Sanhedrin 35a

וּכְתִיב: ״וַתִּקַּח רִצְפָּה בַת אַיָּה אֶת הַשַּׂק וַתַּטֵּהוּ לָהּ אֶל הַצּוּר בִּתְחִלַּת קָצִיר״. And it is written: “And Rizpah, daughter of Aiah, took sackcloth and spread it for her upon the rock, from the beginning of harvest until water was poured upon them from heaven; and she suffered neither the birds of the air to rest on them by day, nor the beasts of the field by night” (II Samuel 21:10). It is clear from this verse that the bodies of the children of Saul remained exposed outdoors; presumably, they were hung.

וּכְתִיב: ״וַיֹּאמֶר ה׳ אֶל מֹשֶׁה קַח אֶת כׇּל רָאשֵׁי הָעָם״. אִם הָעָם חָטְאוּ, רָאשֵׁי הָעָם מָה חָטְאוּ? The Gemara discusses the incident of the Israelites who worshipped the idol of Peor in the wilderness. And it is written: “And the Lord said unto Moses: Take all the chiefs of the people, and hang them unto the Lord facing the sun, that the fierce anger of the Lord may turn away from Israel” (Numbers 25:4). The Gemara asks: If the nation transgressed, in what manner did the chiefs of the people transgress? The verse does not record a transgression of the chiefs, so why were they punished?

אָמַר רַב יְהוּדָה אָמַר רַב: אָמַר לוֹ הַקָּדוֹשׁ בָּרוּךְ הוּא לְמֹשֶׁה, חַלֵּק לָהֶם בָּתֵּי דִינִין. מַאי טַעְמָא? אִילֵּימָא מִשּׁוּם שֶׁאֵין דָּנִין שְׁנַיִם בְּיוֹם אֶחָד? וְהָאָמַר רַב חִסְדָּא: לֹא שָׁנוּ אֶלָּא בִּשְׁתֵּי מִיתוֹת, אֲבָל בְּמִיתָה אַחַת דָּנִין! Rav Yehuda says that Rav says: The reason for selecting the chiefs of the tribes was not to punish them. Rather, the Holy One, Blessed be He, said to Moses: Apportion courts for the chiefs of the tribes, and each court will judge and punish the transgressors of its tribe. The Gemara asks: What is the reason that multiple courts were needed for this? If we say that it is due to the principle that a court does not judge two cases of capital law in one day, and there were many cases to be judged, that cannot be the reason. But doesn’t Rav Ḥisda say: This principle was taught only with regard to two different types of death imposed by a court, as each case needs sufficient time to be fully investigated on its own merits. But the court does judge multiple cases of one type of death, i.e., one transgression, on the same day.

אֶלָּא, כְּדֵי שֶׁיָּשׁוּב חֲרוֹן אַף מִיִּשְׂרָאֵל. The Gemara explains: Rather, the reason for the appointment of multiple courts was in order that the fierce anger of the Lord may turn away from Israel. The fierce anger of God would remain until those who engaged in idol worship were punished. Therefore, it was necessary to try them in due haste.

דִּינֵי מָמוֹנוֹת גּוֹמְרִין בּוֹ בַּיּוֹם כּוּ׳. מְנָהָנֵי מִילֵּי? § The mishna teaches: In cases of monetary law, the court may conclude the deliberations and issue the ruling even on that same day, whether to exempt the accused or to find him liable. In cases of capital law, the court may conclude the deliberations and issue the ruling even on that same day to acquit the accused, but must wait until the following day to find him liable. The Gemara asks: From where are these matters derived?

אָמַר רַבִּי חֲנִינָא: דְּאָמַר קְרָא, ״מְלֵאֲתִי מִשְׁפָּט צֶדֶק יָלִין בָּהּ וְעַתָּה מְרַצְּחִים״. וְרָבָא אָמַר מֵהָכָא: ״אַשְּׁרוּ חָמוֹץ״ – אַשְּׁרוּ דַּיָּין שֶׁמְּחַמֵּץ אֶת דִּינוֹ. Rabbi Ḥanina said: The verse states prophetically concerning Jerusalem after the destruction of the First Temple: “She that was full of justice, righteousness lodged in her, but now murderers” (Isaiah 1:21). The verse associates lodging, or waiting overnight, with justice. And Rava says that these matters are derived from here: “Learn to do well; seek judgment, relieve [ashru] the oppressed [ḥamotz]” (Isaiah 1:17). This is interpreted: Praise [ashru] the judge who delays [meḥametz] his verdict before he pronounces it.

וְאִידַּךְ: ״אַשְּׁרוּ חָמוֹץ״, וְלֹא חוֹמֵץ. וְאִידַּךְ, הַאי ״מְלֵאֲתִי מִשְׁפָּט״ מַאי עָבֵיד לֵיהּ? And the other amora, Rabbi Ḥanina, who did not derive this halakha from this verse, interprets it as meaning: Relieve the robbery victim [ḥamotz], but not the robber [ḥometz], as do the wicked judges. The Gemara asks: And the other amora, Rava, what does he do with this verse: “She that was full of justice, righteousness lodged in her, but now murderers”?

כִּדְרַבִּי אֶלְעָזָר אָמַר רַבִּי יִצְחָק, דְּאָמַר רַבִּי אֶלְעָזָר אָמַר רַבִּי יִצְחָק: כׇּל תַּעֲנִית שֶׁמְּלִינִין בּוֹ אֶת הַצְּדָקָה – כְּאִילּוּ שׁוֹפֵךְ דָּמִים, שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר: ״מְלֵאֲתִי מִשְׁפָּט צֶדֶק וְגוֹ׳״. וְהָנֵי מִילֵּי – בְּרִיפְתָּא וְתַמְרֵי, אֲבָל בְּזוּזֵי, חִיטֵּי וּשְׂעָרֵי – לֵית לַן בַּהּ. The Gemara answers: Rava interprets it in accordance with the statement that Rabbi Elazar says that Rabbi Yitzḥak says, as Rabbi Elazar says that Rabbi Yitzḥak says: Every fast day on which the distribution of charity [tzedaka] is left overnight, this is considered as if one spilled the blood of the poor people, as they fasted all day in the expectation that they would receive charity before the day was over in order to purchase food with which to break their fasts. As it is stated: “She that was full of justice [tzedek], righteousness lodged in her, but now murderers.” The Gemara clarifies: And this statement applies with regard to the delaying of the distribution of bread and dates, which are ready to be consumed; but with regard to the delaying of the distribution of money, wheat, and barley, we have no problem with it.

לְפִיכָךְ אֵין דָּנִין כּוּ׳. מַאי טַעְמָא? § After teaching that in cases of capital law, the verdict may not be issued on the same day as the deliberations, the mishna states: Therefore, the court does not judge cases of capital law on certain days, neither on the eve of Shabbat nor on the eve of a Festival. The Gemara asks: What is the reason for this? What does the halakha that the verdict may not be issued on the same day as the deliberations have to do with not judging cases on those days?

מִשּׁוּם דְּלָא אֶפְשָׁר. הֵיכִי לֶיעְבַּד? לִידַיְּינֵיהּ בְּמַעֲלֵי שַׁבְּתָא וְלִיגְמְרֵיהּ לְדִינֵיהּ בְּמַעֲלֵי שַׁבְּתָא? דִּילְמָא חָזוּ טַעַם לְחוֹבָה, וּבָעוּ לְמִיעְבַּד הֲלָנַת דִּין. לְדַיְּינֵיהּ בְּמַעֲלֵי שַׁבְּתָא וְלִיגְמְרֵיהּ בְּשַׁבְּתָא, וְלִיקְטְלֵיהּ בְּשַׁבְּתָא? אֵין רְצִיחָה דּוֹחָה אֶת שַׁבָּת. וְלִיקְטְלֵיהּ לְאוּרְתָּא? נֶגֶד הַשֶּׁמֶשׁ בָּעֵינַן. The Gemara explains: It is because it is not possible to conduct the trial on the eve of Shabbat or the eve of a Festival. As, how should we act? If we say that we should judge him on Shabbat eve and conclude his verdict on Shabbat eve, perhaps we would see a reason to find the accused liable, and in this situation the court is required to perform a suspension of the trial until the following day, as the court may not issue a verdict in cases of capital law on the same day as the deliberations. If we say: We should judge him on Shabbat eve and conclude the verdict on Shabbat, and, if he is found liable, kill him on Shabbat, that cannot be done, as the murder of one liable to receive court-imposed capital punishment does not override Shabbat. And if we say: We should kill him at night, after the conclusion of Shabbat, that cannot be done, as we require that the capital punishment be administered facing the sun, during the daytime.

וְלִיגְמְרֵיהּ לְדִינֵיהּ בְּשַׁבְּתָא, וְלִיקְטְלֵיהּ בְּחַד בְּשַׁבְּתָא? נִמְצָא אַתָּה מְעַנֶּה אֶת דִּינוֹ. נִידַיְּינֵיהּ בְּמַעֲלֵי שַׁבְּתָא וְנִגְמְרֵיהּ בְּחַד בְּשַׁבְּתָא? מִינְּשׁוּ טַעְמַיְיהוּ. אַף עַל גַּב דִּשְׁנֵי סוֹפְרֵי הַדַּיָּינִין עוֹמְדִים לִפְנֵיהֶם, וְכוֹתְבִין דִּבְרֵי הַמְזַכִּין וְדִבְרֵי הַמְחַיְּיבִין, נְהִי דִּבְפוּמָּא כָּתְבִין, לִיבָּא דְּאִינְּשִׁי אִינְּשִׁי. הִלְכָּךְ לָא אֶפְשָׁר. And if we say: We should judge him on Shabbat eve, conclude his verdict on Shabbat, and kill him on Sunday, you are found to have caused a delay in his verdict, as the accused will have to wait overnight knowing he is condemned to death. And if we say: We should judge him on Shabbat eve and conclude his verdict on Sunday, the judges will forget their reasons for their positions in the interim. And even though two judges’ scribes are standing before them, and they write the statements of those who acquit the accused and the statements of those who find him liable, and they write that which emerged from the mouths of the judges, i.e., their tentative verdict, the hearts of people [enashei] are forgetful [inshei], and they will forget the reasons. Therefore, it is not possible to begin deliberations in cases of capital law on a Shabbat eve or a Festival eve.

אֲמַר לֵיהּ רֵישׁ לָקִישׁ לְרַבִּי יוֹחָנָן: וּתְהֵא קְבוּרַת מֵת מִצְוָה דּוֹחָה שַׁבָּת מִקַּל וָחוֹמֶר: וּמָה עֲבוֹדָה שֶׁדּוֹחָה שַׁבָּת – קְבוּרַת מֵת מִצְוָה דּוֹחָה אוֹתָהּ, מִ״וּלְאַחֹתוֹ״. § The Gemara discusses a related matter: Reish Lakish said to Rabbi Yoḥanan: And the burial of a corpse with no one to bury it [met mitzva] should override Shabbat by means of an a fortiori inference: If with regard to the Temple service, which overrides Shabbat, yet the burial of a met mitzva overrides it, based on the interpretation of the term written with regard to a nazirite: “Or for his sister” (Numbers 6:7); the Gemara pauses its recounting of the question of Reish Lakish and cites a baraita that teaches this halakha.

כִּדְתַנְיָא: ״לְאָבִיו וּלְאִמּוֹ לְאָחִיו וּלְאַחֹתוֹ״ – מָה תַּלְמוּד לוֹמַר? הֲרֵי שֶׁהָיָה הוֹלֵךְ לִשְׁחוֹט אֶת פִּסְחוֹ וְלָמוּל אֶת בְּנוֹ As it is taught in a baraita: The verses state with regard to a nazirite: “All the days that he consecrates himself unto the Lord he shall not come near to a dead body. He shall not make himself impure for his father, or for his mother, for his brother, or for his sister, when they die” (Numbers 6:6–7). Why must the verse state all of these relatives? It teaches that if a nazirite was going to slaughter his Paschal offering or to circumcise his son

וְשָׁמַע שֶׁמֵּת לוֹ מֵת, יָכוֹל יִטַּמֵּא? אָמַרְתָּ: ״לֹא יִטַּמֵּא״. and he heard that a relative of his died, one might have thought that he should return and become ritually impure with the impurity imparted by a corpse to bury his relative. You said: “He shall not make himself impure”; the death of his relative will not override so significant a mitzva from the Torah.

יָכוֹל, כְּשֵׁם שֶׁאֵינוֹ מִטַּמֵּא לַאֲחוֹתוֹ כָּךְ אֵינוֹ מִטַּמֵּא לְמֵת מִצְוָה? תַּלְמוּד לוֹמַר: ״וּלְאַחֹתוֹ״. לַאֲחוֹתוֹ הוּא דְּאֵינוֹ מִטַּמֵּא, אֲבָל מִטַּמֵּא לְמֵת מִצְוָה. One might have thought: Just as he may not become impure to bury his sister, so he may not become impure to bury a met mitzva. Therefore, the verse states specifically: “Or for his sister”; teaching that he may not become impure only to bury his sister, as others can attend to her burial, but he may become impure to bury a met mitzva.

שַׁבָּת שֶׁנִּידְחֵת מִפְּנֵי עֲבוֹדָה, אֵינוֹ דִּין שֶׁתְּהֵא קְבוּרַת מֵת מִצְוָה דּוֹחָה אוֹתָהּ? Having cited the baraita proving that the burial of a met mitzva overrides the Temple service, Reish Lakish continues his suggestion: With regard to Shabbat, which is overridden due to the Temple service, is it not logical that the burial of a met mitzva overrides it?

אֲמַר לֵיהּ: רְצִיחָה תּוֹכִיחַ, שֶׁדּוֹחָה אֶת הָעֲבוֹדָה וְאֵינָהּ דּוֹחָה אֶת הַשַּׁבָּת. Rabbi Yoḥanan said to him: The halakha of murder, i.e., the obligation to kill one found liable to receive court-imposed capital punishment, proves that this is not the case, as it overrides the Temple service, e.g., if the only priest present is liable to receive court-imposed capital punishment, he is taken to be killed despite this resulting in the negation of the Temple service, but it does not override Shabbat.

רְצִיחָה גּוּפָהּ תִּדְחֶה אֶת הַשַּׁבָּת מִקַּל וָחוֹמֶר: מָה עֲבוֹדָה שֶׁדּוֹחֶה אֶת הַשַּׁבָּת, רְצִיחָה דּוֹחָה אוֹתָהּ, שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר ״מֵעִם מִזְבְּחִי תִּקָּחֶנּוּ לָמוּת״; שַׁבָּת שֶׁנִּידְחֵת מִפְּנֵי עֲבוֹדָה, אֵינוֹ דִּין שֶׁתְּהֵא רְצִיחָה דּוֹחָה אוֹתָהּ? The Gemara asks: Murder itself should override Shabbat based on this a fortiori inference: Just as with regard to the Temple service, which overrides Shabbat, nevertheless murder overrides it, and the source for this is as it is stated: “And if a man come presumptuously upon his neighbor, to slay him with guile; you shall take him from My altar, that he may die” (Exodus 21:14); then with regard to Shabbat, which is overridden due to the Temple service, is it not logical that murder should override it?

אָמַר רָבָא: כְּבָר פַּסְקַהּ תָּנָא דְּבֵי רַבִּי יִשְׁמָעֵאל, דְּתָנָא דְּבֵי רַבִּי יִשְׁמָעֵאל: ״לֹא תְבַעֲרוּ אֵשׁ״ – מָה תַּלְמוּד לוֹמַר? Rava said in response: It has already been ruled by a tanna of the school of Rabbi Yishmael, as the school of Rabbi Yishmael taught: What is the meaning when the verse states: “You shall kindle no fire throughout your habitations on Shabbat day” (Exodus 35:3)? All labor is forbidden on Shabbat, based on the verse: “In it you shall not do any manner of work” (Exodus 20:10). Why is kindling fire singled out?

מָה תַּלְמוּד לוֹמַר? אִי לְרַבִּי יוֹסֵי – לְלָאו יָצָאת, אִי לְרַבִּי נָתָן – לְחַלֵּק יָצָאת. כִּדְתַנְיָא: הַבְעָרָה לְלָאו יָצָאת, דִּבְרֵי רַבִּי יוֹסֵי. רַבִּי נָתָן אוֹמֵר: לְחַלֵּק יָצָאת. The Gemara interjects: What is the meaning when the verse states this? If this question is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yosei, this transgression was singled out to teach that one who lights a fire on Shabbat violates an ordinary prohibition, as opposed to the performance of other types of labor on Shabbat, for which one is liable to receive court-imposed capital punishment. If this question is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Natan, this transgression was singled out to divide the various labors and to establish liability to receive court-imposed capital punishment for performance of any one of them. The Gemara explains: As it is taught in a baraita: Kindling of fire was singled out to teach that one who lights a fire on Shabbat violates an ordinary prohibition, this is the statement of Rabbi Yosei. Rabbi Natan says: It was singled out to divide the various labors. Either way, it is clear what the meaning of the verse is.

אֶלָּא אָמַר רָבָא: תְּנָא ״מוֹשָׁבוֹת״ קַשְׁיָא לֵיהּ. ״מוֹשָׁבוֹת״ – מָה תַּלְמוּד לוֹמַר? מִכְּדֵי שַׁבָּת חוֹבַת הַגּוּף הִיא, וְחוֹבַת הַגּוּף נוֹהֶגֶת בֵּין בְּאָרֶץ בֵּין בְּחוּץ לָאָרֶץ. ״מוֹשָׁבוֹת״ דִּכְתַב רַחֲמָנָא לְמָה לִי? The Gemara clarifies: Rather, Rava said: The term “habitations” in the verse poses a difficulty for the tanna: What is the meaning when the verse states: “You shall kindle no fire throughout your habitations on Shabbat day”? After all, Shabbat is an obligation on the person himself, not an obligation bound to any specific location. And the halakha is that an obligation on the person himself is practiced whether in Eretz Yisrael or outside of Eretz Yisrael. Why do I need the term “habitations” that the Merciful One writes in the Torah?

מִשּׁוּם רַבִּי יִשְׁמָעֵאל אָמַר תַּלְמִיד אֶחָד: לְפִי שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר ״כִּי יִהְיֶה בְאִישׁ חֵטְא מִשְׁפַּט מָוֶת וְהוּמָת״, שׁוֹמֵעַ אֲנִי בֵּין בַּחוֹל בֵּין בַּשַּׁבָּת. וְהָא מָה אֲנִי מְקַיֵּים ״מְחַלְּלֶיהָ מוֹת יוּמָת״? בִּשְׁאָר מְלָאכוֹת, חוּץ מִמִּיתַת בֵּית דִּין. אוֹ אֵינוֹ אֶלָּא אֲפִילּוּ מִיתַת בֵּית דִּין? וּמָה אֲנִי מְקַיֵּים ״וְהוּמָת״? בְּחוֹל אֲבָל לֹא בְּשַׁבָּת. אוֹ אֵינוֹ אֶלָּא אֲפִילּוּ בַּשַּׁבָּת? Rava continues: One student said in the name of Rabbi Yishmael that since it is stated: “And if there is in a man a sin deserving of death and he is put to death” (Deuteronomy 21:22), I would derive that the court administers capital punishment both during the week and on Shabbat. And accordingly, how do I realize the meaning of what the verse states concerning Shabbat: “Everyone that desecrates it shall be put to death” (Exodus 31:14)? One possibility is that the term: Desecration of Shabbat, applies only to other cases in which labor is performed, and excludes instances of the death penalty administered by a court, which is not a desecration of Shabbat. Or rather, derive that even the death penalty administered by a court is prohibited as desecration of Shabbat. And how do I realize the meaning of: “And he is put to death”? One possibility is that the mitzva of executing transgressors applies on weekdays, but not on Shabbat. Or rather, the other possibility is that it applies even on Shabbat.

תַּלְמוּד לוֹמַר: ״לֹא תְבַעֲרוּ אֵשׁ בְּכֹל מֹשְׁבֹתֵיכֶם״, וּלְהַלָּן הוּא אוֹמֵר: ״וְהָיוּ אֵלֶּה לָכֶם לְחֻקַּת מִשְׁפָּט לְדֹרֹתֵיכֶם בְּכֹל מוֹשְׁבֹתֵיכֶם״. מָה ״מוֹשָׁבוֹת״ הָאָמוּר לְהַלָּן – בֵּית דִּין, אַף ״מוֹשָׁבוֹת״ הָאָמוּר כָּאן – בֵּית דִּין. וְאָמַר רַחֲמָנָא: ״לֹא תְבַעֲרוּ אֵשׁ בְּכֹל מֹשְׁבֹתֵיכֶם״. As these verses can be interpreted in either manner, the verse states: “You shall kindle no fire throughout your habitations on Shabbat day,” and there, with regard to the punishment administered to a murderer, the verse states: “And these shall be for you a statute of judgment throughout your generations in all your habitations” (Numbers 35:29). Just as the term “habitations” that is stated there is referring to the act of a court, so too the term “habitations” that is stated here concerning Shabbat is referring to the act of a court. And the Merciful One states: “You shall kindle no fire throughout your habitations.” This teaches that the court does not administer capital punishment on Shabbat.

אָמַר אַבָּיֵי: הַשְׁתָּא דְּאָמְרַתְּ אֵין רְצִיחָה דּוֹחָה אֶת הַשַּׁבָּת, אֵין רְצִיחָה דּוֹחָה אֶת הָעֲבוֹדָה מִקַּל וָחוֹמֶר. וּמָה שַׁבָּת שֶׁנִּידְחֵית מִפְּנֵי הָעֲבוֹדָה – אֵין רְצִיחָה דּוֹחָה אוֹתָהּ, עֲבוֹדָה שֶׁהִיא דּוֹחָה אֶת הַשַּׁבָּת – אֵינוֹ דִּין שֶׁלֹּא תְּהֵא רְצִיחָה דּוֹחָה אוֹתָהּ? Abaye says: Now that you have said that murder of one condemned by the court does not override Shabbat, one should say that murder does not override the performance of the Temple service either, based on an a fortiori inference: And just as with regard to Shabbat, which is overridden for the performance of the Temple service, murder does not override it, then with regard to performance of the Temple service, which overrides Shabbat, is it not logical that murder should not override it?

אֶלָּא, הָא דִּכְתִיב: ״מֵעִם מִזְבְּחִי תִּקָּחֶנּוּ לָמוּת״? הָהוּא לְקׇרְבַּן יָחִיד, דְּלָא דָּחֵי שַׁבָּת. The Gemara questions this inference: But if so, how would one explain that which is written in the verse concerning one liable to receive court-imposed capital punishment: “You shall take him from My altar, that he may die” (Exodus 21:14)? This verse indicates that the court administering capital punishment does override the performance of the Temple service. The Gemara explains: That verse serves to teach the halakha concerning an offering of an individual, which does not override Shabbat. The verse is teaching that the court takes the priest to execute him even if this will result in the offering of an individual not being sacrificed.

אָמַר רָבָא: אִי הָכִי, לָא תְּהֵא רְצִיחָה דּוֹחָה קׇרְבַּן יָחִיד מִקַּל וָחוֹמֶר: Rava says: If that is so, one should say that murder should not override even an offering of an individual based on an a fortiori inference:

מָה יוֹם טוֹב שֶׁנִּדְחֶה מִפְּנֵי קׇרְבַּן יָחִיד, אֵין רְצִיחָה דּוֹחָה אוֹתוֹ. קׇרְבַּן יָחִיד שֶׁהוּא דּוֹחֶה אֶת יוֹם טוֹב, אֵינוֹ דִּין שֶׁלֹּא תְּהֵא רְצִיחָה דּוֹחָה אוֹתוֹ? Just as with regard to a Festival, which is overridden due to an offering of an individual, as voluntary offerings of individuals are sacrificed on Festivals, and nevertheless murder does not override it, as the court does not execute one liable to receive court-imposed capital punishment on a Festival, with regard to an offering of an individual, which overrides a Festival, is it not logical that murder should not override it? Therefore, unlike the explanation of Abaye, the court should not take a priest to execute him in the event he is liable to receive capital punishment if this will result in the offering of an individual not being sacrificed.

הָנִיחָא לְמַאן דְּאָמַר אֵין נְדָרִים וּנְדָבוֹת קְרֵיבִין בְּיוֹם טוֹב, אֶלָּא לְמַאן דְּאָמַר נְדָרִים וּנְדָבוֹת קְרֵיבִין בְּיוֹם טוֹב – מַאי אִיכָּא לְמֵימַר? Rava clarifies: This works out well according to the one who says that vow offerings and gift offerings of individuals are not sacrificed on a Festival. Since the offerings of an individual do not override a Festival, there is no place for this a fortiori inference. But according to the one who says that vow offerings and gift offerings of individuals are sacrificed on a Festival, what is there to say? Why would one not make the above a fortiori inference?

אֶלָּא אָמַר רָבָא: לָא מִיבַּעְיָא לְמַאן דְּאָמַר נְדָרִים וּנְדָבוֹת קְרֵיבִין בְּיוֹם טוֹב, דְּהָא לָא מִתְקַיֵּים ״מֵעִם מִזְבְּחִי״ כְּלָל. Rather, Rava says that Abaye’s explanation of the verse is incorrect according to all opinions. It is not necessary to say that the inference is incorrect according to the one who says that vow offerings and gift offerings of individuals are sacrificed on a Festival, as according to that opinion one cannot justify the verse of “from My altar” at all, as there is no distinction between the offering of an individual and a communal offering, as both override a Festival. Accordingly, court-imposed capital punishment should not override either type of offering.

אֶלָּא אֲפִילּוּ לְמַאן דְּאָמַר: נְדָרִים וּנְדָבוֹת אֵין קְרֵיבִין בְּיוֹם טוֹב, הָכְתִיב ״מֵעִם מִזְבְּחִי״ – מִזְבְּחִי הַמְיוּחָד לִי, וּמַאי נִינְהוּ? תָּמִיד. וְאָמַר רַחֲמָנָא: ״מֵעִם מִזְבְּחִי תִּקָּחֶנּוּ לָמוּת״. But even according to the one who says that vow offerings and gift offerings of individuals are not sacrificed on a Festival, in which case Abaye’s explanation is possible, this is difficult. But isn’t it written: “From My altar”? The term “My altar” indicates: My altar, the offering that is designated to Me. And what offering is this? It is the daily offering. And yet, the Merciful One states: “You shall take him from My altar, that he may die.” Accordingly, the verse is not stated specifically with regard to an offering of an individual.

דִּינֵי מָמוֹנוֹת, הַטְּמָאוֹת וְהַטְּהָרוֹת כּוּ׳. אָמַר רַב: אֲנָא הֲוַאי בְּמִנְיָנָא דְּבֵי רַבִּי, וּמִינַּאי דִּידִי הֲווֹ מַתְחֲלִי בְּרֵישָׁא. וְהָא אֲנַן ״מַתְחִילִין מִן הַגָּדוֹל״ תְּנַן! § The mishna teaches that in cases of monetary law, and likewise in the cases of ritual impurity and purity, the judges commence expressing their opinions from the greatest of the judges. Rav says: I was among the quorum of judges in the school of Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi, and they would commence from me, i.e., I was first when ascertaining the opinions of the judges. The Gemara questions this statement: But we learned in the mishna that the judges commence expressing their opinions from the greatest of the judges, and Rav was one of the junior judges of that court.

אָמַר רַבָּה בְּרֵיהּ דְּרָבָא, וְאִיתֵּימָא רַבִּי הִלֵּל בְּרֵיהּ דְּרַבִּי וָולֶס: שָׁאנֵי מִנְיָינָא דְּבֵי רַבִּי, דְּכוּלְּהוּ מִנְיָנַיְיהוּ מִן הַצַּד הֲווֹ מַתְחֲלִי. Rabba, son of Rava, says, and some say that it was Rabbi Hillel, son of Rabbi Valles, who says: The counting of the vote in the court in the school of Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi is different, as all of their deliberations and the counting of the vote would commence from the side benches, where the least significant judges sit. This was because Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi was held in such high esteem that once he expressed his opinion, no one would be so brazen as to contradict him.

וְאָמַר רַבָּה בְּרֵיהּ דְּרָבָא, וְאִיתֵּימָא רַבִּי הִלֵּל בְּרֵיהּ דְּרַבִּי וָולֶס: מִימוֹת מֹשֶׁה וְעַד רַבִּי לֹא מָצִינוּ תּוֹרָה וּגְדוּלָּה בְּמָקוֹם אֶחָד. And with regard to the greatness of Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi, Rabba, son of Rava, says, and some say that it was Rabbi Hillel, son of Rabbi Valles, who says: From the days of Moses and until the days of Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi we do not find unparalleled greatness in Torah knowledge and unparalleled greatness in secular matters, including wealth and high political office, combined in one place, i.e., in a single individual.

וְלָא? הָא הֲוָה יְהוֹשֻׁעַ! הֲוָה אֶלְעָזָר. וְהָא הֲוָה פִּנְחָס! הֲווֹ זְקֵנִים. The Gemara asks: But was there not such a person? Wasn’t there Joshua, who was unparalleled in both domains? The Gemara answers: During his time there was Elazar, who was Joshua’s equal in Torah knowledge. The Gemara asks: But wasn’t there Pinehas, who outlived Elazar? The Gemara answers: There were the Elders, who were equal to Pinehas in Torah knowledge.

וְהָא הֲוָה שָׁאוּל! הֲוָה שְׁמוּאֵל. וְהָא נָח נַפְשֵׁיהּ! כּוּלְּהוּ שְׁנֵיהּ קָאָמְרִינַן. The Gemara further objects: But wasn’t there Saul, who was unparalleled in both domains? The Gemara answers: There was Samuel, who was Saul’s equal in Torah knowledge. The Gemara asks: But didn’t Samuel die in Saul’s lifetime, leaving Saul the leading figure in both domains? The Gemara answers: We meant to say that from the days of Moses until the days of Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi there was no other single individual who reigned supreme in Torah and greatness for all the years that he was the leader of the Jewish people.

וְהָא הֲוָה דָּוִד! הֲוָה עִירָא הַיָּאִירִי. וְהָא נָח נַפְשֵׁיהּ! כּוּלְּהוּ שְׁנֵיהּ קָאָמְרִינַן. The Gemara asks: But wasn’t there David, who was both the greatest Torah authority and the most powerful temporal authority of his day? The Gemara answers: There was Ira the Yairite, who was David’s equal in Torah knowledge. The Gemara objects: But didn’t Ira the Yairite die in David’s lifetime? The Gemara answers: We meant to say that there was no other single individual who reigned supreme in Torah and greatness for all the years that he was the leader of the Jewish people.

וְהָא הֲוָה שְׁלֹמֹה! הֲוָה שִׁמְעִי בֶּן גֵּרָא. וְהָא קַטְלֵיהּ! כּוּלֵּיהּ שְׁנֵיהּ קָאָמְרִינַן. The Gemara asks: But wasn’t there Solomon, who was unparalleled in both domains? The Gemara answers: During his day there was Shimi ben Gera, who was Solomon’s master in Torah knowledge. The Gemara objects: But didn’t Solomon kill him at the beginning of his reign (see I Kings, chapter 2)? The Gemara answers: We meant to say that there was no other single individual who reigned supreme in Torah and greatness for all the years that he was the leader of the Jewish people.

הָא הֲוָה חִזְקִיָּה! הֲוָה שֶׁבְנָא. וְהָא אִיקְּטִיל! כּוּלְּהוּ שְׁנֵיהּ קָאָמְרִינַן. וְהָא הֲוָה עֶזְרָא! הֲוָה נְחֶמְיָה בֶּן חֲכַלְיָה. The Gemara further objects: Wasn’t there Hezekiah, who was both the leading Torah scholar of his age and also the king of his people? The Gemara answers: There was Shebnah in that generation, who was Hezekiah’s equal in Torah knowledge. The Gemara asks: But wasn’t he killed in the war against Sennacherib? The Gemara answers: We meant to say that there was no other single individual who reigned supreme in Torah and greatness for all the years that he was the leader of the Jewish people. The Gemara asks: But wasn’t there Ezra, who was the greatest Torah Sage of his day and the leader of the Jewish people? The Gemara answers: There was Nehemiah, son of Hacaliah, who was his equal.

אָמַר רַב אַדָּא בַּר אַהֲבָה: אַף אֲנִי אוֹמֵר, מִימוֹת רַבִּי עַד רַב אָשֵׁי לֹא מָצִינוּ תּוֹרָה וּגְדוּלָּה בְּמָקוֹם אֶחָד. וְלָא? וְהָא הֲוָה הוּנָא בַּר נָתָן! הוּנָא בַּר נָתָן מִיכָּף הֲוָה כַּיִיף לֵיהּ לְרַב אָשֵׁי. Rav Adda bar Ahava says: I also say a similar statement, that from the days of Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi and until the days of Rav Ashi we do not find unparalleled greatness in Torah knowledge and unparalleled greatness in secular matters, including wealth and high political office, combined in one place, i.e., in a single individual. The Gemara asks: But was there not such a person? But wasn’t there Huna bar Natan, who lived during the time of Rav Ashi and enjoyed both great Torah scholarship and great wealth? The Gemara answers: Huna bar Natan was subordinate to Rav Ashi, who was his superior in both domains.

דִּינֵי נְפָשׁוֹת מַתְחִילִין מִן הַצַּד. מְנָא הָנֵי מִילֵּי? אָמַר רַב אַחָא בַּר פָּפָּא: אָמַר קְרָא, ״לֹא תַעֲנֶה עַל רִב״. לֹא תַעֲנֶה עַל רַב. § The mishna teaches that in cases of capital law, the judges commence issuing their opinions from the side benches, where the least significant judges sit. The Gemara asks: From where are these matters derived? Rav Aḥa bar Pappa says: The verse states: “Neither shall you answer in a cause [al riv]” (Exodus 23:2), and the Sages interpret: Neither shall you answer after the Master [al rav], i.e., do not dispute the opinion of the greatest among the judges. Therefore, were the judges to commence issuing their opinions from the greatest of them, and he would say that the accused is liable, no judge would acquit him.

רַבָּה בַּר בַּר חָנָה אָמַר רַבִּי יוֹחָנָן, מֵהָכָא: ״וַיֹּאמֶר דָּוִד לַאֲנָשָׁיו חִגְרוּ אִישׁ [אֶת] חַרְבּוֹ וַיַּחְגְּרוּ אִישׁ [אֶת] חַרְבּוֹ וַיַּחְגֹּר גַּם דָּוִד אֶת חַרְבּוֹ״. Rabba bar bar Ḥana says that Rabbi Yoḥanan says: The source of this practice is from here: When David decided to punish Nabal the Carmelite, the verse states: “And David said to his men: Every man gird his sword. And every man girded his sword, and David also girded his sword” (I Samuel 25:13). That was a case of capital law, and David, the greatest among them, was last.

אָמַר רַב: שׁוֹנֶה אָדָם לְתַלְמִידוֹ, וְדָן עִמּוֹ בְּדִינֵי נְפָשׁוֹת. מֵיתִיבִי: הַטְּהָרוֹת וְהַטְּמָאוֹת, הָאָב וּבְנוֹ, הָרַב וְתַלְמִידוֹ – מוֹנִין לָהֶם שְׁנַיִם. דִּינֵי מָמוֹנוֹת וְדִינֵי נְפָשׁוֹת וְדִינֵי מַכּוֹת, קִידּוּשׁ הַחֹדֶשׁ וְעִיבּוּר שָׁנָה – אָב וּבְנוֹ, הָרַב וְתַלְמִידוֹ, אֵין מוֹנִין לָהֶן אֶלָּא אֶחָד. Rav says: A person may teach his student the relevant material and then judge cases of capital law with him, and this student can participate in the deliberations and serve as one of the judges. The Gemara raises an objection from a baraita (Tosefta 7:2): In cases of ritual purity and impurity, if two of the judges are a father and his son, or a teacher and his student, the court counts them as two opinions. By inference, in cases of monetary law and cases of capital law, and cases of laws involving the punishment of lashes, as well as court proceedings concerning sanctification of the month and the intercalation of the year, if two of the judges are a father and his son, or a teacher and his student, the court counts them as only one opinion, as it is assumed the son or student will merely echo the opinion of his father or teacher. This contradicts the ruling of Rav.

כִּי קָאָמַר רַב, כְּגוֹן רַב כָּהֲנָא וְרַב אַסִּי, דְּלִגְמָרֵיהּ דְּרַב הֲווֹ צְרִיכִי, וְלִסְבָרֵיהּ דְּרַב לָא הֲווֹ צְרִיכִי. The Gemara answers: When Rav says his statement, he is referring to not every student, but only those such as Rav Kahana and Rav Asi, who needed to learn the halakhic traditions of Rav, but they did not need to learn the reasoning of Rav, as they were capable of conducting their own analysis.

אָמַר רַבִּי אֲבָהוּ: עֲשָׂרָה דְּבָרִים יֵשׁ בֵּין דִּינֵי מָמוֹנוֹת לְדִינֵי נְפָשׁוֹת, וְכוּלָּן אֵין נוֹהֲגִין בְּשׁוֹר הַנִּסְקָל, חוּץ מֵעֶשְׂרִים וּשְׁלֹשָׁה. Rabbi Abbahu says: There are ten ways in which cases of monetary law are different from cases of capital law, as was taught in the beginning of the chapter, and none of them is practiced with regard to a court hearing concerning an ox that is to be stoned, as it is treated as a case of monetary law, except for the requirement that the animal be judged by twenty-three judges, like in cases of capital law.

מְנָא הָנֵי מִילֵּי? אָמַר רַב אַחָא בַּר פָּפָּא: דְּאָמַר קְרָא ״לֹא תַטֶּה מִשְׁפַּט אֶבְיֹנְךָ בְּרִיבוֹ״. מִשְׁפַּט אֶבְיוֹנְךָ אִי אַתָּה מַטֶּה, אֲבָל אַתָּה מַטֶּה מִשְׁפָּט שֶׁל שׁוֹר הַנִּסְקָל. The Gemara asks: From where are these matters derived? Rav Aḥa bar Pappa says: As the verse states: “You shall not incline the judgment of your poor in his cause” (Exodus 23:6). He explains: You may not incline the judgment of, i.e., exert effort to find liable, your poor, but you may incline the judgment of an ox that is to be stoned. The reason for the procedural differences between cases of monetary law and cases of capital law is to render it more likely that one accused of a capital transgression will be acquitted. This is not a factor when judging the ox.

עֲשָׂרָה? הָא תִּשְׁעָה הָווּ! הָא עֲשָׂרָה קָתָנֵי! מִשּׁוּם דְּאֵין הַכֹּל כְּשֵׁרִין, וְעֶשְׂרִים וּשְׁלֹשָׁה – חֲדָא הִיא. The Gemara asks: Are there really ten ways in which cases of monetary law are different from cases of capital law? There are only nine differences recorded in the mishna. The Gemara questions this: But the mishna teaches ten differences, not nine. The Gemara clarifies: Although there appear to be ten, there are in fact nine, because the halakha that not all are fit to judge cases of capital law and the halakha that twenty-three judges are required for cases of capital law are one. The reason not all are fit to judge cases of capital law is that the court of twenty-three is derived from the command to Moses: “And they shall bear the burden of the people with you” (Numbers 11:17), which indicates that only those “with you,” i.e., similar in lineage to Moses, can serve on that court (see 17a).

הָא אִיכָּא אַחֲרִיתִי, דְּתַנְיָא: אֵין מוֹשִׁיבִין בְּסַנְהֶדְרִין זָקֵן וְסָרִיס וּמִי שֶׁאֵין לוֹ בָּנִים. רַבִּי יְהוּדָה מוֹסִיף: אַף אַכְזָרִי. וְחִילּוּפֵיהֶן בְּמֵסִית, דְּרַחֲמָנָא אָמַר: ״לֹא תַחְמֹל וְלֹא תְכַסֶּה עָלָיו״. The Gemara answers: But there is another difference, as it is taught in a baraita (Tosefta 7:5): The court does not seat on the Sanhedrin a very old person or one who is castrated or one who has no children, as those who did not recently raise children may lack compassion. Rabbi Yehuda adds: Even a cruel person is not eligible. The Gemara comments: And the opposite of this is the halakha with regard to one who entices others to engage in idol worship, as the Merciful One states concerning him: “Neither shall you spare, neither shall you conceal him” (Deuteronomy 13:9).

הַכֹּל כְּשֵׁרִין לָדוּן דִּינֵי מָמוֹנוֹת. הַכֹּל לְאֵתוֹיֵי מַאי? אָמַר רַב יְהוּדָה: לְאֵתוֹיֵי מַמְזֵר. § The mishna teaches that all are fit to judge cases of monetary law. The Gemara asks: What is added by the mishna’s employing the expansive term all? Rav Yehuda says: It serves to include a child born from an incestuous or adulterous relationship [mamzer] in the category of those qualified to judge cases of monetary law.

הָא תְּנֵינָא חֲדָא זִימְנָא: כׇּל הָרָאוּי לָדוּן דִּינֵי נְפָשׁוֹת רָאוּי לָדוּן דִּינֵי מָמוֹנוֹת, וְיֵשׁ רָאוּי לָדוּן דִּינֵי מָמוֹנוֹת וְאֵין רָאוּי לָדוּן דִּינֵי נְפָשׁוֹת. וְהָוֵינַן בַּהּ: לְאֵתוֹיֵי מַאי? וְאָמַר רַב יְהוּדָה: לְאֵתוֹיֵי מַמְזֵר. חֲדָא לְאֵתוֹיֵי גֵּר, וַחֲדָא לְאֵתוֹיֵי מַמְזֵר. The Gemara questions this explanation: But we already learn this halakha one time, as it is taught in a baraita: All who are fit to judge cases of capital law are fit to judge cases of monetary law, but there are those who are fit to judge cases of monetary law and are not fit to judge cases of capital law. And we discussed it: What is included in the expansive term all employed by the baraita? And Rav Yehuda says: It serves to include a mamzer. The Gemara responds: One of the two sources serves to include a convert, who is qualified to judge only in cases of monetary law, and one of the two sources serves to include a mamzer.

וּצְרִיכָא, דְּאִי אַשְׁמְעִינַן גֵּר – דְּרָאוּי לָבֹא בַּקָּהָל, אֲבָל מַמְזֵר אֵימָא לָא. וְאִי אַשְׁמְעִינַן מַמְזֵר – דְּבָא מִטִּיפָּה כְּשֵׁרָה, אֲבָל גֵּר דְּלֹא בָּא מִטִּיפָּה כְּשֵׁרָה אֵימָא לָא. צְרִיכָא. The Gemara comments: And both the mishna and baraita are necessary, as the halakha taught by one source cannot be derived from the halakha taught by the other source. As, if the tanna taught us the fitness to judge cases of monetary law only with regard to a convert, one could say that a convert is like a born Jew concerning this, since he is fit to enter into the congregation, i.e., marry a Jew of fit lineage, but with regard to a mamzer, who is not fit to enter into the congregation, say that he cannot serve as a judge. And if the tanna taught us the fitness to judge cases of monetary law only with regard to a mamzer, one could say that a mamzer is fit to judge, as he came from seed of unflawed lineage, but with regard to a convert, who does not come from seed of unflawed lineage, say that he cannot serve as a judge. Therefore, both sources are necessary.

וְאֵין הַכֹּל כְּשֵׁרִין לָדוּן דִּינֵי נְפָשׁוֹת. מַאי טַעְמָא? דְּתָנֵי רַב יוֹסֵף: כְּשֵׁם שֶׁבֵּית דִּין מְנוּקִּין בְּצֶדֶק, כָּךְ מְנוּקִּין מִכׇּל מוּם. אָמַר אַמֵּימָר, מַאי קְרָא: ״כֻּלָּךְ יָפָה רַעְיָתִי וּמוּם אֵין בָּךְ״. § The mishna teaches: But not all are fit to judge cases of capital law; the judges may be only priests, Levites, or Israelites who are of sufficiently fit lineage to marry their daughters to members of the priesthood. The Gemara asks: What is the reason for this? The Gemara explains: As Rav Yosef taught: Just as the court is clean in justice, so too, it is clean of any blemish, i.e., it does not include anyone of flawed lineage. Ameimar says: What is the verse from which it is derived? It states: “You are all fair, my love; and there is no blemish in you” (Song of Songs 4:7).

וְדִילְמָא מוּם מַמָּשׁ? אָמַר רַב אַחָא בַּר יַעֲקֹב: אָמַר קְרָא, ״וְהִתְיַצְּבוּ שָׁם עִמָּךְ״ – עִמָּךְ בְּדוֹמִין לָךְ. The Gemara asks: But perhaps you should say that this is referring to an actual blemish, and is teaching that one who has a physical blemish cannot be appointed to the Sanhedrin. Rav Aḥa bar Ya’akov says: It is not necessary to learn from this verse the halakha that one who has a physical blemish cannot be appointed to the Sanhedrin, as the verse states in connection with the transfer of the Divine Spirit from Moses to the Elders: “That they may stand there with you” (Numbers 11:16). The term “with you” is explained to mean: With similarity to you, teaching that the members of the Sanhedrin must be whole in body, like Moses.

וְדִילְמָא הָתָם מִשּׁוּם שְׁכִינָה? אֶלָּא, אָמַר רַב נַחְמָן בַּר יִצְחָק: אָמַר קְרָא ״וְנָשְׂאוּ אִתָּךְ״ – אִתָּךְ בְּדוֹמִין לָךְ לֶיהֱוֵי. The Gemara rejects this proof: But perhaps there, those who were with Moses had to be free of any blemish due to the Divine Presence, which was going to rest upon them, but this is not a requirement for judges to serve on the Sanhedrin. Rather, Rav Naḥman bar Yitzḥak says: The verse states: “So shall they make it easier for you and bear the burden with you” (Exodus 18:22). The term “with you” is explained to mean: They shall be similar to you, without blemish. This verse is referring to the appointment of regular judges, upon whom the Divine Presence does not rest, and teaches that all members of the Sanhedrin must be whole in body, and the verse from Song of Songs teaches that they must have unflawed lineage as well.

מַתְנִי׳ סַנְהֶדְרִין הָיְתָה כַּחֲצִי גּוֹרֶן עֲגוּלָּה, כְּדֵי שֶׁיְּהוּ רוֹאִין זֶה אֶת זֶה. וּשְׁנֵי סוֹפְרֵי הַדַּיָּינִין עוֹמְדִים לִפְנֵיהֶם, אֶחָד מִיָּמִין וְאֶחָד מִשְּׂמֹאל, וְכוֹתְבִין דִּבְרֵי מְחַיְּיבִין וְדִבְרֵי מְזַכִּין. רַבִּי יְהוּדָה אוֹמֵר: שְׁלֹשָׁה, אֶחָד כּוֹתֵב דִּבְרֵי הַמְזַכִּין, וְאֶחָד כּוֹתֵב דִּבְרֵי הַמְחַיְּיבִין, וְהַשְּׁלִישִׁי כּוֹתֵב דִּבְרֵי הַמְזַכִּין וְדִבְרֵי הַמְחַיְּיבִין. MISHNA: A Sanhedrin of twenty-three was arranged in the same layout as half of a circular threshing floor, in order that all the judges will see one another and the witnesses. And two judges’ scribes stand before the court, one on the right and one on the left, and they write the statements of those who find the accused liable and the statements of those who acquit the accused. Rabbi Yehuda says: There were three scribes. One writes only the statements of those who acquit the accused, one writes only the statements of those who find him liable, and the third writes both the statements of those who acquit the accused and the statements of those who find him liable, so that if there is uncertainty concerning the precise wording that one of the scribes writes, it can be compared to the words of the third scribe.

וְשָׁלֹשׁ שׁוּרוֹת שֶׁל תַּלְמִידֵי חֲכָמִים יוֹשְׁבִין לִפְנֵיהֶן, כׇּל אֶחָד וְאֶחָד מַכִּיר אֶת מְקוֹמוֹ. הוּצְרְכוּ לִסְמוֹךְ – סוֹמְכִין מִן הָרִאשׁוֹנָה. אֶחָד מִן הַשְּׁנִיָּה בָּא לוֹ לָרִאשׁוֹנָה, אֶחָד מִן הַשְּׁלִישִׁית בָּא לוֹ לַשְּׁנִיָּה. בּוֹרְרִים לָהֶן עוֹד אֶחָד מִן הַקָּהָל וּמוֹשִׁיבִין אוֹתוֹ בַּשְּׁלִישִׁית. וְלֹא הָיָה יוֹשֵׁב בִּמְקוֹמוֹ שֶׁל רִאשׁוֹן, אֶלָּא יוֹשֵׁב בְּמָקוֹם הָרָאוּי לוֹ. And three rows of Torah scholars sit before the judges, and each and every one among those sitting recognizes his place, i.e., they are seated in accordance with their stature. When the court must ordain an additional judge, e.g., if a judge dies during the proceedings or in the case of a court without a decisive majority (see 40a), the court ordains the greatest Torah scholar from the first row. As a seat in the first row is now vacant, one Torah scholar from the second row comes to the first row, and one Torah scholar from the third row comes to the second row, and the court selects another Torah scholar from among the assembled and they seat him in the third row. And this Torah scholar who moves from the second row to the first row would not sit in the place of the first Torah scholar, who joined the court, rather, he would sit in the place appropriate for him, i.e., at the end of that row, in accordance with his stature.

גְּמָ׳ מְנָא הָנֵי מִילֵּי? אָמַר רַבִּי אַחָא בַּר חֲנִינָא: דְּאָמַר קְרָא ״שׇׁרְרֵךְ אַגַּן הַסַּהַר אַל יֶחְסַר הַמָּזֶג וְגוֹ׳״. GEMARA: The mishna teaches that the Sanhedrin would sit in a semicircle. The Gemara asks: From where are these matters derived? Rabbi Aḥa bar Ḥanina says: As the verse states: “Your navel is like a round goblet, let no mingled wine be wanting; your belly is like a heap of wheat set about with lilies” (Song of Songs 7:3).

״שׇׁרְרֵךְ״ – זוֹ סַנְהֶדְרִין. לָמָּה נִקְרָא שְׁמָהּ ״שׇׁרְרֵךְ״? שֶׁהִיא יוֹשֶׁבֶת בְּטִיבּוּרוֹ שֶׁל עוֹלָם. ״אַגַּן״ – שֶׁהִיא מְגִינָּה עַל כׇּל הָעוֹלָם כּוּלּוֹ. ״הַסַּהַר״ – שֶׁהִיא דּוֹמָה לַסַּהַר. This verse is interpreted as referring to the members of the Sanhedrin, who sit in a semicircle. “Your navel”; this is an allusion to the Sanhedrin. And why is it called by way of allusion “your navel”? It is because it sits in the navel of the world, in the Temple. “Goblet [aggan]”; this teaches that the Sanhedrin protects [meginna] the entire world with its merit. “Round [hassahar]”; this teaches that the Sanhedrin is similar to the moon [sahar]. The court sits in a semicircle, like the shape of the moon.

״אַל יֶחְסַר הַמָּזֶג״ – שֶׁאִם הוּצְרַךְ אֶחָד מֵהֶם לָצֵאת, רוֹאִין: אִם יֵשׁ עֶשְׂרִים וּשְׁלֹשָׁה, כְּנֶגֶד סַנְהֶדְרִי קְטַנָּה – יוֹצֵא, וְאִם לָאו – אֵינוֹ יוֹצֵא. “Let no mingled wine be wanting”; this compares the Sanhedrin to wine mixed with water, which typically involved mixing two parts water with one part wine. This teaches that if one member of the Great Sanhedrin needed to leave, they see: If there are still present in the Chamber of Hewn Stone twenty-three members, i.e., a third of the judges, corresponding to the number of a lesser Sanhedrin, he may leave, but if not, he may not leave.

״בִּטְנְךָ עֲרֵמַת חִטִּים״ – מָה עֲרֵימַת חִטִּים הַכֹּל נֶהֱנִין מִמֶּנָּה, אַף סַנְהֶדְרִין הַכֹּל נֶהֱנִין מִטַּעֲמֵיהֶן. ״סוּגָה בַּשּׁוֹשַׁנִּים״ – שֶׁאֲפִילּוּ כְּסוּגָה שֶׁל שׁוֹשַׁנִּים לֹא יִפְרְצוּ בָּהֶן פְּרָצוֹת. The phrase “your belly is like a heap of wheat” teaches that just as with regard to a heap of wheat, all derive benefit from it, so too, with regard to the Sanhedrin, all derive benefit from their explanations of the Torah. The phrase “set about with lilies” is said in praise of the Jewish people, as they do not breach even a fence made of lilies, since the Jewish people observe both Torah law as well as rabbinic ordinances and decrees.

וְהַיְינוּ דַּאֲמַר לֵיהּ הָהוּא מִינָא לְרַב כָּהֲנָא: אָמְרִיתוּ נִדָּה שְׁרֵי לְיַיחוֹדֵי בַּהֲדֵי גַּבְרָא. אֶפְשָׁר אֵשׁ בִּנְעוֹרֶת וְאֵינָהּ מְהַבְהֶבֶת? אֲמַר לֵיהּ: הַתּוֹרָה הֵעִידָה עָלֵינוּ ״סוּגָה בַּשּׁוֹשַׁנִּים״, שֶׁאֲפִילּוּ כְּסוּגָה בַּשּׁוֹשַׁנִּים לֹא יִפְרְצוּ בָּהֶן פְּרָצוֹת. And this is like an incident involving Rav Kahana, as a certain heretic said to Rav Kahana: You say that it is permitted for a menstruating woman to seclude herself with a man, i.e., her husband. Is it possible to set fire to chips of kindling and not have them blaze and burn? How can the couple be relied upon not to engage in sexual intercourse? Rav Kahana said to him: The Torah testifies concerning us that we are “set about with lilies,” as the Jewish people do not breach even a fence made of lilies.

רֵישׁ לָקִישׁ אָמַר: מֵהָכָא, ״כְּפֶלַח הָרִמּוֹן רַקָּתֵךְ״ – אֲפִילּוּ רֵיקָנִין שֶׁבָּךְ מְלֵאִין מִצְוֹת כְּרִמּוֹן. רַבִּי זֵירָא אָמַר: מֵהָכָא, ״וַיָּרַח אֶת רֵיחַ בְּגָדָיו״. אַל תִּיקְרֵי ״בְּגָדָיו״ אֶלָּא ״בּוֹגְדָיו״. Reish Lakish says that the source to rely on them not to transgress is from here: “Your temples [rakkatekh] are like a pomegranate split open” (Song of Songs 6:7), which teaches that even the empty people [reikanin] among you are as full of mitzvot as the pomegranate is full of seeds. Rabbi Zeira says that the source is from here: The verse states concerning the occasion when Isaac blessed Jacob: “And he smelled the smell of his garments, and blessed him, and said: See, the smell of my son is as the smell of a field that the Lord has blessed” (Genesis 27:27). Do not read “his garments [begadav]”; rather, read: His traitors [bogedav], meaning that even traitors and sinners among the Jewish people have qualities “as the smell of a field that the Lord has blessed.”

הָנְהוּ בִּרְיוֹנֵי דַּהֲווֹ בְּשִׁיבָבוּתֵיהּ דְּרַבִּי זֵירָא, דַּהֲוָה מְקָרֵב לְהוּ כִּי הֵיכִי דְּנֶיהְדְּרוּ לְהוּ בִּתְיוּבְתָּא, וַהֲווֹ קָפְדִי רַבָּנַן. כִּי נָח נַפְשֵׁיהּ דְּרַבִּי זֵירָא, אָמְרִי: עַד הָאִידָּנָא הֲוָה חֲרִיכָא קַטִּין שָׁקֵיהּ דַּהֲוָה בָּעֵי עֲלַן רַחֲמֵי, הַשְׁתָּא מַאן בָּעֵי עֲלַן רַחֲמֵי? הַרְהֲרוּ בְּלִבַּיְיהוּ וַעֲבַדוּ תְּשׁוּבָה. The Gemara relates: There were certain hooligans [biryonei] who were living in the neighborhood of Rabbi Zeira. He brought them close, i.e., treated them with friendship, in order to cause them to repent of their sins, but the other Sages disapproved of his actions. When Rabbi Zeira died, those hooligans said: Until now, there was the short one with singed legs, i.e., Rabbi Zeira, who would pray for compassion for us. Who will pray for compassion for us now? They thought about this in their hearts and repented. Ultimately, Rabbi Zeira’s actions were proven correct, as they repented.

שָׁלֹשׁ שׁוּרוֹת כּוּ׳. אָמַר אַבָּיֵי: שְׁמַע מִינַּהּ כִּי נָיְידִי, כּוּלְּהוּ נָיְידִי. וְלֵימָא לְהוּ: עַד הָאִידָּנָא הֲוָה יָתֵיבְנָא בְּרֵישָׁא, הַשְׁתָּא מוֹתְבִיתוּ לִי בְּדַנְבֵי? אָמַר אַבָּיֵי: דְּאָמְרִי לֵיהּ הָכִי, ״הֱוֵי זָנָב לָאֲרָיוֹת וְאַל תְּהִי רֹאשׁ לַשּׁוּעָלִים״. § The mishna teaches that there are three rows of Torah scholars who sit before the court, and if one of the Torah scholars from the first row is elevated to a place on the court, the Torah scholar in the first position of the second row moves to the final position of the first row. Abaye says: Learn from the mishna that when they move, i.e., when the Torah scholars need to move as a result of one of them being elevated to the court, they all move. The Gemara inquires: But let the one being moved from the first position of the second row to the last position of the first row say to the court: Until now I was sitting at the head of the row, but now you are seating me at the tail, i.e., the end, of a row. Abaye says in explanation: That is not a valid claim, as the court can say this to him: Be a tail to the lions and do not be a head to the foxes (Avot 4:15), meaning that it is preferable to be the least among great people than the greatest among lesser people.

מַתְנִי׳ כֵּיצַד מְאַיְּימִין אֶת הָעֵדִים עַל עֵידֵי נְפָשׁוֹת? הָיוּ מַכְנִיסִין אוֹתָן וּמְאַיְּימִין עֲלֵיהֶן: שֶׁמָּא תֹּאמְרוּ מֵאוֹמֶד וּמִשְּׁמוּעָה, עֵד מִפִּי עֵד וּמִפִּי אָדָם נֶאֱמָן, שֶׁמָּא אִי אַתֶּם יוֹדְעִין שֶׁסּוֹפֵנוּ לִבְדּוֹק אֶתְכֶם בִּדְרִישָׁה וּבַחֲקִירָה. MISHNA: How does the court intimidate the witnesses in giving testimony for cases of capital law? They would bring the witnesses in and intimidate them by saying to them: Perhaps what you say in your testimony is based on conjecture, or perhaps it is based on a rumor, perhaps it is testimony based on hearsay, e.g., you heard a witness testify to this in a different court, or perhaps it is based on the statement of a trusted person. Perhaps you do not know that ultimately we examine you with inquiry and interrogation, and if you are lying, your lie will be discovered.

הֱווּ יוֹדְעִין, שֶׁלֹּא כְּדִינֵי מָמוֹנוֹת דִּינֵי נְפָשׁוֹת. דִּינֵי מָמוֹנוֹת – אָדָם נוֹתֵן מָמוֹן וּמִתְכַּפֵּר לוֹ. דִּינֵי נְפָשׁוֹת – דָּמוֹ וְדַם זַרְעִיּוֹתָיו תְּלוּיִין בּוֹ עַד סוֹף הָעוֹלָם. The court tells them: You should know that cases of capital law are not like cases of monetary law. In cases of monetary law, a person who testifies falsely, causing money to be given to the wrong party, can give the money to the proper owner and his sin is atoned for. In cases of capital law, if one testifies falsely, the blood of the accused and the blood of his offspring that he did not merit to produce are ascribed to the witness’s testimony until eternity.

שֶׁכֵּן מָצִינוּ בְּקַיִן שֶׁהָרַג אֶת אָחִיו, שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר: ״דְּמֵי אָחִיךָ צֹעֲקִים״. אֵינוֹ אוֹמֵר ״דַּם אָחִיךָ״ אֶלָּא ״דְּמֵי אָחִיךָ״ – דָּמוֹ וְדַם זַרְעִיּוֹתָיו. דָּבָר אַחֵר: ״דְּמֵי אָחִיךָ״ – שֶׁהָיָה דָּמוֹ מוּשְׁלָךְ עַל הָעֵצִים וְעַל הָאֲבָנִים. The proof for this is as we found with Cain, who killed his brother, as it is stated concerning him: “The voice of your brother’s blood [demei] cries out to Me from the ground” (Genesis 4:10). The verse does not state: Your brother’s blood [dam], in the singular, but rather: “Your brother’s blood [demei],” in the plural. This serves to teach that the loss of both his brother’s blood and the blood of his brother’s offspring are ascribed to Cain. The mishna notes: Alternatively, the phrase “your brother’s blood [demei],” written in the plural, teaches that his blood was not gathered in one place but was splattered on the trees and on the stones.

לְפִיכָךְ נִבְרָא אָדָם יְחִידִי, לְלַמֶּדְךָ שֶׁכׇּל הַמְאַבֵּד נֶפֶשׁ אַחַת מִיִּשְׂרָאֵל, מַעֲלֶה עָלָיו הַכָּתוּב כְּאִילּוּ אִיבֵּד עוֹלָם מָלֵא. וְכׇל הַמְקַיֵּים נֶפֶשׁ אַחַת מִיִּשְׂרָאֵל, מַעֲלֶה עָלָיו הַכָּתוּב כְּאִילּוּ קִיֵּים עוֹלָם מָלֵא. The court tells the witnesses: Therefore, Adam the first man was created alone, to teach you that with regard to anyone who destroys one soul from the Jewish people, i.e., kills one Jew, the verse ascribes him blame as if he destroyed an entire world, as Adam was one person, from whom the population of an entire world came forth. And conversely, anyone who sustains one soul from the Jewish people, the verse ascribes him credit as if he sustained an entire world.

וּמִפְּנֵי שְׁלוֹם הַבְּרִיּוֹת, שֶׁלֹּא יֹאמַר אָדָם לַחֲבֵירוֹ: ״אַבָּא גָּדוֹל מֵאָבִיךָ״, וְשֶׁלֹּא יְהוּ הַמִּינִים אוֹמְרִים: ״הַרְבֵּה רְשׁוּיוֹת בַּשָּׁמַיִם״. The mishna cites another reason Adam the first man was created alone: And this was done due to the importance of maintaining peace among people, so that one person will not say to another: My father, i.e., progenitor, is greater than your father. And it was also so that the heretics who believe in multiple gods will not say: There are many authorities in Heaven, and each created a different person.

וּלְהַגִּיד גְּדוּלָּתוֹ שֶׁל הַקָּדוֹשׁ בָּרוּךְ הוּא, שֶׁאָדָם טוֹבֵעַ כַּמָּה מַטְבְּעוֹת בְּחוֹתָם אֶחָד – כּוּלָּן דּוֹמִין זֶה לָזֶה, וּמֶלֶךְ מַלְכֵי הַמְּלָכִים הַקָּדוֹשׁ בָּרוּךְ הוּא טָבַע כׇּל אָדָם בְּחוֹתָמוֹ שֶׁל אָדָם הָרִאשׁוֹן, וְאֵין אֶחָד מֵהֶן דּוֹמֶה לַחֲבֵירוֹ. לְפִיכָךְ כָּל אֶחָד וְאֶחָד חַיָּיב לוֹמַר: בִּשְׁבִילִי נִבְרָא הָעוֹלָם. And this serves to tell of the greatness of the Holy One, Blessed be He, as when a person stamps several coins with one seal, they are all similar to each other. But the supreme King of kings, the Holy One, Blessed be He, stamped all people with the seal of Adam the first man, as all of them are his offspring, and not one of them is similar to another. Therefore, since all humanity descends from one person, each and every person is obligated to say: The world was created for me, as one person can be the source of all humanity, and recognize the significance of his actions.

וְשֶׁמָּא תֹּאמְרוּ: The court says to the witnesses: And perhaps you will say:

מָה לָנוּ וְלַצָּרָה הַזֹּאת? וַהֲלֹא כְּבָר נֶאֱמַר: ״וְהוּא עֵד אוֹ רָאָה אוֹ יָדָע אִם לוֹא יַגִּיד וְגוֹ׳״. וְשֶׁמָּא תֹּאמְרוּ: מָה לָנוּ לָחוּב בְּדָמוֹ שֶׁל זֶה? וַהֲלֹא כְּבָר נֶאֱמַר: ״בַּאֲבֹד רְשָׁעִים רִנָּה״. Why would we want this trouble? Perhaps it would be better not to testify at all. But be aware, as is it not already stated: “And he being a witness, whether he has seen or known, if he does not utter it, then he shall bear his iniquity” (Leviticus 5:1)? It is a transgression not to testify when one can do so. And perhaps you will say: Why would we want to be responsible for the blood of this person? But be aware, as is it not already stated: “When the wicked perish, there is song” (Proverbs 11:10)?

גְּמָ׳ תָּנוּ רַבָּנַן: כֵּיצַד מֵאוֹמֶד? אוֹמֵר לָהֶן: שֶׁמָּא כָּךְ רְאִיתֶם? שֶׁרָץ אַחַר חֲבֵירוֹ לְחוּרְבָּה, וְרַצְתֶּם אַחֲרָיו, וּמְצָאתֶם סַיִיף בְּיָדוֹ וְדָמוֹ מְטַפְטֵף, וְהָרוּג מְפַרְפֵּר. אִם כָּךְ רְאִיתֶם – לֹא רְאִיתֶם כְּלוּם. GEMARA: The Sages taught in a baraita: How does the court describe testimony based on conjecture? The court says to the witnesses: Perhaps you saw this man about whom you are testifying pursuing another into a ruin, and you pursued him and found a sword in his hand, dripping with blood, and the one who was ultimately killed was convulsing. If you saw only this, it is as if you saw nothing, and you cannot testify to the murder.

תַּנְיָא, אָמַר רַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן בֶּן שָׁטַח: אֶרְאֶה בְּנֶחָמָה אִם לֹא רָאִיתִי אֶחָד שֶׁרָץ אַחַר חֲבֵירוֹ לְחוּרְבָּה, וְרַצְתִּי אַחֲרָיו וְרָאִיתִי סַיִיף בְּיָדוֹ וְדָמוֹ מְטַפְטֵף וְהָרוּג מְפַרְפֵּר. וְאָמַרְתִּי לוֹ: רָשָׁע, מִי הֲרָגוֹ לָזֶה? אוֹ אֲנִי אוֹ אַתָּה. אֲבָל מָה אֶעֱשֶׂה שֶׁאֵין דָּמְךָ מָסוּר בְּיָדִי, שֶׁהֲרֵי אָמְרָה תּוֹרָה ״עַל פִּי שְׁנַיִם עֵדִים יוּמַת הַמֵּת״. הַיּוֹדֵעַ מַחְשָׁבוֹת יִפָּרַע מֵאוֹתוֹ הָאִישׁ שֶׁהָרַג אֶת חֲבֵירוֹ. אָמְרוּ: לֹא זָזוּ מִשָּׁם עַד שֶׁבָּא נָחָשׁ וְהִכִּישׁוֹ וָמֵת. It is taught in a baraita that Rabbi Shimon ben Shataḥ said as an oath: I will not see the consolation of Israel if I did not once see one person pursue another into a ruin, and I pursued him and saw a sword in his hand, dripping with blood, and the one who was ultimately killed was convulsing. And I said to him: Wicked person, who has killed this man? Either you or I. But what can I do, since your blood is not given over to me, as the Torah states: “At the mouth of two witnesses, or three witnesses, shall he that is to die be put to death” (Deuteronomy 17:6), and I did not witness you killing him. The One Who knows one’s thoughts shall punish this man who killed another. The Sages said: They did not move from there before a snake came and bit the murderer, and he died.

וְהַאי בַּר נָחָשׁ הוּא? וְהָאָמַר רַב יוֹסֵף, וְכֵן תָּנֵי דְּבֵי חִזְקִיָּה: מִיּוֹם שֶׁחָרַב בֵּית הַמִּקְדָּשׁ, אַף עַל פִּי שֶׁבָּטְלָה סַנְהֶדְרִי, אַרְבַּע מִיתוֹת לֹא בָּטְלוּ. לֹא בָּטְלוּ? וְהָא בָּטְלוּ! אֶלָּא, דִּין אַרְבַּע מִיתוֹת לֹא בָּטְלוּ. The Gemara questions this account: But was this murderer fit to die by being bitten by a snake? But doesn’t Rav Yosef say, and so the school of Ḥizkiyya also taught: From the day that the Temple was destroyed, although the Sanhedrin ceased to be extant, the four types of court-imposed capital punishment have not ceased. The Gemara asks: Have they really not ceased? But they have ceased, as court-imposed capital punishment is no longer given. Rather, the intention is that the halakha of the four types of court-imposed capital punishment has not ceased to be applicable.

מִי שֶׁנִּתְחַיֵּיב סְקִילָה – אוֹ נוֹפֵל מִן הַגָּג, אוֹ חַיָּה דּוֹרַסְתּוֹ. מִי שֶׁנִּתְחַיֵּיב שְׂרֵיפָה – אוֹ נוֹפֵל בִּדְלֵיקָה, אוֹ נָחָשׁ מַכִּישׁוֹ. מִי שֶׁנִּתְחַיֵּיב הֲרִיגָה – אוֹ נִמְסָר לַמַּלְכוּת, אוֹ לִיסְטִין בָּאִין עָלָיו. מִי שֶׁנִּתְחַיֵּיב חֶנֶק – אוֹ טוֹבֵעַ בַּנָּהָר, אוֹ מֵת בִּסְרוֹנְכֵי. The Gemara explains: How so? For one who would be liable to be executed by stoning, either he falls from a roof or an animal mauls him and breaks his bones. This death is similar to death by stoning, in which the one liable to be executed is pushed from a platform and his bones break from the impact of the fall. For one who would be liable to be executed by burning, either he falls into a fire and is burned or a snake bites him, as a snakebite causes a burning sensation. For one who would be liable to be executed by slaying through decapitation by the sword, either he is turned over to the authorities and they execute him with a sword, or robbers come upon him and murder him. One who would be liable to be executed by strangling either drowns in a river and is choked by the water or dies of diphtheria [bisronekhi], which causes his breathing to become constricted. According to this, a murderer, whose verdict in court would be death by slaying, should not be bitten by a snake.

אָמְרִי: הָהוּא חֵטְא אַחֲרִיתִי הֲוָה בֵּיהּ, דְּאָמַר מָר: מִי שֶׁנִּתְחַיֵּיב שְׁתֵּי מִיתוֹת בֵּית דִּין – נִידּוֹן בַּחֲמוּרָה. The Sages say in explanation: That murderer had another sin for which he deserved execution by burning, and as the Master says: One who is found liable by the court to receive two types of court-imposed capital punishment is sentenced to the harsher of the two, and burning is considered a harsher death than slaying (see 50a).

מֵאוֹמֶד וְכוּ׳. בְּדִינֵי נְפָשׁוֹת הוּא דְּלָא אָמְדִינַן, הָא בְּדִינֵי מָמוֹנוֹת אָמְדִינַן. כְּמַאן? כְּרַבִּי אַחָא, דְּתַנְיָא, רַבִּי אַחָא אוֹמֵר: גָּמָל הָאוֹחֵר בֵּין הַגְּמַלִּים וְנִמְצָא גָּמָל הָרוּג בְּצִידּוֹ – בְּיָדוּעַ שֶׁזֶּה הֲרָגוֹ. § The mishna teaches that in cases of capital law the court warns the witnesses not to testify based on conjecture. The Gemara comments: One can infer that it is only in cases of capital law that we do not rule based on conjecture, but in cases of monetary law, we do rule based on conjecture. In accordance with whose opinion is the mishna taught? It is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Aḥa. As it is taught in a baraita (Tosefta, Bava Kamma 3:6) that Rabbi Aḥa says: If there was a rutting male camel that was rampaging among other camels, and then a camel was found killed at its side, it is evident that this rampaging camel killed it, and the owner must pay for the damage caused. The baraita indicates that Rabbi Aḥa rules that cases of monetary law are decided based on conjecture.

וְלִיטַעְמָיךְ, עֵד מִפִּי עֵד דְּקָתָנֵי בְּדִינֵי נְפָשׁוֹת הוּא דְּלָא אָמְרִינַן, הָא בְּדִינֵי מָמוֹנוֹת אָמְרִינַן? וְהָתְנַן: אִם אָמַר ״הוּא אָמַר לִי שֶׁאֲנִי חַיָּיב לוֹ״, ״אִישׁ פְּלוֹנִי אָמַר לִי שֶׁהוּא חַיָּיב לוֹ״ – לֹא אָמַר כְּלוּם, עַד שֶׁיֹּאמַר ״בְּפָנֵינוּ הוֹדָה לוֹ שֶׁהוּא חַיָּיב לוֹ מָאתַיִם זוּז״. The Gemara asks: But according to your reasoning, with regard to that which the mishna teaches, that the court warns the witnesses not to provide testimony based on hearsay, should one infer that it is in cases of capital law that we do not say that testimony based on hearsay is allowed, but in cases of monetary law, we do say that testimony based on hearsay is allowed? But didn’t we learn in a mishna (29a): If the witness said: The defendant said to me: It is true that I owe the plaintiff, or if he says: So-and-so said to me that the defendant owes the plaintiff, the witness has said nothing, i.e., his testimony is disregarded. These two statements by witnesses are examples of testimony based on hearsay, yet they are not valid in cases of monetary law. A witness’s testimony is not valid testimony unless he says, for example: The defendant admitted in our presence to the plaintiff that he owes him two hundred dinars, as by admitting the debt in the presence of witnesses he rendered himself liable to pay the amount that he mentioned.

אַלְמָא, אַף עַל גַּב דִּפְסִילִי בְּדִינֵי מָמוֹנוֹת, אָמְרִינַן לְהוּ בְּדִינֵי נְפָשׁוֹת. הָכָא נָמֵי, אַף עַל גַּב דִּפְסִילִי בְּדִינֵי מָמוֹנוֹת, אָמְרִינַן לְהוּ בְּדִינֵי נְפָשׁוֹת. Evidently, although testimony based on hearsay is invalid in cases of monetary law, we tell the witnesses to be aware of this in capital law. Here, too, with regard to testimony based on conjecture, one can say that although testimony based on conjecture is invalid in cases of monetary law, we tell the witnesses to be aware of this in cases of capital law.

הֱווּ יוֹדְעִים כּוּ׳. אָמַר רַב יְהוּדָה בְּרֵיהּ דְּרַבִּי חִיָּיא: מְלַמֵּד שֶׁעָשָׂה קַיִן בְּהֶבֶל אָחִיו חַבּוּרוֹת חַבּוּרוֹת, פְּצִיעוֹת פְּצִיעוֹת, שֶׁלֹּא הָיָה יוֹדֵעַ מֵהֵיכָן נְשָׁמָה יוֹצְאָה, עַד שֶׁהִגִּיעַ לְצַוָּארוֹ. § The mishna teaches that the court would say: You should know that cases of capital law are not like cases of monetary law, and would reference the murder of Abel by Cain. Rav Yehuda, son of Rabbi Ḥiyya, says: By employing the plural term for blood, “The voice of your brother’s blood [demei] cries out to Me from the ground” (Genesis 4:10), the verse teaches that Cain caused multiple wounds and multiple injuries to his brother Abel. As Cain did not know from where the soul departs, he struck him multiple times. This continued until he came to his neck and struck him there, whereupon Abel died.

וְאָמַר רַב יְהוּדָה בְּרֵיהּ דְּרַבִּי חִיָּיא: מִיּוֹם שֶׁפָּתְחָה הָאָרֶץ אֶת פִּיהָ וְקִיבְּלַתּוּ לְדָמוֹ שֶׁל הֶבֶל, שׁוּב לֹא פָּתְחָה, שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר: ״מִכְּנַף הָאָרֶץ זְמִרֹת שָׁמַעְנוּ צְבִי לַצַּדִּיק״ – מִכְּנַף הָאָרֶץ וְלֹא מִפִּי הָאָרֶץ. אֵיתִיבֵיהּ חִזְקִיָּה אָחִיו: ״וַתִּפְתַּח הָאָרֶץ אֶת פִּיהָ״! אֲמַר לֵיהּ: לְרָעָה פָּתְחָה, לְטוֹבָה לֹא פָּתְחָה. And Rav Yehuda, son of Rabbi Ḥiyya, says: From the day the earth opened its mouth and received the blood of Abel, its mouth has not opened again, as it is stated: “From the corner of the earth have we heard songs: Glory to the righteous” (Isaiah 24:16): One can infer that the songs are heard “from the corner of the earth,” but not from the mouth of the earth, as the earth never again opened its mouth. Ḥizkiyya, Rav Yehuda’s brother, raised an objection to Rav Yehuda, son of Rabbi Ḥiyya: The verse states concerning Korah and his assembly: “And the earth opened her mouth and swallowed them up, and their households, and all the men that appertained unto Korah, and all their goods” (Numbers 16:32). Rav Yehuda, son of Rabbi Ḥiyya, said to him: It opened again for a deleterious purpose; it did not open again for a constructive purpose.

וְאָמַר רַב יְהוּדָה בְּרֵיהּ דְּרַבִּי חִיָּיא: גָּלוּת מְכַפֶּרֶת עָוֹן מֶחֱצָה. מֵעִיקָּרָא כְּתִיב: ״וְהָיִיתִי נָע וְנָד״, וּלְבַסּוֹף כְּתִיב: ״וַיֵּשֶׁב בְּאֶרֶץ נוֹד״. And Rav Yehuda, son of Rabbi Ḥiyya, says: Exile atones for half of a sin. As initially it is written in the verse concerning Cain that he said: “And I shall be a fugitive [na] and a wanderer [vanad ] in the earth” (Genesis 4:14), and ultimately it is written: “And Cain went out from the presence of the Lord, and dwelt in the land of Nod” (Genesis 4:16). Rav Yehuda, son of Rabbi Ḥiyya, equates “Nod” with “nad,” and understands that Cain was given only the punishment of being a wanderer. Exile atoned for half his sin, thereby negating the punishment of being a fugitive.

אָמַר רַב יְהוּדָה: גָּלוּת מְכַפֶּרֶת שְׁלֹשָׁה דְּבָרִים, שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר: ״כֹּה אָמַר ה׳ וְגוֹ׳ הַיֹּשֵׁב בָּעִיר הַזֹּאת יָמוּת בַּחֶרֶב בָּרָעָב וּבַדָּבֶר וְהַיּוֹצֵא וְנָפַל עַל הַכַּשְׂדִּים הַצָּרִים עֲלֵיכֶם וְחָיָה וְהָיְתָה לּוֹ נַפְשׁוֹ לְשָׁלָל״. Rav Yehuda says: Exile atones for three matters, i.e., three types of death, as it is stated: “So says the Lord: Behold, I set before you the way of life and the way of death. He that abides in this city shall die by the sword, and by the famine, and by the pestilence; but he that goes out, and falls away to the Chaldeans that besiege you, he shall survive, and his life shall be for him for a prey” (Jeremiah 21:8–9), indicating that exile from Jerusalem will save one from those three deaths.

רַבִּי יוֹחָנָן אָמַר: גָּלוּת מְכַפֶּרֶת עַל הַכֹּל, שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר: ״כֹּה אָמַר ה׳ כִּתְבוּ אֶת הָאִישׁ הַזֶּה עֲרִירִי גֶּבֶר לֹא יִצְלַח בְּיָמָיו כִּי לֹא יִצְלַח מִזַּרְעוֹ אִישׁ יֹשֵׁב עַל כִּסֵּא דָוִד וּמֹשֵׁל עוֹד בִּיהוּדָה״. וּבָתַר דִּגְלָה כְּתִיב: ״וּבְנֵי יְכָנְיָה אַסִּר (בְּנוֹ) שַׁלְתִּיאֵל בְּנוֹ״. אַסִּר – שֶׁעִיבְּרַתּוּ אִמּוֹ בְּבֵית הָאֲסוּרִין. שַׁלְתִּיאֵל – שֶׁשְּׁתָלוֹ אֵל שֶׁלֹּא כְּדֶרֶךְ הַנִּשְׁתָּלִין: גְּמִירִי שֶׁאֵין הָאִשָּׁה מִתְעַבֶּרֶת מְעוּמָּד, Rabbi Yoḥanan says: Exile atones for all transgressions and renders a sinner like a new person, as it is stated concerning the king Jeconiah, a descendant of King David: “So says the Lord: Write you this man childless, a man that shall not prosper in his days; for no man of his seed shall prosper, sitting upon the throne of David, and ruling anymore in Judah” (Jeremiah 22:30). And after Jeconiah was exiled it is written: “And the sons of Jeconiah, the same is Assir, Shealtiel his son” (I Chronicles 3:17). The verse employs the plural “sons of” although he had only one son, Shealtiel. “Assir,” literally, prisoner, teaches that his mother conceived him in prison. “Shealtiel,” literally, planted by God, teaches that God planted him in a way atypical of most plants [hanishtalin], i.e., people. It is learned as a tradition that a woman does not conceive when she is standing during sexual intercourse,

וְהִיא נִתְעַבְּרָה מְעוּמָּד. דָּבָר אַחֵר: שַׁלְתִּיאֵל – שֶׁנִּשְׁאַל עַל אָלָתוֹ אֵל. זְרוּבָּבֶל – שֶׁנִּזְרַע בְּבָבֶל. וּמָה שְׁמוֹ? נְחֶמְיָה בֶּן חֲכַלְיָה שְׁמוֹ. and the mother of Shealtiel conceived while standing. Alternatively, “Shealtiel” is interpreted as meaning that God [El ] requested [nishal ] dissolution of His oath, as it were, and allowed Jeconiah to father a child. In the continuation of that passage in Chronicles, where the verse refers to the grandson of Jeconiah, Zerubbabel [Zerubavel ], the Gemara interprets that his name teaches that he was sown [nizra], i.e., conceived, in Babylonia [Bavel]. And what was his true name? Nehemiah, son of Hachaliah, was his true name.

יְהוּדָה וְחִזְקִיָּה בְּנֵי רַבִּי חִיָּיא הֲווֹ יָתְבִי בִּסְעוּדְתָּא קַמֵּי רַבִּי, וְלָא הֲווֹ קָא אָמְרִי וְלָא מִידֵּי. אֲמַר לְהוּ: אַגְבַּרוּ חַמְרָא אַדַּרְדְּקֵי כִּי הֵיכִי דְּלֵימְרוּ מִילְּתָא. כֵּיוָן דְּאִיבַּסּוּם, פָּתְחוּ וַאֲמַרוּ: אֵין בֶּן דָּוִד בָּא עַד שֶׁיִּכְלוּ שְׁנֵי בָּתֵּי אָבוֹת מִיִּשְׂרָאֵל, וְאֵלּוּ הֵן: רֹאשׁ גּוֹלָה שֶׁבְּבָבֶל וְנָשִׂיא שֶׁבְּאֶרֶץ יִשְׂרָאֵל, שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר: ״וְהָיָה לְמִקְדָּשׁ וּלְאֶבֶן נֶגֶף וּלְצוּר מִכְשׁוֹל לִשְׁנֵי בָתֵּי יִשְׂרָאֵל״. Having mentioned the sons of Rabbi Ḥiyya, the Gemara relates: Yehuda and Ḥizkiyya, sons of Rabbi Ḥiyya, were sitting at a meal before Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi, and they were not saying anything. Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi said to his servants: Add more wine for the young men, so that they will say something. Once they were inebriated, they loosened their tongues and said: The son of David, i.e., the Messiah, will not come until two fathers’ houses are destroyed from Israel, as those two families are preventing the redemption. And they are the head of the exile who is in Babylonia, i.e., the family of the Exilarch, and the Nasi who is in Eretz Yisrael, i.e., the family of Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi (see 5a), as it is stated in reference to the Messiah: “And he shall be for a sanctuary; but for a stone of stumbling and for a rock of offense to both the houses of Israel” (Isaiah 8:14).

אָמַר לָהֶם: בָּנַיי, קוֹצִים אַתֶּם מְטִילִין לִי בְּעֵינַיי? אָמַר לוֹ רַבִּי חִיָּיא: רַבִּי, אַל יֵרַע בְּעֵינֶיךָ. ״יַיִן״ נִיתַּן בְּשִׁבְעִים אוֹתִיּוֹת, וְ״סוֹד״ נִיתַּן בְּשִׁבְעִים אוֹתִיּוֹת. נִכְנַס יַיִן – יָצָא סוֹד. Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi said to them: My children, do you throw thorns in my eyes? How can you say this in the presence of the Nasi himself? Rabbi Ḥiyya said to him: My teacher, do not view their behavior in a negative light. Wine [yayin] is given in letters of seventy, i.e., the numerical value of the letters in the word yayin is seventy, and secret [sod ] is given in letters of seventy, i.e., the numerical value of the letters in the word sod is seventy. When wine enters, secrets emerge.

אָמַר רַב חִסְדָּא אָמַר מָר עוּקְבָא, וְאָמְרִי לַהּ אָמַר רַב חִסְדָּא: דָּרֵשׁ מָרִי בַּר מָר, מַאי דִּכְתִיב: ״וַיִּשְׁקֹד ה׳ עַל הָרָעָה וַיְבִיאֶהָ עָלֵינוּ כִּי צַדִּיק ה׳ אֱלֹהֵינוּ״? מִשּׁוּם דְּצַדִּיק ה׳ – ״וַיִּשְׁקֹד ה׳ עַל הָרָעָה וַיְבִיאֶהָ עָלֵינוּ״? אִין, צְדָקָה עָשָׂה הַקָּדוֹשׁ בָּרוּךְ הוּא עִם יִשְׂרָאֵל שֶׁהִקְדִּים גָּלוּת צִדְקִיָּהוּ וְעוֹד גָּלוּת יְכׇנְיָה קַיֶּימֶת. Apropos the discussion of exile, Rav Ḥisda says that Mar Ukva says, and some say that Rav Ḥisda says that Mari bar Mar taught: What is the meaning of that which is written: “And so the Lord has hastened the evil, and brought it upon us; for the Lord our God is righteous in all His works He has done” (Daniel 9:14)? Is it because “the Lord our God is righteous” that “the Lord has hastened the evil, and brought it upon us”? He explains: Yes, because it was a righteous act that the Holy One, Blessed be He, performed for the Jewish people by hastening the exile of Zedekiah while the Jews who had been exiled in the exile of Jeconiah, which preceded it, were still alive, as the wise people among those exiled with Jeconiah were able to instruct those exiled with Zedekiah.

דִּכְתִיב בֵּיהּ בְּגָלוּת יְכׇנְיָה: ״הֶחָרָשׁ וְהַמַּסְגֵּר אֶלֶף״. חָרָשׁ – כֵּיוָן שֶׁפּוֹתְחִין, הַכֹּל נַעֲשׂוּ כְּחֵרְשִׁין. מַסְגֵּר – כֵּיוָן שֶׁסּוֹגְרִין בַּהֲלָכָה, שׁוּב אֵין פּוֹתְחִין. וְכַמָּה הָיוּ? אֶלֶף. This is as it is written concerning the exile of Jeconiah: “And all the men of might, seven thousand, and the craftsmen [heḥarash] and the smiths [vehammasger] one thousand” (II Kings 24:16). The Gemara interprets: The term “ḥarash,” which can be read as ḥeresh, deaf-mute, is referring to Torah scholars, as when they open their mouths to teach Torah, all the others become as though they were deaf-mutes, as they would listen quietly to the one teaching Torah. The term “masger,” which is related to saggur, meaning closed, teaches that when they close, i.e., finish, teaching the halakha, they do not reopen the discussion, as all has been clarified. And how many were these Torah scholars? One thousand.

עוּלָּא אָמַר: שֶׁהִקְדִּים שְׁתֵּי שָׁנִים לִ״וְנוֹשַׁנְתֶּם״. Ulla says: The righteous act that the Lord performed, referred to in the verse in Daniel, was that He hastened the exile by two years of venoshantem. Moses taught: “When you shall have children, and children’s children, and you shall have remained long [venoshantem] in the land, and shall deal corruptly, and make a carved idol, the likeness of anything, and shall do evil in the sight of the Lord your God, to provoke him to anger, I call heaven and earth to witness against you this day, that you shall soon utterly perish from off the land into which you go over the Jorden to possess it; you shall not prolong your days upon it, but shall utterly be destroyed” (Deuteronomy 4:25–26). The numerical value of the letters of the word “venoshantem” is 852, and the Jewish people were exiled in the 850th year after entering Eretz Yisrael. Since they were exiled early, not all of the curses enumerated in the verse would be fulfilled.

אָמַר רַב אַחָא בַּר יַעֲקֹב: שְׁמַע מִינַּהּ, ״מְהֵרָה״ דְּמָרֵי עָלְמָא תַּמְנֵי מְאָה וְחַמְשִׁין וְתַרְתֵּין הָווּ. Rav Aḥa bar Ya’akov says: Learn from it that for the Master of the World, the term soon is referring to 852 years, as the verse states: “You shall soon utterly perish,” and the intended time until the exile was 852 years.

לְפִיכָךְ כּוּ׳. תָּנוּ רַבָּנַן: אָדָם יְחִידִי נִבְרָא, וּמִפְּנֵי מָה? שֶׁלֹּא יְהוּ מִינִים אוֹמְרִין ״הַרְבֵּה רְשׁוּיוֹת בַּשָּׁמַיִם״. דָּבָר אַחֵר: מִפְּנֵי הַצַּדִּיקִים וּמִפְּנֵי הָרְשָׁעִים, שֶׁלֹּא יְהוּ הַצַּדִּיקִים אוֹמְרִים ״אָנוּ בְּנֵי צַדִּיק״, וּרְשָׁעִים אוֹמְרִים ״אָנוּ בְּנֵי רָשָׁע״. § The mishna teaches: Therefore, Adam the first man was created alone. The Sages taught in a baraita: Adam was created alone, and for what reason? So that the heretics will not say: There are many authorities in Heaven, and each created a different person. Alternatively, Adam was created alone due to the righteous and due to the wicked. It was so that the righteous will not say: We are the children of the righteous, and righteousness is natural for us, so there is no need for us to exert ourselves to be righteous, and so that the wicked will not say: We are the children of the wicked and cannot change our ways.

דָּבָר אַחֵר: מִפְּנֵי הַמִּשְׁפָּחוֹת, שֶׁלֹּא יְהוּ מִשְׁפָּחוֹת מִתְגָּרוֹת זוֹ בָּזוֹ. וּמָה עַכְשָׁיו שֶׁנִּבְרָא יָחִיד מִתְגָּרוֹת, נִבְרְאוּ שְׁנַיִם – עַל אַחַת כַּמָּה וְכַמָּה! דָּבָר אַחֵר: מִפְּנֵי הַגַּזְלָנִין וּמִפְּנֵי הַחַמְסָנִין. וּמָה עַכְשָׁו שֶׁנִּבְרָא יְחִידִי גּוֹזְלִין וְחוֹמְסִין, נִבְרְאוּ שְׁנַיִם – עַל אַחַת כַּמָּה וְכַמָּה! The baraita continues: Alternatively, he was created alone due to the families, so that the families will not quarrel with each other, each one boasting of the heritage of their progenitor. And if now that Adam was created alone, families still quarrel and each family claims superiority, if there were two people created initially, all the more so would they do this. Alternatively, he was created alone due to the robbers and due to those who take by force that which is not theirs, as the feeling of fraternity among all people, having descended from the same forefather, will limit crime. And if now that Adam was created alone, criminals still rob and take by force that which is not theirs, if there were two people created initially, all the more so would this be the case.

וּלְהַגִּיד גְּדוּלָּתוֹ כּוּ׳. תָּנוּ רַבָּנַן, לְהַגִּיד גְּדוּלָּתוֹ שֶׁל מֶלֶךְ מַלְכֵי הַמְּלָכִים הַקָּדוֹשׁ בָּרוּךְ הוּא, שֶׁאָדָם טוֹבֵעַ כַּמָּה מַטְבְּעוֹת בְּחוֹתָם אֶחָד וְכוּלָּן דּוֹמִין זֶה לְזֶה, אֲבָל הַקָּדוֹשׁ בָּרוּךְ הוּא טוֹבֵעַ כׇּל אָדָם בְּחוֹתָמוֹ שֶׁל אָדָם הָרִאשׁוֹן וְאֵין אֶחָד מֵהֶן דּוֹמֶה לַחֲבֵירוֹ, שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר: ״תִּתְהַפֵּךְ כְּחֹמֶר חוֹתָם וְיִתְיַצְּבוּ כְּמוֹ לְבוּשׁ״. The mishna teaches: And this serves to tell of the greatness of the Holy One, Blessed be He, as when a person stamps several coins with one seal, they are all similar to each other. But the supreme King of kings, the Holy One, Blessed be He, stamped all people with the seal of Adam the first man, as all are his offspring, and not one of them is similar to another. The Sages taught in a baraita (Tosefta 8:5): The fact that Adam the first man was created alone serves to declare the greatness of the supreme King of kings, the Holy One, Blessed be He, as a person stamps several coins with one seal, and they are all similar to each other. But the Holy One, Blessed be He, stamps all people with the seal of Adam the first man, and not one of them is similar to another. As it is stated: “It is changed like clay under the seal and they stand as a garment” (Job 38:14). The verse describes people as being created “under the seal,” but their external appearance is different, just as garments can differ in appearance.

וּמִפְּנֵי מָה אֵין פַּרְצוּפֵיהֶן דּוֹמִין זֶה לָזֶה? שֶׁלֹּא יִרְאֶה אָדָם דִּירָה נָאָה וְאִשָּׁה נָאָה וְיֹאמַר: ״שֶׁלִּי הִיא״. שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר: ״וְיִמָּנַע מֵרְשָׁעִים אוֹרָם וּזְרוֹעַ רָמָה תִּשָּׁבֵר״. The baraita asks: And for what reason are their faces not similar to one another? The baraita answers: It is so that a man will not see a beautiful home or a beautiful woman and say: She is mine. If all people looked the same, no one could contradict him. As it is stated in the following verse: “And from the wicked their light is withheld and the high arm shall be broken” (Job 38:15), indicating that the reason people look different from one another is to prevent the wicked from succeeding in their plans.

תַּנְיָא, הָיָה רַבִּי מֵאִיר אוֹמֵר: בִּשְׁלֹשָׁה דְּבָרִים אָדָם מִשְׁתַּנֶּה מֵחֲבֵירוֹ: בְּקוֹל, בְּמַרְאֶה, וּבְדַעַת. בְּקוֹל וּבְמַרְאֶה – מִשּׁוּם עֶרְוָה, וּבְדַעַת – מִפְּנֵי הַגַּזְלָנִין וְהַחַמְסָנִין. It is taught in a baraita: Rabbi Meir would say: One person is different from another in three ways: In voice, in appearance, and in thought. The differences in voice and appearance are due to a woman forbidden to him, so that people will not exchange spouses one with another. And the differences in thought are due to the robbers and those who take by force that which is not theirs, as, if everyone thought in a similar way, criminals could take advantage of others because they would understand where they keep their valuables.

תָּנוּ רַבָּנַן: אָדָם נִבְרָא בְּעֶרֶב שַׁבָּת, וּמִפְּנֵי מָה? שֶׁלֹּא יְהוּ מִינִים אוֹמְרִים: שׁוּתָּף הָיָה לוֹ לְהַקָּדוֹשׁ בָּרוּךְ הוּא בְּמַעֲשֵׂה בְרֵאשִׁית. דָּבָר אַחֵר: שֶׁאִם תָּזוּחַ דַּעְתּוֹ עָלָיו, אוֹמֵר לוֹ: יַתּוּשׁ קְדָמְךָ בְּמַעֲשֵׂה בְרֵאשִׁית. דָּבָר אַחֵר: כְּדֵי שֶׁיִּכָּנֵס לַמִּצְוָה מִיָּד. The Sages taught in a baraita (Tosefta 8:7): Adam the first man was created on Shabbat eve at the close of the six days of Creation. And for what reason was this so? So that the heretics will not be able to say that the Holy One, Blessed be He, had a partner, i.e., Adam, in the acts of Creation. Alternatively, he was created on Shabbat eve so that if a person becomes haughty, God can say to him: The mosquito preceded you in the acts of Creation, as you were created last. Alternatively, he was created on Shabbat eve in order that he enter into the mitzva of observing Shabbat immediately.

דָּבָר אַחֵר: כְּדֵי שֶׁיִּכָּנֵס לַסְּעוּדָה מִיָּד. מָשָׁל לְמֶלֶךְ בָּשָׂר וָדָם שֶׁבְּנָהּ פַּלְטֵרִין וְשִׁיכְלְלָן, וְהִתְקִין סְעוּדָה, וְאַחַר כָּךְ הִכְנִיס אוֹרְחִין. שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר: ״חׇכְמוֹת בָּנְתָה בֵיתָהּ חָצְבָה עַמּוּדֶיהָ שִׁבְעָה. טָבְחָה טִבְחָהּ מָסְכָה יֵינָהּ אַף עָרְכָה שֻׁלְחָנָהּ. שָׁלְחָה נַעֲרֹתֶיהָ תִקְרָא עַל גַּפֵּי מְרֹמֵי קָרֶת.״ Alternatively, he was created on Shabbat eve, after all of the other creations, in order that he enter into a feast immediately, as the whole world was prepared for him. This is comparable to a king of flesh and blood, who first built palaces [palterin] and improved them, and prepared a feast and afterward brought in his guests. As it is stated: “Wisdom has built her house, and she has hewn out her seven pillars. She has killed her beasts; she has mingled her wine; she has also furnished her table. She has sent forth her maidens; she calls upon the top of the highest places of the city” (Proverbs 9:1–3).

״חׇכְמוֹת בָּנְתָה בֵיתָהּ״ – זוֹ מִידָּתוֹ שֶׁל הַקָּדוֹשׁ בָּרוּךְ הוּא, שֶׁבָּרָא אֶת כָּל הָעוֹלָם כּוּלּוֹ בְּחׇכְמָה. ״חָצְבָה עַמּוּדֶיהָ שִׁבְעָה״ – אֵלּוּ שִׁבְעַת יְמֵי בְּרֵאשִׁית. ״טָבְחָה טִבְחָהּ מָסְכָה יֵינָהּ אַף עָרְכָה שֻׁלְחָנָהּ״ – אֵלּוּ יַמִּים וּנְהָרוֹת וְכׇל צוֹרְכֵי עוֹלָם. ״שָׁלְחָה נַעֲרֹתֶיהָ תִקְרָא״ – זֶה אָדָם וְחַוָּה. The baraita explains: “Wisdom has built her house”; this is referring to the attribute of the Holy One, Blessed be He, Who created the entire world with wisdom. “She has hewn out her seven pillars”; these pillars are referring to the seven days of Creation, in which the world was established. “She has killed her beasts; she has mingled her wine; she has also furnished her table”; these are referring to the seas and rivers and all the necessities of the world that were created. “She has sent forth her maidens; she calls”; this is referring to Adam and Eve, who were created at the end of Creation.

״עַל גַּפֵּי מְרֹמֵי קָרֶת״ – רַבָּה בַּר בַּר חָנָה רָמֵי: כְּתִיב ״עַל גַּפֵּי״, וּכְתִיב ״עַל כִּסֵּא״. בַּתְּחִלָּה – עַל גַּפֵּי, וּלְבַסּוֹף – עַל כִּסֵּא. The verses continue: “Upon the top of the highest places of the city.” Rabba bar bar Ḥana raises a contradiction: It is written: “Upon the top of the highest places,” and it is written afterward: “For she sits at the door of her house, on a seat in the high places of the city” (Proverbs 9:14). Is she at the top or on a seat? He explains: Initially, Adam was alone upon the top of a high place, and ultimately, Adam was on a seat that is set for a bridegroom, when Eve was paired with him.

״מִי פֶתִי יָסֻר הֵנָּה חֲסַר לֵב אָמְרָה לּוֹ״. אָמַר הַקָּדוֹשׁ בָּרוּךְ הוּא: מִי פִּיתָּהוּ לָזֶה? אִשָּׁה אָמְרָה לוֹ. דִּכְתִיב: ״נֹאֵף אִשָּׁה חֲסַר לֵב״. The verse states in that passage: “Whoever is thoughtless, let him turn in here; as for him that lacks understanding, she tells him” (Proverbs 9:4). The Gemara explains: The Holy One, Blessed be He, said: Who lured this man to sin? The woman told him to sin. An allusion to the interpretation that one who is lured to sin by a woman is called one “that lacks understanding” is as it is written: “He who commits adultery with a woman lacks understanding” (Proverbs 6:32).

תַּנְיָא, הָיָה רַבִּי מֵאִיר אוֹמֵר: אָדָם הָרִאשׁוֹן מִכׇּל הָעוֹלָם כּוּלּוֹ הוּצְבַּר עֲפָרוֹ, שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר: ״גׇּלְמִי רָאוּ עֵינֶיךָ״, וּכְתִיב: ״כִּי ה׳ עֵינָיו מְשֹׁטְטוֹת בְּכׇל הָאָרֶץ״. אָמַר רַב אוֹשַׁעְיָא מִשְּׁמֵיהּ דְּרַב: אָדָם הָרִאשׁוֹן It is taught in a baraita that Rabbi Meir would say: The dust that served to form Adam the first man was gathered from the entire world, as it is stated: “When I was made in secret and wrought in the lowest places of the earth, Your eyes did see my unshaped flesh” (Psalms 139:15–16), and it is written: “For the eyes of the Lord run to and fro throughout the whole earth” (II Chronicles 16:9), indicating that this figure was formed from the whole earth, the place within the view of the Lord’s eyes. Rav Oshaya says in the name of Rav: With regard to Adam the first man,

גּוּפוֹ מִבָּבֶל, וְרֹאשׁוֹ מֵאֶרֶץ יִשְׂרָאֵל, וְאֵבָרָיו מִשְּׁאָר אֲרָצוֹת. עַגְבוֹתָיו, אָמַר רַב אַחָא: מֵאַקְרָא דְאַגְמָא. his torso was fashioned from dust taken from Babylonia, and his head was fashioned from dust taken from Eretz Yisrael, the most important land, and his limbs were fashioned from dust taken from the rest of the lands in the world. With regard to his buttocks, Rav Aḥa says: They were fashioned from dust taken from Akra De’agma, on the outskirts of Babylonia.

אָמַר רַבִּי יוֹחָנָן בַּר חֲנִינָא: שְׁתֵּים עֶשְׂרֵה שָׁעוֹת הָוֵי הַיּוֹם. שָׁעָה רִאשׁוֹנָה – הוּצְבַּר עֲפָרוֹ, שְׁנִיָּה – נַעֲשָׂה גּוֹלֶם, שְׁלִישִׁית – נִמְתְּחוּ אֵבָרָיו, רְבִיעִית – נִזְרְקָה בּוֹ נְשָׁמָה, חֲמִישִׁית – עָמַד עַל רַגְלָיו, שִׁשִּׁית – קָרָא שֵׁמוֹת, שְׁבִיעִית – נִזְדַּוְּוגָה לוֹ חַוָּה, שְׁמִינִית – עָלוּ לַמִּטָּה שְׁנַיִם וְיָרְדוּ אַרְבָּעָה, תְּשִׁיעִית – נִצְטַוָּוה שֶׁלֹּא לֶאֱכוֹל מִן הָאִילָן, עֲשִׂירִית – סָרַח, אַחַת עֶשְׂרֵה – נִידּוֹן, שְׁתֵּים עֶשְׂרֵה – נִטְרַד וְהָלַךְ לוֹ, שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר: ״אָדָם בִּיקָר בַּל יָלִין״. Rabbi Yoḥanan bar Ḥanina says: Daytime is twelve hours long, and the day Adam the first man was created was divided as follows: In the first hour of the day, his dust was gathered. In the second, an undefined figure was fashioned. In the third, his limbs were extended. In the fourth, a soul was cast into him. In the fifth, he stood on his legs. In the sixth, he called the creatures by the names he gave them. In the seventh, Eve was paired with him. In the eighth, they arose to the bed two, and descended four, i.e., Cain and Abel were immediately born. In the ninth, he was commanded not to eat of the Tree of Knowledge. In the tenth, he sinned. In the eleventh, he was judged. In the twelfth, he was expelled and left the Garden of Eden, as it is stated: “But man abides not in honor; he is like the beasts that perish” (Psalms 49:13). Adam did not abide, i.e., sleep, in a place of honor for even one night.

אָמַר רָמֵי בַּר חָמָא: אֵין חַיָּה רָעָה שׁוֹלֶטֶת בְּאָדָם אֶלָּא אִם כֵּן נִדְמָה לוֹ כִּבְהֵמָה, שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר: ״נִמְשַׁל כַּבְּהֵמוֹת נִדְמוּ״. Rami bar Ḥama says in explanation of the end of that verse: A wild animal does not have power over a person unless that person seems to the wild animal like an animal, as it is stated: “He is like the beasts that perish.”

(שָׁעָה, בַּסּוֹף, אֲרַמִּי – סִימָן.) אָמַר רַב יְהוּדָה אָמַר רַב: בְּשָׁעָה שֶׁבִּקֵּשׁ הַקָּדוֹשׁ בָּרוּךְ הוּא לִבְראוֹת אֶת הָאָדָם, בָּרָא כַּת אַחַת שֶׁל מַלְאֲכֵי הַשָּׁרֵת. אָמַר לָהֶם: רְצוֹנְכֶם נַעֲשֶׂה אָדָם בְּצַלְמֵנוּ? אָמְרוּ לְפָנָיו: רִבּוֹנוֹ שֶׁל עוֹלָם, מָה מַעֲשָׂיו? אָמַר לָהֶן: כָּךְ וְכָךְ מַעֲשָׂיו. The Gemara presents a mnemonic for the statements that follow: At the time, to the end, Aramaic. Rav Yehuda says that Rav says: At the time that the Holy One, Blessed be He, sought to create a person, He created one group of ministering angels. He said to them: If you agree, let us fashion a person in our image. The angels said before him: Master of the Universe, what are the actions of this person You suggest to create? God said to them: His actions are such and such, according to human nature.

אָמְרוּ לְפָנָיו: רִבּוֹנוֹ שֶׁל עוֹלָם, ״מָה אֱנוֹשׁ כִּי תִזְכְּרֶנּוּ וּבֶן אָדָם כִּי תִפְקְדֶנּוּ״? הוֹשִׁיט אֶצְבָּעוֹ קְטַנָּה בֵּינֵיהֶן וּשְׂרָפָם. וְכֵן כַּת שְׁנִיָּה. כַּת שְׁלִישִׁית אָמְרוּ לְפָנָיו: רִבּוֹנוֹ שֶׁל עוֹלָם, רִאשׁוֹנִים שֶׁאָמְרוּ לְפָנֶיךָ מָה הוֹעִילוּ? כָּל הָעוֹלָם כּוּלּוֹ שֶׁלְּךָ הוּא. כׇּל מָה שֶׁאַתָּה רוֹצֶה לַעֲשׂוֹת בְּעוֹלָמְךָ – עֲשֵׂה. The angels said before him: Master of the Universe: “What is man that You are mindful of him? And the son of man that You think of him?” (Psalms 8:5), i.e., a creature such as this is not worth creating. God outstretched His small finger among them and burned them with fire. And the same occurred with a second group of angels. The third group of angels that He asked said before Him: Master of the Universe, the first two groups who spoke their mind before You, what did they accomplish? The entire world is Yours; whatever You wish to do in Your world, do. God then created the first person.

כֵּיוָן שֶׁהִגִּיעַ לְאַנְשֵׁי דּוֹר הַמַּבּוּל וְאַנְשֵׁי דּוֹר הַפְּלַגָּה שֶׁמַּעֲשֵׂיהֶן מְקוּלְקָלִין, אָמְרוּ לְפָנָיו: רִבּוֹנוֹ שֶׁל עוֹלָם, לֹא יָפֶה אָמְרוּ רִאשׁוֹנִים לְפָנֶיךָ? אָמַר לָהֶן: ״וְעַד זִקְנָה אֲנִי הוּא וְעַד שֵׂיבָה אֲנִי אֶסְבֹּל וְגוֹ׳״. When history arrived at the time of the people of the generation of the flood and the people of the generation of the dispersion, i.e., the Tower of Babel, whose actions were ruinous, the angels said before God: Master of the Universe, didn’t the first set of angels speak appropriately before You, that human beings are not worthy of having been created? God said to them concerning humanity: “Even to your old age I am the same; and even to hoar hairs will I suffer you; I have made and I will bear; and I will carry, and I will deliver you” (Isaiah 46:4), i.e., having created people, I will even suffer their flaws.

אָמַר רַב יְהוּדָה אָמַר רַב: אָדָם הָרִאשׁוֹן מִסּוֹף הָעוֹלָם וְעַד סוֹפוֹ הָיָה, שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר: ״לְמִן הַיּוֹם אֲשֶׁר בָּרָא אֱלֹהִים אָדָם עַל הָאָרֶץ וּלְמִקְצֵה הַשָּׁמַיִם וְעַד קְצֵה הַשָּׁמָיִם״. כֵּיוָן שֶׁסָּרַח, הִנִּיחַ הַקָּדוֹשׁ בָּרוּךְ הוּא יָדוֹ עָלָיו וּמִיעֲטוֹ, שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר: ״אָחוֹר וָקֶדֶם צַרְתָּנִי וַתָּשֶׁת עָלַי כַּפֶּכָה״. Rav Yehuda says that Rav says: Adam the first man spanned from one end of the world until the other, as it is stated: “Since the day that God created man upon the earth, and from the one end of heaven unto the other” (Deuteronomy 4:32), meaning that on the day Adam was created he spanned from one end of the heavens until the other. Once Adam sinned, the Holy One, Blessed be He, placed His hand on him and diminished him, as it is stated: “Behind and before You have created me and laid Your hand upon me” (Psalms 139:5), that at first Adam spanned “behind and before,” meaning everywhere, and then God laid His hand on him and diminished him.

אָמַר רַבִּי אֶלְעָזָר: אָדָם הָרִאשׁוֹן מִן הָאָרֶץ עַד לָרָקִיעַ הָיָה, שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר: ״לְמִן הַיּוֹם אֲשֶׁר בָּרָא אֱלֹהִים אָדָם עַל הָאָרֶץ וּלְמִקְצֵה הַשָּׁמַיִם עַד קְצֵה הַשָּׁמָיִם״. כֵּיוָן שֶׁסָּרַח, הִנִּיחַ הַקָּדוֹשׁ בָּרוּךְ הוּא יָדוֹ עָלָיו וּמִיעֲטוֹ, שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר: ״אָחוֹר וָקֶדֶם צַרְתָּנִי וְגוֹ׳״. קָשׁוּ קְרָאֵי אַהֲדָדֵי? אִידֵּי וְאִידֵּי חֲדָא מִידָּה הִיא. Rabbi Elazar says: The height of Adam the first man was from the ground until the firmament, as it is stated: “Since the day that God created man upon the earth, and from the one end of heaven unto the other.” Adam stood “upon the earth” and rose to the end of the heavens. Once Adam sinned, the Holy One, Blessed be He, placed His hand on him and diminished him, as it is stated: “Behind and before You have created me and laid Your hand upon me.” The Gemara asks: The interpretations of the verses contradict each other. The first interpretation is that his size was from one end of the world to the other, and the second interpretation is that it was from the earth until the heavens. The Gemara answers: This and that, from one end of the world to another and from the earth until the heavens, are one measure, i.e., the same distance.

וְאָמַר רַב יְהוּדָה אָמַר רַב: אָדָם הָרִאשׁוֹן בְּלָשׁוֹן אֲרַמִּי סִפֵּר, שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר: ״וְלִי מַה יָּקְרוּ רֵעֶיךָ אֵל״. And Rav Yehuda says that Rav says: Adam the first man spoke in the language of Aramaic, as it is stated in the chapter of Psalms speaking in the voice of Adam: “How weighty also are Your thoughts to me, O God” (Psalms 139:17).

וְהַיְינוּ דְּאָמַר רֵישׁ לָקִישׁ: מַאי דִּכְתִיב ״זֶה סֵפֶר תּוֹלְדֹת אָדָם״? מְלַמֵּד שֶׁהֶרְאָהוּ הַקָּדוֹשׁ בָּרוּךְ הוּא דּוֹר דּוֹר וְדוֹרְשָׁיו, דּוֹר דּוֹר וַחֲכָמָיו. כֵּיוָן שֶׁהִגִּיעַ לְדוֹרוֹ שֶׁל רַבִּי עֲקִיבָא, שָׂמַח בְּתוֹרָתוֹ וְנִתְעַצֵּב בְּמִיתָתוֹ. אָמַר: ״וְלִי מַה יָּקְרוּ רֵעֶיךָ אֵל״. And this, i.e., that the verse in Psalms is stated by Adam, is what Reish Lakish says: What is the meaning of that which is written: “This is the book of the generations of Adam” (Genesis 5:1)? This verse teaches that the Holy One, Blessed be He, showed Adam every generation and its Torah interpreters, every generation and its wise ones. When he arrived at his vision of the generation of Rabbi Akiva, Adam was gladdened by his Torah, and saddened by his manner of death. He said: “How weighty also are Your thoughts to me, O God,” i.e., how it weighs upon me that a man as great as Rabbi Akiva should suffer.

וְאָמַר רַב יְהוּדָה אָמַר רַב: אָדָם הָרִאשׁוֹן מִין הָיָה, שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר: ״וַיִּקְרָא ה׳ אֱלֹהִים אֶל הָאָדָם וַיֹּאמֶר לוֹ אַיֶּכָּה״ – אָן נָטָה לִבֶּךָ? רַבִּי יִצְחָק אָמַר: מוֹשֵׁךְ בְּעׇרְלָתוֹ הָיָה. כְּתִיב הָכָא: ״וְהֵמָּה כְּאָדָם עָבְרוּ בְרִית״, וּכְתִיב הָתָם: ״אֶת בְּרִיתִי הֵפַר״. And Rav Yehuda says that Rav says: Adam the first man was a heretic, as it is stated: “And the Lord called to the man and said to him: Where are you”? (Genesis 3:9), meaning, to where has your heart turned, indicating that Adam turned from the path of truth. Rabbi Yitzḥak says: He was one who drew his foreskin forward, so as to remove any indication that he was circumcised. It is written here: “And they like men [adam] have transgressed the covenant” (Hosea 6:7), and it is written there: “And the uncircumcised male who is not circumcised in the flesh of his foreskin, that soul shall be cut off from his people; he has broken My covenant” (Genesis 17:14).

רַב נַחְמָן אָמַר: כּוֹפֵר בָּעִיקָּר הָיָה. כְּתִיב הָכָא: ״עָבְרוּ בְרִית״, וּכְתִיב הָתָם: ״אֶת בְּרִיתִי הֵפַר״, וְאָמְרוּ: ״עַל אֲשֶׁר עָזְבוּ אֶת בְּרִית ה׳ אֱלֹהֵי אֲבוֹתָם״. Rav Naḥman says: He was a denier of the fundamental principle of belief in God. It is written here: “And they like men [adam] have transgressed the covenant,” and it is written there: “He has broken My covenant,” and it is written in a third verse: “And then they shall answer: Because they have forsaken the covenant of the Lord their God and worshipped other gods and served them” (Jeremiah 22:9).

תְּנַן הָתָם, רַבִּי אֱלִיעֶזֶר אוֹמֵר: הֱוֵי שָׁקוּד לִלְמוֹד תּוֹרָה, וְדַע מָה שֶׁתָּשִׁיב לָאֶפִּיקוֹרוֹס. אָמַר רַבִּי יוֹחָנָן: לֹא שָׁנוּ אֶלָּא אֶפִּיקוֹרוֹס נׇכְרִי, אֲבָל אֶפִּיקוֹרוֹס יִשְׂרָאֵל – כׇּל שֶׁכֵּן דְּפָקַר טְפֵי. § We learned in a mishna there (Avot 2:14): Rabbi Eliezer says: Be persistent to learn Torah, and know what to respond to the heretic [la’apikoros]. Rabbi Yoḥanan says: This was taught only with regard to a gentile heretic, but not with regard to a Jewish heretic, as one should not respond to him. All the more so, if one does respond he will become more heretical. His heresy is assumed to be intentional, and any attempt to rebut it will only cause him to reinforce his position.

אָמַר רַבִּי יוֹחָנָן: כׇּל מָקוֹם שֶׁפָּקְרוּ הַמִּינִים, תְּשׁוּבָתָן בְּצִידָּן. ״נַעֲשֶׂה אָדָם בְּצַלְמֵנוּ״, וְאוֹמֵר: ״וַיִּבְרָא אֱלֹהִים אֶת הָאָדָם בְּצַלְמוֹ״. ״הָבָה נֵרְדָה וְנָבְלָה שָׁם שְׂפָתָם״ – ״וַיֵּרֶד ה׳ לִרְאֹת אֶת הָעִיר וְאֶת הַמִּגְדָּל״. ״כִּי שָׁם נִגְלוּ אֵלָיו הָאֱלֹהִים״ – ״לָאֵל הָעֹנֶה אֹתִי בְּיוֹם צָרָתִי״. Rabbi Yoḥanan says: Any place in the Bible from where the heretics attempt to prove their heresy, i.e., that there is more than one god, the response to their claim is alongside them, i.e., in the immediate vicinity of the verses they cite. The verse states that God said: “Let us make man in our image” (Genesis 1:26), employing the plural, but it then states: “And God created man in His image” (Genesis 1:27), employing the singular. The verse states that God said: “Come, let us go down and there confound their language” (Genesis 11:7), but it also states: “And the Lord came down to see the city and the tower” (Genesis 11:5). The verse states in the plural: “There God was revealed [niglu] to him when he fled from the face of his brother” (Genesis 35:7), but it also states in the singular: “To God Who answers [haoneh] me in the day of my distress” (Genesis 35:3).

״כִּי מִי גוֹי גָּדוֹל אֲשֶׁר לוֹ אֱלֹהִים קְרֹבִים אֵלָיו כַּה׳ אֱלֹהֵינוּ בְּכׇל קׇרְאֵנוּ אֵלָיו״. ״וּמִי כְעַמְּךָ כְּיִשְׂרָאֵל גּוֹי אֶחָד בָּאָרֶץ אֲשֶׁר הָלְכוּ אֱלֹהִים לִפְדּוֹת לוֹ לְעָם״. ״עַד דִּי כׇרְסָוָן רְמִיו, וְעַתִּיק יוֹמִין יְתִיב״. Rabbi Yoḥanan cites several examples where the counterclaim is in the same verse as the claim of the heretics. The verse states: “For what nation is there so great that has God so near to them as the Lord our God is whenever we call upon Him?” (Deuteronomy 4:7), where the term “near” is written in plural, kerovim, but the term “upon Him” is written in singular. Another verse states: “And who is like Your people, like Israel, a nation one in the earth, whom God went to redeem unto Himself for a people?” (II Samuel 7:23), where the term “went” is written in plural, halekhu, but the term “Himself” is written in singular. Another verse states: “I beheld till thrones were placed, and one that was ancient of days did sit” (Daniel 7:9); where the term “thrones” is written in plural, kharsavan, but the term “sit” is written in singular.

הָנָךְ לְמָה לִי? כִּדְרַבִּי יוֹחָנָן, דְּאָמַר רַבִּי יוֹחָנָן: אֵין הַקָּדוֹשׁ בָּרוּךְ הוּא עוֹשֶׂה דָּבָר אֶלָּא אִם כֵּן נִמְלָךְ בְּפָמַלְיָא שֶׁל מַעְלָה, שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר ״בִּגְזֵרַת עִירִין פִּתְגָמָא וּבְמֵאמַר קַדִּישִׁין שְׁאֵלְתָא״. The Gemara asks: Why do I need these instances of plural words? Why does the verse employ the plural at all when referring to God? The Gemara explains: This is in accordance with the statement of Rabbi Yoḥanan, as Rabbi Yoḥanan says: The Holy One, Blessed be He, does not act unless He consults with the entourage of Above, i.e., the angels, as it is stated: “The matter is by the decree of the watchers, and the sentence by the word of the holy ones” (Daniel 4:14).

הָתִינַח כּוּלְּהִי, ״עַד דִּי כׇרְסָוָן רְמִיו״ מַאי אִיכָּא לְמֵימַר? אֶחָד לוֹ וְאֶחָד לְדָוִד, דְּתַנְיָא: אֶחָד לוֹ וְאֶחָד לְדָוִד, דִּבְרֵי רַבִּי עֲקִיבָא. אָמַר לוֹ רַבִּי יוֹסֵי: עֲקִיבָא, עַד מָתַי אַתָּה עוֹשֶׂה שְׁכִינָה חוֹל? אֶלָּא אֶחָד לְדִין וְאֶחָד לִצְדָקָה. The Gemara clarifies: This works out well for almost all the verses, as they describe an action taken by God, but what is there to say concerning the verse: “I beheld till thrones were placed”? The Gemara answers: One throne is for Him and one throne is for David, i.e., the messiah, as it is taught in a baraita: One throne is for Him and one throne is for David; this is the statement of Rabbi Akiva. Rabbi Yosei said to him: Akiva! Until when will you desacralize the Divine Presence by equating God with a person? Rather, the correct interpretation is that both thrones are for God, as one throne is for judgment and one throne is for righteousness.

קַבְּלַהּ מִינֵּיהּ אוֹ לָא קַבְּלַהּ מִינֵּיהּ? תָּא שְׁמַע, דְּתַנְיָא: אֶחָד לְדִין וְאֶחָד לִצְדָקָה, דִּבְרֵי רַבִּי עֲקִיבָא. אָמַר לוֹ רַבִּי אֶלְעָזָר בֶּן עֲזַרְיָה: עֲקִיבָא, מָה לְךָ אֵצֶל הַגָּדָה? כְּלָךְ אֵצֶל נְגָעִים וְאֹהָלוֹת! אֶלָּא, אֶחָד לְכִסֵּא וְאֶחָד לִשְׁרַפְרַף: כִּסֵּא לֵישֵׁב עָלָיו, שְׁרַפְרַף לַהֲדוֹם רַגְלָיו. The Gemara asks: Did Rabbi Akiva accept this explanation from Rabbi Yosei or did he not accept it from him? The Gemara suggests: Come and hear a proof to the matter from what was taught in another baraita, as it is taught in a baraita: One throne is for judgment and one throne is for righteousness; this is the statement of Rabbi Akiva. Rabbi Elazar ben Azarya said to him: Akiva! What are you doing near, i.e., discussing, matters of aggada? Go near tractates Nega’im and Oholot, which examine the complex halakhot of ritual purity, where your knowledge is unparalleled. Rather, the correct interpretation is that while both thrones are for God, one is for a throne and one is for a stool. There is a throne for God to sit upon, and a stool that serves as His footstool.

אָמַר רַב נַחְמָן: הַאי מַאן דְּיָדַע לְאַהְדּוֹרֵי לְמִינֵי כְּרַב אִידִית – לַיהְדַּר, וְאִי לָא – לָא לַיהְדַּר. אָמַר הָהוּא מִינָא לְרַב אִידִית, כְּתִיב: ״וְאֶל מֹשֶׁה אָמַר עֲלֵה אֶל ה׳״. ״עֲלֵה אֵלַי״ מִיבְּעֵי לֵיהּ! אֲמַר לֵיהּ: זֶהוּ מְטַטְרוֹן שֶׁשְּׁמוֹ כְּשֵׁם רַבּוֹ, דִּכְתִיב ״כִּי שְׁמִי בְּקִרְבּוֹ״. Rav Naḥman says: This one, i.e., any person, who knows how to respond to the heretics as effectively as Rav Idit should respond to them, but if he does not know, he should not respond to them. The Gemara relates: A certain heretic said to Rav Idit: It is written in the verse concerning God: “And to Moses He said: Come up to the Lord” (Exodus 24:1). The heretic raised a question: It should have stated: Come up to Me. Rav Idit said to him: This term, “the Lord,” in that verse is referring to the angel Metatron, whose name is like the name of his Master, as it is written: “Behold I send an angel before you to keep you in the way and to bring you to the place that I have prepared. Take heed of him and obey his voice; do not defy him; for he will not pardon your transgression, for My name is in him” (Exodus 23:20–21).

אִי הָכִי, נִיפְלְחוּ לֵיהּ! כְּתִיב: ״אַל תַּמֵּר בּוֹ״ – אַל תְּמִירֵנִי בּוֹ. אִם כֵּן, ״לֹא יִשָּׂא לְפִשְׁעֲכֶם״ לְמָה לִּי? אֲמַר לֵיהּ: הֵימָנוּתָא בִּידַן, דַּאֲפִילּוּ בְּפַרְוָונְקָא נָמֵי לָא קַבֵּילְנֵיהּ, דִּכְתִיב: ״וַיֹּאמֶר אֵלָיו אִם אֵין פָּנֶיךָ הֹלְכִים וְגוֹ׳״. The heretic said to him: If so, if this angel is equated with God, we should worship him as we worship God. Rav Idit said to him: It is written: “Do not defy [tammer] him,” which alludes to: Do not replace Me [temireni] with him. The heretic said to him: If so, why do I need the clause “For he will not pardon your transgression”? Rav Idit said to him: We believe that we did not accept the angel even as a guide [befarvanka] for the journey, as it is written: “And he said to him: If Your Presence go not with me raise us not up from here” (Exodus 33:15). Moses told God that if God Himself does not accompany the Jewish people they do not want to travel to Eretz Yisrael.

אֲמַר לֵיהּ הָהוּא מִינָא לְרַבִּי יִשְׁמָעֵאל בְּרַבִּי יוֹסֵי: כְּתִיב ״וַה׳ הִמְטִיר עַל סְדֹם וְעַל עֲמֹרָה גׇּפְרִית וָאֵשׁ מֵאֵת ה׳״, ״מֵאִתּוֹ״ מִיבְּעֵי לֵיהּ! אֲמַר לֵיהּ הָהוּא כּוֹבֵס: שִׁבְקֵיהּ, אֲנָא מַהְדַּרְנָא לֵיהּ. דִּכְתִיב ״וַיֹּאמֶר לֶמֶךְ לְנָשָׁיו עָדָה וְצִלָּה שְׁמַעַן קוֹלִי נְשֵׁי לֶמֶךְ״, נָשַׁיי מִיבְּעֵי לֵיהּ! אֶלָּא מִשְׁתַּעֵי קְרָא הָכִי, הָכָא נָמֵי מִשְׁתַּעֵי קְרָא הָכִי. אֲמַר לֵיהּ: מְנָא לָךְ הָא? מִפִּירְקֵיהּ דְּרַבִּי מֵאִיר שְׁמִיעַ לִי. The Gemara relates: A certain heretic said to Rabbi Yishmael, son of Rabbi Yosei: It is written: “And the Lord rained upon Sodom and upon Gomorrah brimstone and fire from the Lord out of heaven” (Genesis 19:24). The heretic raised the question: It should have stated: From Him out of heaven. A certain launderer said to Rabbi Yishmael: Leave him be; I will respond to him. This is as it is written: “And Lemech said to his wives: Adah and Zillah, hear my voice; wives of Lemech, hearken to my speech” (Genesis 4:23). One can raise the question: It should have been written: My wives, and not: “Wives of Lemech.” Rather, it is the style of the verse to speak in this manner. Here too, it is the style of the verse to speak in this manner. Rabbi Yishmael said to the launderer: From where did you hear this interpretation? The launderer said to him: I heard it at the lecture of Rabbi Meir.

דְּאָמַר רַבִּי יוֹחָנָן: כִּי הֲוָה דָּרֵישׁ רַבִּי מֵאִיר בְּפִירְקֵיהּ, הֲוָה דָּרֵישׁ תִּילְתָּא שְׁמַעְתָּא, תִּילְתָּא אַגָּדְתָּא, תִּילְתָּא מַתְלֵי. וְאָמַר רַבִּי יוֹחָנָן: שָׁלֹשׁ מֵאוֹת מִשְׁלוֹת שׁוּעָלִים הָיוּ לוֹ לְרַבִּי מֵאִיר, וְאָנוּ אֵין לָנוּ אֶלָּא שָׁלֹשׁ. The Gemara comments: This is as Rabbi Yoḥanan said: When Rabbi Meir would teach his lecture he would expound one-third halakha, one-third aggada, and one-third parables. And Rabbi Yoḥanan says: Rabbi Meir had, i.e., taught, three hundred parables of foxes, and we have only three.

״אָבוֹת יֹאכְלוּ בֹסֶר וְשִׁנֵּי בָנִים תִּקְהֶינָה״, ״מֹאזְנֵי צֶדֶק אַבְנֵי צֶדֶק״, ״צַדִּיק מִצָּרָה נֶחֱלָץ וַיָּבֹא רָשָׁע תַּחְתָּיו״. And they are the parables concerning the following verses: “The fathers have eaten sour grapes, and the children’s teeth are set on edge” (Ezekiel 18:2); “Just balances, just weights…shall you have” (Leviticus 19:36); and “The righteous is delivered out of trouble, and the wicked comes in his stead” (Proverbs 11:8).

אֲמַר לֵיהּ קֵיסָר לְרַבָּן גַּמְלִיאֵל: אֱלֹהֵיכֶם גַּנָּב הוּא, דִּכְתִיב: ״וַיַּפֵּל ה׳ אֱלֹהִים תַּרְדֵּמָה עַל הָאָדָם וַיִּישָׁן״. אֲמַרָה לֵיהּ בְּרַתֵּיה: שִׁבְקֵיהּ, דַּאֲנָא מַהְדַּרְנָא לֵיהּ. אֲמַרָה לֵיהּ: תְּנוּ לִי דּוּכּוֹס אֶחָד. אֲמַר לַהּ: לְמָה לִיךְ? לִיסְטִין בָּאוּ עָלֵינוּ הַלַּיְלָה וְנָטְלוּ מִמֶּנּוּ קִיתוֹן שֶׁל כֶּסֶף וְהִנִּיחוּ לָנוּ קִיתוֹן שֶׁל זָהָב. אָמַר לָהּ: וּלְוַואי שֶׁיָּבֹאוּ עָלֵינוּ בְּכׇל יוֹם. וְלֹא יָפֶה הָיָה לוֹ לְאָדָם הָרִאשׁוֹן, שֶׁנָּטְלוּ מִמֶּנּוּ צֵלָע אַחַת וְנָתְנוּ לוֹ שִׁפְחָה לְשַׁמְּשׁוֹ? § The Roman emperor said to Rabban Gamliel: Your God is a thief, as it is written: “And the Lord God caused a deep sleep to fall upon the man and he slept; and He took one of his sides, and closed up the place with flesh instead” (Genesis 2:21). The daughter of the emperor said to Rabban Gamliel: Leave him, as I will respond to him. She said to her father: Provide one commander [dukhus] for me to avenge someone’s wrongdoing. The emperor said to her: Why do you need him? She said to him: Armed bandits came to us this past night, and took a silver jug [kiton] from us, and left a golden jug for us. The emperor said to her: If so, would it be that armed bandits such as these would come to us every day. She said to him: And was it not similarly good for Adam the first man that God took a side from him and gave him a maidservant to serve him?

אֲמַר לַהּ: הָכִי קָאָמֵינָא, אֶלָּא לִשְׁקְלַיהּ בְּהֶדְיָא? אֲמַרָה לֵיהּ: אַיְיתוֹ לִי אוּמְצָא דְּבִישְׂרָא. אַיְיתוֹ לַהּ. אוֹתְבַהּ תּוּתֵי בַּחְשָׁא, אַפִּיקְתַּהּ. אֲמַרָה לֵיהּ: אֱכוֹל (מֵהַאי). אֲמַר לַהּ: מְאִיסָא לִי. אֲמַרָה לֵיהּ: וְאָדָם הָרִאשׁוֹן נָמֵי, אִי הֲוָת שְׁקִילָה בְּהֶדְיָא, הֲוָה מְאִיסָא לֵיהּ. The emperor said to her: This is what I was saying: But if it is good for Adam, let God take his side from him in the open, not during the time of his deep sleep, like a thief. She said to him: Bring me a slice of raw meat. They brought it to her. She placed it under the embers, and removed it after it was roasted. She said to him: Eat from this meat. The emperor said to her: It is repulsive to me. Although he knew that this is how meat is prepared, seeing the raw meat made it repulsive to him. She said to him: With regard to Adam the first man as well, had God taken her from him in the open, she would have been repulsive to him. Therefore God acted while Adam was asleep.

אֲמַר לֵיהּ קֵיסָר לְרַבָּן גַּמְלִיאֵל: יָדַעְנָא אֱלָהַיְיכוּ מַאי קָא עָבֵיד וְהֵיכָן יָתֵיב. אִיתְנְגִיד וְאִיתְּנַח. אֲמַר לֵיהּ: מַאי הַאי? אֲמַר לֵיהּ: בֵּן אֶחָד יֵשׁ לִי בִּכְרַכֵּי הַיָּם וְיֵשׁ לִי גִּיעֲגוּעִים עָלָיו. בָּעֵינָא דְּמַחְוֵית לֵיהּ נִיהֲלִי. אָמַר: מִי יָדַעְנָא הֵיכָא נִיהוּ? אֲמַר לֵיהּ: דְּאִיכָּא בְּאַרְעָא לָא יָדְעַתְּ, דְּאִיכָּא בִּשְׁמַיָּא יָדְעַתְּ? The emperor said to Rabban Gamliel: I know your God, what He does and where He sits. Meanwhile, the emperor was moaning and groaning. Rabban Gamliel said to him: What is this? Why are you in distress? The emperor said to him: I have one son in the cities overseas and I miss him. Rabban Gamliel said to him: I want you to show him to me. The emperor said: Do I know where he is? Rabban Gamliel said to him: If you do not know that which is on earth, is it possible that you do know that which is in the heavens?

אֲמַר לֵיהּ קֵיסָר לְרַבָּן גַּמְלִיאֵל: כְּתִיב ״מוֹנֶה מִסְפָּר לַכּוֹכָבִים״, מַאי רְבוּתֵיהּ? אֲנָא מָצֵינָא לְמִימְנֵי כּוֹכְבֵי! אַיְיתִי חֲבוּשֵׁי, שְׁדִינְהוּ בְּאַרְבֵּילָא, וְקָא מְהַדַּר לְהוּ. אֲמַר לֵיהּ: מְנִינְהוּ. אֲמַר לֵיהּ: אוֹקְמִינְהוּ! אֲמַר לֵיהּ: רָקִיעַ נָמֵי הָכִי הָדְרָא. The emperor said to Rabban Gamliel: It is written in praise of the Lord: “He counts the number of the stars; He gives them all their names” (Psalms 147:4). What is His greatness? I can also count the stars. Rabban Gamliel brought quinces, put them in a sieve, and spun them. He said to the emperor: Count them. The emperor said to him: Stand them still so that I can count them. Rabban Gamliel said to him: The firmament also revolves like this, therefore you cannot count the stars in it.

אִיכָּא דְּאָמְרִי, הָכִי אֲמַר לֵיהּ: מְנִי לִי כּוֹכְבֵי. אֲמַר לֵיהּ: אֵימָא לִי כַּכָּיךְ וְשִׁינָּיךְ כַּמָּה הָוֵי? שְׁדָא יְדֵיהּ לְפוּמֵּיהּ וְקָא מָנֵי לְהוּ. אֲמַר לֵיהּ: דְּאִיכָּא בְּפוּמָּיךְ לָא יָדְעַתְּ, דְּאִיכָּא בִּרְקִיעָא יָדְעַתְּ? Some say that this is what the emperor said to him: I have counted the stars. Rabban Gamliel said to him: Tell me how many teeth and incisors you have. The emperor put his hand in his mouth and was counting them. Rabban Gamliel said to him: You do not know what is in your mouth, but you do know what is in the firmament?

אֲמַר לֵיהּ קֵיסָר לְרַבָּן גַּמְלִיאֵל: מִי שֶׁבָּרָא הָרִים לֹא בָּרָא רוּחַ, שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר ״כִּי הִנֵּה יוֹצֵר הָרִים וּבֹרֵא רוּחַ״. אֶלָּא מֵעַתָּה, גַּבֵּי אָדָם דִּכְתִיב ״וַיִּבְרָא״ ״וַיִּיצֶר״, הָכִי נָמֵי מִי שֶׁבָּרָא זֶה לֹא בָּרָא זֶה? The emperor said to Rabban Gamliel: He Who created mountains did not create wind, rather two separate gods created them, as it is stated: “For, lo, He forms mountains and creates wind” (Amos 4:13); one is described with the verb “forms,” and the other with the verb “creates.” Rabban Gamliel said to him: If that is so, then with regard to Adam, as it is written concerning him: “And God created” (Genesis 1:27), and also: “And the Lord God formed” (Genesis 2:7), so too should one say that He who created this did not create that?

טֶפַח עַל טֶפַח יֵשׁ בּוֹ בָּאָדָם, וּשְׁנֵי נְקָבִים יֵשׁ בּוֹ. מִי שֶׁבָּרָא זֶה לֹא בָּרָא זֶה? שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר: ״הֲנֹטַע אֹזֶן הֲלֹא יִשְׁמָע וְאִם יֹצֵר עַיִן הֲלֹא יַבִּיט״. אֲמַר לֵיהּ: אִין. אֲמַר לֵיהּ: וּבִשְׁעַת מִיתָה כּוּלָּן נִתְפַּיְּיסוּ? If you will claim that different gods created different parts of Adam, that will not suffice. A person has one handbreadth by one handbreadth of facial countenance, with two types of orifices in it, eyes and ears. Should one say that He who created this did not create that; as it is stated: “He that planted the ear, shall He not hear? He that formed the eye, shall He not see?” (Psalms 94:9)? The verse employs two verbs for the eyes and ears alone. The emperor said to him: Yes, different gods created different parts of the face. Rabban Gamliel said to him: And at the moment of death, are they all appeased? Do all these gods agree as one that the time arrived for the person to die?

אֲמַר לֵיהּ הָהוּא אַמְגּוּשָׁא לְאַמֵּימָר: מִפַּלְגָךְ לְעִילַּאי דְּהוֹרְמִיז, מִפַּלְגָךְ לְתַתַּאי דְּאַהוֹרְמִיז. אֲמַר לֵיהּ: אִם כֵּן, הֵיכִי שָׁבֵיק לֵיהּ אַהוֹרְמִיז לְהוֹרְמִיז לְעַבּוֹרֵי מַיָּא בְּאַרְעֵיהּ? The Gemara relates: A certain magus said to Ameimar: From your midpoint and up is in the domain of Hurmiz, the god of good, who created the significant and important parts of the body, and from your midpoint and down is in the domain of Ahurmiz, the god of bad. Ameimar said to him: If so, how does Ahurmiz allow Hurmiz to urinate in his territory? A person drinks with his mouth, which is in his upper half, and urinates from below.

אֲמַר לֵיהּ קֵיסָר לְרַבִּי תַּנְחוּם: תָּא לִיהְווֹ כּוּלָּן לְעַמָּא חַד. אֲמַר: לְחַיֵּי, אֲנַן דְּמָהֲלִינַן לָא מָצֵינַן מִיהְוֵי כְּוָותַיְיכוּ. אַתּוּן מָהֲלִיתוּ וֶהֱווֹ כְּוָותַן! אֲמַר לֵיהּ: מֵימָר שַׁפִּיר קָאָמְרַתְּ, מִיהוּ כֹּל דְּזָכֵי לְמַלְכָּא לִשְׁדְּיוּהּ לְבֵיבָר. שַׁדְיוּהּ לְבֵיבָר וְלָא אַכְלוּהּ. אֲמַר לֵיהּ הָהוּא מִינָא: הַאי דְּלָא אַכְלוּהּ מִשּׁוּם דְּלָא כְּפוּן הוּא. שַׁדְיוּהּ לֵיהּ לְדִידֵיהּ וְאַכְלוּהּ. The Gemara relates: The emperor said to Rabbi Tanḥum: Come, let us all be one people. Rabbi Tanḥum said: Very well. But we, who are circumcised, cannot become uncircumcised as you are; you all circumcise yourselves and become like us. The emperor said to Rabbi Tanḥum: In terms of the logic of your statement, you are saying well, but anyone who bests the king in a debate is thrown to the enclosure [labeivar] of wild animals. They threw him to the enclosure but the animals did not eat him, as God protected him. A certain heretic said to the emperor: This incident, that they did not eat him, happened because they are not hungry. They then threw the heretic into the enclosure and the animals ate him.

אֲמַר לֵיהּ קֵיסָר לְרַבָּן גַּמְלִיאֵל: אָמְרִיתוּ כֹּל בֵּי עַשְׂרָה שְׁכִינְתָּא שָׁרְיָא, כַּמָּה שְׁכִינְתָּא אִיכָּא? קַרְיֵיהּ לְשַׁמָּעֵיהּ, מְחָא בֵּיהּ בְּאַפָּתְקָא. אֲמַר לֵיהּ: אַמַּאי עָל שִׁמְשָׁא בְּבֵיתֵיהּ דְּקֵיסָר? אֲמַר לֵיהּ: שִׁמְשָׁא אַכּוּלֵּי עָלְמָא נָיְחָא. וּמָה שִׁמְשָׁא דְּחַד מִן אֶלֶף אַלְפֵי רִבּוֹא שַׁמָּשֵׁי דְּקַמֵּי קוּדְשָׁא בְּרִיךְ הוּא נָיְחָא אַכּוּלֵּי עָלְמָא, שְׁכִינְתָּא דְּקוּדְשָׁא בְּרִיךְ הוּא עַל אַחַת כַּמָּה וְכַמָּה. The emperor said to Rabban Gamliel: You say that the Divine Presence dwells in any place where there are ten adult male Jews. He asked, sarcastically: How many Divine Presences are there? Rabban Gamliel summoned the servant of the emperor and hit him on his neck [be’appatka]. Rabban Gamliel said to him: Why did you allow the sun to enter the house of the emperor? The emperor said to him: The sun rests upon all the world; no one can prevent it from shining. Rabban Gamliel said to him: And if the sun, which is one of ten thousand attendants that are before the Holy One, Blessed be He, rests upon all the world, the Divine Presence of the Holy One, Blessed be He, all the more so rests upon the world.

אֲמַר לֵיהּ הָהוּא מִינָא לְרַבִּי אֲבָהוּ: אֱלֹהֵיכֶם גַּחֲכָן הוּא, דְּקָאָמַר לֵיהּ לִיחֶזְקֵאל ״שְׁכַב עַל צִדְּךָ הַשְּׂמָאלִי״, וּכְתִיב ״וְשָׁכַבְתָּ עַל צִדְּךָ הַיְמָנִי״! אֲתָא הָהוּא תַּלְמִידָא, אֲמַר לֵיהּ: מַאי טַעְמָא דִּשְׁבִיעֲתָא? אֲמַר לְהוּ: הַשְׁתָּא אָמֵינָא לְכוּ מִילְּתָא דְּשָׁוְיָא לְתַרְוַיְיכוּ. A certain heretic said to Rabbi Abbahu: Your God is a jester, as He said to Ezekiel the prophet: “Lie on your left side” (Ezekiel 4:4), and it is also written: “Lie on your right side” (Ezekiel 4:6); God had Ezekiel turn from side to side, apparently for comic effect. In the meantime, a certain student came before Rabbi Abbahu and said to him: What is the reason for the mitzva of the Sabbatical Year? Rabbi Abbahu said to them: Now I will tell you something that is fit for the two of you.

אָמַר הַקָּדוֹשׁ בָּרוּךְ הוּא לְיִשְׂרָאֵל: זִרְעוּ שֵׁשׁ וְהַשְׁמִיטוּ שֶׁבַע, כְּדֵי שֶׁתֵּדְעוּ שֶׁהָאָרֶץ שֶׁלִּי הִיא. וְהֵן לֹא עָשׂוּ כֵּן, אֶלָּא חָטְאוּ וְגָלוּ. מִנְהָגוֹ שֶׁל עוֹלָם: מֶלֶךְ בָּשָׂר וָדָם שֶׁסָּרְחָה עָלָיו מְדִינָה – אִם אַכְזָרִי הוּא, הוֹרֵג אֶת כּוּלָּן; אִם רַחְמָן הוּא, הוֹרֵג חֶצְיָם; אִם רַחְמָן מָלֵא רַחֲמִים הוּא, מְיַיסֵּר הַגְּדוֹלִים שֶׁבָּהֶן בְּיִסּוּרִין. אַף כָּךְ הַקָּדוֹשׁ בָּרוּךְ הוּא מְיַיסֵּר אֶת יְחֶזְקֵאל כְּדֵי לְמָרֵק עֲוֹנוֹתֵיהֶם שֶׁל יִשְׂרָאֵל. Rabbi Abbahu continued: The Holy One, Blessed be He, said to the Jewish people: Sow for six years, and withhold sowing during the seventh year, so that that you will know that the land is Mine. But the Jewish people did not do so; rather, they sinned and were consequently exiled. The manner of the world is that in the case of a flesh-and-blood king whose province sinned against him, if he is cruel, he kills them all; if he is compassionate, he kills only half of them; and if he is compassionate and is full of compassion, he afflicts the leaders among them with suffering. Rabbi Abbahu continues: So too in this case, the Holy One, Blessed be He, afflicts Ezekiel in order to cleanse the sins of the Jewish people. God instructed him to lie down and suffer the same number of days as the number of years that the Jewish people did not observe the halakhot of the Sabbatical Year.

אֲמַר לֵיהּ הָהוּא מִינָא לְרַבִּי אֲבָהוּ: אֱלֹהֵיכֶם כֹּהֵן הוּא, דִּכְתִיב ״וְיִקְחוּ לִי תְּרוּמָה״. כִּי קַבְרֵיהּ לְמֹשֶׁה, בְּמַאי טְבֵיל? וְכִי תֵּימָא בְּמַיָּא, וְהָכְתִיב ״מִי מָדַד בְּשׇׁעֳלוֹ מַיִם״? A certain heretic said to Rabbi Abbahu: Your God is a priest, as it is written: “That they take for Me an offering [teruma]” (Exodus 25:2), and teruma is given to the priests. He asked, sarcastically: When He buried Moses, in what ritual bath did He immerse? A priest who contracts impurity from a corpse must immerse in order to be able to partake of teruma. And if you would say that He immersed in water, but isn’t it written: “Who has measured the waters in the hollow of His hand” (Isaiah 40:12), that all waters of the world fit in the palm of God, so He could not immerse in them.

אֲמַר לֵיהּ: בְּנוּרָא טְבֵיל, דִּכְתִיב ״כִּי הִנֵּה ה׳ בָּאֵשׁ יָבוֹא״. וּמִי סָלְקָא טְבִילוּתָא בְּנוּרָא? אֲמַר לֵיהּ: אַדְּרַבָּה, עִיקַּר טְבִילוּתָא בְּנוּרָא הוּא, דִּכְתִיב ״וְכׇל אֲשֶׁר לֹא יָבֹא בָּאֵשׁ תַּעֲבִירוּ בַמָּיִם״. Rabbi Abbahu said to him: He immersed in fire, as it is written: “For, behold, the Lord will come in fire” (Isaiah 66:15). The heretic said to him: But is immersion in fire effective? Rabbi Abbahu said to him: On the contrary, the main form of immersion is in fire, as it is written with regard to the removal of non-kosher substances absorbed in a vessel: “And all that abides not the fire you shall make to go through the water” (Numbers 31:23), indicating that fire purifies more than water does.

אֲמַר לֵיהּ הָהוּא מִינָא לְרַבִּי אֲבִינָא: כְּתִיב ״וּמִי כְעַמְּךָ כְּיִשְׂרָאֵל גּוֹי אֶחָד בָּאָרֶץ״, מַאי רְבוּתַיְיהוּ? אַתּוּן נָמֵי עָרְבִיתוּ בַּהֲדַן, דִּכְתִיב ״כׇּל הַגּוֹיִם כְּאַיִן נֶגְדּוֹ״. אֲמַר לֵיהּ: מִדִּידְכוּ אַסְהִידוּ עֲלַן, דִּכְתִיב A certain heretic said to Rabbi Avina: It is written: “And who is like Your people, Israel, one nation in the earth” (II Samuel 7:23). The heretic asked: What is your greatness? You are also mixed together with us, as it is written: “All nations before Him are as nothing; they are counted by Him less than nothing and vanity” (Isaiah 40:17). Rabbi Avina said to him: One of yours, the gentile prophet Balaam, has already testified for us, as it is written:

״וּבַגּוֹיִם לֹא יִתְחַשָּׁב״. “It is a people that shall dwell alone, and shall not be reckoned among the nations” (Numbers 23:9), teaching that where the verse mentions “the nations,” the Jewish people are not included.

רַבִּי אֶלְעָזָר רָמֵי: כְּתִיב ״טוֹב ה׳ לַכֹּל״, וּכְתִיב ״טוֹב ה׳ לְקֹוָויו״. מָשָׁל לְאָדָם שֶׁיֵּשׁ לוֹ פַּרְדֵּס: כְּשֶׁהוּא מַשְׁקֶה – מַשְׁקֶה אֶת כּוּלּוֹ, כְּשֶׁהוּא עוֹדֵר – אֵינוֹ עוֹדֵר אֶלָּא טוֹבִים שֶׁבָּהֶם. The Gemara cites a related statement: Rabbi Elazar raises a contradiction: It is written in one verse: “The Lord is good to all and His compassion is over all His works” (Psalms 145:9), and it is written in a different verse: “The Lord is good to those who wait for Him, to the soul that seeks Him” (Lamentations 3:25). He explains: This can be compared to a person who has an orchard. When he waters it, he waters all of it. Perforce, the water reaches all parts of the orchard, and he cannot discriminate between trees. This is the meaning of the verse: “The Lord is good to all.” By contrast, when he hoes around the trees, he hoes only around the good trees among them. Similarly, when God bestows goodness to the world, all receive it. When He protects people from harm, not all are protected.

לְפִיכָךְ כָּל אֶחָד וְאֶחָד כּוּ׳. ״וַיַּעֲבֹר הָרִנָּה בַּמַּחֲנֶה״. אָמַר רַבִּי אַחָא בַּר חֲנִינָא: ״בַּאֲבֹד רְשָׁעִים רִנָּה״ – בַּאֲבוֹד אַחְאָב בֶּן עָמְרִי רִנָּה. § The mishna teaches: Therefore, since all humanity descends from one person, each and every person is obligated to say: The world was created for me. The mishna then teaches that the court says to the witnesses: And perhaps you will say: Why would we want to be responsible for the blood of this person? But be aware, as is it not already stated: “When the wicked perish, there is song” (Proverbs 11:10)? The Gemara teaches: A separate verse relates that after the evil king Ahab was killed: “And the song went throughout the camp” (I Kings 22:36). Rabbi Aḥa bar Ḥanina says: The fact that the verse states “the song,” and not a song, indicates that it is referring to a song mentioned elsewhere. Accordingly, the verse: “When the wicked perish, there is song,” alludes to this episode: When Ahab ben Omri perished, there was song.

וּמִי חָדֵי קוּדְשָׁא בְּרִיךְ הוּא בְּמַפַּלְתָּן שֶׁל רְשָׁעִים? הָכְתִיב: ״בְּצֵאת לִפְנֵי הֶחָלוּץ וְאֹמְרִים הוֹדוּ לַה׳ כִּי לְעוֹלָם חַסְדּוֹ״. וְאָמַר רַבִּי יוֹנָתָן: מִפְּנֵי מָה לֹא נֶאֱמַר בְּהוֹדָאָה זוֹ ״כִּי טוֹב״? לְפִי שֶׁאֵין הַקָּדוֹשׁ בָּרוּךְ הוּא שָׂמֵחַ בְּמַפַּלְתָּן שֶׁל רְשָׁעִים. The Gemara asks: But is the Holy One, Blessed be He, gladdened by the downfall of the wicked? Isn’t it written in the verse describing the victory of the Jewish people in battle: “He appointed them that should sing unto the Lord, and praise in the beauty of holiness, as they went out before the army, and say: Give thanks to the Lord, for His mercy endures forever” (II Chronicles 20:21). And Rabbi Yonatan says: For what reason is it not stated in this praise: “Give thanks to the Lord for He is good, for His mercy endures forever,” as is stated elsewhere, e.g., Psalms 118:1? This is because the Holy One, Blessed be He, is not gladdened by the downfall of the wicked.

דְּאָמַר רַבִּי שְׁמוּאֵל בַּר נַחְמָן אָמַר רַבִּי יוֹנָתָן: מַאי דִּכְתִיב ״וְלֹא קָרַב זֶה אֶל זֶה כׇּל הַלָּיְלָה״? בְּאוֹתָהּ שָׁעָה בִּקְּשׁוּ מַלְאֲכֵי הַשָּׁרֵת לוֹמַר שִׁירָה לִפְנֵי הַקָּדוֹשׁ בָּרוּךְ הוּא. אָמַר לָהֶן הַקָּדוֹשׁ בָּרוּךְ הוּא: מַעֲשֵׂה יָדַי טוֹבְעִין בַּיָּם וְאַתֶּם אוֹמְרִים שִׁירָה לְפָנַי? The Gemara comments: As Rabbi Shmuel bar Naḥman says that Rabbi Yonatan says: What is the meaning of that which is written in the passage describing the splitting of the Red Sea: “And the one came not near the other all the night” (Exodus 14:20)? At that time the ministering angels desired to recite a song before the Holy One, Blessed be He. The Holy One, Blessed be He, said to them: My handiwork, i.e., the Egyptians, are drowning in the sea, and you are reciting a song before Me? Apparently, God is not gladdened by the downfall of the wicked.

אָמַר רַבִּי יוֹסֵי בַּר חֲנִינָא: הוּא אֵינוֹ שָׂשׂ, אֲבָל אֲחֵרִים מֵשִׂישׂ. דַּיְקָא נָמֵי, דִּכְתִיב ״יָשִׂישׂ״ וְלָא כְּתִיב ״יָשׂוּשׂ״. שְׁמַע מִינַּהּ. Rabbi Yosei bar Ḥanina says: He, i.e., God, does not rejoice in their downfall, but He does cause others to feel joy. The Gemara comments: Accordingly, the language of the verse is also precise, as it is written: “And it shall come to pass, that as the Lord rejoiced over you to do you good, and to multiply you; so the Lord will cause rejoicing [yasis] over you to cause you to perish” (Deuteronomy 28:63), and it is not written: Will have joy [yasus]. The term “yasis” connotes causing joy to others, not that God will experience joy Himself. The Gemara affirms: Conclude from this inference that it is so.

״וְהַזֹּנוֹת רָחָצוּ וְגוֹ׳״, אָמַר רַבִּי אֶלְעָזָר: לְמָרֵק שְׁתֵּי חֶזְיוֹנוֹת, אַחַת שֶׁל מִיכָיְהוּ וְאַחַת שֶׁל אֵלִיָּהוּ. בְּמִיכָיְהוּ כְּתִיב: ״אִם שׁוֹב תָּשׁוּב בְּשָׁלוֹם לֹא דִבֶּר ה׳ בִּי״; בְּאֵלִיָּהוּ כְּתִיב: ״בִּמְקוֹם אֲשֶׁר לָקְקוּ הַכְּלָבִים אֶת דַּם נָבוֹת״. Apropos the death of Ahab, the Gemara cites another verse from that passage. The verse states: “And they washed the chariot by the pool of Samaria, and the dogs licked up his blood; and the harlots also washed themselves there, according to the word of the Lord that He spoke” (I Kings 22:38). Rabbi Elazar says: “The harlots [hazzonot]” can be read as visions [ḥezyonot], and the verse means: To cleanse, i.e., to fulfill, two visions, one of Micaiah and one of Elijah. This fulfills a vision of Micaiah, as it is written: “If you return at all in peace, the Lord has not spoken by me” (I Kings 22:28). Once Ahab died, Micaiah’s vision was fulfilled. This also fulfills a vision of Elijah, as it is written: “In the place where the dogs licked the blood of Naboth shall the dogs lick your blood, even yours” (I Kings 21:19).

רָבָא אָמַר: זוֹנוֹת מַמָּשׁ. אַחְאָב אִישׁ מְצוּנָּן הָיָה, וְעָשְׂתָה לוֹ אִיזֶבֶל שְׁתֵּי צוּרֵי זוֹנוֹת בְּמֶרְכַּבְתּוֹ, כְּדֵי שֶׁיִּרְאֶה אוֹתָן וְיִתְחַמֵּם. Rava says: The verse is speaking of actual harlots. Ahab was a frigid man, who did not lust for women. And Jezebel, his wife, fashioned two forms of harlots for him in his chariot, in order that he see them while traveling and become aroused. Accordingly, one would understand the verse as stating that the harlots were washed, not that they washed themselves.

״וְאִישׁ מָשַׁךְ בַּקֶּשֶׁת לְתֻמּוֹ וַיַּכֶּה״. רַבִּי אֶלְעָזָר אָמַר: לְפִי תּוּמּוֹ. רָבָא אָמַר: לְתַמֵּם שְׁתֵּי חֶזְיוֹנוֹת, אַחַת שֶׁל מִיכָיְהוּ וְאַחַת שֶׁל אֵלִיָּהוּ. The verse describing the death of Ahab states: “And a certain man drew a bow offhandedly [letummo] and smote the king of Israel” (I Kings 22:34). Rabbi Elazar says: “Letummo” should be understood as offhandedly [lefi tummo], without aiming for Ahab. Rava says: This alludes to the fact that the killing of Ahab served to make whole [letammem] two visions, one of Micaiah and one of Elijah.

(סִימָן: קָרָא, וְזָכָה, בֶּאֱדוֹם.) כְּתִיב: ״וַיִּקְרָא אַחְאָב אֶל עֹבַדְיָהוּ אֲשֶׁר עַל הַבָּיִת וְעֹבַדְיָהוּ הָיָה יָרֵא [אֶת] ה׳ מְאֹד״. מַאי קָאָמַר קְרָא? § Before continuing its discussion of Ahab, the Gemara records a mnemonic for the forthcoming statements: Called; and merited; of Edom. It is written: “And Ahab called Obadiah, who was over the household; now Obadiah feared the Lord greatly” (I Kings 18:3). The Gemara asks: What is the verse saying? What is the connection between Obadiah’s fear of the Lord and the call of Ahab?

אָמַר רַבִּי יִצְחָק: אָמַר לֵיהּ, בְּיַעֲקֹב כְּתִיב ״נִחַשְׁתִּי וַיְבָרְכֵנִי ה׳ בִּגְלָלֶךָ״, בְּיוֹסֵף כְּתִיב ״וַיְבָרֶךְ ה׳ אֶת בֵּית הַמִּצְרִי בִּגְלַל יוֹסֵף״. בֵּיתָא דְּהָהוּא גַּבְרָא לָא הֲוָה מִיבְּרִיךְ. שֶׁמָּא לֹא יְרֵא אֱלֹהִים אַתָּה? יָצְתָה בַּת קוֹל וְאָמְרָה: ״וְעֹבַדְיָהוּ הָיָה יָרֵא אֶת ה׳ מְאֹד״, אֲבָל בֵּיתוֹ שֶׁל אַחְאָב אֵינוֹ מְזוּמָּן לִבְרָכָה. Rabbi Yitzḥak says that Ahab said to Obadiah: It is written with regard to Jacob: “And Laban said to him: If now I have found favor in your eyes, I have observed the signs, and the Lord has blessed me for your sake” (Genesis 30:27). It is written with regard to Joseph: “The Lord blessed the Egyptian’s house for Joseph’s sake” (Genesis 39:5). The house of that man, i.e., my house, was not blessed. Perhaps you do not fear God? Immediately, a Divine Voice emerged and said: “Now Obadiah feared the Lord greatly,” but the house of Ahab is not fit for blessing like the houses of those masters.

אָמַר רַבִּי אַבָּא: גָּדוֹל שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר בְּעוֹבַדְיָהוּ יוֹתֵר מִמַּה שֶּׁנֶּאֱמַר בְּאַבְרָהָם, דְּאִילּוּ בְּאַבְרָהָם לָא כְּתִיב ״מְאֹד״, וּבְעוֹבַדְיָהוּ כְּתִיב ״מְאֹד״. Rabbi Abba says: The praise that is stated with regard to Obadiah is greater than that which is stated with regard to Abraham. As with regard to Abraham the verse states: “For now I know that you fear God” (Genesis 22:12), and the term “greatly” is not written, and about Obadiah the term “greatly” is written.

אָמַר רַבִּי יִצְחָק: מִפְּנֵי מָה זָכָה עוֹבַדְיָהוּ לִנְבִיאוּת? מִפְּנֵי שֶׁהֶחְבִּיא מֵאָה נְבִיאִים בַּמְּעָרָה, שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר: ״וַיְהִי בְּהַכְרִית אִיזֶבֶל אֵת נְבִיאֵי ה׳ וַיִּקַּח עֹבַדְיָהוּ מֵאָה נְבִיאִים וַיַּחְבִּיאֵם חֲמִשִּׁים אִישׁ בַּמְּעָרָה וְגוֹ״. מַאי שְׁנָא חֲמִשִּׁים אִישׁ? אָמַר רַבִּי אֶלְעָזָר: מִיַּעֲקֹב לָמַד, שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר: ״וְהָיָה הַמַּחֲנֶה הַנִּשְׁאָר לִפְלֵיטָה״. רַבִּי אֲבָהוּ אָמַר: לְפִי שֶׁאֵין מְעָרָה מַחְזֶקֶת יוֹתֵר מֵחֲמִשִּׁים. Rabbi Yitzḥak says: For what reason did Obadiah merit prophecy? It is because he concealed one hundred prophets in a cave, as it is stated: “It was so, when Jezebel cut off the prophets of the Lord, that Obadiah took one hundred prophets, and hid them, fifty men in a cave, and fed them with bread and water” (I Kings 18:4). The Gemara asks: What is different, i.e., why did he decide, to conceal fifty men in each of two caves and not conceal them all together in one cave? Rabbi Elazar says: He learned from the behavior of Jacob to do so, as it is stated: “And he said: If Esau comes to the one camp and smites it, then the camp that is left shall escape” (Genesis 32:9). Obadiah learned from this to divide the prophets and thereby lessen the danger. Rabbi Abbahu says: It is because there is no cave big enough to contain more than fifty people.

״חֲזוֹן עֹבַדְיָהוּ כֹּה אָמַר ה׳ אֱלֹהִים לֶאֱדוֹם וְגוֹ׳״. מַאי שְׁנָא עוֹבַדְיָה לֶאֱדוֹם? The verse states: “The vision of Obadiah. So says the Lord God concerning Edom: We have heard a message from the Lord, and an ambassador is sent among the nations: Arise, and let us rise up against her in battle” (Obadiah 1:1). The Gemara asks: What is different, i.e., what is the reason, that specifically Obadiah prophesied concerning Edom?

אָמַר רַבִּי יִצְחָק: אָמַר הַקָּדוֹשׁ בָּרוּךְ הוּא, יָבֹא עוֹבַדְיָהוּ הַדָּר בֵּין שְׁנֵי רְשָׁעִים וְלֹא לָמַד מִמַּעֲשֵׂיהֶם, וְיִנָּבֵא עַל עֵשָׂו הָרָשָׁע שֶׁדָּר בֵּין שְׁנֵי צַדִּיקִים וְלֹא לָמַד מִמַּעֲשֵׂיהֶם. אָמַר אֶפְרַיִם מִקְשָׁאָה תַּלְמִידוֹ שֶׁל רַבִּי מֵאִיר מִשּׁוּם רַבִּי מֵאִיר: עוֹבַדְיָה גֵּר אֲדוֹמִי הָיָה. וְהַיְינוּ דְּאָמְרִי אִינָשֵׁי: מִנֵּיהּ וּבֵיהּ אִבָּא נֵיזִיל בֵּיהּ נַרְגָּא. Rabbi Yitzḥak says: The Holy One, Blessed be He, said: Let Obadiah come, who dwells among two wicked ones, Ahab and Jezebel, but did not learn from their actions; and he will prophesy concerning Esau the wicked, the progenitor of Edom, who dwelled among two righteous ones, Isaac and Rebekkah, but did not learn from their actions. Efrayim Miksha’a, a student of Rabbi Meir, said in the name of Rabbi Meir: Obadiah was an Edomite convert. Consequently, he prophesied with regard to Edom. And this is as people say: From and within the forest comes the ax to it, as the handle for the ax that chops the tree is from the forest itself.

״וַיַּךְ אֶת מוֹאָב וַיְמַדְּדֵם בַּחֶבֶל הַשְׁכֵּב אוֹתָם אַרְצָה״. אָמַר רַבִּי יוֹחָנָן מִשּׁוּם רַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן בֶּן יוֹחַי, הַיְינוּ דְּאָמְרִי אִינָשֵׁי: מִינֵּיהּ וּבֵיהּ אִבָּא לֵיזִיל בֵּיהּ נַרְגָּא. כִּי אֲתָא רַב דִּימִי אָמַר: יָרֵךְ מִתּוֹכָהּ מַסְרַחַת. The verse states concerning King David: “And he smote Moab and measured them with the line, making them lie down on the ground and he measured two lines to put to death” (II Samuel 8:2). Rabbi Yoḥanan says in the name of Rabbi Shimon ben Yoḥai: This is as people say: From and within the forest comes the ax to it, as King David was a descendant of Ruth the Moabite. When Rav Dimi came from Eretz Yisrael he stated something similar to this: A thigh rots from within, i.e., when a piece of meat rots, the rotting begins from the inner part of it. Here too, the punishment is administered by one descended from that very nation.

״וַיִּקַּח אֶת בְּנוֹ הַבְּכוֹר אֲשֶׁר יִמְלֹךְ תַּחְתָּיו וַיַּעֲלֵהוּ עֹלָה עַל הַחֹמָה״. רַב וּשְׁמוּאֵל, חַד אָמַר: לְשֵׁם שָׁמַיִם, וְחַד אָמַר: לְשֵׁם עֲבוֹדָה זָרָה. § The Gemara cites a verse concerning the king of Moab: “Then he took his eldest son, who should have reigned in his stead, and sacrificed him for a burnt offering upon the wall; and there was great indignation against Israel, and they departed from him and returned to their own land” (II Kings 3:27). Rav and Shmuel engage in a dispute concerning this. One says: The king sacrificed his son for the sake of Heaven, and one says: The king sacrificed his son for the sake of idol worship.

בִּשְׁלָמָא לְמַאן דְּאָמַר לְשֵׁם שָׁמַיִם, הַיְינוּ דִּכְתִיב ״וַיְהִי קֶצֶף גָּדוֹל עַל יִשְׂרָאֵל״. אֶלָּא לְמַאן דְּאָמַר לְשֵׁם עֲבוֹדָה זָרָה, אַמַּאי ״וַיְהִי קֶצֶף״? The Gemara asks: Granted, according to the one who says that he sacrificed him for the sake of Heaven, this is as it is written: “And there was great indignation against Israel,” as the gentile attempted to honor God according to his understanding, while the Jewish people were straying from worshipping God, leading to God’s anger against them. But according to the one who says that he sacrificed him for the sake of idol worship, why would the verse state: “And there was…indignation”?

כִּדְרַבִּי יְהוֹשֻׁעַ בֶּן לֵוִי, דְּרַבִּי יְהוֹשֻׁעַ בֶּן לֵוִי רָמֵי: כְּתִיב ״וּכְמִשְׁפְּטֵי הַגּוֹיִם אֲשֶׁר סְבִיבוֹתֵיכֶם לֹא עֲשִׂיתֶם״, וּכְתִיב ״וּכְמִשְׁפְּטֵי הַגּוֹיִם אֲשֶׁר סְבִיבוֹתֵיכֶם עֲשִׂיתֶם״. כַּמְתוּקָּנִין שֶׁבָּהֶם – לֹא עֲשִׂיתֶם, כַּמְקוּלְקָלִין שֶׁבָּהֶם – עֲשִׂיתֶם. The Gemara answers: This can be understood in accordance with the statement of Rabbi Yehoshua ben Levi. As Rabbi Yehoshua ben Levi raises a contradiction: It is written concerning the Jewish people: “You have not walked in My statutes, neither have you kept My ordinances; nor have you done according to the statutes of the nations that are round about you” (Ezekiel 5:7), and it is also written: “You have done according to the statutes of the nations that are round about you” (Ezekiel 11:12). Rabbi Yehoshua ben Levi explains: You did not act like the proper ones among the nations, but you did act like the flawed ones among them. Here as well, the Jewish people learned from the king of Moab to engage in human sacrifice.

״וַיִּסְעוּ מֵעָלָיו וַיָּשׁוּבוּ לָאָרֶץ״. אָמַר רַבִּי חֲנִינָא בַּר פָּפָּא: בְּאוֹתָהּ שָׁעָה יָרְדוּ שׂוֹנְאֵיהֶן שֶׁל יִשְׂרָאֵל לְמַדְרֵיגָה הַתַּחְתּוֹנָה. The Gemara discusses the end of that verse: “And they departed from him and returned to their own land [la’aretz]” (II Kings 3:27). Rabbi Ḥanina bar Pappa says: At that time the enemies of the Jewish people, a euphemism for the Jewish people themselves, descended to the lowest level. He interprets “la’aretz” to mean: To the earth, teaching that the Jewish people were as low as the dust of the earth.

״וְהַנַּעֲרָה יָפָה עַד מְאֹד״. אָמַר רַבִּי חֲנִינָא בַּר פָּפָּא: עֲדַיִין לֹא הִגִּיעָה לַחֲצִי יוֹפִי שֶׁל שָׂרָה, דִּכְתִיב ״עַד מְאֹד״ – וְלֹא מְאֹד בַּכְּלָל. The chapter closes with the explication of a verse stated with regard to Abishag, who attended King David before his death: “And the damsel was very fair [yafa ad me’od ]” (I Kings 1:4). Rabbi Ḥanina bar Pappa says: She still did not reach half the beauty of Sarah, as it is written: “Ad me’od,” which can be translated as “up to very fair,” but not including the praise of “very fair.” By contrast, it is written concerning Sarah: “She was very fair” (Genesis 12:14).

מַתְנִי׳ הָיוּ בּוֹדְקִין אוֹתָן בְּשֶׁבַע חֲקִירוֹת: בְּאֵיזוֹ שָׁבוּעַ, בְּאֵיזוֹ שָׁנָה, בְּאֵיזוֹ חוֹדֶשׁ, בְּכַמָּה בַּחֹדֶשׁ, בְּאֵיזֶה יוֹם, בְּאֵיזוֹ שָׁעָה, בְּאֵיזֶה מְקוֹם. רַבִּי יוֹסֵי אוֹמֵר: בְּאֵיזֶה יוֹם, בְּאֵיזוֹ שָׁעָה, בְּאֵיזֶה מָקוֹם. MISHNA: The court would examine the witnesses in capital cases with seven interrogations, i.e., interrogatory questions, and they are: In which seven-year period, that is, in which cycle of seven years within a jubilee did the event occur; in which year of the Sabbatical cycle did the event occur; in which month did the event occur; on which day of the month did the event occur; on which day of the week did the event occur; at which hour did the event occur; and in what place did the event occur. Rabbi Yosei says: The court would examine the witnesses with only three interrogations: On which day did the event occur, at which hour, and in what place.

מַכִּירִין אַתֶּם אוֹתוֹ? הִתְרֵתֶם בּוֹ? הָעוֹבֵד עֲבוֹדָה זָרָה: אֶת מִי עָבַד, וּבַמֶּה עָבַד? They would also ask: Do you recognize him as the man who committed the transgression? Did you warn him? They would then ask the witnesses about the particulars of the incident. For example, in the case of one who is an accused idol worshipper, they ask the witnesses: Whom, i.e., which idol, did he worship, and in what manner did he worship it, and so on.

כָּל הַמַּרְבֶּה בִּבְדִיקוֹת – הֲרֵי זֶה מְשׁוּבָּח. מַעֲשֶׂה וּבָדַק בֶּן זַכַּאי בְּעוּקְצֵי תְּאֵנִים. With regard to all judges who increase the number of examinations, i.e., who add questions about the details of the event, this is praiseworthy, as this may clarify that the witnesses are lying. An incident occurred and ben Zakkai examined the witnesses by questioning them about the color and shape of the stems of figs in order to unearth a contradiction between the witnesses.

מָה בֵּין חֲקִירוֹת לִבְדִיקוֹת? חֲקִירוֹת – אֶחָד אוֹמֵר ״אֵינִי יוֹדֵעַ״, עֵדוּתָן בְּטֵילָה. בְּדִיקוֹת – אֶחָד אוֹמֵר ״אֵינִי יוֹדֵעַ״, וַאֲפִילּוּ שְׁנַיִם אוֹמְרִים ״אֵין אָנוּ יוֹדְעִין״, עֵדוּתָן קַיֶּימֶת. אֶחָד חֲקִירוֹת וְאֶחָד בְּדִיקוֹת, בִּזְמַן שֶׁמַּכְחִישִׁין זֶה אֶת זֶה – עֵדוּתָן בְּטֵילָה. The mishna explains: What is the difference between interrogations and examinations? With regard to interrogations, if one of the witnesses says: I do not know the answer, their testimony is void immediately. With regard to examinations, if one says: I do not know the answer, and even if two say: We do not know the answer, their testimony still stands. Both with regard to interrogations and examinations, at a time when the witnesses contradict one another, their testimony is void.

אֶחָד אוֹמֵר: ״בִּשְׁנַיִם בְּחֹדֶשׁ״, וְאֶחָד אוֹמֵר: ״בִּשְׁלֹשָׁה בַּחֹדֶשׁ״ – עֵדוּתָן קַיֶּימֶת, שֶׁזֶּה יוֹדֵעַ בְּעִיבּוּרוֹ שֶׁל חֹדֶשׁ, וְזֶה אֵינוֹ יוֹדֵעַ בְּעִיבּוּרוֹ שֶׁל חֹדֶשׁ. The mishna clarifies: If one witness says the event occurred on the second of the month, and one witness says that the event occurred on the third of the month, this is not regarded as a contradiction and their testimony stands, since it is possible to say that this witness knows of the addition of a day to the previous month, and according to his tally the event occurred on the second of the month, and that witness does not know of the addition of a day to the previous month, and according to his tally the event occurred on the third of the month. Their testimony is not considered incongruent.

אֶחָד אוֹמֵר: ״בִּשְׁלֹשָׁה״, וְאֶחָד אוֹמֵר ״בַּחֲמִשָּׁה״ – עֵדוּתָן בְּטֵילָה. By contrast, if this witness says the event occurred on the third of the month and one witness says the event occurred on the fifth of the month, their testimony is void, as this disparity cannot be attributed to a mere error. Therefore, their testimony is not congruent.

אֶחָד אוֹמֵר: ״בִּשְׁתֵּי שָׁעוֹת״, וְאֶחָד אוֹמֵר: ״בְּשָׁלֹשׁ שָׁעוֹת״ – עֵדוּתָן קַיֶּימֶת. אֶחָד אוֹמֵר: ״בְּשָׁלֹשׁ״, וְאֶחָד אוֹמֵר: ״בְּחָמֵשׁ״ – עֵדוּתָן בְּטֵילָה. Similarly, if one witness says that the event occurred at two hours, i.e., the second hour of the day from sunrise, and one witness says that the event occurred at three hours, their testimony stands, as one could reasonably err this amount in estimating the hour of the day. By contrast, if one says that the event occurred at three hours, and one says that the event occurred at five hours, their testimony is void.

רַבִּי יְהוּדָה אוֹמֵר: קַיֶּימֶת. אֶחָד אוֹמֵר ״בְּחָמֵשׁ״, וְאֶחָד אוֹמֵר ״בְּשֶׁבַע״ – עֵדוּתָן בְּטֵילָה, שֶׁבְּחָמֵשׁ חַמָּה בַּמִּזְרָח וּבְשֶׁבַע חַמָּה בַּמַּעֲרָב. Rabbi Yehuda says: Also in this case their testimony stands, as one could reasonably err concerning even this length of time. Rabbi Yehuda adds: But if one says that the event occurred at five hours, and one says that the event occurred at seven hours, their testimony is void. Here the difference is recognizable to all, since at five hours the sun is in the east and at seven the sun is in the west, and one could not err concerning this. Therefore, their testimony is not congruent.

וְאַחַר כָּךְ מַכְנִיסִין אֶת הַשֵּׁנִי וּבוֹדְקִין אוֹתוֹ. אִם נִמְצְאוּ דִּבְרֵיהֶם מְכֻוָּונִים, פּוֹתְחִין בִּזְכוּת. אָמַר אֶחָד מִן הָעֵדִים: ״יֵשׁ לִי לְלַמֵּד עָלָיו זְכוּת״, אוֹ אֶחָד מִן הַתַּלְמִידִים: ״יֵשׁ לִי לְלַמֵּד עָלָיו חוֹבָה״ – מְשַׁתְּקִין אוֹתוֹ. אָמַר אֶחָד מִן הַתַּלְמִידִים: ״יֵשׁ לִי לְלַמֵּד עָלָיו זְכוּת״ – מַעֲלִין אוֹתוֹ וּמוֹשִׁיבִין אוֹתוֹ בֵּינֵיהֶם, וְלֹא הָיָה יוֹרֵד מִשָּׁם כׇּל הַיּוֹם כּוּלּוֹ. The mishna continues: And afterward, after the court examines the first witness, they bring in the second witness and examine him. If the statements of the witnesses are found to be congruent, the court begins to deliberate the matter. They open the deliberations with an appeal to anyone who can find a reason to acquit the accused. If one of the witnesses said: I can teach a reason to acquit him, or if one of the students sitting before the judges said: I can teach a reason to deem him liable, the judges silence him, i.e., both the witness and the student. The reason is that these people are not allowed to offer information such as this. But if one of the students said: I can to teach a reason to acquit him, they raise him to the seat of the court and seat him among them, and he would not descend from there the entire day, but would sit and participate in their deliberations.

אִם יֵשׁ מַמָּשׁ בִּדְבָרָיו, שׁוֹמְעִין לוֹ. וַאֲפִילּוּ הוּא אוֹמֵר: ״יֵשׁ לִי לְלַמֵּד עַל עַצְמִי זְכוּת״, שׁוֹמְעִין לוֹ, וּבִלְבַד שֶׁיֵּשׁ מַמָּשׁ בִּדְבָרָיו. If the statement of that student has substance, the court listens to him. And if even the accused says: I can teach a reason to acquit me, the court listens to him and considers his statement, provided that his statement has substance.

וְאִם מָצְאוּ לוֹ זְכוּת, פְּטָרוּהוּ. וְאִם לָאו, מַעֲבִירִין אוֹתוֹ לְמָחָר, וּמִזְדַּוְּוגִין זוּגוֹת זוּגוֹת. הָיוּ מְמַעֲטִין מִמַּאֲכָל, וְלֹא הָיוּ שׁוֹתִין יַיִן כׇּל הַיּוֹם, וְנוֹשְׂאִין וְנוֹתְנִין כׇּל הַלַּיְלָה. וְלַמׇּחֳרָת מַשְׁכִּימִין וּבָאִין לְבֵית דִּין. And if the court found it fit to acquit him during the deliberations, as all or a majority of the judges agreed to acquit him, they excuse him. But if a majority does not find it fit to acquit him, they delay his verdict to the following day, and they then assign pairs of judges to discuss the matter with each other. They would minimize their food intake and they would not drink wine all day. And they would deliberate all night, and the following day they would arise early and come to court and then vote again and tally the votes of the judges.

הַמְזַכֶּה אוֹמֵר: ״אֲנִי מְזַכֶּה, וּמְזַכֶּה אֲנִי בִּמְקוֹמִי״. וְהַמְחַיֵּיב אוֹמֵר: ״אֲנִי מְחַיֵּיב, וּמְחַיֵּיב אֲנִי בִּמְקוֹמִי״. הַמְלַמֵּד חוֹבָה מְלַמֵּד זְכוּת, אֲבָל הַמְלַמֵּד זְכוּת אֵינוֹ יָכוֹל לַחְזוֹר וּלְלַמֵּד חוֹבָה. טָעוּ בַּדָּבָר – שְׁנֵי סוֹפְרֵי הַדַּיָּינִין מַזְכִּירִין אוֹתוֹ. אִם מָצְאוּ לוֹ זְכוּת – פְּטָרוּהוּ, וְאִם לָאו – עוֹמְדִים לַמִּנְיָן. שְׁנֵים עָשָׂר מְזַכִּין וְאַחַד עָשָׂר מְחַיְּיבִין – זַכַּאי. One who yesterday was of the opinion to acquit the defendant says: I said to acquit, and I acquit in my place, i.e., I stand by my statement to acquit. And one who yesterday was of the opinion to deem him liable says: I said to deem him liable, and I deem him liable in my place. One who yesterday taught a reason to deem him liable may then teach a reason to acquit, but one who yesterday taught a reason to acquit may not then teach a reason to deem him liable. If they erred in the matter, as one of the judges forgot what he had said the previous day, two judges’ scribes, who recorded the statements of the judges, remind him. If the court then found it fit to acquit him unanimously, they excuse him, and if not all of the judges determine to acquit, they stand to count the vote. If twelve judges vote to acquit him and eleven judges deem him liable, he is acquitted.

שְׁנֵים עָשָׂר מְחַיְּיבִין וְאַחַד עָשָׂר מְזַכִּין, וַאֲפִילּוּ אַחַד עָשָׂר מְזַכִּין וְאַחַד עָשָׂר מְחַיְּיבִין וְאֶחָד אוֹמֵר ״אֵינִי יוֹדֵעַ״, וַאֲפִילּוּ עֶשְׂרִים וּשְׁנַיִם מְזַכִּין אוֹ מְחַיְּיבִין וְאֶחָד אוֹמֵר ״אֵינִי יוֹדֵעַ״ – יוֹסִיפוּ הַדַּיָּינִין. וְכַמָּה מוֹסִיפִין? שְׁנַיִם שְׁנַיִם, עַד שִׁבְעִים וְאֶחָד. The mishna continues: In a case where twelve judges deem him liable and eleven judges acquit; or even if eleven judges acquit and eleven deem him liable and one judge says: I do not know; or even if twenty-two judges acquit or deem him liable and one judge says: I do not know, the judge who said he does not know is disregarded, and the judges add additional judges to the court until they reach a definitive ruling. And how many judges do they add? They add pairs of two judges each time they do not reach a ruling until there are seventy-one judges, but no more than that.

שְׁלֹשִׁים וְשִׁשָּׁה מְזַכִּין וּשְׁלֹשִׁים וַחֲמִשָּׁה מְחַיְּיבִין – זַכַּאי. שְׁלֹשִׁים וְשִׁשָּׁה מְחַיְּיבִין וּשְׁלֹשִׁים וַחֲמִשָּׁה מְזַכִּין – דָּנִין אֵלּוּ כְּנֶגֶד אֵלּוּ, עַד שֶׁיִּרְאֶה אֶחָד מִן הַמְחַיְּיבִין דִּבְרֵי הַמְזַכִּין. At that point, if thirty-six judges acquit and thirty-five judges deem him liable, he is acquitted. If thirty-six judges deem him liable and thirty-five judges acquit, they continue to deliberate the matter, these judges against those judges, until one of those who deems him liable sees the validity of the statements of those who acquit and changes his position, as the court does not condemn a defendant to death by a majority of one judge.

גְּמָ׳ מְנָא הָנֵי מִילֵּי? אָמַר רַב יְהוּדָה: דְּאָמַר קְרָא ״וְדָרַשְׁתָּ וְחָקַרְתָּ וְשָׁאַלְתָּ הֵיטֵב״, וְאוֹמֵר ״וְהֻגַּד לְךָ וְשָׁמָעְתָּ וְדָרַשְׁתָּ הֵיטֵב״, וְאוֹמֵר ״וְדָרְשׁוּ הַשּׁוֹפְטִים הֵיטֵב״. GEMARA: The Gemara asks: From where are these matters derived? What is the source for these seven interrogations? Rav Yehuda says: It is as the verse states with regard to an idolatrous city: “And you shall inquire, and investigate, and ask diligently” (Deuteronomy 13:15); and it states with regard to one who worships idols: “If it be told to you and you have heard it and inquired diligently” (Deuteronomy 17:4); and it states with regard to conspiring witnesses: “And the judges shall inquire diligently” (Deuteronomy 19:18). Taken together, there are seven interrogations alluded to in these verses by each instance of the terms inquire, investigate, and diligently.

וְאֵימָא: חֲדָא חֲדָא כְּדִכְתִיבָא? דְּאִם כֵּן, לִיכְתְּבִינְהוּ רַחֲמָנָא בַּחֲדָא! כֵּיוָן דְּכוּלְּהוּ בַּהֲדֵי הֲדָדֵי כְּתִיבָא, מֵהֲדָדֵי יָלְפִי, וְכֵיוָן דְּיָלְפִי מֵהֲדָדֵי, כְּמַאן דִּכְתִיב בַּחֲדָא דָּמֵי. The Gemara asks: But why not say that each one is as it is written, and conclude that the Torah requires, respectively, three, two, and two interrogations in the three cases of idol worship, an idolatrous city, and conspiring witnesses, discussed in those verses? As, if it is so, i.e., if there is a requirement of seven interrogations in all cases of capital law, let the Merciful One write them in one place, and it would be derived from there to other cases. The Gemara answers: Since they are all written together, i.e., they all employ analogous terminology, one learns the halakhot of one from the other, and once one learns the halakhot of one from the other, they are considered as if they are written in one place.

וְהָא לָא דָּמְיָאן לַהֲדָדֵי? (סִימָן: פָּלֵט, סַיִיף, הַתְרָאָה.) The Gemara asks: But those three instances of idol worship, an idolatrous city, and conspiring witnesses are not similar to each other, so how can one derive the halakhot of one from the other? The Gemara records a mnemonic device for the following terms: Escapes, sword, forewarning.

עִיר הַנִּדַּחַת לְהָנָךְ תַּרְתֵּי לָא דָּמְיָא, שֶׁכֵּן מָמוֹנָן פָּלֵט. עֲבוֹדָה זָרָה לְהָנָךְ תַּרְתֵּי לָא דָּמְיָא, שֶׁכֵּן בְּסַיִיף. עֵדִים זוֹמְמִין לְהָנָךְ תַּרְתֵּי לָא דָּמְיָא, שֶׁכֵּן צְרִיכִים הַתְרָאָה. What are the differences? The case of an idolatrous city is not similar to those two, i.e., idol worship and conspiring witnesses, because for the others their money escapes their fate. Although the court executes those transgressors, their money is not confiscated. By contrast, in the case of an idolatrous city, not only are the residents executed, all of their property is destroyed. Idol worship is not similar to those two, as the other two transgressions are judged by the sword, while the punishment for idol worship is death by stoning. The case of conspiring witnesses is not similar to those two, as those who transgress the two other transgressions require forewarning in order to be liable for the transgression, while conspiring witnesses are not forewarned before they testify.

בְּ״הֵיטֵב״ ״הֵיטֵב״ יָלְפִינַן מֵהֲדָדֵי, וּגְזֵירָה שָׁוָה מוּפְנָה. דְּאִי לָא מוּפְנָה, אִיכָּא לְמִיפְרַךְ. לָאיֵי, אַפְנוֹיֵי מוּפְנֵי. מִדַּהֲוָה לֵיהּ לְמִיכְתַּב ״וְדָרְשׁוּ וְחָקְרוּ״, וְשַׁנִּי קְרָא בְּדִיבּוּרֵיהּ בְּ״הֵיטֵב״, שְׁמַע מִינַּהּ לְאַפְנוֹיֵי. The Gemara explains: This is not an association based on conceptual similarity alone; rather, we learn one from the other based on a verbal analogy employing the words “diligently” and “diligently.” “Diligently” is used in all three verses. The Gemara comments: And this verbal analogy must be free, i.e., these terms must be superfluous in their context. The Torah included them for the express purpose of establishing the verbal analogy. A verbal analogy that is based on otherwise extraneous terms cannot be logically refuted. This is because if these terms are not free, the verbal analogy can be refuted. The Gemara concludes: This is not so [la’ei], i.e., the verbal analogy cannot be refuted, as they are free. The Gemara explains: Since the Torah could have written: And they inquire and investigate, and the verse modified its statement by writing “diligently,” learn from it that this term’s function is to have it be free, to enable a verbal analogy.

וְאַכַּתִּי מוּפְנֶה מִצַּד אֶחָד הוּא! בִּשְׁלָמָא הָנָךְ תַּרְתֵּי מוּפְנֶה הוּא, מִשּׁוּם דַּהֲוָה לֵיהּ לְמִכְתַּב. אֶלָּא עִיר הַנִּדַּחַת, מַאי הֲוָה לֵיהּ לְמִכְתַּב? הָא כְּתִיבָא כּוּלְּהוּ! The Gemara challenges this explanation: And yet it is free on only one side, as the term is superfluous in two of the verses but not in all three of them. The Gemara explains: Granted, with regard to these two, idol worship and conspiring witnesses, it is free, because it could have been written only: And you inquire and you investigate, but instead the word “diligently” also appears in the verse. But in the verses concerning an idolatrous city, what could it have written differently? They are all written.

הָתָם נָמֵי אַפְנוֹיֵי מוּפְנֵה, מִדַּהֲוָה לֵיהּ לְמִכְתַּב ״דָּרוֹשׁ תִּדְרֹשׁ״ אוֹ ״חָקוֹר תַּחְקֹר״, וְשַׁנִּי קְרָא בְּדִיבּוּרֵיהּ בְּ״הֵיטֵב״ – שְׁמַע מִינַּהּ לְאַפְנוֹיֵי. The Gemara answers: There, it is also free, as the term is superfluous in that verse as well. Since the Torah could have written: You shall inquire, or: You shall investigate, in an emphatic form by doubling the verb, and the verse modified its statement by writing: “And you shall inquire and investigate diligently,” learn from it that this term’s function is to have it be free in order to enable a verbal analogy. By way of this verbal analogy, the Gemara has derived the requirement for seven interrogations in cases of capital law where the punishment is either death by stoning or death by the sword.

וְאָתוּ נֶחְנָקִין בְּקַל וָחוֹמֶר מִנִּסְקָלִין וּמִנֶּהֱרָגִין, וְאָתוּ נִשְׂרָפִין בְּקַל וָחוֹמֶר מִנִּסְקָלִין. The Gemara continues: And one can learn that this applies to those transgressors who are strangled as well, by means of an a fortiori inference from those transgressors who are stoned and from those who are killed by the sword. Just as in these cases, where the transgression is severe as evidenced by their severe mode of execution, seven interrogations are required, the requirement should apply all the more so to those transgressors who are strangled, who committed a less severe transgression. And one can learn that this applies to those transgressors who are burned as well, by means of an a fortiori inference from those transgressors who are stoned.

הָנִיחָא לְרַבָּנַן דְּאָמְרִי סְקִילָה חֲמוּרָה, אֶלָּא לְרַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן דְּאָמַר שְׂרֵיפָה חֲמוּרָה, מַאי אִיכָּא לְמֵימַר? The Gemara questions this last inference: This works out well according to the opinion of the Rabbis, who say that stoning is more severe than burning (see 49b). Consequently, it is possible to derive by means of an a fortiori inference the halakha of a transgression whose punishment is burning from the halakha of a transgression whose punishment is stoning. But according to the opinion of Rabbi Shimon, who says that burning is more severe than stoning, what is there to say?

אֶלָּא אָמַר רַב יְהוּדָה: ״וְהִנֵּה אֱמֶת נָכוֹן״, ״וְהִנֵּה אֱמֶת נָכוֹן״ – הָא חַד סְרֵי. שֶׁבַע – לְשֶׁבַע חֲקִירוֹת, דַּל תְּלָת – לִגְזֵירָה שָׁוָה, פָּשָׁא לְהוּ חֲדָא. Rather, Rav Yehuda said: There are an additional two phrases in the verses that are used to teach the halakha of the seven interrogations. The verse states with regard to the idolatrous city: “And you shall inquire, and investigate, and ask diligently and behold it be truth, the matter certain” (Deuteronomy 13:15). Additionally, the verse states with regard to idol worship: “You have inquired diligently and behold it be truth, the matter certain” (Deuteronomy 17:4). When one adds the two usages of “truth” and “certain” to the seven expressions stated earlier, consequently, there are eleven expressions; seven are used to teach the halakha of the seven interrogations, and of the four that remain, remove three, one for each verse, for the purpose of the verbal analogy, and one remains.

לְרַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן, לְאֵתוֹיֵי נִשְׂרָפִין. לְרַבָּנַן, מִילְּתָא דְּאָתְיָא בְּקַל וָחוֹמֶר – טָרַח וְכָתַב לַהּ קְרָא. According to the opinion of Rabbi Shimon, this additional expression serves to include the halakha that the seven interrogations applies to those transgressors who are burned. According to the opinion of the Rabbis as well, who learned this from an a fortiori inference, the additional expression teaches this same halakha, as with regard to a matter that can be derived through an a fortiori inference, the verse nevertheless takes the trouble and writes it explicitly.

מְגַדֵּף בַּהּ רַבִּי אֲבָהוּ: אֵימָא לְאֵתוֹיֵי שְׁמֹנֶה חֲקִירוֹת! וּשְׁמֹנֶה חֲקִירוֹת מִי אִיכָּא?! אַלְּמָה לָא? וְהָאִיכָּא לְאֵתוֹיֵי בְּכַמָּה בְּשָׁעָה. וְתַנְיָא נָמֵי הָכִי: הָיוּ בּוֹדְקִין אוֹתוֹ בִּשְׁמֹנֶה חֲקִירוֹת. Rabbi Abbahu ridiculed this explanation: Say this additional expression serves to add that there are eight interrogations. The Gemara asks: And are there eight interrogations? What interrogation can be added? The Gemara suggests: And why not? But there is the possibility to add this question to the interrogation: When in the hour, i.e., at what time within the hour. And this is also taught in a baraita: They would examine him with eight interrogations.

הָנִיחָא לְאַבָּיֵי אַלִּיבָּא דְּרַבִּי מֵאִיר, דְּאָמַר: אֵין אָדָם טוֹעֶה וְלֹא כְּלוּם, וּלְהַךְ לִישָּׁנָא נָמֵי דְּאָמַר: אָדָם טוֹעֶה מַשֶּׁהוּ – שַׁפִּיר. אֶלָּא לְאַבָּיֵי אַלִּיבָּא דְּרַבִּי יְהוּדָה, דְּאָמַר: אָדָם טוֹעֶה חֲצִי שָׁעָה, וּלְרָבָא דְּאָמַר: טָעוּ אִינָשֵׁי טוּבָא – מַאי אִיכָּא לְמֵימַר? The Gemara comments: This works out well according to the explanation of Abaye of the opinion of Rabbi Meir, who says, in explaining Rabbi Meir’s opinion: A person does not err at all, i.e., when witnesses state an hour in which an event occurred, it is assumed that they are completely accurate. And also according to the version of his statement that Abaye says: A person errs a bit; it is well. Consequently, there is a reason to ask at what time during the hour the event occurred. But according to the explanation of Abaye of the opinion of Rabbi Yehuda, who says, in explaining Rabbi Yehuda’s opinion: A person errs up to half an hour, and according to the opinion of Rava, who says: People err even more than that; what can be said? There is no reason to ask at what time during the hour the event occurred, as any inconsistency will be ascribed to an innocent error.

אֶלָּא, לְאֵתוֹיֵי בְּכַמָּה בַּיּוֹבֵל. The Gemara suggests: Rather, there is the possibility to add the question: In how many years within the jubilee, i.e., in which of the fifty years, the event occurred.

הַיְינוּ בְּאֵיזֶה שָׁבוּעַ! אֶלָּא, לְאֵתוֹיֵי בְּאֵיזֶה יוֹבֵל. וְאִידַּךְ: כֵּיוָן דְּאָמַר בְּאֵיזֶה שָׁבוּעַ, לָא בָּעֵי בְּאֵיזֶה יוֹבֵל. The Gemara questions this explanation: This is exactly the same question as: In which seven-year period of the jubilee did the event occur, as one can calculate the year within the jubilee by knowing the seven-year period. The Gemara suggests: Rather, there is the possibility to add the question of: In which jubilee cycle did the event occur, in the current cycle or the previous cycle? And the other Sage, i.e., Rabbi Abbahu, who assumes that there cannot be an eighth interrogation, holds that once the witness said in which seven-year period of the jubilee the event occurred, there is no need to ask in which jubilee it occurred, as the court would have no reason to think that he is testifying about an event that occurred fifty years prior.

רַבִּי יוֹסֵי אוֹמֵר. תַּנְיָא, אָמַר לָהֶם רַבִּי יוֹסֵי לַחֲכָמִים: לְדִבְרֵיכֶם, מִי שֶׁבָּא וְאָמַר ״אֶמֶשׁ הֲרָגוֹ״, אוֹמֵר לוֹ ״בְּאֵיזוֹ שָׁבוּעַ?״, ״בְּאֵיזוֹ שָׁנָה?״, ״בְּאֵיזֶה חֹדֶשׁ?״, ״בְּכַמָּה בַּחֹדֶשׁ?״ § The mishna teaches that Rabbi Yosei says they ask only on which day, at which hour, and in which place the event occurred, but not more. It is taught in a baraita the reasoning behind this dispute: Rabbi Yosei said to the Rabbis: According to your statement that the court asks all seven interrogations, when there is a witness who came to court and said: The accused killed the victim last night, should the judge say to him in his examination: In which seven-year period of the jubilee, in which year, in which month, on which day of the month did the accused murder the victim? What would be the purpose of asking these questions? It suffices that they ask him about the day, the time, and the place.

אָמְרוּ לוֹ: לִדְבָרֶיךָ, מִי שֶׁבָּא וְאָמַר ״עַכְשָׁו הֲרָגוֹ״, אוֹמֵר לוֹ ״בְּאֵיזֶה יוֹם?״, ״בְּאֵיזֶה שָׁעָה?״, ״בְּאֵיזֶה מָקוֹם?״ The Rabbis said to him: According to your statement, when there is a witness who came to court and said: The accused killed the victim just now, should the judge say to him in his examination: On which day, at which hour, in what place did the accused murder the victim? The witness already stated that the murder had just occurred.

אֶלָּא, אַף עַל גַּב דְּלָא צָרִיךְ, רָמֵינַן עֲלֵיהּ כִּדְרַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן בֶּן אֶלְעָזָר. הָכָא נָמֵי, אַף עַל גַּב דְּלָא צָרִיךְ, רָמֵינַן עֲלֵיהּ כִּדְרַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן בֶּן אֶלְעָזָר. The Rabbis continue: Rather, even according to your opinion, although it is not necessary to ask these questions in this particular case, we impose the obligation to answer all the interrogations on the witnesses, in accordance with the explanation of Rabbi Shimon ben Elazar, that the court beleaguers the witnesses in attempt to confuse them (see 32b). Here too, although it is not necessary to ask these questions in this particular case, we impose the obligation to answer all the interrogations on the witnesses, in accordance with the explanation of Rabbi Shimon ben Elazar.

וְרַבִּי יוֹסֵי: ״אֶמֶשׁ הֲרָגוֹ״ – שְׁכִיחַ בְּרוֹב עֵדִיּוֹת, ״עַכְשָׁיו הֲרָגוֹ״ – לָא שְׁכִיחַ בְּרוֹב עֵדִיּוֹת. The Gemara asks: And what would Rabbi Yosei respond to this claim? The Gemara explains: He holds that the witness testifying: The accused killed the victim last night, is common in most testimonies. Therefore, this testimony is taken into account when deciding the content of the interrogations. By contrast, the witness testifying: The accused killed the victim just now, is not common in most testimonies, i.e., it is relatively rare. Therefore, this testimony is not taken into account when deciding the content of the interrogations.

מַכִּירִים אַתֶּם אוֹתוֹ. תָּנוּ רַבָּנַן: מַכִּירִים אַתֶּם אוֹתוֹ? נׇכְרִי הָרַג? יִשְׂרָאֵל הָרַג? הִתְרִיתֶם בּוֹ? קִיבֵּל עָלָיו הַתְרָאָה? הִתִּיר עַצְמוֹ לְמִיתָה? הֵמִית בְּתוֹךְ כְּדֵי דִיבּוּר? § The mishna teaches that after the interrogations the court asks several questions essential to the testimony, such as: Do you recognize him? The Sages taught in a baraita: In a trial for murder, the court asks the witness: Do you recognize the accused? Did he kill a gentile? Did he kill a Jew? Did you forewarn him? Did he accept the forewarning on himself, i.e., acknowledge the warning? Did he release himself to death, i.e., acknowledge that he is aware that the court imposes capital punishment for murder? Did he kill within the time required for speaking a short phrase, as if not, he could claim he forgot the warning?

הָעוֹבֵד עֲבוֹדָה זָרָה. אֶת מִי עָבַד: לִפְעוֹר עָבַד? לְמַרְקוּלִיס עָבַד? וּבַמָּה עָבַד: בְּזִיבּוּחַ? בְּקִיטּוּר? בְּנִיסּוּךְ? בְּהִשְׁתַּחֲוָאָה? In the case of one who is an accused idol worshipper, the court asks the witness: Whom among the idols did he worship? Did he worship Peor? Did he worship Markulis? And in what manner did he worship? Was it by sacrificing an offering, or by burning incense, by pouring wine as a libation, or by prostrating before the idol?

אָמַר עוּלָּא: מִנַּיִין לְהַתְרָאָה מִן הַתּוֹרָה? שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר: ״וְאִישׁ אֲשֶׁר יִקַּח אֶת אֲחֹתוֹ בַּת אָבִיו אוֹ בַת אִמּוֹ וְרָאָה אֶת עֶרְוָתָהּ״. אַטּוּ בִּרְאִיָּה תַּלְיָא מִילְּתָא? אֶלָּא עַד שֶׁיַּרְאוּהוּ טַעְמוֹ שֶׁל דָּבָר. אִם אֵינוֹ עִנְיָן לְכָרֵת – Ulla says: From where in the Torah is the obligation of forewarning derived? As it is stated: “And if a man shall take his sister, his father’s daughter, or his mother’s daughter, and see her nakedness and she see his nakedness, it is a disgraceful deed and they shall be cut off in the sight of their people” (Leviticus 20:17). One can ask: Is that to say that the matter is dependent on sight? The transgression is engaging in sexual intercourse, not seeing each other. Rather, the meaning of “and see” is: He is not liable until he sees the reason of the matter, that it should be clear to him that he is committing a transgression by having been forewarned. If this halakha is not needed for the matter of excision [karet], as this punishment is in the hands of Heaven, and God is aware whether or not he acted intentionally,

וְקַבְעוּהָ בִּשְׁמֵיהּ. כִּי הֲוָה לָמַד, ״בֶּן זַכַּאי״ הֲוָה קָרֵי לֵיהּ, כְּתַלְמִיד הַיּוֹשֵׁב לִפְנֵי רַבּוֹ. כִּי הֲוָה לִימֵּד, הֲוָה קָרֵי לֵיהּ ״רַבָּן יוֹחָנָן בֶּן זַכַּאי״. כִּי קָרֵי לֵיהּ ״בֶּן זַכַּאי״ – עַל שֵׁם דְּמֵעִיקָּרָא, וְכִי קָרֵי לֵיהּ ״רַבָּן יוֹחָנָן בֶּן זַכַּאי״ – עַל שֵׁם דְּהַשְׁתָּא. and Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi established it in the mishna in his name. When he was studying, they called him ben Zakkai, in the manner that they would call a student sitting before his teacher, and when he was teaching others they called him Rabban Yoḥanan ben Zakkai. In terms of the baraita and the mishna, when they called him ben Zakkai in the Mishna, that was based on the name that he was called initially. And when they called him Rabban Yoḥanan ben Zakkai in the other baraita, that was based on the name that he was called now.

מַעֲשֶׂה וּבָדַק כּוּ׳. מָה בֵּין חֲקִירוֹת כּוּ׳. מַאי ״אֲפִילּוּ שְׁנַיִם אוֹמְרִים״? פְּשִׁיטָא! כִּי אָמַר אֶחָד ״אֵינִי יוֹדֵעַ״ – עֵדוּתָן קַיֶּימֶת, כִּי אָמְרִי בֵּי תְרֵי נָמֵי עֵדוּתָן קַיֶּימֶת! § The mishna teaches: An incident occurred, and ben Zakkai examined the witnesses about the stems of figs. What is the difference between interrogations and examinations? In the case of interrogations, if one of the witnesses says: I do not know the answer, their testimony is void immediately. In the case of examinations, if one says: I do not know the answer, and even if two witnesses say: We do not know the answer, their testimony still stands. The Gemara asks: What is the meaning of: Even if two say? Isn’t it obvious? The mishna already stated that when one witness says: I do not know, their testimony stands, indicating that knowledge of the answers to these types of questions is not required. Accordingly, when two witnesses say that they do not know, their testimony stands as well. What is the novelty of this ruling?

אָמַר רַב שֵׁשֶׁת: אַרֵישָׁא קָאֵי, וְהָכִי קָאָמַר: בַּחֲקִירוֹת, אֲפִילּוּ שְׁנַיִם אוֹמְרִים ״יָדַעְנוּ״ וְאֶחָד אוֹמֵר ״אֵינִי יוֹדֵעַ״ – עֵדוּתָן בְּטֵילָה. כְּמַאן? כְּרַבִּי עֲקִיבָא, דְּמַקֵּישׁ שְׁלֹשָׁה לִשְׁנַיִם. Rav Sheshet said: This clause is referring to the first clause of the mishna, and this is what it is saying: With regard to the interrogations, even if two witnesses say: We know, and one additional witness says: I do not know, their testimony is void. In accordance with whose opinion is this mishna written? In accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Akiva, who compares in all court proceedings three witnesses to two, holding that just as two witnesses must testify a fully valid testimony, so it is with three. Therefore, if the third witness does not know the answer to an interrogation, the testimony of all three is void.

אָמַר רָבָא: וְהָא ״עֵדוּתָן קַיֶּימֶת״ קָתָנֵי! אֶלָּא אָמַר רָבָא: הָכִי קָאָמַר: אֲפִילּוּ בַּחֲקִירוֹת, שְׁנַיִם אוֹמְרִים ״יָדַעְנוּ״ וְאֶחָד אוֹמֵר ״אֵינִי יוֹדֵעַ״ – עֵדוּתָן קַיֶּימֶת. כְּמַאן? דְּלָא כְּרַבִּי עֲקִיבָא. Rava says: But the mishna teaches: Their testimony stands, not: Their testimony is void. Rather, Rava said: This is what the mishna is saying: Even with regard to the interrogations, if two witnesses say: We know, and one witness says: I do not know, their testimony stands, as the court accepts the testimony of the two. In accordance with whose opinion is this mishna written? Not in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Akiva.

רַב כָּהֲנָא וְרַב סָפְרָא תָּנוּ סַנְהֶדְרִין בֵּי רַבָּה. פְּגַע בְּהוּ רָמֵי בַּר חָמָא. אֲמַר לְהוּ: מַאי אָמְרִיתוּ בַּהּ בְּסַנְהֶדְרִין דְּבֵי רַבָּה? אָמְרִי לֵיהּ: וּמַאי אָמְרִינַן בַּהּ בְּסַנְהֶדְרִין גְּרֵידְתָּא? וּמַאי קַשְׁיָא לָךְ? The Gemara relates: Rav Kahana and Rav Safra studied tractate Sanhedrin in the school of Rabba. Rami bar Ḥama encountered them. Rami bar Ḥama said to them: What do you say concerning tractate Sanhedrin that you learned in the school of Rabba? Rav Kahana and Rav Safra said to him: And what do we say concerning the regular tractate Sanhedrin? And what is difficult for you? Do you have a specific difficulty you would like answered?

אֲמַר לְהוּ, מֵהָא דְּקָתָנֵי: מָה בֵּין חֲקִירוֹת לִבְדִיקוֹת? חֲקִירוֹת – אֶחָד אוֹמֵר ״אֵינִי יוֹדֵעַ״, עֵדוּתָן בְּטֵילָה, בְּדִיקוֹת – אָמַר אֶחָד ״אֵינִי יוֹדֵעַ״, וַאֲפִילּוּ שְׁנַיִם אוֹמְרִים ״אֵין אָנוּ יוֹדְעִים״, עֵדוּתָן קַיֶּימֶת. מִכְּדֵי, אִידֵּי וְאִידֵּי דְּאוֹרָיְיתָא הִיא, מַאי שְׁנָא חֲקִירוֹת וּמַאי שְׁנָא בְּדִיקוֹת? Rami bar Ḥama said to them: I have a difficulty from that which is taught in the mishna: What is the difference between interrogations and examinations? In the case of interrogations, if one of the witnesses says: I do not know the answer, their testimony is void immediately. In the case of examinations, if one says: I do not know the answer, and even if two say: We do not know the answer, their testimony still stands. Rami bar Ḥama asks: After all, this type of question and that type of question are required by Torah law; what is different about interrogations and what is different about examinations? Why is there a difference in halakha between the two?

אָמְרִי לֵיהּ: הָכִי הַשְׁתָּא? בַּחֲקִירוֹת, אָמַר אֶחָד ״אֵינִי יוֹדֵעַ״ – עֵדוּתָן בְּטֵילָה, דְּהָוְיָא לַהּ עֵדוּת שֶׁאִי אַתָּה יָכוֹל לַהֲזִימָּהּ. בְּדִיקוֹת, אָמַר אֶחָד מֵהֶן ״אֵינִי יוֹדֵעַ״ – עֵדוּתָן קַיֶּימֶת, עֵדוּת שֶׁאַתָּה יָכוֹל לַהֲזִימָּהּ הוּא. Rav Kahana and Rav Safra said to him: How can these cases be compared? With regard to the interrogations, if one witness says: I do not know, their testimony is void, as it is testimony that you cannot render conspiratory testimony. If the witnesses do not state a specific time and place, there is no way for other witnesses to claim that the first witnesses had been with them elsewhere at the time they claim the event occurred. By contrast, with regard to the examinations, if one of the witnesses says: I do not know, their testimony stands, as it is testimony that you can render conspiratory testimony.

אֲמַר לְהוּ: אִי הָכִי אָמְרִיתוּ בַּהּ, טוּבָא אָמְרִיתוּ בַּהּ. אָמְרִי לֵיהּ: מִטֵּיבוּתֵיהּ דְּמָר אָמְרִינַן בַּהּ טוּבָא, מִנְּזִיהוּתֵיהּ דְּמָר לָא אָמְרִינַן בַּהּ וְלָא חֲדָא. Rami bar Ḥama said to them: If you said an incisive statement like this about this tractate, you said much about it. Rav Kahana and Rav Safra said to him: Due to the Master’s goodness, that is, due to your good will and desire to accept our answer to your question, we said much about it. But with the Master’s rebuke and challenge we would not say even one answer about it, i.e., if you had wished to criticize this answer you could have refuted it, and it would be as if we did not say any answer.

אֶחָד אוֹמֵר כּוּ׳. עַד כַּמָּה? אָמַר רַבִּי אַחָא בַּר חֲנִינָא, אָמַר רַבִּי אַסִּי, אָמַר רַבִּי יוֹחָנָן: עַד רוּבּוֹ שֶׁל חוֹדֶשׁ. § The mishna teaches that if one witness says the event occurred on the second of the month and one witness says that the event occurred on the third of the month, their testimony stands, since it is possible to say that one witness knows of the addition of a day to the previous month, while the other witness does not know of it. Their testimony is considered congruent. The Gemara asks: Until how many days into the month does the court assume that one of the witnesses does not know when the month began? Rabbi Aḥa bar Ḥanina says that Rabbi Asi says that Rabbi Yoḥanan says: Until the majority of the month has passed.

אָמַר רָבָא: אַף אֲנַן נָמֵי תְּנֵינָא, אֶחָד אוֹמֵר ״בִּשְׁלֹשָׁה״ וְאֶחָד אוֹמֵר ״בַּחֲמִשָּׁה״ – עֵדוּתָן בְּטֵילָה. וְאַמַּאי? נֵימָא שֶׁזֶּה יוֹדֵעַ בִּשְׁנֵי עִיבּוּרִין וְזֶה אֵינוֹ יוֹדֵעַ בִּשְׁנֵי עִיבּוּרִין? אֶלָּא לָאו, מִשּׁוּם דִּבְרוּבָּה יָדַע! Rava says: We learn this in the mishna as well, as it teaches: If one witness says the event occurred on the third of the month and one witness says the event occurred on the fifth of the month, their testimony is void. But why is it void? Let us say that it not a contradiction, as this witness knows of two additions, i.e., that a day was added to the two previous months, and that witness does not know of the two additions. Rather, is it not void because once the majority of the month passed a witness knows what day it is, so that an error of two days cannot occur?

לְעוֹלָם אֵימָא לָךְ: בְּרוּבָּה נָמֵי לָא יָדַע, וּבְשִׁיפּוּרָא יָדַע. בְּחַד שִׁיפּוּרָא אָמַר דְּטָעֵי, בִּתְרֵי שִׁיפּוּרֵי לָא אָמַר דְּטָעֵי. The Gemara rejects this proof: Actually, I could say to you that a witness may not know the day even once the majority of the month has passed. The reason for the ruling of the mishna is that he knows about the shofar [ubeshipura], which the court would blow at the New Moon. It is possible that with regard to one blast of the shofar it could be said that he erred and was not aware of it. With regard to two blasts of the shofar it cannot be said that he erred. By contrast, in the case of the mishna here, perhaps as long as the witnesses are testifying about two consecutive days within one month, the error of one of them persisted throughout the month.

וְאָמַר רַבִּי אַחָא בַּר חֲנִינָא אָמַר רַב אַסִּי אָמַר רַבִּי יוֹחָנָן: עַד כַּמָּה מְבָרְכִין עַל הַחֹדֶשׁ? עַד שֶׁתִּתְמַלֵּא פְּגִימָתָהּ. וְכַמָּה? אָמַר רַב יַעֲקֹב בַּר אִידִי אָמַר רַב יְהוּדָה: עַד שִׁבְעָה. נְהַרְדָּעֵי אָמְרִי: עַד שִׁשָּׁה עָשָׂר. § Having cited a statement of Rabbi Aḥa bar Ḥanina, citing Rabbi Asi, citing Rabbi Yoḥanan, the Gemara cites another statement in his name: Rabbi Aḥa bar Ḥanina says that Rav Asi says that Rabbi Yoḥanan says: Until how many days into a new month may one recite a blessing on the month, i.e., Birkat HaLevana? Until the flaw of the moon is filled, when it no longer appears deficient. And until how many days is that? Rav Ya’akov bar Idi says that Rav Yehuda says: Until seven days of the month have passed. The Sages of Neharde’a say: Until sixteen days of the month have passed.