Babylonian Talmud

Rodkinson 1918 — source 15, scan section 60

which applies to him, he is nevertheless to be executed by any death which is possible? From the verse cited, " he shall surely die," which means in any case? That case is different, as it reads, " he shall surely die." But let all other cases be inferred from it? Because the verse cited, which speaks of a murder, and the verse which speaks of the avenger of the one mur- dered, are two verses which dictate one and the same thing (death), and there is a rule that from two such verses nothing is to be inferred. What verse of the avenger is meant? [Ibid., ibid, 19] : " The avenger of the blood himself shall slay." In- fer from this that it is a meritorious act for the avenger to do so himself. And whence do we know that if the murdered one had none such, that the court is obliged to appoint one? From the end of the verse, "when he meeteth him, shall he slay him? " Said Mar the elder b. R. Hisda to R. Ashi : How can one say that it is not needed as the verse dictates? Does not Mishna 5 in Chapter viii. of this tract state that it must be done just as the verse dictates, and it is deduced from the Scripture. With the verse cited in the Mishna in question it is different, as that verse is altogether superfluous, and is written only so that it should be done just as it dictates. But does not a Boraitha say in the eleventh chapter, concerning a misled town, that if there was not a main street in this city, according to R. Ismael such is not to be recognized as a misled town, as the verse dictates, " You TRACT SANHEDRIN (SUPREME COUNCIL). 139 shall gather all its goods in the main street," and according to R. Aqiba a main street should be made? We see, then, that they differ only if such should be made or not, but both agree that it must be done just as the verse dictates? In this casr Tanaim differ, as a Mishna in Tract Negaim (xiv. 9) states*. If he (referring to Lev. xiv. 25) lacked the thumbs of his right hand and foot, or the right ear, he can never be purified. R. Eliezer, however, said : It may be done at the place they are lacking. And R. Simeon said : It shall be placed on the left one. MISHNA V. : All who are stoned are also hanged. So is the decree of R. Eliezer. The sages, however said: Only a blasphemer and an idolater are hanged (but no others). A male is hanged with his face toward the people, and a female with her face toward a tree. So R. Eliezer. The sages, how- ever, say : A male is hanged, but not a female. Said R. Eliezer to them : Did not Simeon b. Shetha hang females in the city of Askalon ? And he was answered : He hanged eighty women in one day, and there is a rule that even two must not be sentenced in one day, if the punishment is with the same death. (Hence Simeon's act was only temporary, because of the need of that time, and nothing is to be inferred from it.) GEMARA: The rabbis taught: It reads [Deut. xxi. 22]: " And he be put to death, and thou hang him on a tree." And lest one say: " All who are put to death must also be hanged," therefore it is written in the second verse [ibid., ibid. 23] : " For he that is hanged is a dishonor of God " (a blasphemer), and as a blasphemer is to be stoned, the same is the case with all others who are to be stoned. So R. Eliezer. The sages, however, say: that as with a blasphemer who has denied the cardinal prin- ciple of our faith (i.e., he does not believe in God), the same is the case with an idolater who denies the might of God, but all others who are stoned are not to be hanged. And what is the point of their difference ? According to the rabbis, when there is a general expression and an explicit statement, we infer from the general expression and from the explicit statement which comes after it. And R. Eliezer infers from additions and exclusions. According to the rabbis, " He should be put to death and hanged," is a general expression ; " The dishonor of God — hangs," is an expHcit statement. And if they were in one verse it might be said, that the general expression applies only to that which is in the explicit statement; viz., only those which are mentioned in that case, but no others. But as they I40 THE BABYLONIAN TALMUD. are in two verses, we infer from these an idolater, who is equal to a blasphemer in all particulars. And according to R. Eliezer, " He shall be put to death and hanged," is considered an addi- tion ; " the dishonor of God " is considered an exclusion. And if they were in one verse, we would add an idolater only ; but, seeing that they are in two verses, all the cases of stoning are to be added. " A male is to he hanged,'' etc. What is the reason of the rabbis? It reads, " thou hang him," which means him, but not her. And according to R. Eliezer, it means him, without his garments; and the rabbis also hold this theory But as it reads, " And if a man has committed," etc., it means a man, but not a woman. And R. Eliezer infers from the word " man," to ex- clude a stubborn and rebellious son. But is there not a Bor- aitha which states that, according to R. Eliezer, even a stubborn and rebellious son is stoned and hanged? Therefore said R. Na'hman b. Itz'hak: R. Eliezer infers from this to include a stubborn son, and his reason is this : It reads, " If a man," mean- ing a man, but not a son; " committed a sin," means he is put to death, because he has already committed a sin; but a stub- born son is put to death, not because he has sinned, but because in the future he will sin. And this is an exclusion after an exclu- sion, of which the rule is, that it comes to add. " Said R. Eliezer to them" etc. Said R. Hisda : Two must not be judged on the same day, provided there are two kinds of death; but if there is only one kind, two may be judged. But was not the case of Simeon b. Shetha one kind of death? And nevertheless it was said to him : Two cases of capital punishment must not be judged on one day. Therefore if it was taught in the name of R. Hisda, it was thus : Provided there is one kind of death applicable to two kinds — namely, for two separate crimes; but if there was only one crime, and only one kind of death, it may. R. Ada b, Ahabah objected from the following: Two must not be judged in one day, even in the case of adultery — the two adulterers, he and she? R. Hisda explained this Boraitha, that it speaks of a daughter of a priest, and her para- mour, in which case, according to the law, she is to be burned and he is to be stoned. Hence there are two diflferent kinds of death. There is a Boraitha : R. Eliezer b. Jacob said : I have heard that the court may punish with stripes and even capital punishment, not in accordance with the biblical law — not with