| 43a. (ויקרא כד, כג) ובני ישראל עשו כאשר צוה ה' את משה,אלא מעתה (ויקרא כד, כג) וירגמו אותו אבן מאי עבדי ליה ההוא מבעי ליה לכדתניא וירגמו אותו באבן אותו ולא בכסותו אבן שאם מת באבן אחת יצא,ואצטריך למיכתב אבן ואיצטריך למיכתב אבנים דאי כתב רחמנא אבן הוה אמינא היכא דלא מת בחדא לא ניתי אחריתי ומיקטליה כתב רחמנא אבנים ואי כתב רחמנא אבנים הוה אמינא מעיקרא נייתי תרתי כתב רחמנא אבן,והא האי תנא נאמר קאמר אילו לא נאמר קאמר וה"ק אילו לא נאמר קרא הייתי אומר גזירה שוה עכשיו שנאמר קרא גזירה שוה לא צריך,רב אשי אמר משה היכא הוה יתיב במחנה לוייה ואמר ליה רחמנא הוצא את המקלל חוץ למחנה לוייה אל מחוץ למחנה חוץ למחנה ישראל ויוציאו את המקלל לעשייה,עשייה בהדיא כתיב בהו ובני ישראל עשו כאשר צוה ה' את משה ההוא מיבעי ליה חד לסמיכה וחד לדחייה,אמרו ליה רבנן לרב אשי לדידך כל הני הוציא דכתיבי בפרים הנשרפים מאי דרשת בהו קשיא:,אחד עומד כו': אמר רב הונא פשיטא לי אחד אבן שנסקל בה ואחד עץ שנתלה בו ואחד סייף שנהרג בו ואחד סודר שנחנק בו כולן משל צבור מ"ט דמדידיה לא אמרינן ליה זיל וליתיה וליקטול נפשיה,בעי רב הונא סודר שמניפין בו וסוס שרץ ומעמידן משל מי הוא כיון דהצלה דידיה מדידיה הוא או דילמא כיון דבי דינא מחייבין למעבד בה הצלה מדידהו,ותו הא דאמר ר' חייא בר רב אשי אמר רב חסדא היוצא ליהרג משקין אותו קורט של לבונה בכוס של יין כדי שתטרף דעתו שנאמר (משלי לא, ו) תנו שכר לאובד ויין למרי נפש ותניא נשים יקרות שבירושלים היו מתנדבות ומביאות אותן לא התנדבו נשים יקרות משל מי הא ודאי מסתברא משל צבור כיון דכתיב תנו מדידהו,בעא מיניה רב אחא בר הונא מרב ששת אמר אחד מן התלמידים יש לי ללמד עליו זכות ונשתתק מהו מנפח רב ששת בידיה נשתתק אפילו אחד בסוף העולם נמי התם לא קאמר הכא קאמר מאי,תא שמע דאמר רבי יוסי בר חנינא אחד מן התלמידים שזיכה ומת רואין אותו כאילו חי ועומד במקומו זיכה אין לא זיכה לא,זיכה פשיטא לי אמר תיבעי לך:,אפילו הוא כו': ואפילו פעם ראשונה ושניה והתניא פעם ראשונה ושניה בין שיש ממש בדבריו בין שאין ממש בדבריו מחזירין אותו מכאן ואילך אם יש ממש בדבריו מחזירין אותו אין ממש בדבריו אין מחזירין אותו,אמר רב פפא תרגומה מפעם שניה ואילך,מנא ידעי אמר אביי דמסרינן ליה זוגא דרבנן אי איכא ממש בדבריו אין אי לא לא,ולימסר ליה מעיקרא אגב דבעית לא מצי אמר כל מאי דאית ליה:, big strongמתני׳ /strong /big מצאו לו זכות פטרוהו ואם לאו יצא ליסקל וכרוז יוצא לפניו איש פלוני בן פלוני יוצא ליסקל על שעבר עבירה פלונית ופלוני ופלוני עדיו כל מי שיודע לו זכות יבא וילמד עליו:, big strongגמ׳ /strong /big אמר אביי וצריך למימר ביום פלוני ובשעה פלונית ובמקום פלוני דילמא איכא דידעי ואתו ומזים להו:,וכרוז יוצא לפניו לפניו אין מעיקרא לא והתניא בערב הפסח תלאוהו לישו והכרוז יוצא לפניו מ' יום ישו יוצא ליסקל על שכישף והסית והדיח את ישראל כל מי שיודע לו זכות יבא וילמד עליו ולא מצאו לו זכות ותלאוהו בערב הפסח,אמר עולא ותסברא בר הפוכי זכות הוא מסית הוא ורחמנא אמר (דברים יג, ט) לא תחמול ולא תכסה עליו אלא שאני ישו דקרוב למלכות הוה,ת"ר חמשה תלמידים היו לו לישו מתאי נקאי נצר ובוני ותודה אתיוהו למתי אמר להו מתי יהרג הכתיב (תהלים מב, ג) מתי אבוא ואראה פני אלהים אמרו לו אין מתי יהרג דכתיב (שם מא, ו) מתי ימות ואבד שמו,אתיוהו לנקאי אמר להו נקאי יהרג הכתיב (שמות כג, ז) ונקי וצדיק אל תהרוג אמרו לו אין נקאי יהרג דכתיב (תהלים י, ח) במסתרים יהרג נקי,אתיוהו לנצר אמר נצר יהרג הכתיב (ישעיה יא, א) ונצר משרשיו יפרה אמרו לו אין נצר יהרג דכתיב (שם יד, יט) ואתה השלכת מקברך כנצר נתעב,אתיוהו לבוני אמר אמר בוני יהרג הכתיב (שמות ד, כב) בני בכורי ישראל אמרו לי' אין בוני יהרג דכתיב (שם, כג) הנה אנכי הורג את בנך בכורך,אתיוהו לתודה אמר תודה יהרג הכתיב (תהלים ק, א) מזמור לתודה אמרו לו אין תודה יהרג דכתיב (שם נ, כג) זובח תודה יכבדנני | 43a. b “And the children of Israel did as the Lord commanded Moses.” /b ,The Gemara asks: b If that is so, what do they do with /b the words in the verse: b “And they stoned him with a stone”? /b These words appear to be superfluous, as even without them we would know that God’s instructions to stone the blasphemer were implemented. What then do they serve to teach? The Gemara answers: b That /b phrase is b necessary for that which is taught /b in a i baraita /i : The verse states: b “And they stoned him with a stone.” /b The word b “him” /b teaches that they stoned him alone, while he was naked, b but not /b while he was b in his clothing. /b The verse uses the singular term b “stone [ i aven /i ]” /b rather than the plural term stones [ i avanim /i ] to teach b that if /b the condemned man b died /b after being struck b with one stone, /b the court has b fulfilled /b its obligation.,The Gemara notes: b And /b it b was necessary to write /b with regard to the blasphemer that “they stoned him with b a stone,” /b in the singular, b and /b it b was necessary to write /b with regard to the man who gathered sticks on Shabbat that “they stoned him with b stones” /b (Numbers 15:36), in the plural. b As, had the Merciful One written /b only b “stone,” I would say /b that b where /b the condemned man b did not die /b after being struck b with one /b stone, b they do not bring other /b stones b and kill him /b with them. Therefore, b the Merciful One writes “stones.” And had the Merciful One written /b only b “stones,” I would say /b that b from the outset they should bring two /b or more stones. Therefore, b the Merciful One writes “stone.” /b ,The Gemara raises an objection to Rav Pappa’s derivation: b But this i tanna /i /b of the i baraita /i cited above b said: It is stated /b here and it is stated elsewhere, thereby basing his derivation on a verbal analogy between the verse concerning the blasphemer and the verse concerning the bulls brought as sin-offerings that are burned. How, then, can Rav Pappa, an i amora /i , disagree and derive the i halakha /i directly from the verse dealing with the blasphemer? The Gemara answers: According to Rav Pappa, the i tanna /i of the i baraita /i b said: Had it not been stated, and this /b is what he b is saying: Had a verse not been stated /b from which it can be directly derived that the condemned man is stoned outside all three camps, b I would have said /b that this can be learned by way of b a verbal analogy. /b But b now that /b such b a verse has been stated, /b the b verbal analogy is not needed. /b , b Rav Ashi said: /b The location of the place of stoning can be directly derived from the verse discussing the blasphemer but in a slightly different manner. b Where was Moses sitting /b when the matter of the blasphemer was brought before him? b In the Levite camp. And the Merciful One said to him: “Take out him who has cursed” /b (Leviticus 24:14), indicating that he should be taken b outside the Levite camp /b into the Israelite camp. And God continued in that verse: b “Outside the camp,” /b which is an additional command that he should be removed even further, to b outside the Israelite camp. /b And the later verse, which says: b “And they brought him that had cursed /b out of the camp…and the children of Israel did as the Lord commanded Moses” (Leviticus 24:23), teaches us b about the implementation /b of God’s instructions, i.e., that the children of Israel did in fact carry out His command.,The Gemara raises an objection: b The implementation /b of God’s instructions is b written explicitly in this /b context, as it is stated in the continuation of the verse: b “And the children of Israel did as the Lord commanded Moses.” /b The Gemara answers: b That /b verse b is necessary /b to teach us that not only was the condemned man taken outside the three camps and stoned, but the rest of God’s instructions were also fulfilled. These instructions relate b to the placing /b of the witnesses’ b hands /b upon the head of the condemned man, as it is stated: “And let all that heard him place their hands upon his head” (Leviticus 24:14), b and to the /b witnesses’ b pushing /b of the condemned man from a platform the height of two stories., b The Sages said to Rav Ashi: According to you, /b that the expression “take out” by itself means outside the camp, and “outside the camp” means outside an additional camp, b what do you learn from all those /b instances of b “take out” that are written with regard to the bulls /b brought as sin-offerings b that are burned? /b According to your explanation, there are many superfluous phrases in the verses. The Gemara comments: Indeed, this is b difficult /b with regard to the opinion of Rav Ashi.,§ The mishna teaches that b one /b man b stands /b at the entrance to the court, with cloths in his hand, ready to signal to the court agents leading the condemned man to his execution that some doubt has been raised with respect to the latter’s guilt. b Rav Huna says: /b It is b obvious to me /b that b the stone with which /b the condemned man b is stoned and the tree on which /b his corpse b is hung /b after his execution, b or the sword with which he is killed, or the scarf with which he is strangled, all of these /b come b from /b the property of b the community. What is the reason /b for this? b We do not tell /b the condemned man to b go and bring /b these items b from his own /b property b and /b effectively b kill himself. /b , b Rav Huna raised /b a dilemma: With regard to b the cloth that is waved and the horse that races /b off after the court agents b to stop /b the latter from carrying out the execution, b from whose /b property b do they come, /b that of the condemned man or that of the community? The Gemara explains the two sides of the dilemma: b Since /b they are needed to b save /b the man being led to his execution, these items should be taken b from his /b property. b Or perhaps, since the court is obligated to /b take all possible measures to b save him /b from death, they should be taken b from them, /b i.e., the community., b And furthermore, /b another question is raised along similar lines: With regard to b that which Rav Ḥiyya bar Ashi says /b that b Rav Ḥisda says: /b The court b gives one who is being led out to be killed a grain [ i koret /i ] of frankincense in a cup of wine in order to confuse his mind /b and thereby minimize his suffering from the fear of his impending death, b as it is stated: “Give strong drink to him that is ready to perish, and wine to the bitter in soul” /b (Proverbs 31:6). b And it is taught /b in a i baraita /i : b The prominent women of Jerusalem would donate /b this drink b and bring /b it to those being led out to be killed. The question is: If b these prominent women did not donate /b this drink, b from whom /b is it taken? The Gemara answers: With regard to b this /b question, it b is certainly reasonable /b that this drink should be taken b from the community, as it is written: “Give [ i tenu /i ] /b strong drink,” in the plural, indicating that it should come b from them, /b the community.,§ b Rav Aḥa bar Huna asked Rav Sheshet: /b If b one of the students /b sitting before the judges b said: I can teach /b a reason to b acquit him, and he became mute /b and cannot explain himself, b what is /b the i halakha /i in such a case? Does the court take heed of his words, or do they disregard him? b Rav Sheshet waved his hands /b in scorn and said: If the student b became mute, /b the court certainly does not pay attention to him, as were the court to concern themselves with what he said, they would have to be concerned b even /b that perhaps there is b someone at the end of the world /b who can propose an argument in the condemned man’s favor. The Gemara rejects this argument: The cases are not similar. b There, no one said /b that he had a reason to acquit the condemned man. b Here, /b the student already b said /b that he had a reason to acquit the condemned man. The question, therefore, is appropriate. b What /b is the i halakha /i in such a case?,The Gemara suggests: b Come /b and b hear /b an answer: b As Rabbi Yosei bar Ḥanina says: /b In a case where there was b one of the students who /b argued to b acquit /b the defendant b and /b then b died, /b the court b views him as if /b he were b alive and standing in his place /b and voting to acquit the defendant. The implication is that if b he /b argued to b acquit /b the defendant and explained his reasoning, b yes, /b the court counts his vote as if he were still alive. But if b he did not /b actually argue to b acquit /b the defendant, but only said that he wished to propose such an argument, his vote is b not /b counted as though he were still alive.,The Gemara rejects this proof: If the student b argued /b to b acquit /b the defendant, it is b obvious to me /b that he should be counted among those favoring acquittal. But if he only b says /b that he wishes to propose such an argument, b let the dilemma be raised /b whether or not he should be regarded as having presented a convincing argument in favor of acquittal. The question is left unresolved.,The mishna teaches: And b even /b if b he, /b the condemned man himself, says: I can teach a reason to acquit myself, he is returned to the courthouse even four or five times, provided that there is substance to his words. The Gemara asks: b And /b is the i halakha /i that there must be substance to his words b even the first and second time /b that the condemned man says that he can teach a reason to acquit himself? b But isn’t it taught /b in a i baraita /i : b The first and second times /b that he says that he can teach a reason to acquit himself, b they return him /b to the courthouse and consider b whether there is substance to his statement or there is no substance to his statement. From this /b point b forward, if there is substance to his statement they return him /b to the courthouse, but if b there is no substance to his statement, they do not return him. /b This appears to contradict the mishna., b Rav Pappa said: Explain /b that the mishna’s ruling applies only b from /b after b the second time forward, /b that from that point on we examine whether there is substance to his words.,The Gemara asks: b How do we know /b whether or not there is substance to his words? b Abaye said: /b If the condemned man has already been returned twice to the courthouse, b we send a pair of rabbis with him /b to evaluate his claim. b If /b they find that b there is substance to his statement, yes, /b he is returned once again to the courthouse; b if not, /b he is b not /b returned.,The Gemara asks: b But /b why not b send /b a pair of rabbis b with him from the outset, /b even the first time, and have them make an initial assessment of his claim? The Gemara answers: b Since /b a man facing execution b is frightened /b by the thought of his impending death, b he is not able to say all that he has /b to say, and perhaps out of fear he will be confused and not provide a substantial reason to overturn his verdict. Therefore, the first two times he is returned to the courthouse without an initial examination of his arguments. Once he has already been returned on two occasions, the court allows for no further delay, and they send two rabbis to evaluate his claim before returning him a third time., strong MISHNA: /strong If, after the condemned man is returned to the courthouse, the judges b find /b a reason to b acquit him, they /b acquit him and b release him /b immediately. b But if /b they do b not /b find a reason to acquit him, b he goes out to be stoned. And a crier goes out before him /b and publicly proclaims: b So-and-so, son of so-and-so, is going out to be stoned because he committed such and such a transgression. And so-and-so and so-and-so are his witnesses. Anyone who knows /b of a reason to b acquit him should come /b forward b and teach /b it b on his behalf. /b , strong GEMARA: /strong b Abaye says: And /b the crier b must /b also publicly b proclaim /b that the transgression was committed b on such and such a day, at such and such an hour, and at such and such a place, /b as b perhaps there are those who know /b that the witnesses could not have been in that place at that time, b and they will come /b forward b and render /b the witnesses b conspiring witnesses. /b ,The mishna teaches that b a crier goes out before /b the condemned man. This indicates that it is only b before him, /b i.e., while he is being led to his execution, that b yes, /b the crier goes out, but b from the outset, /b before the accused is convicted, he does b not /b go out. The Gemara raises a difficulty: b But isn’t it taught /b in a i baraita /i : b On Passover Eve they hung /b the corpse of b Jesus the Nazarene /b after they killed him by way of stoning. b And a crier went out before him /b for b forty days, /b publicly proclaiming: b Jesus the Nazarene is going out to be stoned because he practiced sorcery, incited /b people to idol worship, b and led the Jewish people astray. Anyone who knows /b of a reason to b acquit him should come /b forward b and teach /b it b on his behalf. And /b the court b did not find /b a reason to b acquit him, and /b so b they /b stoned him and b hung his /b corpse b on Passover eve. /b , b Ulla said: And /b how can b you understand /b this proof? Was b Jesus the Nazarene worthy of /b conducting b a search /b for a reason to b acquit /b him? b He /b was b an inciter /b to idol worship, b and the Merciful One states /b with regard to an inciter to idol worship: b “Neither shall you spare, neither shall you conceal him” /b (Deuteronomy 13:9). b Rather, Jesus was different, as he /b had b close /b ties b with the government, /b and the gentile authorities were interested in his acquittal. Consequently, the court gave him every opportunity to clear himself, so that it could not be claimed that he was falsely convicted.,Apropos the trial of Jesus, the Gemara cites another i baraita /i , where b the Sages taught: Jesus the Nazarene had five disciples: Mattai, Nakai, Netzer, Buni, and Toda. They brought Mattai in /b to stand trial. Mattai b said to /b the judges: b Shall Mattai be executed? /b But b isn’t it written: “When [ i matai /i ] shall I come and appear before God?” /b (Psalms 42:3). Mattai claimed that this verse alludes to the fact he is righteous. b They said to him: Yes, Mattai shall be executed, as it is written: “When [ i matai /i ] shall he die, and his name perish?” /b (Psalms 41:6).,Then b they brought Nakai in /b to stand trial. Nakai b said /b to the judges: b Shall Nakai be executed? /b But b isn’t it written: “And the innocent [ i naki /i ] and righteous you shall not slay” /b (Exodus 23:7)? b They said to him: Yes, Nakai shall be executed, as it is written: “In secret places he kills the innocent [ i naki /i ]” /b (Psalms 10:8).,Then b they brought Netzer in /b to stand trial. b He said /b to the judges: b Shall Netzer be executed? /b But b isn’t it written: “And a branch [ i netzer /i ] shall grow out of his roots” /b (Isaiah 11:1)? b They said to him: Yes, Netzer shall be executed, as it is written: “But you are cast out of your grave like an abhorred branch [ i netzer /i ]” /b (Isaiah 14:19).,Then b they brought Buni in /b to stand trial. Buni b said /b to the judges: b Shall Buni be executed? /b But b isn’t it written: “My firstborn son [ i beni /i ] is Israel” /b (Exodus 4:22)? b They said to him: Yes, Buni shall be executed, as it is written: “Behold, I shall kill your firstborn son [ i binkha /i ]” /b (Exodus 4:23).,Then b they brought Toda in /b to stand trial. Toda b said /b to the judges: b Shall Toda be executed? /b But b isn’t it written: “A psalm of thanksgiving [ i toda /i ]” /b (Psalms 100:1)? b They said to him: Yes, Toda shall be executed, as it is written: “Whoever slaughters a thanks-offering [ i toda /i ] honors Me” /b (Psalms 50:23). |
