סנהדרין לז

סנהדרין לז

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,