prophecy.

And the Gemara asks:

Perhaps

Zedekiah ben Chenaanah

did not know this teaching of Rabbi Yitzhak,

that two prophets do not prophesy in one formulation, and therefore he mistakenly thought that this was a true prophecy?

The Gemara answers:

Jehoshaphat,

the king of Judah,

was there,

and

he said to them

that this was a false prophecy, because they were all prophesying in the same formulation.

As it is written [there, 7]: “

And Jehoshaphat said: Is there not here another prophet of the Lord

of whom we may inquire?”

so that we may inquire of him?”

He said to him,

Ahab:

There are all these;

four hundred prophets have already prophesied that I should go up to war. Why, then, do you ask for another prophet?

He said to him,

Jehoshaphat:

This is what I have received as a tradition from the house of my father’s father: One formulation can arise to several prophets, but two prophets do not prophesy in one formulation!

The Gemara continues to explain the Mishna—

One who prophesies what was not said to him,

but was said to another—

For example, Hananiah ben Azzur—

When Jeremiah was standing in the upper marketplace,

for he heard Jeremiah prophesying in the upper marketplace of Jerusalem,

and saying [Jeremiah 49:35]: “

So says the Lord of hosts: Behold, I shall break the bow of Elam.”

So says the Lord of Hosts: Behold, I am breaking the bow of Elam.

Hananiah drew a kal va-chomer for himself: If Elam, which came only to assist Babylonia

in its war against Jerusalem,

the Holy One, blessed be He, said

concerning it, “

Behold, I shall break the bow of Elam,” then

the Chaldeans

[Babylonia]

themselves, all the more so!

He came

Hananiah

to the lower marketplace

of Jerusalem,

and said [there, 28:2]: “

So says the Lord …

I have broken the yoke of the king of Babylonia.”

I have broken the yoke of the king of Babylon.

Thus, Hananiah prophesied what had not been said to him, but only to another.

And the Gemara asks:

Rav Pappa said to Abaye: This was not said even to another;

the prophecy concerning Babylonia had not been said at all, not even to another prophet.

The Gemara answers:

He said to him,

Abaye:

Since it was given

as a matter of

kal va-chomer to be expounded, it is considered as though it had been explicitly said to him,

as though it had been explicitly said to Jeremiah that the prophecy also included Babylonia, since he derived it by a kal va-chomer from Elam. But

it is he alone to whom it was not said,

for with regard to Hananiah, the prophecy was not said to him.

One who prophesies in the name of idolatry —

for example, the prophets of Baal.

One who suppresses his prophecy —

for example, Jonah ben Amittai,

who did not wish to prophesy what he had been commanded to prophesy.