Babylonian Talmud

Rodkinson 1918 — source 15, scan section 67

ing of the sons of Aaron. As there the souls only were burned and the bodies remained, the same is the case here. Let us see ! He who infers it from the congregation of Korah, wherefrom does he know that the soul, and not the body, was burned? From [Num. xvii. 3]: "The censers of these sinners against their own souls." * Which means that the souls only were burned, but the bodies remained. And the other, who infers it from the sons of Aaron, maintains that this phrase means they were burned bodily, and the expression " own souls " means that they were liable to be burned because of their souls. And it is in accordance with Resh Lakish, who said elsewhere: It reads [Ps. xxxv., 16] : " With flattering, bab- bling mockers, they gnashed upon me with their teeth." which * Leeser translates " own lives " according to its sense. We, however, translate It literally, according to the Talmud. TRACT SANHEDRIN (SUPREME COUNCIL). 157 means that, because they had flattered Korah for the sake of entertainments (to which he used to invite them), the ruler of Gehenna gnashed upon them with his teeth. And he who in- ferred this from the sons of Aaron, wherefrom does he know that their souls only were burned, etc.? From [Lev. x. 2]: " And there went out a fire from before the Lord, and consumed them, and they died before the Lord," which means that, al- though they died before the Lord, they died as all others — only their corpses remained. And the other maintains that the sons of Aaron were burned bodily, and the expression, " they died," means, that the beginning was from inside the body. As we have learned in a Boraitha: Abba Jose b. Dusthai said: Two fire cords came out from the Holy of Holies chamber, and were divided into four: two of them entered the nostrils of one, and two the nostrils of the other, and burnt them. But is it not written, "and consumed them"? From which it is to be in- ferred " them," and not something else. Yea — " them," and not their garments. But why should burning not be inferred from the offerings of the bullocks, which were burned bodily? Common sense dictates that a man must be inferred from man, and not from cattle : as a man sins, and one infers a man who has sinned from another man, and from him whose soul was taken for his sin to him whose soul is to be taken. But he who infers it from Korah's congregation — why did he not infer it from the sons of Aaron? Because he maintains that the sons of Aaron were burned bodily, and to infer from them would not be proper, as R. Na'hman said in the name of Rabha b. Abuhu : From the phrase " Thou shalt love thy neighbor as thyself," we deduce that one may select a decent death for the sinner. But as the theory of R. Na'hman is accepted — why, then, the analogy of expressions at all? If not for the analogy, one might say that the burning of the soul, while the body remains, is not called burning at all, and that which is written, " Thou shalt love thy neighbor," etc., could be done by increasing the fire by bundles of fagots so that he should die quickly. Therefore the analogy of expression shows that such a burning, although the body remains, is called burning. There is a tradition that Moses and Aaron used to walk, and Nadob and Abihu followed them, and all Israel after them. And Nadob said to Abihu : When will the two old men die, and you and I be the leaders of Israel? To which the Holy One, 158 THE BABYLONIAN TALMUD. blessed be He, said : Time will show who will bury whom. Said R. Papa : This is what people say : " There are many old camels who are laden with the skins of young ones." R. Elazar said: A scholar, in the eyes of a commoner, at first acquaintance (the scholar) appears to him (the ignorant man) like a golden kithon. However, after he holds conversation with him, he appears like a silver kithon; if he accepts a benefit from him, he appears like an earthen one, which, once broken, cannot be mended. Aimretha bath Tli was the daughter of a priest, who had sinned, and R. Hama b. Tubiah surrounded her with bundles of twigs and burned her. And R. Joseph, when he heard this, said : He erred twice. In the explanation of the Mishna, in which, according to R. Na'hman, the sinner was burned with lead; and (b) he was not aware of the following Boraitha: It is written [Deut. xvii. 9] : " And thou shalt come unto the priests the Levites, and unto the judge that may be in those days." At that time, when the priests acted, judgments concerning capital punishments might be rendered; but when there were no more acting priests, no such judgment could be rendered. " Said Elazar h. Zadok," etc. Said R. Joseph : The court in question was of the Sadducees (who take the commandments of the Scripture literally). Did, indeed, Elazar say so? And the answer was as stated in the Mishna? Is there not a Boraitha which states: R. Elazar b Zadok said: I recollect, when I was a child, being carried upon the shoulders of my father, and a daughter of a priest, who was a sinner, was brought, and was surrounded with bundles of twigs and burned? To which the sages answered : At that time you were a child, and we cannot accept any evidence from a child? Two such cases happened in the days of R. Elazar, and when he was answered that no evidence of a child is to be taken into consideration, he related before them the other case which he saw when he was already of age, and to this they answered him : That court was an ig- norant one. MISHNA ///. : The prescribed punishment of slaying was thus: He was decapitated, as was customary with the Roman government. R. Jehudah. however, maintains: Such a death is repulsive. But they put his head on the (executioner's) block and cut it of( with a butcher's hatchet. And he was an- swered : There is not a more detestable death than this. GEMARA: There is a Boraitha: R. Jehudah said to the sages : I myself am aware that the death I explained is repul- TRACT SANHEDRIN (SUPREME COUNCIL). 159 sive; but what can we do against the Scripture, which reads [Lev. xviii. 13] : " And in their customs shall ye not walk," etc.? To which the rabbis answered : As this is written in the Scrip- ture, we are not learning this from them, but they learned it from us. And should one disagree with us, then what would he say to the following Boraitha: Garments and some other valuable things may be burned on the grave of kings, for the sake of their honor. And this custom is not considered the custom of the Amalekites. And why? It is because it is men- tioned in the Scripture [Jer. xxxiv. 5] : " And as burnings were made for thy father," etc., we do not learn from them. The same is the case here. Let us see! In the succeeding chapter, there is a Mishna: