we must refer it to flogging.1
The school of Hezekiah taught: And if a man come presumptuously upon his neighbour to slay him with guile;2 - this implies that they warned him, yet he remained with wilful intent.3 The school of R. Ishmael taught: And they that found him gathering sticks:4 that implies that they warned him, yet he continued gathering. The school of Rabbi taught: Because [lit., 'for the word that'] he hath humbled [his neighbour's wife']5 , teaching, [it is] by reason of 'the word' [that he is stoned].6 And [these verses] are all necessary: for had the DIvine Law stated [this provision] only in reference to a man's sister, one might have said that it applied only to those liable to flogging, but not to those liable to death,7 therefore the Divine Law wrote, If a man come presumptuously etc.8 Again, had this verse only been written, I might have thought that it [sc. a warning) is necessary only for decapitation, which is a milder form of death; but for stoning, which is severer, one might hold that it is not [required]: thus all are necessary. But why need two [intimations]9 in respect of stoning? - According to R. Simeon,10 to extend [the law of warning] to cases of burning;11 whilst the Rabbis12 [answer]: (Scripture [sometimes] takes the trouble of stating a law13 which can be deduced a minori. But Scripture should have intimated it for stoning [only], and then these other cases14 could have been inferred from it! - Here too [the same answer must be given]: Scripture [sometimes] takes the trouble of stating a law which can be deduced a miniori.
'Did he admit his liability to death?' Whence do we infer this? Raba - others state, Hezekiah - said: Scripture states, Shall he that is to die15 be put to death;16 [He is not put to death] unless he [previously] admitted his liability to death.17
R. Hanan said: Witnesses against a betrothed damsel18 who were proved Zomemim, are not executed,19 since they may plead, We came forward [to testify] only to render her ineligible for her [intended] husband.20 But they must surely have warned her!21 - This treats of a case where they did not warn her. But if so, how could she be put to death at all?22 This refers to an educated woman, and is based on the view of R. Jose son of R. Judah. For it has been taught: R. Jose son of R. Judah said: A scholar needs no warning, for warning was instituted only in order to distinguish between wilfulness and unwilfulness.23 But since they are not executed, how could she be? For this becomes evidence to which the law of Zomem cannot be applied,24 and such is not admissible!25 - He [R. Hanan] actually meant it thus: Since they are not executed, for they can plead, 'We came only to make her ineligible for her [intended] husband,' she too cannot be executed, because it is evidence to which the law of Zomem cannot be applied. Then in the case of an educated woman, who, as we know, is to be executed on the view of R. Jose son of R. Judah, how, is that possible?26 - If she misconducted herself twice.27 But they [the witnesses] can still plead, We came only to render her forbidden to her second paramour!28 - [The case in question is one] where the misconduct was repeated with the first adulterer,29 or one of misconduct with one of her relations.30
But why state this only of a 'betrothed damsel': surely the same applies to a married woman too! - True: but [the purpose here is to teach that] even in such a case, though she has not yet lived with her husband, they can plead, We came forward only to make her ineligible for her [intended] husband.
R. Hisda said: If one testified that he [the accused] slew him with a sword, and another, that he slew him with a dagger, it [the evidence] is inadmissible.31 If one says, His clothes were black, and the other, His clothes were white; the evidence is admissible.32
An objection is raised: 'Certain'33 implies that the evidence must be certain; if one witness says, He slew him with a sword, and the other says, With a dagger; or if one says, His clothes were black, and the other, They were white, the evidence is not 'certain'?34 - R. Hisda interpreted this as referring to the [colour of] the cloth with which he strangled him, which comes under the same category as sword or dagger.
Come and hear! If the one says that his sandals were black, and the other, that they were white, the evidence is not certain'!35 - There too the meaning is, that he kicked him with his sandal and killed him.36
Come and hear! IT ONCE HAPPENED THAT BEN ZAKKAI CROSS-EXAMINED [THE WITNESSES] AS TO THE STALKS OF THE FIGS. - Rami b. Hama replied: The meaning is, that a man cut off a fig on the Sabbath, for which he was to be put to death.37 But has it not been taught: They said to him, 'He killed him beneath a fig-tree'? - But, said Rami b. Hama: It was a case where he [the accused] pierced his victim with the sharp end of a fig branch.
Come and hear! He questioned [the witnesses]: Were the stalks of this fig tree thin or thick? And were the figs [themselves] black or white?38 But, answered R. Joseph: Would one raise an objection from Ben Zakkai! Ben Zakkai had a different view, since he assimilated bedikoth to hakiroth.39 Now, who was this Ben Zakkai? Shall we say, R. Johanan b. Zakkai? Was he then [a member] of the Sanhedrin?40 Has it not been taught:41 The whole lifetime of R. Johanan b. Zakkai was a hundred and twenty years. Forty years he engaged in business; forty years he studied, and forty years he taught. And it has also been taught: Forty years before the destruction of the Temple, the Sanhedrin were exiled42 and took up residence in Hanuth.43 Whereon R. Isaac b. Abudimi said: This is to teach that they did not try cases of Kenas.44 'Cases of Kenas!' Can you really think so!45 Say rather, They did not try capitol charges.46 Again we learnt:47 When the Temple was destroyed, R. Johanan enacted [so and so].48 But the reference is to some other Ben Zakkai. Reason too supports this: for were R. Johanan b. Zakkai meant, would Rabbi49 have called him merely Ben Zakkai!50 Yet has it not been taught: It once happened that R. Johanan b. Zakkai examined [witnesses] as to the stalks on the figs?51 - He must therefore have been a disciple sitting before his Master,52 when he made this statement the reasoning of which was so acceptable to them [the Rabbis]
____________________
(1) I.e., a warning must be given that he is liable to flagellation.
(2) Ex. XXI, 14.
(3) From the use of the imperfect יזיד, which connotes a continuous present. Murder is punishable by decapitation.
(4) Num. XV, 33; here too, the deduction follows from the use of the present part. (מקושש), i.e 'he went on gathering sticks after he was found (and warned). This shows the need for warning in the case of stoning
(5) Deut. XXII, 24.
(6) על דבר 'By reason of the word' - sc. of warning.
(7) For one might think that owing to the severity of the crime people would themselves realise the consequences and so not need warning.
(8) So indicating the need of warning in a case punishable by death.
(9) One in connection with the 'gatherer of sticks', and the other regarding the 'betrothed damsel'.
(10) Who holds that burning is a severer death; consequently, the warning here cannot be deduced from the reference to stoning, since it might be thought that in the case of a severer punishment, warning is not required.
(11) R. Simeon bases this on the hermeneutical אם אינו ענין i.e if it has no hearing on cases of stoning, it must refer to cases of burning.
(12) Who hold that stoning is a severer death, so that warning for burning follows therefrom a fortiori.
(13) Here, not explicitly, but by the same principle of אם אינו ענין.
(14) Sc. lashes and decapitation.
(15) Lit., 'the dead.'
(16) Deut. XVII, 6.
(17) This is deduced from the expression, המת, the dead, instead of 'murderer'. In accepting the warning then, he is regarded as dead de jure, even before appearing in court, since the warning involves the consequences of the evil deed.
(18) Who have testified to her infidelity. Had the charge been proved, she would have been executed.
(19) Despite the fact that collusive witnesses are punished according to the law of retaliation.
(20) For if the charge were proved,even if for some reason she were not executed, she would be forbidden to her husband!
(21) That the consequence of her act was death. How then could this argument for the defence be raised
(22) And in that case the witnesses too are not liable, since it is written, And ye shall do unto him as he thought (plotted) to do unto his brother (Deut. XIX, 19), i.e., they are punished only as the accused would have been punished.
(23) If the murderer was not warned he could plead ignorance of the death penalty. A scholar could not raise such a point in his defence. Hence this woman would have been liable to death, and in consequence, the false witnesses too, but for the plea stated above.
(24) I.e., even if their evidence is proved to be false, the law of retaliation cannot operate, because of their possible defence that they intended only to make her ineligible for her intended husband, and not to bring the death penalty upon her.
(25) Lit., 'is not called testimony.' For unless there is this deterrent to false testimony, it is suspect ab initio.
(26) Since the witnesses themselves, if proved Zomemim, are not executed.
(27) And so the witnesses in the second charge can no longer plead that their intention was only to prohibit her to her husband, since she is already forbidden.
(28) An unfaithful woman is forbidden not only to her husband, but also to the adulterer, if he afterwards wishes to marry her. V. Sotah 26b.
(29) To whom she is already prohibited in consequence of their earlier relations.
(30) Whom she is absolutely forbidden to marry at all.
(31) Lit., 'not certain', quoted from: Behold if it be truth and the thing certain (Deut. XIII, 15. XVII, 4.), v. supra 30b.
(32) Contradictory statements made during cross examination are of sufficient importance to be invalidated only when they refer to the act itself.
(33) Deut. XIII, 15: XVII, 4. V p. 265, n. 9.
(34) Hence inadmissible. I.e the evidence must tally, even in respect of matters which have no direct bearing on the act.
(35) Although there is here no actual contradiction in matters directly involving the act.
(36) The sandals being the actual weapons, the question of colour is on a par with the question of sword or dagger.
(37) Hence the species of fig is of direct importance for the veracity of the witnesses.
(38) I.e., ripe or unripe. Now surely, he could not have killed anyone with the figs. This proves that the meaning is that the witnesses deposed that the accused had killed his victim under or near a fig-tree, and thus this again refutes R. Hisda.
(39) And maintained that just as contradictions on the latter invalidated the evidence, so on the former. The general view, however, disagrees with this, and R. Hisda's dictum was likewise in accordance with the general view.
(40) At the time when they still had power to try capital cases.
(41) Cf. R. H. 31b.
(42) From the Hall of Hewn Stones. V. infra p. 205, n. 5.
(43) חנות A place on the Temple Mount outside the hewn chamber where they had temporary residence. (Derenbourg, Essai, p. 467, and Krauss, REJ, LXIII, 66f., identify it with the 'Chamber of the sons of Hanan' (a powerful priestly family, cf. Jer. XXXV, 4) mentioned in J. Pe'ah I, 5.]
(44) V. Glos.
(45) That these, like capital charges, could be tried only in the chief seat of the Sanhedrin - the Hall of Hewn Stones! These cases could, in fact, be tried anywhere in Palestine.
(46) V. A.Z. 8b on Deut. XVII, 10: And thou shalt do according to the tenor of the sentence which they shall declare unto thee, from that place; this implies that it is the place that conditions the authority of the Sanhedrin in respect of the death sentence. [J. Sanh. I, 1 has, 'the right to try capital cases was taken away from them, i.e., by the Romans. For a full discussion of the subject v. Juster. op. cit, II, 138ff.]
(47) R. H. 29b.
(48) Hence the last period of R. Johanan's career was after the destruction of the Temple, when the Sanhedrin no longer tried capital cases.
(49) In the Mishnah.
(50) Depriving him of the title given at ordination.
(51) I.e., it must be the same person.
(52) At a time when capital cases were yet tried.that they established it in his name. Thus while he was yet a student he was called Ben Zakkai, as is customary for a disciple sitting before his master, and when later he was a teacher,1 he was called Rabban Johanan b. Zakkai. Hence, when he is referred to as Ben Zakkai,2 it is in accordance with his earlier status;3 while when he is called R. Johanan b. Zakkai, it is in accordance with his status at the time [that the Baraitha was taught].
IT ONCE HAPPENED THAT ETC. . . WHAT IS THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN HAKIROTH AND BEDIKOTH.? etc. What does 'EVEN4 IF BOTH SAY etc. mean? It is surely obvious that if when one of the two witnesses says, 'I do not know,' their evidence is valid, if two say so, their testimony is likewise valid?5 - R. Shesheth said: This refers to the first clause [of the Mishnah]6 and its meaning is as follows: In hakiroth, even if two say, 'We know,' and one is in doubt, their evidence is invalid. With whom does this agree? - With R. Akiba, who treated three [witnesses] as equal to two.7 Raba demurred: Surely the Mishnah states: THEIR EVIDENCE IS VALID!8 - But, said Raba, it means this: Even in hakiroth, if two say, 'We know,' and the third says, 'I do not know,' their evidence is valid. With whom does this agree? - Not with R. Akiba.
R. Kahana and R. Safra were studying [the Tractate] Sanhedrin in the school of Rabbah. When Rami b. Hama met them, he asked them: What have ye to say on the Tractate Sanhedrin as taught in the school of Rabbah?9 They retorted: And what in particular are we to say of the Tractate itself?10 What is your special difficulty? - He answered: [The difficulty arises] from what is stated: WHAT IS THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN HAKIROTH AND BEDIKOTH? IN HAKIROTH, IF ONE [OF THE WITNESSES] ANSWERS, 'I DO NOT KNOW,' THEIR EVIDENCE IS VOID. WITH RESPECT TO BEDIKOTH, HOWEVER, IF ONE ANSWERS, I DO NOT KNOW,' OR EVEN IF BOTH SAY, 'WE DO NOT KNOW THEIR EVIDENCE IS VALID. Now consider: both are Biblically [required]:11 why then should hakiroth differ from bedikoth? - They said to him: How compare them?12 As for hakiroth, if one of the witnesses says, , 'I do not know', the evidence is invalid because it cannot be refuted;13 but with respect to bedikoth, if one of them answers, 'I do not know', the evidence remains valid, since it is still subject to refutation. Thereupon he said to them: If that is what you have to say, you have much to say thereon. But they replied: only because of your great forbearance have we said so much; had you criticized us, we should not have said anything.14
IF ONE TESTIFIES . . . [FOR ONE MAY HAVE BEEN AWARE OF THE INTERCALATION OF THE MONTH etc.] Till what date?15 - R. Aha b.Hanina said in the name of R. Assi in the name of R. Johanan: Until the greater part of the month [has passed].16 Raba said: We too learnt likewise' IF HOWEVER, ONE SAID, 'ON THE THIRD , AND THE OTHER, 'ON THE FIFTH, THEIR EVIDENCE IS INVALID. But why so? Why not assume that the one may have known of two intercalations,17 whilst the other was ignorant of both! Hence it must surely be so because, when the greater part of the month has passed, one knows thereof [sc. intercalation]! - [No.] In truth I might argue that even after the passing of the greater part of the month, one does not necessarily know [of the intercalation],18 yet he must have known of the Shofar-signal:19 , we may then say that he may have erred regarding one signal,20 but not regarding two.21
R. Hanina also said in the name of R. Assi in R. Johanan's name: Until what day of the month may the benediction over the new moon be recited?22 - Until its concavity is filled up. And how long is that? - R. Jacob b. Idi said In Rab Judah's name: Seven days. The Nehardeans said: Sixteen [days].
____________________
(1) I.e., after ordination.
(2) In the Mishnah.
(3) Which is chronologically correct.
(4) The word 'even' gives the impression that when both witnesses are dubious, the evidence is less likely to be valid than when only one is in doubt.
(5) For if one is ignorant on a certain point, the other's knowledge thereof is valueless. Hence whatever evidence is valid when one is ignorant, is also valid when both are ignorant.
(6) Which deals with HAKIROTH.
(7) Just as when there are only two witnesses, if one of them is disqualified, the whole evidence falls to the ground, so when there are three. V. Tosaf. and cf. Mak. 5b.
(8) How then interpret it of a case where the evidence is invalid?
(9) Seeing that you have studied under such a great man, you must surely have discovered many new points.
(10) I.e., even if we had not studied with Rabbah, was there really any difficulty to be found there? (Rashi). [Yad Ramah adds: 'as generally taught' (lit., 'as all the world teaches')?
(11) V. supra 40b, 41a.
(12) Lit., 'How so, now!'
(13) Be proving that the witnesses were elsewhere at the said time. Hence, if one is in doubt regarding the place or time, such refutation is impossible. - It should be observed that only refutation of time and place is meant in the whole discussion, since that is the only form of refutation which renders the witnesses liable to the law of retaliation.
(14) I.e., had you criticized our arguments we should not have been able to resist yours!
(15) I.e., until what day of the month may ignorance of the defectiveness or fullness of the last month be assumed in explanation of the discrepancy between two witnesses?
(16) After that, contradiction as to date invalidates the evidence. The greater part of the month means one day beyond half way.
(17) Either consecutively or alternately.
(18) And so the question from the Mishnah is not corroborative.
(19) Blown at the proclamation of the new moon, be the month full or defective.
(20) I.e., though knowing that the Shofar had been sounded, he may have erred once as to the day on which it was sounded.
(21) Hence the invalidity of the evidence where there is a difference of two days.
(22) A benediction is recited at each re-appearance of the new moon just as on the re-appearance of everything that is beneficial to mankind. V. J. Ber. IX, 2. 'He who sees the moon in her stage of renovation, utters: Blessed etc.'Now, both agree with R. Johanan,1 but the one [explains it as meaning]: Until it is like a strung bow;2 the other: Until it is like a sieve.3
R. Aha of Difti4 said to Rabina:5 Yet should not one utter the benediction,6 'Blessed . . . who art good and dispensest good'!7 - He replied: But when it is waning, do we say, 'Blessed be the true judge.' '8 that we should say: 'Blessed . . . who art good and dispensest good?'9 But why should not both be recited?10 Since it is a regular phenomenon, no benediction at all is required.11
R. Aha b. Hanina also said in the name of R. Assi in R. Johanan's name: Whoever pronounces the benediction over the new moon in its due time welcomes, as it were, the presence of the Shechinah: for one passage states, This month;12 whilst elsewhere it is said, This is my God, and I will giorify Him.13
In the school of Rabbi Ishmael it was taught: Had Israel inherited no other privilege14 than to greet the presence of their Heavenly Father once a month,15 it were sufficient. Abaye said: Therefore16 we must recite it standing. But Meremar and Mar Zutra allowed themselves to be carried on the shoulders17 when they pronounced the blessing.
R. Aha said to R. Ashi: In 'the West,' they pronounce the following benediction: 'Blessed be He who reneweth the moons.' Whereupon he retorted: Such a blessing even our women folk pronounce!18 But [one should rather use the following], in accordance with Rab Judah, who gives it thus: Praised etc.19 who created the Heavens with His word, and all their hosts with the breath of His mouth. He appointed unto them fixed laws and times, that they should not change their ordinance. They rejoice and are glad to do the will of their Creator. They work20 truthfully, for their action is truth. The moon He ordered that she should renew herself as a crown of beauty for those whom He sustains from the womb,21 and who will, like it, be renewed in the future, and magnify their Maker in the name of the glory of His kingdom. Blessed art Thou, O Lord, who renewest the moons.
For with wise advice22 thou shalt make thy war.23 R. Aha b. Hanina [further] said in the name of R. Assi in R. Johanan's name: In whom do you find [skill to conquer in] the battle of the Torah?24 - Only in him who possesses bundles of Mishnah [teaching].25
R. Joseph applied to himself [the verse]: Much increase [of grain] is by the strength of the ox.26
SIMILARLY, IF ONE TESTIFIED, 'DURING THE SECOND HOUR' etc. R. Shimi b. Ash said: They taught this only of hours.27 But if one testifies, 'It was before sunrise,' and the other says, 'After sunrise, their evidence is invalid.28 This is obvious29 - But [put it thus:] if one testifies, 'Before sunrise,' and the other, 'During sunrise.'30 But this too is obvious! I might, however, think that he [the witness] was standing in the glow [before sunrise] and what he saw was but a gleam:31 He therefore informs us otherwise.
AFTER THIS, THE SECOND WITNESS IS ADMITTED etc. [AND HE DOES NOT DESCEND FROM THERE ALL THAT DAY.] Only THAT DAY,32 and no longer? But has it not been taught: 'If there is substance in his statement, he does not go down from there at all;33 but if there is no substance therein, he does not descend thence all that day, that his rise be not his fall'?34 - Abaye said: Interpret it [sc. the Mishnah] as applying [to a case] where no substance was found in his statement.
IF THEY FIND HIM NOT GUILTY etc. [AND DRINK NO WINE]. Why drink no wine? - R. Aha b. Hanina said: Scripture states, It is not for princes35 to say, Where is strong drink?36 [i.e.,] those who are engaged in [unravelling] the secrets of the world37 must not become drunk.
THE TWO SIDES DEBATE THE CASE TOGETHER UNTIL ONE OF THOSE WHO CONDEMN AGREES WITH etc. But what if they do not agree? R. Aha ruled: He is discharged. R. Johanan said likewise: He is discharged. R. Papa said to Abaye: Then he should be set free in the first place!38 He answered: Thus did R. Johanan say: It is in order that they may not leave the Court in confusion.39 Some say that R. Papa said to Abaye: Why add, Let him be discharged by the first court?40 To which he replied: R. Jose is in agreement with you. For it has been taught: R. Jose said: Just as a court of seventy-one is not increased, so may a court of twenty-three not be increased.
Our Rabbis taught: In civil suits, a declaration is made, The judgement nizdakan;41 but not in capital charges.42 What does nizdakan mean? Shall we say, The case is difficult:43 surely, the reverse should have been taught!44 R. Huna b. Manoah said in the name of R. Aha the son of R. Ika: We should reverse (the instances). R. Ashi said: In truth, you need not reverse it: what is meant by 'The judgment nizdakan'? - The case is wisely [established].45
An objection is raised: The presiding judge declares, 'The judgment nizdakan.' Now, should you agree that it means, 'The case is wisely established,' it is correct, hence the presiding judge makes the declaration. But if you maintain that it means, The case is difficult;' is it not better that the presiding judge should not say it? Surely in doing so he actually disgraces himself! - There is no comparison between declaring one's own disgrace and having another declare it.46 Others state: Should you agree that it means, The case is difficult,' it is correct, for there is no comparison between declaring ones own disgrace and having another declare it. But if you maintain that it means, 'The case is wisely established:' does not the president [of the court] thereby praise himself? Whereas it is written, Let another praise thee and not thine own mouth?47 - It is different in judicial matters, since the president is charged with the duty,48 as we learnt: When a decision has been arrived at, they are admitted, and the presiding judge declares, 'So and so, thou art not liable,' or, 'So and so, thou art liable.'49 [
____________________
(1) That the recital of the benediction is conditioned by the filling up of the moon's concavity.
(2) I.e., semicircular, which shape it assumes after seven days.
(3) I.e., round, at full moon.
(4) [Dibtha on the Tigris. (Obermeyer op. cit. p. 197)].
(5) With reference to Rab Judah's view.
(6) After seven days and until full moon.
(7) This benediction is made on the attainment of a thing over which its due blessing has already been pronounced, but which has now either been improved or been replaced by a thing of the same kind but of a better quality (v. Ber. 59b). And so R. Aba maintained that even if in Rab Judah's opinion the usual benediction for the new moon is not to be uttered after seven days because it is then no longer new, yet since it is still in its growing stage, becoming more luminous as the days pass until full moon is reached, this latter blessing should be uttered.
(8) A benediction recited on hearing bad tidings. Cf. Ber. 54a.
(9) When it is waxing. I.e., since its waning is not regarded as a loss, entailing this benediction, its waxing is not a gain, necessitating the other.
(10) On the respective occasions.
(11) For its waxing is no particular boon from God, nor its waning an infliction, which are the fundamental reasons of these benedictions.
(12) Ex. XII, 2, concerning the New Moon.
(13) Ex. XV, 2, in the Song of Moses. 'This' is taken as connoting something that could, as it were, be pointed at with the finger (v. Mekilta. Ex. XV, 2), and the use of this word in the two verses suggests that he, who praises God at the periodical renewal of the moon, gives witness to the revelation of Divine Glory as manifested in natural phenomena.
(14) זכות; v. p. 153. n. 2.
(15) I.e., if they practised no other observance but this - the benediction over the new moon.
(16) Because it is a greeting of God's Presence.
(17) Probably because of their infirmity through age. Cf. supra 7b, and Rashi's comment
(18) As if to say, 'There is nothing in that.' Such a short benediction is fit only for the uneducated. e.g., women (Maharsha).
(19) The 'etc.' (curr. edd. in brackets) stands for 'art thou, O Lord our God. . .'
(20) Tosaf.'s reading:' 'He works', referring to God.
(21) I.e., from childhood, viz., Israel, cf. Isa. XLVI, 3.
(22) תהבולות.
(23) Prov. XXIV, 6.
(24) I.e., who is qualified to meet the difficulties of the Torah, and give a true interpretation?
(25) I.e., he who is fully conversant with the law; according to Rashi, the point is that mere dialectic skill and ingenuity are no substitutes for a sound knowledge of the sources. חבילה, bundle, is a word play on חבולות.
(26) Prov. XIV, 4. V. Deut. XXXIII, 17, where Joseph is symbolically compared to a bullock; also Hor. 14a: R. Joseph was renowned for his erudition, being known as Sinai. Hence his application of the above verse to himself.
(27) I.e., if the witnesses state a definite time, e.g., three hours, four hours. etc. Only then is there a dispute in the Mishnah as to the margin of possible error.
(28) Even according to R. Judah.
(29) As there could be no error in such a matter.
(30) Their evidence is null.
(31) Mistaking it for the rays of sunrise; thus their statements tally.
(32) Does the disciple remain seated with the Judges.
(33) I.e., he becomes a member of the Court. V. Yad, Sanh. X, 8, although according to Tosafoth Yom Tob on Sanh. V, 4, he is not given a (for note 9 see p. 274) vote. Me'iri, however, maintains that he is seated with them only as long as the trial lasts.
(34) If he had to resume his seat in the presence of the Assembly, he would be disgraced.
(35) רוזנים, here connected with רז, secret. V. Dan. II, 18, 29.
(36) Prov. XXXI, 4.
(37) I.e., seeking to bring to light the secrets hidden in men's hearts, and so endeavouring to establish the truth - in a capital charge.
(38) I.e., after the court was increased to seventy-one and there was yet no clear majority. Why then delay by debating, surely the court as a whole must not seek to convict?
(39) I.e., without a definite decision. It reflects discredit on a court that it should rise in a state of controversy, having been unable to bring the matter to a definite conclusion (Rashi).
(40) Of twenty-three. If there was then no clear majority, both sides should have endeavoured to win one more vote over to their opinion, and in the case of failure, he should have been set free there and then.
(41) נזדקן, from the root זקן, may have a twofold meaning; a) old, in that the case has become old in discussion and could not be solved; or b) wise, in that the case has become clear, or wisely established, and is no longer in need of discussion. The following discussion is based on these two alternative meanings.
(42) Cf. Tosef. Sanh. VII.
(43) Lit., 'old', I.e., the case is become old and stale through prolonged discussion, and cannot be solved.
(44) I.e., in capital cases one should all the more say, 'The judgment nizdakan,' so as to acquit the accused.
(45) זקן according to the Rabbis, denotes 'wise' Cf. Kid. 32b.
(46) Which would be the position if the words were pronounced by another member of the court.
(47) Prov. XXVII, 2.
(48) Of declaring the verdict.
(49) Supra 29a.
MISHNAH. WHEN THE TRIAL IS ENDED,1 HE [THE CONDEMNED] IS LED FORTH TO BE STONED.2 THE PLACE OF STONING WAS WITHOUT THE COURT, EVEN AS IT IS WRITTEN, BRING FORTH HIM THAT HATH CURSED.3
A MAN WAS STATIONED AT THE DOOR OF THE COURT WITH THE SIGNALLING FLAG4 IN HIS HAND, AND A HORSE-MAN WAS STATIONED AT THE DISTANCE YET WITHIN SIGHT OF HIM,5 AND THEN IF ONE6 SAYS, 'I HAVE SOMETHING [FURTHER] TO STATE IN HIS FAVOUR', HE [THE SIGNALLER] WAVES THE FLAG, AND THE HORSE-MAN RUNS AND STOPS THEM.7 AND EVEN IF HE HIMSELF SAYS, 'I HAVE SOMETHING TO PLEAD IN MY OWN FAVOUR', HE IS BROUGHT BACK, EVEN FOUR OR FIVE TIMES, PROVIDING, HOWEVER, THAT THERE IS SUBSTANCE IN HIS ASSERTION.
GEMARA. And was the place of stoning only just outside the court and no further? Has it not been taught: The place of stoning was outside the three encampments?8 - True, it is even as you say, yet he teaches it thus, so that one may infer from it that if the Beth din went forth9 and stationed itself outside the three encampments,10 even so the place of stoning had to be without the court, in order that it [the court] should not appear murderously inclined, or that there might be a possibility of deliverance.11
Whence is this inferred?12 From what our Rabbis taught: Bring forth him that hath cursed without the camp:13 i.e., without the three camps. You say, 'without the three camps:' but may it not mean simply outside one camp? - It is here stated, Without the camp; and in reference to the bulls that were [wholly] burned,14 it is also said, without the camp:15 Just as there, [it means] without the three camps, so here too. And whence is that derived there? - From what our Rabbis taught: The whole bullock shall he carry away without the camp16 - i.e., without the three camps. You say, 'without the three camps;' but perhaps it simply means 'without one camp'?17 - But when Scripture states further, with reference to the bull offered for the Community,18 without the camp, which is unnecessary, for it has already been stated, And he shall burn it as he hath burned the first bullock,19 its purpose is to add a second camp.20 And when Scripture states further, with reference to the ashes,21 without the camp,22 which is also superfluous, since it has already been said, Where the ashes are poured out shall it be burned,23 its purpose must be to add a third camp.24
But why not derive it25 from the sacrifices slaughtered without [the legitimate precincts]?26 Just as there, [the meaning is] without one camp,27 so here too, without one camp is meant! - It is logical to make the deduction from the bullocks that were [wholly] burned, since they have the following points in common: [i] Bring forth... without the camp; [ii] [the bringing forth] is a necessary preliminary [to the act]; [iii] atonement.28 On the contrary, it should rather be deduced from the sacrifices slaughtered without, since they have the following in common; [i] human being; [ii] sinners; [iii] life is taken; and [iv] piggul?29 - It is preferable to deduce one necessary preliminary from another. R. Papa said:30 Where did Moses reside? In the camp of the Levites.31 And God said to him: Bring forth him that hath cursed without the camp32 - which therefore means, without the camp of the Levites. Hence, when it states, And they brought forth him that had cursed outside the camp, the camp of the Israelites [must be meant].33 But surely, that is necessary to intimate the fulfilment [of the command]? - This fulfilment is expressly stated:
____________________
(1) And the accused is found guilty.
(2) If he be so sentenced. Stoning is given here as an example, it being enumerated first in the list of the four modes of execution in Jewish law. Cf. infra 49b.
(3) 'Bring forth' implies 'without,' as is also shewn by the end of the sentence: without the camp. Lev. XXIV, 14.
(4) Sudarium, a cloth or kerchief.
(5) The signal man.
(6) Of the judges (Rashi).
(7) From carrying out the sentence until the court has gone into the details to see whether there is any substance in the new statement offered.
(8) That of the Divine Presence and the Priests, that of the Levites, and that of the rest of the Israelites. In Jerusalem they were situated as follows: The first was confined to the space of the Temple court, the second to the Temple Mount and the third occupied the rest of the city.
(9) From its usual locale, as stated in the previous note.
(10) I.e., one of the minor Sanhedrins.
(11) Between sentence and execution. The further the place of execution was from the court, therefore, the better for the condemned.
(12) That the execution must take place outside the three camps.
(13) Lev. XXIV, 14, with reference to the blasphemer.
(14) I.e., the sin offering of the anointed priest (Lev. IV, 3, seq.), and of the whole community (ibid. 13 seq.).
(15) Ibid. 12, 21.
(16) Ibid. 12.
(17) I.e., only outside the precincts of the Temple.
(18) In case the whole community committed an unwitting transgression.
(19) Ibid. i.e., the sin offering of the anointed priest, ibid. 3 seq.
(20) Beyond, which the burning is to take place.
(21) Which were heaped up and had to be removed.
(22) Lev. VI, 4.
(23) Lev. IV, 12; this explicitly states that the place for burning the ashes was without the camp. Hence the same statement in the verse first quoted is redundant.
(24) V. n. 12.
(25) Sc. the meaning of 'without the camp', Lev. XXIV, 14.
(26) Cf. Lev. XVII, 3ff. What ever man etc. . . . that offereth a burnt offering or sacrifice and bringeth it not unto the entrance of the appointed tent . . . that man shall be cut off from among his people.
(27) As is deduced from the words, bringeth it not unto the entrance of the appointed tent, i.e., the priestly camp, but outside it.
(28) In both these cases there is a positive command, Bring forth, etc. Whereas with references to sacrifices slaughtered outside the forecourt it is only stated, He that slaugthtered it outside the camp. Again, the bringing forth without the camp is a prerequisite for the fitting performance of the act; whereas in the case of sacrifices slaughtered outside the Temple court it is a transgression. Moreover, the burning of the bullock is an atonement for the High Priest and the whole Congregation (cf. Lev. IV, 20), and stoning likewise is an atonement for the malefactor; but that feature is absent in the case of sacrifices slaughtered without.
(29) 'Without the camp' in both these places refers to a human being; the blasphemer was to be taken 'without the camp', whilst it was a human being who slaughtered 'without the camp'; whereas, in connection with the burnt bullocks, this phrase relates to animals; they were to be taken 'without the camp'. Again, the blasphemer and the slaughterer without the camp are both sinners, whereas the bullock, in direct relation to which the phrase is stated, is not a sinner. Further, in both these cases, the leading 'without the camp' was in order to take life - that of the blasphemer and the sacrifice yet to be slaughtered; but the burnt bullocks were already slaughtered; and 'without the camp' is mentioned in connection with burning their carcases. And finally, the law of piggul is inapplicable to these two. פיגול, unfitness caused by an intention in the mind of the officiating priest to dispose of a sacrifice outside the legal limits of space or time. In both these cases the performance of the act outside does not involve this sin. In stoning it is, of course, not applicable, and sacrificing outside the prescribed area is not piggul, which implies instead a sacrificing outside the precincts but unlawful intentions about the sacrifice's subsequent disposal. Nor is piggul possible in the case of sacrifices slaughtered without. In the case of the bullocks to be wholly burned, an intention to burn them beyond their proper place makes the sacrifice in a sense piggul (v. Rashi). (5) V. n. 3.
(30) In proof that the third camp is meant.
(31) Since he was a Levite.
(32) Lev. XXIV, 14.
(33) It was not necessary to repeat the words, out of the camp; therefore the words here mean something different from their use earlier.And the children of Israel did as the Eternal had commanded Moses.1 If so,2 what is the purpose of the sentence, And they stoned him with a stone?3 - This is needed for what was taught: And they stoned him with a stone,4 - him,5 but not his garments. With a stone,6 - [to teach] that if he was killed by a single stone the commandment is fulfilled.7 And it was necessary to write [in this instance], 'stone', and [in another], 'stones'.8 For had the Divine Law written [only] 'a stone', I might have said: In case he does not die through one stone, no more are to be brought to kill him. The Divine Law therefore states, 'stones'. Again, had the Divine Law written 'stones' [only], I might have said that at the outset two must be fetched. The Divine Law therefore states, 'a stone'.9
But this Tanna states, 'Here it is written [etc.],'10 - He meant, If it were not written, i.e., even if this verse11 were not found,12 I could have adduced a gezerah shawah; seeing, however, that this verse is written, a gezerah shawah is not necessary. R. Ashi said; Where did Moses reside? In the camp of the Levites And God said to him: Bring forth him that hath cursed, - i.e., without the camp of the Levites; without the camp, - i.e., outside the camp of the Israelites.13 And they brought forth him that had cursed,14 - this stands for the actual fulfilment [of the command]. But the fulfilment is expressly stated: And the children of Israel did as the Eternal had commanded Moses! - That is necessary to indicate that hands were laid [on the culprit]15 and that he was hurled down.16 Whereupon the Rabbis asked R. Ashi: How, according to you, do you interpret all the expressions; 'briny forth', in connection with the bullocks that are [wholly] burned?17 This is a difficulty.
A MAN WAS STATIONED. R. Huna said: It is obvious to me that the stone with which one is stoned, the gallows on which one is hanged, the sword with which one is decapitated, and the cloth with which one is strangled, are all provided by the Community. And why so? Because we could not tell a man to go and fetch his own property to kill himself. But, asked R. Huna, who provides the flag for signalling and the horse on which one rides to stop them?18 Seeing that they are for his protection, must they be provided by him, or rather, since the court is bound to endeavour to save him, by them? Again, what of R. Hiyya b. Ashi's dictum in R. Hisda's name; When one is led out to execution, he is given a goblet of wine containing a grain of frankincense, in order to benumb his senses, for it is written, Give strong drink unto him that is ready to perish, and wine unto the bitter in soul.19 And it has also been taught; The noble women in Jerusalem used to donate and bring it. If these did not donate it, who provided it? As for that, it is certainly logical that it should be provided out of the public [funds]: Since it is written. 'Give', [the implication is] of what is theirs.
R. Aha son of R. Huna inquired of R. Shesheth: What if one of the disciples said, 'I have a statement to make in his favour,' and there and then becomes speechless?20 R. Shesheth blew into his hand,21 and said; [You ask, what] if one becomes speechless! Why there may also be some one in the farthest part of the earth [who could make such a statement]!22 - In the latter case, however, no one has actually said so, but in the former case, such a declaration has been made! [Hence the problem,] What then? - Come and hear! For R. Jose b. Hanina said: If one of the disciples who argued for acquittal died, he is regarded as though alive and in his place.23 Thus, it is so only if he had actually spoken in favour of acquittal,24 but not otherwise.25 [That does not solve it:] where one has actually argued for acquittal, I have no doubts; but the problem arises if he only declared [that he could do so].26
AND EVEN IF HE HIMSELF etc. Even the first and second time?27 But it has been taught: 'The first and second time, whether his statement has substance or not, he is brought back; thereafter, if there is substance in his statement, he is brought back, but not otherwise'? - Said R. Papa: Interpret it, from the second time28 onwards. How do they [the judges] know?29 - Abaye said: Two Rabbis are sent with him; if his statement has substance, he is [brought back]; if not, he is not [brought back]. But why not do so in the first place?30 - Because being terrified, he cannot say all he wishes.31
MISHNAH. IF THEN THEY FIND HIM INNOCENT, THEY DISCHARGE HIM; BUT IF NOT, HE GOES FORTH TO BE STONED, AND A HERALD PRECEDES HIM [CRYING]: SO AND SO, THE SON OF SO AND SO, IS GOING FORTH TO BE STONED BECAUSE HE COMMITTED SUCH AND SUCH AN OFFENCE, AND SO AND SO ARE HIS WITNESSES. WHOEVER KNOWS ANYTHING IN HIS FAVOUR, LET HIM COME AND STATE IT.
GEMARA. Abaye said; It must also be announced: On such and such a day, at such and such and hour, and in such and such a place [the crime was committed], in case there are some who know [to the contrary], so that they can come forward and prove the witnesses Zomemim.32
AND A HERALD PRECEDES HIM etc. This implies, only immediately before [the execution], but not previous thereto.33 [In contradiction to this] it was taught: On the eve of the Passover Yeshu34 was hanged. For forty days before the execution took place, a herald went forth and cried, 'He is going forth to be stoned because he has practised sorcery and enticed Israel to apostacy. Any one who can say anything in his favour, let him come forward and plead on his behalf.' But since nothing was brought forward in his favour he was hanged on the eve of the Passover!35 - 'Ulla retorted: Do you suppose that he was one for whom a defence could be made? Was he not a Mesith [enticer], concerning whom Scripture says, Neither shalt thou spare, neither shalt thou conceal him?36 With Yeshu however it was different, for he was connected with the government [or royalty, i.e., influential].
Our Rabbis taught: Yeshu had five disciples, Matthai, Nakai, Nezer, Buni and Todah. When Matthai was brought [before the court] he said to them [the judges], Shall Matthai be executed? Is it not written, Matthai [when] shall I come and appear before God?37 Thereupon they retorted; Yes, Matthai shall be executed, since it is written, When Matthai [when] shall [he] die and his name perish.38 When Nakai was brought in he said to them; Shall Nakai be executed? It is not written, Naki [the innocent] and the righteous slay thou not?39 Yes, was the answer, Nakai shall be executed, since it is written, in secret places does Naki,40 [the innocent] slay.41 When Nezer was brought in, he said; Shall Nezer be executed? Is it not written, And Nezer [a twig] shall grow forth out of his roots.42 Yes, they said, Nezer shall be executed, since it is written, But thou art cast forth away from thy grave like Nezer [an abhorred offshoot].43 When Buni was brought in, he said: Shall Buni be executed? Is it not written, Beni [my son], my first born?44 Yes, they said, Buni shall be executed, since it is written, Behold I will slay Bine-ka [thy son] thy first born.45 And when Todah was brought in, he said to them; Shall Todah be executed? Is it not written, A psalm for Todah [thanksgiving]?46 Yes, they answered, Todah shall be executed, since it is written, Whoso offereth the sacrifice of Todah [thanksgiving] honoured me.47
____________________
(1) Ibid. 23.
(2) That the words, And they brought forth him etc., must be separately interpreted.
(3) Ibid. It is not needed to show how the execution was carried out, as that was already stated in the words quoted above; hence, by analogy, this too needs a distinctive interpretation.
(4) That is the literal translation, the sing. (stone) being used here.
(5) I.e., his bare body.
(6) Sing., as here.
(7) And more stones are not to be thrown at his corpse, to add to his disgrace.
(8) In the case of the gatherer of sticks, it is written, with stones (plural), Num. XV, 36.
(9) To teach that if he died by a single stone, it was satisfactory.
(10) I.e., he deduces the fact that the third camp is meant from a gezerah shawah. How then could R. Papa, an Amora, make the deduction from the verse itself?
(11) Quoted by R. Papa.
(12) Which itself indicates that the third camp is meant.
(13) For 'bring forth' itself implies beyond the camp (v. p. 578, n. 4), therefore the additional phrase denotes another camp.
(14) Lev. XXIV, 23.
(15) Cf. Lev. XXIV, 14. Let all that heard him lay their hands upon him.
(16) From a height, before stoning. V. infra 45a. The phrase quoted above cannot be taken as giving information regarding the carrying out of the stoning, as that has already been stated in the first portion of the verse. It indicates therefore the observance of all other regulations in connection with that penalty. e.g., the laying on of hands etc.
(17) Since he maintained that 'bring forth' has a meaning apart from 'without the camp. What separate meaning does he then give to these expressions when found in connection with the burnt bullocks?
(18) From carrying out the sentence, in case one of the judges raises a new point for the defence.
(19) Prov. XXXI, 6.
(20) I.e., should it be assumed that his arguments would have been weighty, and so now that he is unable to give them, the case should be retried by other judges?
(21) As a sign of ridicule at the question. [The figure of speech is probably taken from the method of blowing at the chaff when sifting ears of corn from one hand to the other, v. Ma'as. IV, 5.]
(22) Justice is impossible if such assumptions are permitted.
(23) I.e., when the vote is taken (supra 34a).
(24) I.e., gave his grounds for doing so.
(25) Hence if one said he could speak for the defence and there and then became dumb, his declaration is disregarded.
(26) I.e., when R. Jose states, 'argued for acquittal,' did he mean that he must have given reasons for his statement, or that he merely said he could do so, even if he was subsequently prevented from giving his reasons.
(27) I.e., must there be substance in his statement even the first and second time?
(28) Exclusive, not inclusive, i.e., from the end of the second time, viz., from the third time.
(29) Whether his statement has substance.
(30) I.e., as soon as he starts out for the place of execution, so as to avoid an unnecessary return even the first time.
(31) Therefore the first two times he receives the benefit of the doubt.
(32) V. Glos.
(33) E.g., not forty days before. The two passages that follow have been expunged in all censored editions. [As to the historical value to be attached to them, v. Klausner, Jesus. p. 27ff.]
(34) [Ms. M. adds the Nasarean'.]
(35) [A Florentine Ms. adds: and the eve of Sabbath.]
(36) Deut. XIII, 9.
(37) Ps. XLII, 3.
(38) Ibid. XLI, 6.
(39) Ex. XXIII, 7.
(40) Naki is employed here as subject.
(41) Ps. X, 8.
(42) Isa. XI, 1.
(43) Ibid. XIV, 19.
(44) Ex. IV, 22.
(45) Ibid. IV, 23.
(46) Ps. C, 1.
(47) Ibid. L, 23. ['We can only regard this fencing with texts as a jeu d'esprit occasioned no doubt by some 'actual event', Herford, op. cit. p. 93. Cf. also Klausner, op. cit. p. 28ff]R. Joshua b. Levi said; He who sacrifices1 his [evil] inclination and2 confesses [his sin] over it,3 Scripture imputes it to him as though he had honoured the Holy One, blessed be He, in both worlds, this world and the next; for it is written, Whoso offereth the sacrifice of confession honoureth me.4
R. Joshua b. Levi also said: When the Temple was in existence, if a man brought a burnt offering, he received credit for a burnt offering; if a meal offering, he received credit for a meal offering; but he who was humble in spirit, Scripture regarded him as though he had brought all the offerings, for it is said, The sacrifices of God are a broken spirit.5 And furthermore, his prayers are not despised, for it is written, A broken and contrite heart, O God, Thou wilt not despise.6
MISHNAH. WHEN HE IS ABOUT TEN CUBITS AWAY FROM THE PLACE OF STONING, THEY SAY TO HIM, 'CONFESS',7 FOR SUCH IS THE PRACTICE OF ALL WHO ARE EXECUTED, THAT THEY [FIRST] CONFESS, FOR HE WHO CONFESSES HAS A PORTION IN THE WORLD TO COME. EVEN SO WE FIND IN THE CASE OF ACHAN, THAT JOSHUA SAID UNTO HIM, MY SON, GIVE, I PRAY THEE, GLORY TO THE LORD, THE GOD OF ISRAEL, AND MAKE CONFESSION UNTO HIM.8 AND ACHAN ANSWERED JOSHUA AND SAID, OF A TRUTH, I HAVE SINNED AGAINST THE LORD THE GOD OF ISRAEL, AND THUS AND THUS HAVE I DONE.9 AND WHENCE DO WE KNOW THAT HIS CONFESSIONS MADE ATONEMENT FOR HIM? - FROM THE WORDS, AND JOSHUA SAID: WHY HAST THOU TROUBLED US? THE LORD SHALL TROUBLE THEE THIS DAY,10 I.E., THIS DAY ART THOU TO BE TROUBLED, BUT THOU SHALT NOT BE TROUBLED IN THE NEXT WORLD.
AND IF HE KNOWS NOT WHAT TO CONFESS,11 THEY INSTRUCT HIM, 'SAY, MAY MY DEATH BE AN EXPIATION FOR ALL MY SINS.' R. JUDAH SAID: IF HE KNOWS THAT HE IS A VICTIM OF FALSE EVIDENCE, HE CAN SAY: MAY MY DEATH BE AN EXPIATION FOR ALL MY SINS BUT THIS. THEY [THE SAGES] SAID TO HIM: IF SO, EVERYONE WILL SPEAK LIKEWISE IN ORDER TO CLEAR HIMSELF.12
GEMARA. Our Rabbis taught: The word na13 is none other than a form of supplication. When the Holy One, blessed be He, said to Joshua, Israel hath sinned,14 he asked Him, 'Sovereign of the Universe, who hath sinned?' 'Am I an informer?' He answered, 'Go and cast lots.' Thereupon he went and cast lots, and the lot fell upon Achan. Said he to him; 'Joshua, dost thou convict me by a mere lot?15 Thou and Eleazar the Priest are the two greatest men of the generation, yet were I to cast lots upon you, the lot might fall on one of you.16 I beg thee,'17 he replied, 'cast no aspersions on [the efficacy of] lots, for Eretz Yisrael is yet to be divided by means of lots, as it is written, The land shall be divided by lot.18 [Therefore,] make confession.' Rabina said: He bribed him with words, saying, Do we seek aught from thee but a confession? confess unto Him and be free. Straightway, Achan answered Joshua and said: Of a truth, I have sinned against the Lord, the God of Israel, and thus have I done.19 R. Assi said in R. Hanina's name: This teaches that Achan had thrice violated the ban, twice in the days of Moses,20 and once in the days of Joshua, for it is written, I have sinned,21 and thus and thus have I done.22
R. Johanan said on the authority of R. Eleazar b. Simeon: He did so five times, four times in the days of Moses,23 and once in the days of Joshua, for it is written, I have sinned and thus and thus have I done.24 And why were they [the Israelites] not punished until this occasion? R. Johanan answered on the authority of R. Eleazar b. Simeon: Because [God] did not punish for secret transgressions until the Israelites had crossed the Jordan.
This point is disputed by Tannaim: The secret things belong unto the Lord our God, but the things that are revealed belong unto us and to our children for ever.25 Why are the words: Lanu u-lebanenu, [unto us and to our children] and the 'ayin of the word 'ad, [for ever] dotted?26 - To teach that God did not punish for transgression committed in secret, until the Israelites had crossed the Jordan:27 this is the view of R. Judah. Said R. Nehemia to him; Did God ever28 punish [all Israel] for crimes committed in secret; does not Scripture say for ever?29 But just as God did not punish [all Israel] for secret transgressions [at any time], so too did He not punish them [corporately] for open transgressions until they had crossed the Jordan.30 Then
____________________
(1) I.e., resists, or conquers.
(2) After having been induced to sin.
(3) Cf. e.g. Lev. XVI, 21. Ms. M. omits 'over it'.]
(4) יכבדנני Ps. L, 23. This is probably deduced from the nun energicum inserted between the suffix and the verbal stem for the sake of emphasis.
(5) Ps. LI, 19.
(6) Ibid.
(7) This and any other sins you may have committed.
(8) Josh. VII, 19.
(9) Ibid. 20.
(10) Ibid. 25.
(11) I.e., he cannot remember his other sins.
(12) Everyone would say this in order to clear himself in the eyes of men, and the court would acquire a bad reputation.
(13) נא (I pray thee) in Josh. VII, 19. quoted in the Mishnah.
(14) Josh. VII, 11.
(15) Without the testimony of witnesses.
(16) Surely, a lot is a thing of chance and can in no way be taken as decisive evidence; it might fall on the least likely people.
(17) Expressed in the word נא (I pray thee) in the verse. Hence its meaning of 'supplication'.
(18) Num. XXVI, 55.
(19) Josh. VII, 20.
(20) Once in the war with the king of Arad, where it is written, And Israel vowed a vow unto the Lord and said . . . then I will utterly destroy their cities (Num. XXI, 2); and a second time in the war between Israel and Sihon, though a ban in that connection is not specifically mentioned, v. J. Sanh. VI, 3.
(21) I.e., this time.
(22) I.e., earlier, 'thus' and 'thus' implying twice apart from this instance.
(23) In the wars with Arad, Sihon, Og and Midian, (Maharsha and Me'iri).
(24) This view is based on the number of words in the Hebrew text, five in all.
(25) Deut. XXIX, 28.
(26) לנו ולבנינו דע Fifteen passages in the Bible contain dotted words. Many meanings have been attached to such dots, but the most probable is that they were a device to indicate homiletical explanations which the Rabbis had connected with the words. Cf. C. D. Ginsburg, Introduction to the Massoretic Critical Edition of the Hebrew Bible, p. 331.
(27) The dots on the words, To us and to our children, denote that corporate responsibility holds good only for revealed or open transgressions, whilst secret offenders have responsibility individually to God alone. But as one might then have inferred that it was so for all time , the ע of the word עד (until) is therefore dotted, indicating that it was so only until, i.e., up to the crossing of the Jordan, but not after it, when corporate responsibility was involved also in secret transgressions.
(28) I.e., even after they crossed the Jordan.
(29) Translating, To us and our children belong only the revealed or open things; but the secret offender will 'for ever' be alone responsible to God, and will not implicate the whole people.
(30) According to R. Nehemia the absence of corporate responsibility for secret sins, irrespective of peril, is expressly stated in the words for ever. The dot on the ע in עד however, indicates a change of responsibility for revealed transgressions in the time they crossed the Jordan.in the case of Achan, why were they punished? - Because his wife and children knew thereof.1
Israel hath sinned. R. Abba b. Zabda said: Even though [the people] have sinned, they are still [called] 'Israel'.2 R. Abba said: Thus people say, A myrtle, though it stands among reeds, is still a myrtle, and it is so called.
Yea, they have even transgressed my covenant which I have commanded them, yea, they have even taken of the devoted thing and have also stolen [it], and dissembled also, and they have even put it amongst their own stuff.3 R. Ile'a said on behalf of R. Judah b. Masparta: This teaches that Achan transgressed the five books of the Torah, [for the word 'gam'4 is written there five times].
R. Ile'a also said on behalf of R. Judah b. Masparta; Achan was an epispastic:5 Here it is written, They have even transgressed my covenant;6 and elsewhere7 it is said, He hath broken my covenant.8 But is this not obvious?9 - I might have thought that he would not practise a licence in respect of a precept which concerned his own body; therefore he (R. Ile'a) informs us otherwise.
And because he hath wrought a wanton deed in Israel.10 R. Abba b. Zabda said; This teaches that Achan committed adultery with a betrothed damsel: Here it is written, And because he hath wrought a wanton deed in Israel, and elsewhere, it is said, For she hath wrought a wanton deed in Israel.11 But is this not obvious?12 - I might have thought that Achan was not so extremely licentious;13 therefore he gives us this information.14 Rabina said: He was punished as is a betrothed damsel [who commits adultery], viz., by stoning.15
The Resh Galutha once said to R. Huna; It is written, And Joshua took Achan the son of Zerah and the silver and the mantle and the wedge of gold and his sons and his daughters, and his oxen and his asses, and sheep, and his tent and all that he had.16 If he sinned, wherein did his sons and daughters sin? - He retorted: On your view, [one might ask:] If he sinned, how did all Israel sin, that it is written, And all Israel with him?17 But it was to overawe18 them. So here too, it was to overawe them.19
And they burned them with fire and they stoned them with stones.20 By both [forms of death]?21 - Rabina answered: Those suitable for burning22 were burned, and those suitable for stoning23 were stoned.
And I saw among the spoil a goodly mantle of Shinar,24 and two hundred shekels of silver.25 Rab said: It was a silk mantle;26 Samuel maintained: It was a cloak dyed with alum.
And they laid them down27 before the Lord.28 R. Nahman said: He [Joshua] came and cast them down before God, exclaiming, 'Sovereign of the Universe! for these shall a [number equal to a] majority of the Sanhedrin he killed?'29 For it is written, And the men of Ai smote of them about thirty-six men;30 regarding which it was taught, i.e., literally thirty-six: this is R. Judah's view. R. Nehemia said to him; Were there actually thirty-six? Surely, only about thirty-six men is written. But this refers to Jair the son of Manasseh31 who was equal [in importance] to the majority of the Sanhedrin.32 R. Nahman said in Rab's name: What is meant by, The poor useth entreaties, but the rich answereth insolently.?33 - The poor useth entreaties - that refers to Moses;34 the rich answereth insolently, - to Joshua. Why so? Shall we say, because it is written. And they laid them down before the Lord,35 which R. Nahman interpreted, He came and cast them down before God;36 But did not Phinehas do the same? For it is written, Then stood up Phinehas and wrought judgment [wa-yefallel] and so the plague was stayed:37 whereon R. Eleazar said: Not wayithpallel,38 but wa-yefallel is written;39 thus teaching that he had contentions with his Creator: he came and cast them40 before God and cried out, 'Sovereign of the Universe! because of these, shall twenty-four thousand of Israel fall?' As it is written, And those that died by the plague, were twenty and four thousand?41 - Nay it is inferred42 from the following: [And Joshua said, Alas! O Lord,] wherefore hast Thou brought this people over the Jordan.43 Yet Moses too spake thus: Wherefore hast thou dealt ill with this people.?44 - Nay but it is derived from the following: Would that we had been content and dwelt beyond the Jordan.45
And the Lord said unto Joshua, Get thee up.46 R. Shila expounded this: The Holy One blessed be He, said to him: Thy [transgression] is greater47 than theirs,48 for I commanded, And it shall be when ye are passed over the Jordan that ye shall set up [these stones];49 ye advanced sixty mils however, [into the country before setting them up].50 But when he [R. Shila] had gone out, Rab51 set up his interpreter to speak for him, who expounded; As the Lord commanded Moses His servant, so did Moses command Joshua, and so did Joshua; he left nothing undone of all that the Lord commanded Moses.52 What then do the words, Get thee up,53 teach us? - The Lord said to him, Thou hast brought [guilt] upon them:54 and for that reason He said to him with reference to Ai: And thou shalt do to Ai and her king as thou didst to Jericho and her king, [only the spoil thereof and the cattle thereof shall ye take for a prey.]55
And it came to pass when Joshua was by Jericho that he lifted up his eyes and looked . . . And he said, Nay, but I am captain of the host of the Lord, I am now come. And Joshua fell on his face to the earth and bowed down.56 But how could he do so?57 Did not R. Johanan say: One may not greet his fellow at night for fear that he may be a demon?58 There it was different, for he said; I am captain of the host of the Lord, I am now come, etc. But perhaps he lied? - We have a tradition that such do not utter the name of God in vain.
____________________
(1) It was therefore no longer secret.
(2) Israel is the name of honour for the people when faithful to God. Cf. Isa. XLIX, 3.
(3) Josh. VII, 11.
(4) Also, or even. [Ms. M. omits bracketed words. The inference that he transgressed the five books will then be deduced from the verse itself: my covenant, referring in Genesis (XVIII); taken of the devoted thing, to Leviticus (XXVIII, 28); stolen, to Exodus (XX, 15); dissembled, to Numbers (V, 5-10); put it amongst their own stuff, to Deuteronomy (XXIII, 25), v. Yad Ramah.]
(5) I.e., he effaced the sign of the Abrahamic covenant in circumcision.
(6) Josh. VII, 11.
(7) With reference to circumcision.
(8) Gen. XVII, 14. Hence covenant' is assumed to have the same meaning in both verses.
(9) Seeing that R. Ile'a himself said earlier that he had transgressed the five books of the Torah; that includes epispasm.
(10) Josh. VII, 19.
(11) Deut. XXII, 21; this refers to a betrothed maiden who committed adultery.
(12) V. n. 8.
(13) As to make himself despised by men also, for having brought shame (in her family, and having made her ineligible to marry her intended husband.
(14) This was probably intended to teach that there is no limit to licentiousness once a man breaks loose from restraint.
(15) He should legally have been burned for taking of the things under the ban. cf. Josh. VII, 15: He that is taken with the devoted things shall be burned with fire.
(16) Ibid. 24.
(17) Ibid.
(18) Lit., 'chastise'. I.e., all Israel were taken to the place of execution to be overawed by his punishment.
(19) Thus, his family was brought there merely to witness the execution.
(20) Ibid. 25.
(21) Surely they were not executed twice!
(22) The inanimate property.
(23) The livestock.
(24) Babylon. Cf. Gen X, 10; XI, 2.
(25) Josh. VII, 21.
(26) Rashi: Woollen.
(27) Lit., 'poured out'.
(28) Ibid. 23.
(29) I.e., of the great Sanhedrin of seventy one.
(30) Ibid. verse 5.
(31) A contemporary of Moses and a descendant of Manasseh by his grandmother and of Judah by his grandfather. His grandmother was probably an heiress and therefore he is reckoned by the tribe of Manasseh (I Ch. II, 5, 22, 23)
(32) The Heb. is כשלשים, and the כ is translated as a kaf similitatis, 'like,' i.e., one man who was like thirty-six
(33) Prov. XVIII, 23.
(34) Who, when imploring God's mercy for the people, spake humbly. The term 'poor' which is used of Moses in this instance is attributed to the fact that in comparison with Joshua, he was poor in the conquest of the land (Maharsha).
(35) Josh. VII, 23.
(36) Meaning that Joshua threw them down in a challenging or insolent way.
(37) Ps. CVI, 30.
(38) ויתפלל, 'he interceded', 'prayed'.
(39) ויפלל, 'he judged'.
(40) Zimri and Cozbi. Cf. Num. XXV, 7ff.
(41) Num. XXV, 9.
(42) That Joshua spoke insolently.
(43) Josh. VII, 7.
(44) Ex. V, 22.
(45) Josh. VII, 7.
(46) Ibid. 10.
(47) Lit., 'harder'.
(48) Deduced from the redundant לך 'thee', i.e., it is on thy account too that this disaster has happened. 'Theirs' probably refers to Achan's sin.
(49) Deut. XXVII, 4.
(50) The distance between the Jordan and the mountains of Gerizim and Ebal, where the stones were set up, is sixty mils. V. Sotah. 36a.
(51) [Rab was then still in Nehardea, the place of R. Shila.]
(52) Josh. XI, 15. I.e., Joshua did not sin as suggested above.
(53) V. p. 288, n. 16.
(54) By forbidding them the spoil of Jericho.
(55) Josh. VIII, 2, thus expressly ordering him not to proclaim a ban.
(56) Josh. V, 13-14. The fact that, as his question implies, he could not distinguish who the other was, shows that it was night time.
(57) I.e., bow to an unknown man.
(58) The customary greeting of Shalom (peace) is held in equal esteem with the name of God (v. Shab. 10b), and therefore may not be extended to a demon; whilst bowing to a demon is most certainly forbidden.He [this stranger] said to him: 'Yesterday evening, ye omitted the evening Tamid,1 and to-day2 ye have neglected the study of the Torah.'3 'For which of these [offences] hast thou come?' 'I have now come,'4 he replied. Straightway [we read], And Joshua lodged that night in the midst of the vale'.5 Whereon R. Johanan observed: It teaches that he spent the night in the profundities6 of the law.
R. Samuel b. Unia said in the name of Rab: The study of the Torah is more important than the offering of the Tamid, since it is written, I have now come.7
Abaye asked R. Dimi:8 To what do ye in 'the West' relate the following verse: Go not forth hastily to strife, for what wilt thou do in the end thereof when thy neighbour hath put thee to shame. Debate thy cause with thy neighbour, but reveal not the secrets of another?9 - [He answered]: When the Holy One, blessed be He, said to Ezekiel, Go and say unto Israel, An Amorite was thy father, and thy mother was a Hittite,10 the intercessory11 spirit said before the Holy One, blessed be He, 'Sovereign of the Universe! if Abraham and Sarah came and stood before Thee, wouldst Thou say [this] to them and put them to shame?' Debate thy cause with thy neighbour,12 but reveal not the secret of another!13 But has he so much license?14 - Yes, For R. Jose son of R. Hanina said: He has three names: Pisakon, Itamon, and Sigaron.15 Pisakon, because he argues against the Most High;16 Itamon, because he hides the sins of Israel, Sigaron, because when he concludes17 a matter, none can reopen it.18 Hadst thou prepared thy prayer before thy trouble came?19 R. Eleazar said: One should always offer up prayer before misfortune comes; for had not Abraham anticipated trouble by prayer between Beth-el and Ai,20 there would not have remained of Israel's sinners a remnant or a survivor.21 Resh Lakish said: He who devotes his strength to prayer22 below,23 has no enemies [to overcome] above.24 R. Johanan said: One should ever implore mercy that all [sc. Heavenly beings] may support his effort [in prayer] so that he may have no enemies on high.25
AND WHENCE DO WE KNOW THAT HIS CONFESSIONS MADE ATONEMENT FOR HIM etc. Our Rabbis taught: Whence do we know that his confessions made atonement for him? - From the verse, And Joshua said unto him, Why hast thou troubled us, the Lord shall trouble thee this day: [implying] this day art thou troubled, but thou shalt not be troubled in the next world. And again it is written, And the sons of Zerah: Zimri,26 and Ethan and Heman and Calcol and Darda,27 five of them in all.28 Why the phrase: five of them in all?29 - Because all five were equally destined for the world to come. Here he is called Zimri, but elsewhere, Achan.30 Rab and Samuel [differ thereon]: One maintains his real name was Achan; and why was he called Zimri? - Because he acted like Zimri.31 The other maintains, His real name was Zimri; and why was he called Achan? - Because he wound the sins of Israel about them like a serpent.32
AND IF HE KNOWS NOT WHAT TO CONFESS . . . R. JUDAH SAID . . . TO CLEAR HIMSELF. Why not let them clear themselves? - In order that they may not bring discredit upon the Court and the witnesses.
Our Rabbis taught: It happened once that a man who was being taken to be executed said: 'If I am guilty of this sin, may my death not atone for any of my sins; but if I am innocent thereof, may my death expiate all my sins. The court and all Israel are guiltless, but may the witnesses never be forgiven.' Now, when the Sages heard of the matter they said: It is impossible to reverse the decision, since the sentence has been promulgated. He must therefore be executed, and may the chain [of responsibility] ever hang on the neck of the witnesses. But is he to be relied on?33 - This holds good only where the witnesses have retracted.34 But even so, of what consequence is it? Once a witness testified - he cannot testify again!35 It is necessary [to state this] even where they [the witnesses] give a reason for their action,36 as happened in the case of Ba'ya37 the tax-collector.
MISHNAH. WHEN HE IS ABOUT FOUR CUBITS DISTANT FROM THE PLACE OF STONING, HE IS STRIPPED OF HIS GARMENTS.38 A MAN IS COVERED IN FRONT AND A WOMAN BOTH IN FRONT AND BEHIND: THIS IS R. JUDAH'S VIEW. BUT THE SAGES SAY: A MAN IS TO BE STONED NAKED BUT A WOMAN IS NOT TO BE STONED NAKED.
____________________
(1) The daily burnt offerings, one of which was sacrificed every morning, and one towards evening. Cf. Num. XXVIII, 3.
(2) Lit., 'now'.
(3) The conversation took place during the night when fighting was at a standstill and they should have been studying the land.
(4) I.e., I have come to you for the present offence.
(5) The ordinary text reads: among the people instead of: in the midst of the vale. Again, verse 13 of the same chapter in which we do find, in the midst of the vale, begins with, And Joshua went, instead of, And Joshua lodged. It is probable that the Rabbis combined the two verses for the purpose of their exegesis, which is not unusual with them. Cf. Tosaf. Meg. 3a. s.v. וילן; Shabb. 128a s.v. ונתן. In a parallel passage in 'Er. 63b, the verse quoted conforms to the Biblical text: And Joshua went, and the text further reads: He went into the depths of the study of the law. Bah mentions another version which reads as follows: And Joshua lodged that night amongst the people; further it is written, into the midst of the vale, - this teaches that he went and spent that night in the depths of the study of the law. V.D.S. a.l.
(6) עמק means 'valley', as well as 'deep' or 'depth'.
(7) I.e., to reprimand you, not on account of the Tamid, but for the present offence, neglecting the study of the law.
(8) R. Dimi often carried Palestine exegesis to the Babylonian schools.
(9) Prov. XXV, 8-9.
(10) Ezek. XVI, 3.
(11) פסקונית lit., 'an arguing spirit, - an additional name of the Angel Gabriel, who always interceded on behalf of Israel. V. however p. 99, n. 6.
(12) I.e, reproach him alone.
(13) Do not take up anothers' shame.
(14) To reproach God so freely!
(15) פיסקון from פסק 'to split;' איטמון from אטם 'to lock'; and סיגרון from סגר 'to close'. So at least according to the Talmudic interpretation which follows.
(16) Lit., 'he splits words upwards.
(17) I.e., when his words are of no effect.
(18) No others can successfully intercede. Kohut suggests that they are of Arabic origin. Pisakon denoting shame; Itamon, sin, and Sigaron, pain, an angel being in charge of each of these three things. Hence in his opinion, פסקנית does not denote Gabriel but the Spirit of Shame. V. 'Aruch Completum, vol. I, p. 63.
(19) היערוך שועך לא בצר Job XXXVI, 19 (E.V.: Will thy riches avail that are without stint.) ערך means 'to prepare', as well as 'to estimate;' שוע means 'prayer,' or 'wealth'.
(20) Cf. Gen. XII, 8: He pitched his tent, having Beth-el on his west, and Ai on the east, and he builded an altar to the Lord and called upon the name of the Lord.
(21) At the Battle of Ai in the days of Joshua.
(22) Lit., 'who strengthens himself in prayer.'
(23) I.e., on earth.
(24) Translating: 'Hadst thou put forth thy prayer (with strength), thou wouldst have had no adversary (above)'.
(25) Translating somewhat similarly: 'When thou canst prepare thy prayer, see that thou hast no enemies (on high, to urge its rejection)'.
(26) According to the Rabbis, he is identical with Achan. Although the latter was a great grandson of Zerah, he is called the son of Zerah in Josh. VII, 24. The four other sons are referred to in I Kings (V, 11) as great men, and the fact that Achan (Zimri) is associated with them is taken as an indication that his confession helped him to enter the world to come in common with the others.
(27) Dara, in I Chron II, 6.
(28) I Chron. II, 6.
(29) Surely the number is obvious and needs no special mention! Therefore it has some other meaning.
(30) Cf. Josh. VII, 24.
(31) I.e., he was licentious. Cf. Num. XXV, 14, and supra 44a.
(32) Cf. Gr. **.
(33) I.e., is his statement so trustworthy that responsibility may be thrust upon the witnesses? - Such would seem to have been the text before Rashi, v. D.S. a.l. Our reading is: But that is obvious, (for) is he then the sole authority! I.e., why state that the Rabbis did not reverse the sentence! Is he then to have his own way entirely so that we should disbelieve the witnesses.
(34) After the sentence had been promulgated.
(35) Witnesses are not permitted to retract their first statement and make another, since they may have been prompted thereto out of pity for the accused.
(36) In withdrawing their previous statement. E.g., when they say that they have previously testified against him out of hatred. In this case, though the execution is carried out, the witnesses bear responsibility.
(37) According to Kohut 'Aruch Completum, vol II, p. 140, Ba'ya is derived from the Arabic, meaning an informer. In the case in question he had denounced the tax defaulters in the Government, an act which, of course, aroused the enmity of the people. According in Rashi, the subject matter of the text is connected with this name as follows: The funeral of the said collector coincided with that of a very pious man, but accidentally the coffins were exchanged, so that the honour intended for the Rabbi was paid to the other, and vice versa. An explanation of the happening was given by the Rabbi in a dream to one of his pupils who was disturbed at the occurrence, and he also informed him that severe punishment was in store for Simeon b. Shetah in the world to come for the neglect of his duty in tolerating eighty women in Ashkelon guilty of sorcery. Simeon, on being informed about it, took a serious view of the matter and had them executed. The relatives of these women, however, inflamed with a passion for revenge, plotted against his son, charging him with a capital crime, as a result of which he was sentenced to death. On his way to the place of execution the condemned man protested his innocence so vehemently that even the witnesses were moved to admit the falsity of their evidence, giving as ground for their former act their feelings of enmity against Simeon b. Shetah. Yet their latter statement was not accepted, according to the law expounded in the text, that a witness is not to be believed when be withdraws a former statement. The source for Rashi's story is found in J. Sanh. VI, 3; 6, and in J. Hag. II, 2, with slight variations.
(38) In order to hasten his death and lessen the pain (Maim.). The Talmud, however, bases it on Scripture.
GEMARA. Our Rabbis taught: One part of a man was covered, [viz.,] in front and two parts of a woman, [viz.,] in front and behind, because she is wholly shameful [when naked]: this is R. Judah's opinion. The Sages said: A man is stoned naked, but not a woman, What is the Rabbis' reason? - Scripture states, And they shall stone otho [him]. Why state 'otho'?1 Shall we say, 'otho' but not 'othah,' [her]? but it is written, Then shalt thou bring forth that man or that woman!2 What then is the significance of 'otho'. - That only he3 [is stoned] without his garments, but she4 is stoned in her clothes.
R. Judah5 said: 'Otho' implies without clothes, and there is no distinction of sex.6 Are we to assume that the Rabbis are apprehensive of unchaste thoughts, and that R. Judah is not? But we know in fact that they both hold the reverse, for we learnt:7 The Priest seizes her garments,8 it does not matter if they are rent or torn open, until he uncovers her bosom and unloosens her hair. R. Judah said: If her bosom was beautiful, he did not expose it, and if her hair was comely, he did not loosen it,9 Rabbah said: In the other case, this was the reason: lest she should come forth from the Beth din innocent and the young priests conceive a passion for her; but here, she is about to be executed! And should you object, But through her their passions might be inflamed for others, Rabbah said: We have it on tradition that evil inclination moves a man only towards what his eyes see.
Raba said: Is there only an inconsistency between R. Judah's two statements and not between those of the Rabbis?10 - But, said Raba, R. Judah's two statements are not contradictory, even as we have solved the difficulty. And the Rabbis' views are also not opposed: Scripture says, That all women may be warned and not to do after your lewdness:11 but here, no greater warning is possible than this [sc. the execution].12 And should you say, Let us wreak both13 upon her, behold R. Nahman said in Rabbah b. Abbahu's name: Scripture says Love thy neighbour as thyself:14 choose an easy death for him.15
Shall we say that R. Nahman's statement is the subject of a conflict between Tannaim?16 - No: all agree with R. Nahman, but they differ on the following point: One Master17 holds that [the avoidance of] personal humiliation is far preferable to lack of bodily pain,18 and the other holds the reverse.
MISHNAH. THE PLACE OF STONING WAS TWICE A MAN'S HEIGHT.19 ONE OF THE WITNESSES PUSHED HIM BY THE HIPS, [SO THAT] HE WAS OVERTURNED ON HIS HEART. HE WAS THEN TURNED ON HIS BACK.20 IF THAT CAUSED HIS DEATH, HE HAD FULFILLED [HIS DUTY];21 BUT IF NOT, THE SECOND WITNESS22 TOOK THE STONE23 AND THREW24 IT ON HIS CHEST. IF HE DIED THEREBY, HE25 HAD DONE [HIS DUTY]; BUT IF NOT, HE [THE CRIMINAL] WAS STONED BY ALL ISRAEL,26 FOR IT IS WRITTEN: THE HAND OF THE WITNESSES SHALL BE FIRST UPON HIM TO PUT HIM TO DEATH, AND AFTERWARDS THE HAND OF ALL THE PEOPLE.27
GEMARA. A Tanna taught: And with his own height,28 there were three [men's heights] in all. Yet do we really require so much height?29 For the following contradicts it: 'Just as a pit to be reckoned as causing death must be ten handbreadths [deep],30 so must all other [excavations] be sufficient to cause death, viz., ten handbreadths'?31 - R. Nahman said in Rabbah b. Abbahu's name: Scripture states, Love thy neighbour as thyself;32 i.e., choose an easy33 death for him. But if so, it [sc. the place of stoning] should be still higher! - [That, however, is not so] to prevent disfiguration.34
ONE OF THE WITNESSES PUSHED HIM: Our Rabbis taught: Whence do we know that it [the execution]35 was accomplished by hurling down?36 - Scripture states, And he shall be cast down.37 And whence the necessity of stoning? - Scripture states, He shall be stoned.38 And whence do we know that both stoning and hurling down [were employed]?39 - From the verse, he shall surely be stoned or thrown down.40 And whence do we know that if he died through being hurled down, it is enough? - Scripture states, or cast down.41 Whence do we know the same procedure is to be followed for [all subsequent] generations?
____________________
(1) In a separate pronoun, instead of using the pronominal suffix.
(2) Deut. XVII, 5, with reference to idolatry which is punishable by sinning.
(3) I.e., a man.
(4) I.e., a woman.
(5) Who requires only partial covering of a woman.
(6) Since 'Otho' serves for one exclusion, that of clothes - it cannot serve as excluding women from that requirement, v. supra 43a.
(7) Sotah 8a.
(8) In connection with the procedure for a woman suspected of infidelity (sotah). Cf. Num.V, 11ff.
(9) Hence it is R. Judah and not the Rabbis who are apprehensive that the sight of her may incite to unchaste thought.
(10) For Rabbah's distinction only reconciled R. Judah's two views, but left the difficulty of the Rabbis' views untouched.
(11) Ezek. XXIII, 48. The procedure with the Sotah therefore was only instituted as a deterrent.
(12) Hence there is on need to add humiliation.
(13) Humiliation and stoning.
(14) Lev. XIX, 18.
(15) One entailing as little humiliation as possible.
(16) R. Judah and the Sages, inasmuch as the former, by requiring only partial covering of the woman and so enhancing her humiliation, does not seem to be of that opinion.
(17) I.e., the Sages.
(18) Lit., 'bodily ease'. Though being clothed delays death and increases pain, yet the humiliation of nakedness is harder to beat.
(19) I.e., six cubits, the normal height of man to the shoulders being three cubits,
(20) To see whether the drop brought his death forthwith. [So Abraham de Boton on Maim. Yad, Sanh. XV, 1. Rashi explains: Because it is degrading (for the dead) to be on the face, v. Tosaf. Yom. Tob. The rendering could accordingly be: One of the witnesses pushed him down on the hips. If (however) he overturned (i.e., fell) on his heart, he was turned on his back, v. Hoffmann.]
(21) I.e., the witness, the obligation of execution lying primarily upon him.
(22) According to the Naples ed. he himself takes etc. and only if that failed to cause death did the second witness take part.
(23) 'The' stone, because it was prepared beforehand. This was a very heavy stone, which it required two men to lift.
(24) Lit., 'placed'.
(25) Sc., the second witness.
(26) I.e., all the bystanders.
(27) Deut. XVII, 7.
(28) He was pushed down from a standing position.
(29) To cause instant death.
(30) Cf. M. B.K. 50b.
(31) Why is the height of three men required in this case?
(32) Lev. XIX, 18.
(33) I.e., a quick death.
(34) A fall from a greater height would unnecessarily disfigure the body.
(35) Of those who approached Mt. Sinai, Ex. XIX, 12ff.
(36) In Scripture stoning is first mentioned, as that was the means of bringing about the actual death. Here hurling down is dealt with first as that is preliminary to the other.
(37) Ex. XIX, 13.
(38) Ibid; cf. Deut. XXII, 24, where stones are expressly mentioned in connection with 'stoning',
(39) In case death did not result from the hurling down alone.
(40) Ibid.
(41) Because if stoning were always necessary in addition to the hurling down, even when the latter alone had caused death, why state or cast down?- Because Scripture states, He shall surely be stoned.1
BUT IF NOT, THE SECOND WITNESS TOOK THE STONE. HE TOOK'?2 But has it not been taught: R. Simeon b. Eleazar says: 'A stone was there which it took two men to lift, - he lifted that and dropped it on his [the victim's] chest; if it killed him, his duty was fulfilled'?3 But on your reasoning, that itself is inconsistent! That 'which it took two men to lift' - 'he lifted that and dropped it on his chest!' But it must mean that he lifts it up together with his fellow witness, but drops it [down] by himself in order that it may come down with force.4 BUT IF NOT, HE WAS STONED BY ALL ISRAEL, etc. But has it not been taught: It [the stoning] was never actually repeated?5 - Do I then say that it was done? I merely state what might be necessary!
The Master said: 'A stone was there etc.'6 But has it not been taught: 'The stone with which he [the condemned] was stoned, the gallows on which he was hanged, the sword with which he was beheaded, or the cloth with which he was strangled, are all buried with him'?7 - It merely means that others were prepared and brought in their place.8 'They are all buried with him.' Surely it has been taught: They are not buried with him!9 - R. Papa explained: What is meant by 'with him?' In the earth surrounding his corpse.10
Samuel said: If the hand[s] of the witnesses were cut off,11 he [the condemned] goes free. Why so? - Because it is necessary that The hand of the witnesses shall be first upon him,12 which is here impossible. But according to this, if they were without hands from the outset,13 are they also ineligible?14 - There15 it is different, for Scripture states, The hand of the witnesses, implying, the hand which they had previously possessed.16
An objection is raised; 'Wherever two witnesses testify, saying, We testify against so and so17 that he was sentenced by such and such a court, and so and so are his witnesses, he is to be executed'.18 - Samuel explained this as referring to a case where the same were also the original witnesses.19 But must [every] verse be [carried out] as written? Has it not been taught: 'He that smote him shall surely be put to death, he is a murderer?20 I only know that he may be executed with the death that is decreed for him.21 But where it is not possible to execute him in the manner prescribed,22 whence do I know that one may execute him by any means possible? From the verse: He that smote him shall surely be put to death, - in all cases'?23 - There it is different, for Scripture says, He shall surely be put to death.24 Then let us draw an inference from it.25 - Because the references to a murderer, and the 'avenger of blood' are two verses written with the same object, and the teaching of two such verses does not extend to anything else.26 'A murderer', as has just been stated. And what is the reference to the 'avenger of blood'? - It has been taught: The avenger of blood shall himself put the murderer to death;27 it is [primarily] the duty of the avenger of blood [to slay the murderer]. And whence do we know that, if he [the murdered man] has no avenger of blood,28 the Beth din must appoint one?29 - From the verse, When he meeteth him,30 i.e., in all cases.31
Mar Kashisha, the son of R. Hisda, said to R. Ashi: But are we really not to interpret the verse literally? Have we not learnt: If either of them32 has a hand or fingers cut off, or is dumb, lame, blind, or deaf, he does not become a 'stubborn and rebellious son';33 because it is written, And they shall lay hold on him,34 - this excludes those with hands or fingers cut off; and they shall bring him out, so excluding lame [parents]; and they shall say, excluding the dumb; this our son,35 excluding the blind; he will not obey our voice, excluding the deaf.36 Why so? Surely because a verse must be literally interpreted! - No. There it is different, because the entire verse is superfluous.37
Come and hear! If it [the city] has no 'public square',38 it cannot become a condemned city: this is R. Ishmael's view. R. Akiba said: If it has no public square, one is made for it.39 Now, they differ only in that one holds that 'the public square thereof'40 implies, that it must have been there from the outset [i.e., before sentence]; and the other holds that 'the public square thereof', even if it has only now [sc. after sentence] become one, is to be regarded as though it had been one originally. Yet both agree that the verse must be interpreted literally! - It is a point of difference between Tannaim, for we learnt:41 If he has no thumb or great toe or right ear, he can never obtain cleansing. R. Eliezer said: He [the priest] applies it [the blood] on the corresponding place, and his duty is discharged. R. Simeon said: He applies it on the left side and his duty is discharged.42
MISHNAH. ALL WHO ARE STONED ARE [AFTERWARDS] HANGED: THIS IS R. ELIEZER'S VIEW, THE SAGES SAY: ONLY THE BLASPHEMER AND THE IDOLATER ARE HANGED. A MAN IS HANGED WITH HIS FACE TOWARDS THE SPECTATORS, BUT A WOMAN WITH HER FACE TOWARDS THE GALLOWS: THIS IS THE VIEW OF R. ELIEZER. BUT THE SAGES SAY: A MAN IS HANGED, BUT NOT A WOMAN. WHEREUPON R. ELIEZER SAID TO THEM: BUT DID NOT SIMEON B. SHETAH HANG WOMEN AT ASHKELON?43 THEY RETORTED: [ON THAT OCCASION] HE HANGED EIGHTY WOMEN, NOTWITHSTANDING THAT TWO [MALEFACTORS] MUST NOT BE TRIED ON THE SAME DAY.44
GEMARA. Our Rabbis taught: [Scripture states,] And if he be put to death, then thou shalt hang him on a tree:45 I might think that all who are put to death are to be hanged: therefore Scripture states, For he is hanged [because of] a curse against God.46 Just as the blasphemer in question is executed by stoning, so all who are stoned [must be subsequently hanged]: this is R. Eliezer's view. But the Sages say: Just as the blasphemer in question denied the fundamental principle [of faith].47 So all who deny the fundamental principle [of faith].48 Wherein do they differ?49 - The Rabbis50 employ [the rule of] the general and the particular; whilst R. Eliezer employs [the rule of] extension and limitation.51 'The Rabbis employ [the rule of] the general and the particular.' [Thus:] And if he be put to death then thou shalt hang him, is a general proposition; for he is hanged [because of] a curse against God is the particular. Now, had these two clauses been placed beside each other,52 we should have said, the general includes nothing [but] the particular, i.e., only this man53 and no one else.
____________________
(1) In the future tense. [Ms. M. adds 'or he shall surely be thrown down.']
(2) Was it done by one man alone?
(3) Obviously two people were required to handle it.
(4) Because if two threw it they might not both follow exactly the same direction with a consequent loss of force.
(5) Death having always resulted from the first operation.
(6) Implying that the same stone was regularly employed for stoning.
(7) A.Z. 62b.
(8) I.e., that a stone was lying there in readiness, and not brought just at the moment when it was needed.
(9) Tosef. Sanh. IX.
(10) Which comes to be regarded as part of the body and must be carried with it when moved. Cf. Nazir 64b.
(11) After they testified.
(12) Deut. XVII, 7.
(13) Before they testified.
(14) Seeing that the injunction in Deut. XVII, 7 cannot in their case be applicable.
(15) In the case dealt with by Samuel.
(16) But if they lack hands at the outset they are eligible to testify.
(17) If the condemned person escaped and was recaptured (Mak. 7a).
(18) Even in the absence of the original witnesses. This proves that the injunction in Deut. XVII, 7 is not indispensably essential, but only desirable when possible.
(19) Hence the injunction can be carried out.
(20) Num. XXXV, 21,
(21) I.e., decapitation by the sword.
(22) E.g., if he fled, but could be reached by an arrow (Rashi on 72b).
(23) Infra 53a; 72b. Hence it is not necessary to understand the verse literally.
(24) מות יומת. The infinitive strengthens the idea of the verb and denotes an inclusion of other modes of execution if necessary.
(25) That just as there, where he should be decapitated, he is nevertheless executed by any means possible, so here too, where he should be hurled down by the hands of the witnesses, he is still to be executed even if their hands have been cut off.
(26) V. p. 458, n. 9.
(27) Num. XXXV, 19, referring to wilful murder. Rashi's interpretation that it refers to accidental homicide where the murderer was found outside the city of refuge is difficult. V. Mishneh Lemelek on Yad, Rozeah I, 2.
(28) A near kinsman, upon whom devolves the duty of hunting down a murderer to death.
(29) I.e., the Court is always responsible for prosecuting the murderer, whether there is a relative or not.
(30) Ibid.
(31) Thus this verse too shows that the provisions of an avenging kinsman are not limited to the precise statement of the Bible,
(32) The parents of a 'stubborn and rebellious son'; Deut, XXI, 18ff.
(33) So the law concerning such is not operative.
(34) Ibid, 19.
(35) Showing that they must point him out.
(36) Who are unable to bear his reply to their orders. V. infra 71a.
(37) It could have been written thus: 'And they shall bring him unto the elders of his city, and all the men shall stone him with stones,' as is usual with other cases punishable by stoning, without repeating the indictment. Therefore that verse must certainly be understood literally; but it does not prove that all verses are to be understood exactly as they are written.
(38) Cf. Deut, XIII, 17: And thou shalt gather all the spoil of it into the midst of the public square thereof.
(39) Infra 112a,
(40) Cf. n. 5.
(41) Nazir 46b, with reference to the purification of a leper. Cf. Lev, XIV, 14:
(42) I.e., the leper becomes clean, This proves that in the opinion of R. Eliezer and R. Simeon a verse need not be understood literally, whilst the first Tanna maintains that it must be so interpreted. Hence Samuel agrees with the latter.
(43) Though this southern coastal city was never for any length of time populated by Jews, a fact which makes such an execution most unusual, it was twice surrendered to Jonathan the Maccabee (cf. Mace. X, 36; XI, 60) and later to Alexander Jannaeus (Simeon's brother-in-law). It is therefore not improbable that Jews made their home there, despite the view of Schurer. [V. Klausner, היסטוריה ישראלית II, 134. Derenbourg, however, op. cit., p. 69, n. 1, maintains that Simeon Maccabeus has been here confused with Simeon b. Shetah, as it was only in the days of the former that Ashkelon had a large Jewish population, and it is also known from other sources that he visited Ashkelon several times.]
(44) Hence this occurrence cannot be brought forward as a valid precedent, owing to its extraordinary nature. Witchcraft amongst Jewish women prevailed at that time to an alarming extent, and in order to prevent a combined effort on the part of their relations to rescue the culprits, he had to execute all of them at once. He hanged them, then, to prevent such practices and to avoid rescue, but his action is no precedent, and in itself was actually illegal, as the Sages pointed out.
(45) Deut. XXI, 22.
(46) קללת אלהים (E.V. For he that is hanged is a reproach unto God,) is so interpreted by the Mishnah, i.e., he was a blasphemer.
(47) I.e., the unity of God.
(48) Are to be hanged. 'All' can only mean an idolater.
(49) On what principle of exegesis - the practical difference, of course, being obvious,
(50) The Sages.
(51) These two hermeneutical rules form one of R. Ishmael's thirteen principles by which the law is expounded. The former rule כלל ופרט means that when a general term (which may denote an indefinite number of things) is followed by a particular (specifying a definite thing), the law is restricted to the specified thing alone. A particular is then regarded, not as an illustrative example of the preceding general, but as its explanation, so indicating that the content of the general is restricted solely to that of the particular. According to the other theory רבוי ומיעוט, the general retains its significance as applying to many things, but the particular limits the scope of the preceding general so as to include in it only things which are similar and to exclude such as are not similar thereto. The application of these exegetical principles, however, is dependent on the two terms following each other in the same passage. If they are found in two different passages, the rule is somewhat varied, as explained here in the Talmudic discussion.
(52) I.e., in the same verse.
(53) The blasphemer.Since, however, they are separated from each other, it has the effect of including an idolater,1 who is like him, [the blasphemer] in every respect. 'Whilst R. Eliezer employs [the rule of] extension and limitation.' [Thus:] And if he be put to death then thou shalt hang him is an [indefinite] extension; for he is hanged because of a curse . . . is a limitation. Now, had these two clauses been placed beside each other, we should have extended the law only to an idolater, who is similar to him in every respect. Since, however, they are separated from each other, it has the effect of extending [the law] to all who are stoned.2
A MAN IS HANGED etc. What is the Rabbis' reason? - Scripture states, then the shalt hang him - 'him',3 but not her.4 And R. Eliezer?5 - 'Him' implies without his clothes. And the Rabbis?6 - [They admit that] that indeed is so; but Scripture says, And if a man have committed a sin,7 implying, a man, but not a woman. And R. Eliezer, - how does he interpret the words, And if a man have committed? - Resh Lakish answered: As excluding a stubborn and rebellious son8 [from that mode of execution]. But has it not been taught: A stubborn and rebellious son is stoned and [afterwards] hanged: so says R. Eliezer? - But, said R. Nahman b. Isaac: [He interprets it] as including a stubborn and rebellious son. How so?9 - Scripture says, As if a man has committed a sin - 'a man,' but not a son; 'a sin' implies one who is executed for his [present] sin, thus excluding a stubborn and rebellious son, who is executed on account of his ultimate destiny.10 So we have one exclusion following another, and such always indicates inclusion.11
WHEREUPON R. ELIEZER SAID TO THEM: BUT DID NOT SIMEON B. SHETAH HANG etc. R. Hisda said: They taught this12 only of two different death penalties,13 but if a single mode of execution is involved, they [two charges] may be tried [on the same day]. But in the instance of Simeon b. Shetah, only one mode of execution was involved, and yet [the Sages] said to him14 that the cases should not [legally] have been tried! - But if a statement was made, it was made thus: They taught this only of a single death penalty appearing as two. And how can that be? E.g., [when one is accused of] two different transgressions.15 But cases dealing with the same transgression and the same mode of execution may be tried.16
R. Adda b. Ahabah raised an objection: 'Two [capital] cases may not be tried in one day; not even that of an adulterer and his paramour'?17 R. Hisda explained this as referring to the daughter of a priest and her paramour;18 or to the daughter of a priest and the refuters of the refuting witnesses.19
It has been taught: R. Eliezer b. Jacob said: I have heard20 that the Beth din may, [when necessary,] impose flagellation and pronounce [capital] sentences even where not [warranted] by the Torah; yet not with the intention of disregarding the Torah but [on the contrary] in order to safeguard it.21 It once happened that a man rode a horse on the Sabbath in the Greek period and he was brought before the Court and stoned, not because he was liable thereto,22 but because it was [practically] required by the times.23 Again it happened that a man once had intercourse with his wife under a fig tree.24 He was brought before the Beth din and flogged, not because he merited it,25 but because the times required it.24
MISHNAH. HOW IS HE HANGED?26 - THE POST IS SUNK INTO THE GROUND WITH A [CROSS-] PIECE BRANCHING OFF [AT THE TOP].27 AND HE28 BRINGS HIS HANDS TOGETHER29 ONE OVER THE OTHER AND HANGS HIM UP [THEREBY]. R. JOSE SAID: THE POST IS LEANED AGAINST THE WALL,30 AND HE HANGS HIM UP AFTER THE FASHION OF BUTCHERS. HE IS IMMEDIATELY AFTERWARDS LET DOWN. IF HE IS LEFT [HANGING] OVER NIGHT, A NEGATIVE COMMAND IS THEREBY TRANSGRESSED, FOR IT IS WRITTEN, HIS BODY SHALL NOT REMAIN ALL NIGHT UPON THE TREE, BUT THOU SHALT SURELY BURY HIM THE SAME DAY FOR HE IS HANGED [BECAUSE OF] A CURSE AGAINST GOD,31 - AS IF TO SAY WHY WAS HE HANGED? - BECAUSE HE CURSED THE NAME [OF GOD]; AND SO32 THE NAME OF HEAVEN [GOD] IS PROFANED.33
R. MEIR SAID: 34 WHEN MAN SUFFERS,35 WHAT EXPRESSION DOES THE SHECHINAH36 USE? - MY HEAD IS TOO HEAVY FOR ME, MY ARM IS TOO HEAVY FOR ME.37 AND IF GOD IS SO GRIEVED OVER THE BLOOD OF THE WICKED THAT IS SHED, HOW MUCH MORE SO OVER THE BLOOD OF THE RIGHTEOUS! AND NOT ONLY OF THIS ONE [A CRIMINAL,] DID THEY [SC. THE SAGES] SAY IT,38 BUT WHOSOEVER LETS HIS DEAD LIE OVER NIGHT TRANSGRESSES A NEGATIVE COMMAND.39 IF HE KEPT HIM OVER NIGHT FOR THE SAKE OF HIS40 HONOUR, TO PROCURE FOR HIM A COFFIN OR A SHROUD, HE DOES NOT TRANSGRESS THEREBY.
AND THEY DID NOT BURY HIM [THE EXECUTED PERSON] IN HIS ANCESTRAL TOMB, BUT TWO BURIAL PLACES WERE PREPARED BY THE BETH DIN, ONE FOR THOSE WHO WERE DECAPITATED OR STRANGLED, AND THE OTHER FOR THOSE WHO WERE STONED OR BURNED.
WHEN THE FLESH WAS COMPLETELY DECOMPOSED, THE BONES WERE GATHERED AND BURIED IN THEIR PROPER PLACE.41 THE RELATIVES THEN42 CAME AND GREETED THE JUDGES AND WITNESSES, AS IF TO SAY, WE HAVE NO [ILL FEELINGS] AGAINST YOU IN OUR HEARTS, FOR YE GAVE A TRUE JUDGMENT.
____________________
(1) The separation indicates that the rule of the general and particular is not to be applied in the usual way to limit the law solely to the thing specified, but to extend it to some similar thing.
(2) Whatever their offence.
(3) A man.
(4) A woman.
(5) How does he interpret the verse?
(6) Do they not agree with the interpretation given by R. Eliezer; whence then do they deduce the exemption of a woman from hanging?
(7) Deut. XXI, 22, which is the introduction to the passage under discussion,
(8) The term 'man' is used of one who has reached the age of thirteen, and one cannot be declared rebellious once he has reached that age. V. infra 68b.
(9) Surely 'man' implies the reverse, if anything.
(10) V. infra 72a, top.
(11) V. p. 71, n. 7. Hence this includes a rebellious son.
(12) That two capital cases may not be tried on one day by the same court.
(13) Because where the crimes committed are different, the mitigating circumstances cannot be carefully brought forward to a hasty discussion.
(14) R. Eliezer, in answer to his remark.
(15) E.g., the desecration of the Sabbath and idolatry, although both are punishable by the same penalty - stoning. Two such cases may not be tried on the same day. All the more so cases involving two different modes of execution may certainly not be tried on the same day.
(16) But in the instance of Simeon the son of Shetah the women were convicted for what Scripture regards as two different branches of witchcraft, viz., necromancy and charming. Cf. Lev. XX, 27; hence the Rabbis remarked that his action was illegal, but that it was done in an emergency.
(17) Tosef, Sanh. VII. Although it is one transgression involving the same penalty; moreover, the crime of both consisted in the single identical act.
(18) Whose executions are not simiiar. The woman is punished by burning (Lev. XXI, 9) and the man by strangulation if she be a nesu'ah, or by stoning, if she be an arusah (v. Glos.).
(19) E.g., if A and B, who gave evidence against the daughter of a priest, were refuted by C and D, and the latter were afterwards themselves refuted by E and F, the woman undergoes her due death penalty - burning - since her refuting witnesses C and D were proved to be collusive, and the false witnesses are punished by the same penalty as the male adulterer (strangulation or burning, according to the status of the woman). V. infra 90a.
(20) From my teachers.
(21) Lit., 'to make a fence round it. '
(22) The prohibition against riding on the Sabbath is only a 'shebuth', l.e., a Rabbinical injunction. Cf. Bezah. 37a M.
(23) During the time that Palestine was under Greek rule there was great laxity in the Jews' adherence to their religion, and stringent measures had to be adopted to enforce observance (Rashi). [Cf. Derenbourg, Essai, p. 107.]
(24) I.e., in public.
(25) The law does not prescribe this punishment for such improper conduct. (11) I.e., loose morals prevailed at the time.
(26) After being stoned.
(27) This bears no resemblance at all to crucifixion. Cf. Rabbinowicz, Legislation criminelle du Talmud, p. 111: What a difference between this hanging after death, where the executed man had both his hands tied and did not remain one minute upon the gallows, and the Supplicium, which the Romans inflicted upon Jesus, who was nailed to the cross whilst alive, with his hands on the cross, and left hanging on the gallows all day.
(28) The first witness, Krauss, loc. cit.
(29) [מקיף, Me'iri reads סומך]
(30) And not fixed into the ground.
(31) Deut. XXI, 23. קללת אלהים is interpreted by the Mishnah as an objective genitive - 'a curse against God'.
(32) If his body be left hanging a considerable time, thus reminding men of his blasphemy.
(33) Man's sin reflecting, in a manner of speaking, on God.
(34) In interpretation of the words קללת אלהים.
(35) In consequence of sin, as those are who are executed in this instance.
(36) The word שכינה is omitted in most editions of the Mishnah. Where it is omitted, the definite article is added to the word לושן, and the phrase is translated, 'When man suffers, what does the tongue say?' [The tongue stands for the Divine, and some texts accordingly add here, "if it could be said', כביכול.]
(37) V. Gemara. The phrase is intended to express how painful it is to God when His children suffer, even though they may deserve punishment for their iniquities, as a father would deplore the pain of his sinful son.
(38) I.e., that the corpse must not be left hanging over night.
(39) Mentioned above.
(40) 'HIS' is ambiguous, and the Talmud on 47a discussed to whom it refers.
(41) I.e., the family vault.
(42) Soon after the execution.AND THEY OBSERVED NO MOURNING RITES1 BUT GRIEVED [FOR HIM],2 FOR GRIEF IS BORNE IN THE HEART ALONE.
GEMARA. Our Rabbis taught: Had it been written, 'If he has sinned, then thou shalt hang him,' I should have said that he is hanged and then put to death, as the State does.3 Therefore Scripture says, And he be put to death, then thou shalt hang him - he is first put to death and afterwards hanged. And how is this done? - It [the verdict] is delayed until just before sunset. Then they pronounce judgment and put him [immediately] to death, after which they hang him; One ties him up and another unties [him],4 in order to full the precept of hanging.
Our Rabbis taught: [Then thou shalt hang him on] a tree:5 this I might understand as meaning either a cut or a growing tree; therefore Scripture states, Thou shalt surely bury him:6 [thus, it must be] one that needs only burial,7 so excluding that which needs both felling and burial.8 R. Jose said; [It must be] one that needs only burial, thus excluding that which requires both detaching and burial.9 And the Rabbis?10 - Detaching is of no consequence.11
AS IF TO SAY WHY WAS HE HANGED? - BECAUSE HE CURSED etc. It has been taught: R. Meir said: A parable was stated, To what is this matter comparable? To two twin brothers [who lived] in one city; one was appointed king, and the other took to highway robbery. At the king's command they hanged him. But all who saw him exclaimed, 'The king is hanged!'12 whereupon the king issued a command and he was taken down.
R. MEIR SAID etc. How is that implied?13 - Abaye answered: It is as though one said: It is not light.14 Raba objected: If so, he [the Tanna] should have said: My head is heavy upon me, my arm is heavy upon me!15 Raba therefore explained it thus: It is as though one said: Everything is light16 to me. But this [the word Kilelath] is needed for its own purpose!17 - If so, Scripture should have stated 'mekallel:'18 why 'kilelath'!19 Then perhaps the entire verse was written for that purpose?20 - If so, it should have stated, 'killath:'21 why 'kilelath'.22 Hence both [meanings] are inferred from it.
AND NOT ONLY OF THIS ONE etc. R. Johanan said on the authority of R. Simeon b. Yohai: Whence is it inferred that whoever keeps his dead [unburied] over night transgresses thereby a negative conmmand?23 - From the verse, Thou shalt surely bury him;24 whence we learn that he who keeps his dead [unburied] over night transgresses a prohibitory command. Others state: R. Johanan said on the authority of R. Simeon b. Yohai: Where is burial [as a means of disposing of the dead] alluded to in the Torah? - In the verse, Thou shalt surely bury him: here we find an allusion to burial in the Torah.
King Shapor25 asked R. Hama: From what passage in the Torah is the law of burial derived? The latter remained silent, and made no answer. Thereupon R. Aba b. Jacob exclaimed: The world has been given over into the hands of fools, for he should have quoted, For thou shalt bury!26 - [That is no proof, since] it might merely have meant, that he should he placed in a coffin!27 But it is also written, Bury, thou shalt bury him.28 - He [King Shapor] would not have understood it thus.29 Then he should have proved it from the fact that the righteous were buried!30 - [He might object.] That was merely a general custom.31 Well then, from the fact that the Holy One, blessed be He, buried Moses!32 - But, [he might answer,] that was so as not to depart from the general custom. But come and hear! And all Israel shall make lamentation for him and they shall bury him.33 - That [too] might have been done so as not to depart from the general custom. [But again it is written,] They shall not be lamented, neither shall they be buried; they shall be as dung upon the face of the ground?34 - The purpose of that, however, might have been to depart from the established custom.35
The scholars propounded : Is burial [intended to avert disgrace.36 or a means of atonement?37 What is the practical difference? If a man said, 'I do not wish myself38 to be buried.' If you say that it is to prevent disgrace, then it does not depend entirely upon him;39 but if it is for atonement, then in effect he has declared, 'I do not desire atonement.'40 What [then is its purpose]? Come and hear! 'From the fact that the righteous were buried.' If then you say that it is for atonement - are the righteous in need thereof? Even so, for it is written, For there is not a righteous man upon earth who doeth good and sinneth not.41
Come and hear! [It is written,] And all Israel shall make lamentations for him, and they shall bury him, for only he of Jeroboam shall come to the grave.42 Now should you assert [that burial] is for the attainment of forgiveness, then the others too should have been buried, that there might be atonement for them? - This one [sc. Abijah], who was righteous, deserved to find forgiveness, but the others were not [worthy] to attain it.
Come and hear! They shall not be lamented neither shall they be buried.43 - [It may be precisely] in order that there might be no atonement for them.
The scholars asked: Is the funeral oration in honour of the living or of the dead? What is the practical difference? If the deceased had said, Pronounce no funeral oration over me;44 or again in respect of collecting [the cost] from the heirs!45 - Come and hear! And Abraham came46 to mourn for Sarah and to weep for her.47 Now, should you maintain that it is no honour of the living: in that case for Abraham's honour he delayed Sarah's [burial]! - [There] Sarah herself was pleased that Abraham should attain honour through her.
Come and hear! And all Israel shall make lamentation for him and they shall bury him:48 If you say that it is in honour of the living, were these [Abijah's relatives] worthy of honour?49 - It is pleasing to the righteous that people50 should be honoured through them.
Come and hear! They shall not be lamented neither shall they be buried!51 - The righteous do not wish to be honoured through evil-doers.
Come and hear! They shall die in peace, and with the burnings of thy fathers, the former kings that were before thee, so shall they make a burning for thee, and they shall lament thee, saying Ah! Lord.52 Now if you maintain that it is in honour of the living, of what consequence was this to him?53 - He spoke this to him: Israel will be honoured through thee, as they were honoured through thy parents.54
____________________
(1) E.g., the seven and thirty days and the twelve months, v. M. K. 20a.
(2) As, in ordinary cases, before the burial.
(3) V. supra p. 304, n. 2.
(4) I.e., no sooner is he hung up, than he is untied and taken down.
(5) Deut. XXI, 22.
(6) The need of burial for the post is deduced from the strengthening of the idea of the verb by the infinitive, קבר תקברנו, v. supra 45b.
(7) Such as a detached post.
(8) E.g., a growing tree.
(9) I.e., excluding a post which is driven into the earth, because it must be detached thence before it can be buried. Therefore he maintains that it must not be fixed in the ground, but merely leaned against the wall.
(10) Do they not admit the justice of R. Jose's arguments, and if so, why do they assert that the post is driven into the earth?
(11) I.e., it is not a weighty action which constitutes a real delay of burial.
(12) Being twins their appearance was similar. So man has some resemblance to God, having been created in His image. Cf. Gen. V, 1.
(13) R. Meir's explanation of the word קללת.
(14) קל לית.
(15) Using the positive adjective כבד instead of the negative, 'not light'.
(16) Euphemistically for heavy, as no one is inclined to speak evil in connection with his own person. (Rashi). Kohut explains it as meaning that when one is in trouble he cannot pull himself together, and is in a state of light headedness or giddiness. V. 'Aruch. vol. VII, p. 90, n. 4.
(17) As indicating that the law refers to a 'blasphemer', v. supra p. 300, n. 4.
(18) Which is the exact Hebrew for 'blasphemer'; (cf. Lev. XXIV, 14: Bring forth him that hath cursed, i.e., the blasphemer - Heb. מקלל).
(19) Which, though it may mean 'a curse (against God),' (v. p. 304, n. 6), is not as unambiguous as mekallel. Hence it must have been chosen because both meanings can be understood in it.
(20) Which R. Meir deduces from it, according to Raba; how then do I know that it refers to a blasphemer at all? It may refer to any criminal.
(21) קלת; 'the lightness of'.
(22) Which also implies blasphemy.
(23) His body shall not remain all night: Deut. XXI, 23, which in the first place was stated in reference to those executed by the Court.
(24) The infinitive indicates that the command concerns all dead, not only those executed by the Court.
(25) [Shapor II, King of Persia, 359-380, transferred the royal residence to Csetifon, and there came in contact with Jewish sages, v. Obermeyer, op. city., p. 175.]
(26) Ibid. 23.
(27) LIt., 'that a coffin should be made for him.' The verse does not necessarily imply that the corpse must be placed in the ground - so, at least, it might be urged.
(28) קבור תקברנו, and the emphatic infinitive must imply burying in the earth.
(29) I.e., a Gentile would not have understood the principle underlying the deduction.
(30) Thus it is related in Scripture that the Patriarchs were buried.
(31) Prior to the giving of the law, and so has no basis in the Torah.
(32) Cf. Deut. XXXIV, 6.
(33) I Kings XIV 13, with reference to Abijah the son of Jeroboam I, King of Israel, who was seriously ill. The fact that he would come to his grave in peace and be mourned by all Israel was foretold to his mother by the Prophet Ahijah, whom she consulted respecting his recovery. Hence it is evident that burial was an established practice after the giving of the law also.
(34) Jer. XVI, 4. Hence non-burial was regarded as a punishment for the wicked.
(35) Which would thus be a great disgrace. Kohut accounts for this discussion being raised on the part of the Persian King Shapor by the fact that the ancient Persians regarded burial as a desecration of the soil, which they looked upon as sacred. V. 'Aruch. Vol. I, p. 271 s.v. ארגז.
(36) Decomposition and putrefaction make the dead loathsome: burial may be intended to spare them and their relatives the disgrace.
(37) For the sins committed during life-time Cf. infra 47a, where it is stated that the process of decay in the earth is a means of expiation.
(38) Lit., 'that man'.
(39) Because his relatives are humiliated along with him.
(40) And so, even if he is buried, he does not attain forgiveness.
(41) Eccl. VII, 20
(42) I Kings XIV, 13, referring to Abijah, the son of Jeroboam.
(43) Jer. XVI, 4, i.e., if burial is a means of expiation, why should they too not attain it?
(44) If it is in honour of the living, he has no power to object; on the other hand, the heirs can then dispense with it.
(45) If it is in honour of the dead, they are obliged to pay for a funeral oration, even against their desire,
(46) From Mt. Moriah, the scene of the binding of Isaac.
(47) Gen XXIII, 2.
(48) I Kings XIV, 13.
(49) Seeing that the whole family of Jeroboam, with the exception of Abijah, were wicked.
(50) I.e., the people as a whole even outside the immediate family circle.
(51) Jer. XVI, 14. If lamentation is in honour of the living, why were the righteous who survived them deprived of that honour?
(52) Jer. XXXIV, 5; a prophecy to Zedekiah, the last king of Judah.
(53) Zedekiah, that Israel would be honoured.
(54) It may be observed, both here and in the following passage, that if the deceased is a king, the honour of the living, if that is the purpose of the funeral eulogy, extends beyond his immediate family circle and embraces the people as a whole.Come and hear! In whose eyes a vile person is despised1 - this refers to Hezekiah, king of Judah, who had his father's remains dragged upon a pallet made of ropes.2 But if it [the respect paid to the dead] is in honour of the living, why [did he do so]?3 - It was in order that his father might obtain forgiveness. And for the sake of his father's atonement he disregarded4 the honour of Israel! - Israel itself was pleased to have its honour violated for his sake.
Come and hear! He5 said to them:6 Do not hold funeral orations over me in the [small] towns.7 Now, should you maintain that it is in honour of the living, what did it matter to him? - He wished that Israel might be honoured through him, in greater measure.
Come and hear! IF HE KEPT HIM OVER NIGHT FOR THE SAKE OF HIS HONOUR, TO PROCURE FOR HIM A COFFIN OR A SHROUD HE DOES NOT TRANSGRESS THEREBY. Now surely that [sc. FOR THE SAKE OF HIS HONOUR] means, for the honour of the dead?8 - No: for the honour of the living. And for the sake of the honour of the living the dead is to be kept overnight! - Yes When did the Merciful One say, His body shall not remain all night upon the tree,9 only in a case similar to be hanged, where it [the keeping of the corpse] involves disgrace;10 but here, where there is no disgrace11 it does not apply.
Come and hear! If he [the relative] kept him overnight for his own honour, so as to inform the [neighbouring] towns of his death, or to bring professional women mourners for him,12 or to procure for him a coffin or a shroud, he does not transgress thereby, for all that he does is only for the honour of the deceased!13 - What he [the Tanna] means is this: Nothing that is done for the honour of the living involves dishonour to the dead.
Come and hear! R. Nathan said: It is of good omen for the dead when he is punished [in this world] after death. E.g., if one dies and is not mourned, or [properly] buried, or if a wild beast drags him along, or if rain drips down on his bier, it is a good omen for him.14 We may infer therefore from this that the funeral rites are in honour of the dead.15 This proves it.
AND THEY DID NOT BURY HIM etc. And why such severity?16 - Because a wicked man may not be buried beside a righteous one. For R. Aha b. Hanina said: Whence is it inferred that a wicked man may not be buried beside a righteous one? - From the verse, And it came to pass as they were burying a man that behold they spied a band and they cast the man into the sepulchre of Elishah, and as soon as the man touched the bones of Elishah, he revived and stood up on his feet.17 Said R. Papa to him, Perhaps that was only to fulfil [the request], Let a double portion of thy spirit be upon me?18 - Thereupon he retorted: If so, what of that which was taught: [He only] arose on his feet, but did not return home?19 Then what of, Let a double portion of thy spirit etc. where is it found that he resurrected [two people]? - As R. Johanan said: He healed the leprosy of Naaman,20 which is the equivalent of death, as it is written, Let her not, I pray Thee, be as one dead.21
And just as a wicked person is not buried beside a righteous one, so is a grossly wicked person not to be buried beside one moderately wicked. Then should there not have been four graveyards?22 - It is a tradition that there should be but two.
'Ulla said in R. Johanan's name: If one ate forbidden fat23 and thereupon dedicated a sacrifice,24 abjured his faith, but subsequently returned, since it [the offering] has [once] been invalidated,25 it remains so. It has been stated likewise: R. Jeremiah said in the name of R. Abbahu in R. Johanan's name; If one ate forbidden fat and thereupon dedicated a sacrifice, became insane, but later recovered, since it [the sacrifice] has once been invalidated.26 it remains so. And both rulings are necessary. For had he taught us the first one only, [one might have assumed that] it is because he had rendered himself unfit [to offer a sacrifice] by his own action;27 but as for the latter case [insanity], where he was automatically unfitted, I might say that he is [merely] as a person who has slept [in the meantime].28 Again, had he taught us only the latter, [one might have thought that] it was because it was not in his power to recover; but there [in the case of apostasy], since it was in his power to return, one might say that it does not [remain invalidated]. Both rulings are therefore necessary.
R. Joseph said: We too have learnt similarly: If there are holy objects therein,29 that which is dedicated to the altar [i.e.. sacrifices] must die;30 to the Temple repair, must be redeemed.31 Now we pondered thereon, Why should they die? Since they [the inhabitants of the condemned city] are executed, they obtain forgiveness: should they [the sacrifices] not then be offered to Heaven!32 Surely then is it not so because we hold that once invalidated, they remain so? Abaye retorted; Do you then think that he who dies in his wickedness obtains forgiveness [by his death]? Nay, he who dies in his wickedness does not obtain forgiveness, for R. Shemaiah learnt: One might have thought that even if his [the priest's] parents had dissociated themselves from the practices of the congregation,33 he [the priest] may defile himself:34 but Scripture states, among his people35 teaching, that it is so provided he [the parent] has followed the practices of his people.36 Said Raba to him: Dost thou compare one who was executed in his wickedness to one who died in his wickedness? In the latter case, since he dies a natural death, he attains no forgiveness;37 but in the former, since he does not die a natural death, he obtains forgiveness [by the mere execution]. In proof thereof, it is written, A Psalm of Asaph, O God, the heathen are come into Thine inheritance; they have defiled Thy Holy Temple... They have given the dead bodies of Thy servants to be food unto the fowls of the heaven; the flesh of Thy saints onto the beasts of the earth.38 Who are meant by 'Thy servants,' and who by 'Thy saints'? Surely 'thy saints' means literally, saints, whereas, 'thy servants' means those who were at first liable to sentence [of death], but having been slain, are designated 'servants'.39 Abaye retorted: Would you compare
____________________
(1) Ps. XV, 4. in answer to the question in verse 1: Who shall sojourn in Thy Tabernacle?
(2) A rude bed made out of ropes so depriving him of a kingly burial, his object being to show that the deceased deserved contempt because of his wickedness in spreading heathendom in Israel. The act could not be viewed as transgression of the fifth commandment, as the latter does not apply to a father who is wicked. - V. Yeb. 22b on the verse, Nor curse a prince among thy people (Ex. XXII, 27). - Again, he did not consider his own honour, as is deduced from the verse quoted above.
(3) Surely he had no right to deprive the living of their due.
(4) Lit., 'delayed'.
(5) R. Judah, the Prince (135-220 C.E.), who died in Sepphoris and was carried to Beth She'arim for burial. V. Keth. 103a.
(6) His sons. So Rashi. From the context in Keth. it appears that the request among other testamentary wishes, was made to the Sages.
(7) But only in the more important towns where there would be larger audience.
(8) Hence it follows that anything done in connection with the dead is for the honour of the dead.
(9) Deut. XXI, 22, in connection with the criminal from whom this procedure has been deduced for all other dead.
(10) I.e., the longer the body remains exposed, the greater the disgrace; and even in the case of an ordinary person, if the funeral is delayed without cause, but simply out of neglect, it is likewise accounted a disgrace to the dead, therefore it is forbidden.
(11) The delay not being due to neglect (v. preceding note), but to the needs of the living.
(12) V. Jer. IX, 16, and cf. M. K. III, 9.
(13) Hence it follows that funeral orations are for the deceased's honour.
(14) That his sins will be forgiven.
(15) For otherwise why should any such disgrace have an atoning effect?
(16) As to have two burial grounds.
(17) II Kings XIII, 21. According to tradition, the man buried was the old prophet of Beth-El (I Kings XIII, 1; v. infra p. 312, and note a.l.). Hence it is seen that it is not the Divine Will to have a wicked man buried with a righteous.
(18) II Kings II, 9. This was Elishah's request of Elijah. Hence, since the latter had restored one person from death (cf. I Kings XVII, 22), Elishah should have restored two, whereas he had as yet restored but one - the son of the Shunamite (II Kings IV) Thus this incident does not prove that a wicked man may not be buried beside a good man.
(19) I.e he did not live for more than a few minutes: surely that is not a fulfilment! Hence the reason of the man's momentary resurrection must have been because the wicked must not be buried beside the righteous.
(20) V. II Kings V.
(21) Num XII, 12, with reference to Miriam, who was stricken with leprosy.
(22) One for each mode of execution since these varied in severity.
(23) V. Lev. III, 17.
(24) To atone for his sin. Cf. Lev. IV, 27-28.
(25) Lit., 'repelled'. Sacrifices are not accepted from apostates Cf. Hul. 5b.
(26) Because he lacked the intelligence to be cognisant of his doing. v. 'Ar. 21a.
(27) In becoming a apostate.
(28) Where no suspension is caused by the normal intermediary gap in one's intelligent consciousness.
(29) The condemned city, all the property of which save holy things, have to be destroyed. Deut XIII, 16.
(30) Even though not destroyed, they cannot he offered, v. infra 112b.
(31) Just as all other objects intended for the repair-fund.
(32) Lit., 'the (most) High'. Since after death their offerings cannot be classed as offerings of the wicked
(33) E.g., if they (the parents) had been apostates.
(34) Through their dead bodies, attending in their funerals, etc.
(35) The whole passage reads: 'Speak unto the priests the sons of Aaron, and say unto them, There shall none be defiled for the dead among his people. But for his kin, that is near unto him, that is, for his mother, and for his father etc. Lev. XXI, 1-2. By linking 'among his people' (as interpreted here) with the following verse, 'But for his kin, etc.' it is deduced that only then may a priest defile himself, but not if his parents were, e.g., apostates.
(36) Hence death does not bring forgiveness if one had died in his wickedness.
(37) By mere death without repentance.
(38) Ps. LXXIX, 1-2.
(39) Having attained expiation through execution.those who are slain by a [Gentile] Government,1 to those who are executed by the Beth din? The former, since their death is not in accordance with [Jewish] law, obtain forgiveness; but the latter, whose death is justly merited, are not [thereby] forgiven. This can also he proved from what we learnt: THEY DID NOT BURY HIM IN HIS ANCESTRAL TOMB. And if you should imagine that having been executed, he attains forgiveness: he should be buried [with his fathers]! - Both death and [shameful] burial2 are necessary [for forgiveness].3
R. Adda b. Ahabah objected: THEY OBSERVED NO MOURNING RITES, BUT GRIEVED FOR HIM FOR GRIEF IS BORNE ONLY IN THE HEART. But should you think that having been [shamefully] buried, he attains forgiveness, they should observe mourning rites! - The decay of the flesh too is necessary.4 This also follows from what he [the Tanna] teaches: WHEN THE FLESH WAS COMPLETELY DECOMPOSED, THE BONES WERE GATHERED AND BURIED IN THEIR PROPER PLACE.5 This proves it.
R. Ashi said: When do the mourning rites commence? From the closing of the grave with the grave stone.6 When is atonement effected? After the bodies have experienced a little of the pains of the grave.7 Therefore, since they [the mourning rites] have once been suspended,8 they remain so. If so, why must the flesh be consumed?9 - Because it is impossible [otherwise].10
It was the practice of people to take earth from Rab's grave and apply it [as a remedy] on the first day of an attack of fever. When Samuel was told of it,11 he said: They do well; it is natural12 soil, and natural soil does not become forbidden, for it is written, And he cast the dust thereof13 upon the graves of the common people:14 thus he compares the graves of the common people to idols. Just as [the use of] idols is not forbidden when they are 'attached,'15 for it is written, [Ye shall utterly destroy all the places, wherein the nations] that ye are to dispossess served their gods, upon the high mountains,16 their gods which are upon the high mountains [are forbidden for use], but not the mountains which themselves are their gods;17 so here too, what is 'attached' [i.e., what belongs to the dead] is not forbidden.
An objection is raised: 'If one hews a grave for his [dead] father and then goes and buries him elsewhere, he himself may never he buried therein'?18 - The reference here is to a built grave.19 Come and hear! 'A fresh grave20 may be used. But if an abortion had been laid therein, it is forbidden for use'?21 - Here too, the reference is to a built grave.
Come and hear! 'Thus we see22 that there are three kinds of graves:23 A grave that has been found;24 a known grave;25 and one which injures the public.26 A grave that has been found may be cleared;27 when cleared, the place thereof is [levitically] clean and permitted for use.28 A known grave may not be cleared; if it has been, the spot is unclean and forbidden for use.29 A grave which injures the public may be cleared; if it has been, the place thereof is clean but may not be used'?30 - Here too, the reference is to a built grave. But may a grave that was found be evacuated? Perhaps a meth-mizwah was buried therein; and a meth-mezwah takes possession of his place of burial!31 A meth-mizwah is quite different, since its existence is generally known.32
It has been stated: If one wove a shroud for a dead person: Abaye rules, it is forbidden;33 Raba says, It is permitted. 'Abaye rules, It is forbidden;' [he holds,] designation is a material act.34 'Raba says, It is permitted;' designation is not a material act. What is Abaye's reason? - He deduces [identity of law] from the use of 'sham' [there] both here [with reference to the dead] and in connection with the broken-necked heifer.35 Just as the broken-necked heifer becomes forbidden through designation,36 so this too37 becomes prohibited through designation. But Raba makes his deduction from the use of sham both here and in connection with idol-worship.38 Just as in idol-worship mere designation imposes no prohibition,39 so here too, it does not become forbidden through designation. But why does Raba not make his deduction from the broken-necked heifer? - He answers you:
____________________
(1) Such as that referred to in the Psalm.
(2) I.e in the criminals' graveyard.
(3) The inhabitants of the condemned city, therefore, having undergone both punishments, obtained forgiveness on this view, and their offerings could have been accepted, but for the reason that, having been once invalidated, they remained so.
(4) For forgiveness.
(5) Proving that only then is the crime fully expiated
(6) גולל from גלל 'to roll,' so called because it can be rolled away. This is not to be confused with the modern tombstone, but was a stone placed on top of the grave immediately it was filled in.
(7) The process of decay in the earth was believed to be painful to the body. Cf. Ber. 18b, 'The worm is as painful to the flesh of the dead, as the needle to the flesh of the living.
(8) In the interval between the covering of the grave and the experiencing of pains in the grave. Since forgiveness had not yet been obtained, the dead are yet accounted wicked, and therefore no mourning rites are necessary.
(9) Before they can bury him in the family vault.
(10) I.e., owing to the decomposition of the body, it is impossible to remove the remains before the flesh is completely destroyed.
(11) Thus calling his attention to their use of an object belonging to the dead, which is forbidden. Cf. A.Z. 29b.
(12) Lit., 'world'.
(13) Of the Ashera.
(14) II Kings XXIII, 6.
(15) The technical term for soil, mountains, etc., and things growing therein.
(16) Deut. XII, 2.
(17) I.e., only detached idols are forbidden for use, but if natural earth (which includes mountains) is worshipped, it is not thereby forbidden for use.
(18) Because having been prepared for a particular corpse, it may not be used for anyone else. Now, it is assumed that this holds good even if it was dug for any corpse, 'father' being mentioned merely because that is the usual thing. Thus we see that even natural soil is under the same prohibition.
(19) [A grave erected within the excavation (Yad Ramah).] Such a grave is not regarded as part of the soil, and, had it been prepared for any other person, would not have been forbidden. The prohibition here, however, is on account of filial respect.
(20) One just dug and not yet assigned to any dead body.
(21) The argument is that even natural soil must be forbidden.
(22) Lit., 'it is found that thou sayest.
(23) I.e., which are separate and distinct in the laws pertaining to them.
(24) One in which a dead body had been buried by stealth, and without the consent of the owner of the ground, i.e., it has only now been found to be a grave.
(25) In which a body was buried with the consent of the owner.
(26) E.g., which lies in a thoroughfare.
(27) I.e., the bones may be transferred elsewhere.
(28) Since the burial took place without the knowledge of the owner of the ground, the dead man does not 'take possession of the place' (v. infra for the meaning of that phrase).
(29) This is a precautionary measure against the unwarranted transference of bones.
(30) This proves that natural soil can also be prohibited.
(31) I.e., it becomes his, whether it had a right to the soil in the first place or not. This is one of the ten enactments of Joshua on entering the land. Cf B.K. 81a.
(32) Lit., 'he has a voice'. I.e., the discovery of such was broadcast, and his burial was not really a secret unknown to the owner.
(33) To be used for any other purpose.
(34) I.e., mere designation for the dead subjects it to the same law as though it has been employed for the purpose.
(35) In connection with the dead: And Miriam died there and was buried there (שם) (Num. XX, 1); with reference to the heifer, And shall break the heifer's neck there (Deut. XXI, 4).
(36) Even the mere bringing it down to the valley renders it forbidden for any other purpose (Rashi: cf. Kid. 57a)
(37) Sc. a shroud woven for the dead.
(38) Ye shall surely destroy all the places there (שם) where the nations which ye are to dispossess serve their gods. (Deut. XII, 2).
(39) I.e., if one dedicates an object for idol-worship, it does not become forbidden, unless actually used so, because 'The laws of dedication do not operate in connection with idol worship.' A.Z. 44b.Objects of service are deduced from objects of service,1 thus excluding the broken-necked heifer, which is in itself taboo. And why does Abaye not deduce [his ruling] from idol-worship? - He answers you: Normal practices are deduced from normal practices so excluding idol-worship which is not normal.2
(Mnemonic: Veil; Tomb; Hewn. The craftsman's bag.)3
An objection is raised: 'If a veil, which is unclean4 through Midras,5 is designated [as a cover] for the Book [of the law], it is purified from [the uncleanness of] Midras,6 yet may become unclean by direct contact [with the dead]'?7 - Say thus: If it was designated for and wrapped round [the Book].8 But why are both 'designation' and 'wrapping' necessary?9 - This is in accordance with R. Hisda, who said: If a cloth was assigned for wrapping Tefillin therein, and was so used, one may not tie up coins in it. If it was assigned, but not used so, or vice versa,10 one may tie up coins in it.11 But on Abaye;s view, viz., that [mere] designation is a material act; if one had assigned the cloth [for the purpose of wrapping up his Tefillin], even though he did not do so, or if he wrapped them in it, and also assigned it [for that purpose], it is so [i.e., the prohibition holds good]; but if he had not assigned it, it is not [forbidden].
Come and hear! 'A tomb12 built for a man still alive, may be used.13 If, however, one added a single row of stones for a dead person,14 no [other] use may be made thereof'?15 - This deals with a case where the corpse had actually been buried there. If so why [teach] particularly 'if one added [etc.]'; even if not, the law would have been the same! - This is only necessary [to teach that the prohibition remains] even if the body has [subsequently] been removed.16
Rafram R. Papa said In R. Hisda's name: If he recognizes that [additional row] he may remove it and the tomb becomes again permissible.
Come and hear! 'If one hews a grave for his [dead] father and then goes and buries him elsewhere, he [himself] may never be buried therein'?17 - Here it is on account of his father's honour.18 That too stands to reason. For the second clause teaches: R. Simeon b. Gamaliel said; Even if one hews stones19 [for a tomb] for his father, but goes and buries him elsewhere, he [himself] may never employ them for his own grave.20 Now, if you agree that it is out of respect for his father, it is correct. But if you say that it is because of designation, does any one maintain that yarn spun for weaving [a shroud is forbidden]?21
Come and hear! A fresh grave may be used. But if an abortion has been laid therein, it is forbidden for use,22 Thus, it is so only if it has actually been laid therein, but not otherwise!23 - The same law holds good even if it [the abortion] was not laid therein;24 and it [the statement, 'if it has been laid therein'] is [only] intended to exclude the view of R. Simeon b. Gamaliel, who maintains: Abortions take no possession of their graves.25 He therefore teaches us [otherwise].26
Come and hear! 'The surplus [of a collection] for the dead must be used for [other] dead,27 but the surplus [of a collection] for a [particular] deceased person belongs to his heirs'?28 - This refers to a case [where the money was] collected during [the deceased's] lifetime. But [the Tanna] did not teach thus? For we learnt: The surplus [of a collection] for the dead must be used for [other] dead, but the surplus [of a collection] for a [particular] deceased person belongs to his heirs. Now, it was taught thereon: How so? If it was collected for the dead in general that is where we rule; The surplus [of a collection] for the dead must be used for [other] dead, but if it was collected for a particular dead person, that is where we rule, The surplus [of a collection] for a deceased belongs to his heirs! - But according to your view,29 consider the second section: R. Meir said: It must remain intact until Elijah comes;30 R. Nathan ruled: It is to be expended for a monument on his grave, or sprinkling [aromatic wine] before his bier.31 But Abaye reconciles them32 in accordance with his view, and Raba in accordance with his view.33 'Abaye reconciles them in accordance with his view;' [thus;] all agree that designation is a material act. Now, the first Tanna holds that he [the dead] takes possession34 only of as much as he needs, and not of the surplus;35 R. Meir, however, is doubtful whether he takes possession [of the surplus] or not: consequently it must remain intact until Elijah comes; whereas R. Nathan holds that he certainly takes possession [even of the surplus]; hence it is to be employed for a monument on his grave. 'And Raba in accordance with his view;' [thus:] all agree that assignment is not a material act.36 Now, the first Tanna maintains: Though they humiliated him,37 he forgives his humiliation for his heirs' sake,38 R. Meir, however, is doubtful whether he forgives it or not; therefore it must remain intact etc.; whilst R. Nathan takes the definite view that he does not forgive it, therefore the surplus must be expended on a monument for his grave or for sprinkling [aromatic wine] before his bier.
Come and hear! If his father and mother are throwing garments upon him,39 it is the duty of others to save them.40
____________________
(1) I.e., the shroud for the dead and the animal devoted to be sacrificed to an idol are not in themselves taboo, but merely so because they are used in the service of something that is forbidden. In A.Z. 51b the verse referring to idolatry (quoted in n. 4) is interpreted as bearing upon objects used in the service of idols.
(2) 'Normal' is used in the sense of 'sanctioned by law.' I.e., it is a normal (permitted) practice to make a shroud for the dead, likewise to break the neck of a heifer under prescribed conditions. But under no circumstances can idolatry be 'normal' (i.e. - permitted). Therefore, mere designation in connection with idolatry does not impose a prohibition, because, since it is abnormal (forbidden), one may repent and never use it for the purpose. But in the case of the other two, if permitted (or even obligatory), once they are designated for that purpose they will certainly be used, unless unforeseen circumstances intervene. Therefore the mere designation suffices to give them the same status as though they had actually been used.
(3) [On this mnemonic v. Brull. I., Mnemotechnick p. 44.]
(4) Rashi here, and the commentary of R. Samson of Sens on the Mishnah, Kel. XXVIII, 5, understand it literally, i.e., it had actually become unclean. Maim. and Asheri, however, translate (loc. cit.), which is liable to become unclean, but had not, in fact, become so.
(5) מדרס, a technical term in the laws of purity, from דרס 'to tread', denoting the uncleanness of an object through being used either for sitting on or lying on, i.e., being made to bear the weight of a person with issue. If it is so defiled, it becomes a primary source of uncleanness to men and utensils. A veil is thus liable, since it may be folded up and sat upon, or, when it is being worn on the head, the wearer may lean back on her seat or the wall, and thus cause it to bear her weight.
(6) So according to Rashi and R. Samson. M. and Asheri: it ceases to be liable to the uncleanness of Midras. The reason, according to all interpretations, is that it can no longer be used in such a way.
(7) As all other finished articles which have a definite use (technically, 'utensils'). Rashi translates (with a different reading): yet it retains the uncleanness of touch, i.e., if when the person with issue bore down on it, he also touched it, the uncleanness of Midras disappears, but it retains to the uncleanness of having been touched by him - which is a different degree of impurity', (Kelim XXVIII, 5). This proves that mere designation is a material act which suffices to change the status of an object, and thus contradicts Raba's ruling.
(8) Hence there was not merely designation, but also use; the combination can certainly effect a change.
(9) The use itself should have sufficed for the change.
(10) I.e., Tefillin were wrapped therein, but it had not been previously assigned for that purpose.
(11) I.e., assignment by itself is not a material act. Again, wrapping something in it without having made the assignment is assumed to be merely incidental. The same applies to the veil, and therefore both are required. - Of course, that is only on Raba's view; Abaye will interpret the Mishnah cited quite literally.
(12) נפש. The word actually means a structure built over a tomb, to be used as a grave.
(13) For other purposes.
(14) I.e., the addition was made when the person was actually dead.
(15) Thus proving that mere designation is a material act.
(16) When the prohibition of its use depends on whether a special row of stones was added for the corpse. If not it loses its forbidden character, for it is then like the cloth in which Tefillin were wrapped without its having been previously designated for that purpose.
(17) V. p. 315, n. 12.
(18) That the grave is prohibited to serve as the son's burial place.
(19) From a quarry for the purpose of building a vault.
(20) Lit., 'may never be buried in them.'
(21) None, not even Abaye. For Abaye only maintains that if a shroud is actually woven, and so fit for its purpose, it is forbidden through mere designation. But when yarn is spun, though its ultimate destiny is to be woven into a shroud, it is not forbidden, since as yarn it is useless for its purpose. Similarly, when stones are prepared for building a tomb, they should not become forbidden. Hence the prohibition must be on account of filial respect, not designation.
(22) V. p 316, n. 2.
(23) I.e., if it was merely assigned for an abortion, it is not forbidden, proving that mere assignment is not a material act.
(24) On account of the assignment of the abortion.
(25) I.e., they do not impose a lasting prohibition thereon, to operate even after the graves are cleared.
(26) Therefore the Tanna is particular to mention 'an abortion,' but is not exact in his statement as to what is done for the abortion. But actually, even if the grave is merely designated for an abortion, it is forbidden for use.
(27) If a collection was made for burying the poor, the actual person, however, being unspecified, and at any particular moment there is a balance in hand, it must be kept for other dead. This is so even if, when the collection was made, it was known that it was for certain dead, but they were not specified.
(28) To be used for any purpose, thus proving that designation is not a material act (Mishnah Shek. II. 5).
(29) That assignment is not material.
(30) I.e., Elijah the prophet glorified in the Haggadah as a messenger charged with various tasks, one of which is to be the precursor of the Messiah, when he will solve all questions in doubt. (Cf. B.M. 29b; Pes. 15a).
(31) From this it would seem that since it was designated for the dead,it must be so used, proving that designation is a material act. [The words, 'Or sprinkling . . . his bier', do not occur in the cited Mishnah, but in Tosef, Shek. I.]
(32) The differences of opinion in the Mishnah.
(33) In such a way that the differing Tannaim may he seen to agree with their (Abaye's and Raba's) views respectively.
(34) I.e., it becomes his peculiar property, in the sense that it may not be used for any other purpose.
(35) Lit., 'of what he does not need.'
(36) And the reasons given by R. Meir and R. Nathan for prohibiting the balance for general use is not that it is actually forbidden, but because the deceased was put to shame when a public collection was made for his funeral.
(37) V. preceding note.
(38) I.e., that they may have the benefit of the surplus.
(39) Their dead son. It was an expression of extreme grief, and a symbol that they were ready to renounce everything left behind, that belonged to him (Rashi).
(40) By removing them from the corpse, as though returning lost property. Now, had assignment been a material act, how could they be saved after being dedicated to the dead?- There [it is done] solely out of grief.1 If so, how explain what was taught regarding this: R. Simeon b. Gamaliel said: When is this so? Only if they [the garments] have not [actually] touched the bier, but if they have, they are forbidden [for use]?2 - 'Ulla interpreted this as referring to a bier which is buried with him,3 [the garments being forbidden] because they might be confused with the vestments of the dead.4
Come and hear! 'One may not put money in a bag which was made to hold Tefillin.5 But if one [incidentally] put Tefillin in a bag, he may afterwards put money therein'?6 - Let us put it thus: If a man made it [for Tefillin] and placed Tefillin therein, it is forbidden to put money in it: and this is in accordance with R. Hisda.7
Come and hear! 'If one says to a craftsman, Make me a sheath for a Scroll [of the Law], or a receptacle for Tefillin,' before they are actually used for their sacred purposes, they may be employed for secular requirements; but once used for their sacred purposes they may not be put to secular use!'8 - There is here a dispute among Tannaim for it has been taught: If one overlaid them [the Tefillin] with gold or covered them with the hide of an unclean beast, they are unfit.9 If with the hide of a clean beast, they are permissible, even though it was not dressed for the purpose. R. Simeon b. Gamaliel said: Even if covered with the hide of a clean beast, they are unfit, unless it was not specially dressed for the purpose.10 Rabina said to Raba: Is there any place where the dead lie while the shroud is being woven?11 Yes, he answered; e.g., it is so with the dead of Harpania.12 Meremar said in a lecture: The law rests with Abaye. But the Rabbis say: The law rests with Raba. In fact the law is as Raba says.
Our Rabbis taught: The property of those executed by the State13 belongs to the King: the property of those executed by the Beth din belongs to their heirs. R. Judah said: Even the property of those executed by the State goes to their heirs. Said they to R. Judah: But it is not written, Behold he [Ahab] is in the vineyard of Naboth whither he is gone down to take possession of it?14 - He answered: He [Naboth] was his [the King's] cousin,15 and therefore he [Ahab] was his legitimate heir.16 But he [Naboth] had many sons! - He [the King] slew both him and his sons, he replied, as it is written, Surely I have seen yesterday the blood of Naboth and the blood of his sons.17 And the Rabbis?18 - They refer to his potential sons.19 Now, on the view that their property belongs to the King, it is correct: hence it is said, Naboth did curse God and the King.20 But on the view that their estate belongs to their heirs,21 why mention and the King?22 - But even according to your reasoning,23 why state, 'God'?24 Hence [it must have been added] in order to increase the anger [of the judges].25 So here too,26 it [the mention of the King] was made in order to increase the anger [of the judges].27 Now, on the view that the estate belongs to the King, it is correct: hence it is written, And Joab fled unto the tent of the Lord and caught hold of the horns of the Altar;28 and it is further written, And he said Nay, but I will die here.29 But on the view that their estate belongs to their heirs, what difference did it make to him? - [It would serve] to prolong his life for a while.30
And Benaiah brought back word unto the King saying, thus said Joab and thus he answered me:31 He [Joab] had said to him: Go and tell him [the King]: Thou canst not inflict a twofold punishment upon me:32 if thou slayest me, thou must submit to the curses which thy father uttered against me;33 but it thou art unwilling [to submit thereto], thou must let me live and suffer from thy father's curses against me. And the King said unto him, Do as he hath said,34 and fall upon him and bury him.35
Rab Judah said in Rab's name; All the curses wherewith David cursed Joab were fulfilled in David's own descendants. [It is written:] Let there not fail from the house of Joab one that hath an issue, or that is a leper, or that leaneth on a staff, or that falleth by the sword, or that lacketh bread.36 'He that hath an issue' [was fulfilled] in Rehoboam,37 for it is written, And king Rehoboam made speed38 to get him up to his chariot to flee to Jerusalem;39 whilst it is elsewhere written, And what saddle soever he that hath the issue rideth upon shall be unclean.40 'A leper' - Uzziah,41 for it is written, But when he was strong his heart was lifted up so that he did corruptly, and he trespassed against the Lord his God, for he went unto the Temple of the Lord to burn the incense upon the altar of incense;42 and it is further written, And the leprosy broke forth on his forehead.43 'He that leaneth on a staff' - Asa,44 for it is written, Only in the time of his age he was diseased in his feet:45 concerning which Rab Judah said in Rab's name: He was afflicted with gout.46 Mar Zutra the son of R. Nahman asked R. Nahman; What is it [this complaint] like? - He answered: Like a needle in the raw flesh. But how did he [R. Nahman] know that? - Either because he himself suffered with it; alternatively, he had a tradition from his teacher; or again [he knew it] because, The secret47 of the Lord is with them that fear Him, and His covenant to make them know it.48 'He that falleth by the sword,' - Josiah,49 for it is written, And the archers shot at king Josiah:50 concerning which Rab Judah said in Rab's name: They riddled his body like a sieve. 'That lacketh bread' - Jechoniah,51 for it is written, And for his allowance, there was a continual allowance given him [by the king].52 Rab Judah said in Rab's name: Thus people say,
____________________
(1) But without seriously intending to devote the garments to the dead. Therefore it is not regarded as designation at all.
(2) But seeing that the act is done only out of grief and there is no assignment to the dead at all, why should they be forbidden?
(3) Such was the custom in those days.
(4) I.e., the permission given to use the garments might be taken as applying also to the vestments, seeing that they come in contact with one another. Otherwise they might have been permitted for use, not because assignment is not material, but because in this case it was only an expression of grief.
(5) Although it had not actually been used for that purpose.
(6) Hence assignment is material.
(7) Who holds that both designation and actual use are needed for prohibition. Cf. supra 48a.
(8) V. Tosef Meg. II. This definitely proves that use and not designation is material, and contradicts Abaye.
(9) Cf. Shab. 108a on the verse in Ex. XIII, 9, That the law of the Eternal may be in thy mouth, - they (the Tefillin) should be made out of objects permissible for food.
(10) Men. 42b. Git. 45b. thus, the first Tanna considers designation as immaterial, whereas R. Simeon B. Gamaliel holds it to be a material act. Hence Raba agrees with the first Tanna; Abaye is with R. Simeon b. Gamaliel.
(11) I.e., surely one does not wait for a person to die and delay the funeral while a shroud is being woven. In that case, the dispute of Abaye and Raba, whether a shroud woven for the dead (which means when the person is actually dead) may be used for other purposes, is entirely an imaginary one, such circumstances being inconceivable.
(12) [Or Neharpania (v. D.S. a.l.), a town in Babylon in the Mesene district, v. Obermeyer, op. cit., p. 197.] According to Rashi, its inhabitants were so poor that they could not afford to prepare the shrouds beforehand,and only after a death occurred was a public collection made, and a shroud hastily woven. [According to Obermeyer, op. cit., p. 201, the corpse in the meantime was lying naked in accordance with the Zoroastrian practice which the Jews of that town seemed to have adopted which forbade the covering or dressing of a corpse with any cloth but one that had been specially woven and prepared for the purpose.]
(13) The reference is to the Jewish State, e.g., those executed for treason against the King.
(14) So God said to Elijah. I Kings XXI, 18. The expression 'take possession' (from the verb 'to inherit') indicates that he took legitimate possession, as an heir.
(15) Lit., 'the son of his father's brother.'
(16) This statement has no Biblical source.
(17) II Kings IX, 26.
(18) How could they urge the fact that he had sons in face of the definite statement that they were slain?
(19) Lit., 'to the sons that should have issued from him.' - A murderer is held guilty not only of his victim's death, but also for the frustration of the lives of his potential descendants for all time. (Cf. Mishnah. supra 37a). But in their view, Ahab did not slay his actual sons.
(20) I Kings XXI, 13, pointing to his culpability for treason to the King in addition to blasphemy, which is punished by the Beth din; hence his estate would fall to the crown.
(21) So that Ahab took possession of the vineyard as heir.
(22) Since blasphemy itself was sufficient for conviction, why needlessly add a false indictment?
(23) That treason was punished by death and royal confiscation.
(24) The charge of blasphemy being in itself superfluous.
(25) I.e., they might have been inclined to think that a charge of treason alone was trumped up, but when blasphemy was added, they assumed it to be genuine. So Rashi. Kimhi maintains that the judges knew the testimony to be false, but that the accusation was made stronger in order to keep the people from revolting against the execution.
(26) I.e., even if he held that their estate did not belong to the King.
(27) I.e. to make the crime appear more heinous.
(28) I KIngs II, 28.
(29) Ibid. 30. I.e., he declined to be tried by the King so that his estate might not be confiscated.
(30) He wished to gain the time which it would require to take his message to the King and bring back an answer.
(31) Ibid. This gives the impression that Benaiah had had a long conversation with Joab.
(32) Lit., 'that man.'
(33) For the murder of Abner. V. II Sam. Ill, 29: The curse is quoted in the text. - That curse then was to be Joab's punishment. But if Solomon executed him, the curse would be transferred to Solomon himself.
(34) And kill him where he is.
(35) I Kings II, 31. Thus Solomon accepted the curses.
(36) II Sam. III, 29.
(37) Solomon's only son. V. I Kings XIV, 21.
(38) Lit., 'used effort'.
(39) I Kings XII, 18.
(40) Lev. XV, 9. The deduction is made from a comparison of the uses of the expression 'to ride' in both verses. According to Kimhi, however, it is deduced from the fact that he had to use an effort to mount his chariot.
(41) Son of Amaziah, called also Azariah, Cf. II Kings XV, 1.
(42) II Chron. XXVI, 16.
(43) Ibid. 19.
(44) Son of Abijah, King of Judah. II Kings XV, 8.
(45) I Kings XV, 23.
(46) Podagra, gout in the feet, in consequence of which he had to lean on a staff.
(47) E.V. 'The counsel.'
(48) Ps. XXV, 14, - i.e., as a Divine revelation.
(49) Son of Amon, II Kings XXII, 1.
(50) II Chron. XXXV, 23.
(51) Grandson of Josiah.
(52) Of Babylon, II Kings XXV, 30.Let thyself be cursed rather than curse [another].1
Then Joab was brought before the Court,2 and he [Solomon] judged and questioned him, 'Why didst thou kill Abner?'3 He answered, 'I was Asahel's4 avenger of blood.'5 'But Asahel was a pursuer!'6 'Even so,' answered he; 'but he [Abner] should have saved himself at the cost of one of his [Asahel's] limbs.'7 'Yet perhaps he could not do so, remonstrated [Solomon]. 'If he could aim exactly at the fifth rib,' he retorted, ('even as it is written, Abner with the hinder end of the spear smote him at the waist;8 concerning which R. Johanan said: It was at the fifth rib, where the gall-bladder and liver are suspended.) - could he not have aimed at one of his limbs?' Thereupon [Solomon] said: 'Let us drop [the incident of] Abner; why didst thou kill Amasa?'9 He answered: 'Amasa disobeyed the royal order,10 for it is written, Then said the King to Amasa, Call me the men of Judah together within three days etc. So Amasa went to call the men of Judah together; but he tarried etc.' 'But,' said he [Solomon], 'Amasa interpreted [the particles] 'Ak and Rak.'11 [Thus:] he found them12 just as they had begun [the study of] a tractate; whereupon he said: It is written, Whosoever he be that shall rebel against thy [the King's] commandments and shall not hearken unto thy words in all that thou commandest him, he shall be put to death.13 Now, one might have thought that this holds good even [when the transgression is committed] for the sake of the study of the law: it is therefore written, only [Rak] be strong and of good courage.14 But thou thyself15 didst disobey the royal order, for it is written, And the tidings16 come to Joab, for Joab had turned after Adonijah, though he had turned not after Absalom.17 What is the purpose of 'though he had turned not.'18 - Rab Judah said: He wished to turn [after him], but did not. And why did he not? - R. Eleazar said: David still possessed his vitality.19 R. Jose the son of R. Hanina said: David's star20 was still in the ascendant, for Rab Judah said in Rab's name:21 Four hundred children had David, all the issue of yefoth to'ar; they had long locks, and used to march at the head of the troops; it was they who were the men of power in David's household.
This [view of Joab] is in contradiction to the view held by R. Abba b. Kahana, who said: But for David,22 Joab would not have succeeded in23 war; and but for Joab, David could not have devoted himself to [the study of] the Torah, for it is written, And David executed justice and righteousness for all his people, and Joab the son of Zeruiah was over the host:24 - i.e., why was David able to execute 'justice and righteousness for all his people'? - Because 'Joab was over the host.' And why was 'Joab over the host'?25 - Because 'David executed justice and righteousness for all his people.
' And when Joab was come out from David he sent messengers after Abner and they brought him back from Bor-Sira.26 What meaning has [the name] Bor-Sira? - R. Abba b. Kahana said: Bor27 and Sira28 caused Abner to be killed.29
And Joab took him aside into the midst of the gate to speak with him quietly.30 R. Johanan said: He judged him according to the law of the Sanhedrin.31 Thus he asked him: 'Why didst thou kill Asahel?' - 'Because Asahel was my pursuer.' 'Then thou shouldst have saved thyself32 at the cost of one of his limbs!' 'I could not do that,' [he answered]. 'If thou couldst aim exactly at his fifth rib, couldst thou not have prevailed against him by [wounding] one of his limbs?'
'To speak with him ba-sheli [quietly]:' Rab Judah said in Rab's name: [He spoke to him] concerning the putting off [of the shoe].33 'And smote him there at the waist:' R. Johanan said: At the fifth rib, where the gall-bladder and liver are suspended.34
And the Lord will return his [Joab's] blood upon his own head because he fell upon two men more righteous and better than he.35 'Better,' because they interpreted aright [the particles] 'ak and rak,36 whilst he did not;37 'More righteous,' because they were instructed verbally,38 yet did not obey, whereas he was instructed in a letter,39 and nevertheless carried it out.
But Amasa did not beware of the sword that was in Joab's hand.40 Rab said: That was because he did not suspect him. And he was buried in his own house in the wilderness.41 But was his house a wilderness?42 - Rab Judah said in Rab's name: It was like a wilderness, just as a wilderness is free to all, so was Joab's house free to all.43 Alternatively: 'Like a wilderness' means, just as a wilderness is free from robbery and licentiousness,44 so was Joab's house free from robbery and licentiousness.
And Joab kept alive45 the rest of the city:46 R. Judah said: Even fish broth and hashed fish he would merely taste and then distribute to the poor.47
