Sanhedrin 81b

אֲמַר לֵיהּ: אַדָּא בְּרִי, בִּתְרֵי קְטָלֵי קָטְלַתְּ לֵיהּ?

Rava said to him: Adda my son, will you kill him with two death penalties? Rabbi Yosei concedes that the prohibition of engaging in intercourse with a married woman takes effect in addition to the prohibition of engaging in intercourse with his mother-in-law. If he had violated the transgression unwittingly, he would have been liable to bring two sin-offerings. But if he violated the transgression intentionally, it is impossible to execute him by strangulation after executing him by burning.

מַתְנִי׳ מִי שֶׁלָּקָה וְשָׁנָה, בֵּית דִּין מַכְנִיסִין אוֹתוֹ לַכִּיפָּה, וּמַאֲכִילִין אוֹתוֹ שְׂעוֹרִין עַד שֶׁכְּרֵיסוֹ מִתְבַּקַּעַת.

MISHNA: One who was flogged for violating a prohibition and then repeated the violation and was flogged again assumes the status of a forewarned transgressor. The court places him into the vaulted chamber [ lakippa ] and feeds him barley bread until his belly ruptures due to the low-quality food, and he dies.

גְּמָ׳ מִשּׁוּם דְּלָקָה וְשָׁנָה, בֵּית דִּין כּוֹנְסִין אוֹתוֹ לַכִּיפָּה? אָמַר רַבִּי יִרְמְיָה אָמַר רַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן בֶּן לָקִישׁ: הָכָא בְּמַלְקִיּוֹת שֶׁל כָּרֵיתוֹת עָסְקִינַן, דְּגַבְרָא בַּר קְטָלָא הוּא, וְקָרוֹבֵי הוּא דְּלָא מְיקָרַב קְטָלֵיהּ. וְכֵיוָן דְּקָא מְוַותַּר לַהּ לְנַפְשֵׁיהּ, מְקָרְבִינַן לֵיהּ לִקְטָלֵיהּ עִילָּוֵיהּ.

GEMARA: Due to the fact that he was flogged and repeated the violation does the court place him into the vaulted chamber for the duration of his life and advance his death? Rabbi Yirmeya says that Rabbi Shimon ben Lakish says: Here, we are dealing with lashes administered for violations of prohibitions punishable by excision from the World-to-Come [ karet ]. As when one violates such a prohibition, the man is essentially liable to be punished with death at the hand of Heaven, but his death is not advanced by the court, as it is administered by the heavenly court. And in this case, since he surrenders his life through his repeated transgressions, we advance his execution upon him by placing him in the vaulted chamber.

אֲמַר לֵיהּ רַבִּי יַעֲקֹב לְרַבִּי יִרְמְיָה בַּר תַּחְלִיפָא: תָּא אַסְבְּרָא לָךְ, בְּמַלְקִיּוֹת שֶׁל כָּרֵת אַחַת, אֲבָל שֶׁל שְׁתַּיִם וְשֶׁל שָׁלֹשׁ כָּרֵיתוֹת – אִיסּוּרֵי הוּא דְּקָא טָעֵים, וְלָא מְוַותַּר כּוּלֵּי הַאי.

Rabbi Ya’akov said to Rabbi Yirmeya bar Taḥlifa: Come and I will explain to you the circumstances of this halakha . It is in a case where he was flogged with lashes for repeatedly violating one prohibition punishable with karet that he is considered to have surrendered his life. But if he received lashes for violating two or for violating three different prohibitions punishable with karet , he is not placed in the vaulted chamber, as he merely is tasting the taste of prohibition and wants to enjoy the different experiences, and he is not thereby surrendering his life to that extent.

מִי שֶׁלָּקָה וְשָׁנָה. שָׁנָה אַף עַל גַּב דְּלָא שִׁילֵּשׁ. לֵימָא מַתְנִיתִין דְּלָא כְּרַבָּן שִׁמְעוֹן בֶּן גַּמְלִיאֵל? דְּאִי רַבָּן שִׁמְעוֹן בֶּן גַּמְלִיאֵל, הָא אָמַר: עַד תְּלָת זִימְנֵי לָא הָוְיָא חֲזָקָה.

§ The mishna teaches: One who was flogged for violating a prohibition and then repeated the violation, the court places him into the vaulted chamber. The Gemara infers: He is placed in the vaulted chamber if he repeated the violation, doing it a second time, even if he did not again repeat the violation, doing it a third time. Let us say that the mishna is not in accordance with the opinion of Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel, as if it is in accordance with the opinion of Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel, doesn’t he say: Presumptive status is not established until the action is performed three times? In his opinion, only after violating the prohibition three times would one assume the status of a forewarned transgressor.

אָמַר רָבִינָא: אֲפִילּוּ תֵּימָא רַבָּן שִׁמְעוֹן בֶּן גַּמְלִיאֵל, קָסָבַר עֲבֵירוֹת מַחֲזִיקוֹת.

Ravina rejects that proof and says: Even if you say that the mishna is in accordance with the opinion of Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel, the tanna holds that transgressions, not lashes, establish the presumptive status of a transgressor. Therefore, the mishna that teaches: One who was flogged for violating a prohibition and then repeated the violation and was flogged, is placed in the vaulted chamber only after he violated the prohibition a third time, is in accordance with the opinion of Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel.

מֵיתִיבִי: עָבַר עֲבֵירָה שֶׁיֵּשׁ בָּהּ מַלְקוֹת, פַּעַם רִאשׁוֹנָה וּשְׁנִיָּה מַלְקִין אוֹתוֹ, וּשְׁלִישִׁית כּוֹנְסִין אוֹתוֹ לַכִּיפָּה. אַבָּא שָׁאוּל אוֹמֵר: אַף בַּשְּׁלִישִׁית מַלְקִין אוֹתוֹ, בָּרְבִיעִית כּוֹנְסִין אוֹתוֹ לַכִּיפָּה. מַאי לָאו דְּכוּלֵּי עָלְמָא מַלְקִיּוֹת מַחְזִיקוֹת, וּבִפְלוּגְתָּא דְּרַבִּי וְרַבָּן שִׁמְעוֹן בֶּן גַּמְלִיאֵל קָמִיפַּלְגִי?

The Gemara raises an objection from a baraita : If one performed a transgression that has lashes as its punishment, the first and the second time, the court flogs him; and the third time, the court places him in the vaulted chamber. Abba Shaul says: Even the third time the court flogs him; and the fourth time, the court places him in the vaulted chamber. What, is it not that everyone agrees that lashes establish the presumptive status of a transgressor, and it is concerning the dispute of Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi and Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel, whether presumptive status is established after two or three times, that the Rabbis and Abba Shaul disagree?

לָא, דְּכוּלֵּי עָלְמָא אִית לְהוּ דְּרַבָּן שִׁמְעוֹן בֶּן גַּמְלִיאֵל, וְהָכָא בְּהָא קָא מִיפַּלְגִי: דְּמָר סָבַר עֲבֵירוֹת מַחְזִיקוֹת, וּמָר סָבַר מַלְקִיּוֹת מַחְזִיקוֹת.

The Gemara rejects that parallel. No, it can be explained that everyone, the Rabbis and Abba Shaul, agrees with the opinion of Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel that presumptive status is established after three times, and here it is with regard to this matter that they disagree: That one Sage, the Rabbis, holds: Transgressions establish the presumptive status of a transgressor, and after he is flogged twice and performs the transgression a third time, the court places him in the vaulted chamber; and one Sage, Abba Shaul, holds: Lashes establish the presumptive status of a transgressor, and it is only after he performs the third transgression and is flogged for that transgression that he assumes the status of a forewarned transgressor, and when he performs the transgression a fourth time, he is placed in the vaulted chamber.

וְהָדְתַנְיָא: הִתְרוּ בּוֹ וְשָׁתַק, הִתְרוּ בּוֹ וְהִרְכִּין רֹאשׁוֹ – פַּעַם רִאשׁוֹנָה וּשְׁנִיָּה מַתְרִין בּוֹ, שְׁלִישִׁית – כּוֹנְסִין אוֹתוֹ לַכִּיפָּה. אַבָּא שָׁאוּל אוֹמֵר: אַף בַּשְּׁלִישִׁית מַתְרִין בּוֹ, בִּרְבִיעִית – כּוֹנְסִין אוֹתוֹ לַכִּיפָּה.

The Gemara questions that interpretation of the dispute. And that which is taught in a baraita : With regard to a case where witnesses forewarned him that he was about to violate a prohibition punishable by lashes and he was silent and did not acknowledge that he accepted the forewarning, and likewise a case where the witnesses forewarned him and he bowed his head but did not explicitly acknowledge that he accepted the forewarning, the first and second time they forewarn him the court does not flog him, because he did not accept the forewarning. If this scenario occurs a third time, the court places him in the vaulted chamber. Abba Shaul says: Even the third time the witnesses forewarn him the court does not flog him; and the fourth time, the court places him in the vaulted chamber.

וְהָתָם, מַלְקוֹת לֵיכָּא. בְּמַאי קָמִיפַּלְגִי? אָמַר רָבִינָא: בְּכִיפָּה צְרִיכָה הַתְרָאָה קָמִיפַּלְגִי.

And there, in the case in the baraita , there are no lashes, as he did not explicitly acknowledge acceptance of the forewarning. The reference is to a case where one violated the transgression several times, and if their dispute is not with regard to the number of times required to establish presumptive status, with regard to what matter do they disagree? Ravina says: It is with regard to whether placing an individual into a vaulted chamber requires forewarning that they disagree. The Rabbis hold that once he disregarded the forewarning three times, the court places him in a vaulted chamber. Abba Shaul holds that after he is forewarned three times that he will be flogged if he performs the transgression, he requires additional forewarning, before the fourth time, that he will be placed in a vaulted chamber if he performs the transgression again.

וּמַאי כִּיפָּה? אָמַר רַב יְהוּדָה: מְלֹא קוֹמָתוֹ. וְהֵיכָא רְמִיזָא? אָמַר רֵישׁ לָקִישׁ: ״תְּמוֹתֵת רָשָׁע רָעָה״.

The Gemara clarifies: And what is the nature of this vaulted chamber? Rav Yehuda says: It is a small chamber that is the full height of the transgressor, and it does not allow him to move in it. The Gemara asks: And where is this punishment intimated? Reish Lakish said that it is intimated in the verse: “Evil shall kill the wicked” (Psalms 34:22). Ultimately, an evildoer finds his demise through his evil, and the result is this harsh form of death.

וְאָמַר רֵישׁ לָקִישׁ: מַאי דִּכְתִיב ״כִּי [גַּם] לֹא יֵדַע הָאָדָם אֶת עִתּוֹ כַּדָּגִים שֶׁנֶּאֱחָזִים בִּמְצוֹדָה רָעָה״? מַאי ״מְצוֹדָה רָעָה״? אָמַר רֵישׁ לָקִישׁ: חַכָּה.

The Gemara cites a related statement. And Reish Lakish says: What is the meaning of that which is written: “For man also knows not his time, like fish snared in an evil net” (Ecclesiastes 9:12)? What is the nature of this evil net? Reish Lakish says: It is a hook; although it is small and the fish is much larger, the fish cannot escape it.

מַתְנִי׳ הַהוֹרֵג נֶפֶשׁ שֶׁלֹּא בְּעֵדִים, מַכְנִיסִין אוֹתוֹ לַכִּיפָּה וּמַאֲכִילִין אוֹתוֹ לֶחֶם צָר וּמַיִם לָחַץ.

MISHNA: With regard to one who kills a person not in the presence of witnesses and it is impossible to judge him in court, the court places him into a vaulted chamber and feeds him sparing bread and scant water (see Isaiah 30:20).

גְּמָ׳ מְנָא יָדְעִינַן? אָמַר רַב: בְּעֵדוּת מְיוּחֶדֶת. וּשְׁמוּאֵל אָמַר: שֶׁלֹּא בְּהַתְרָאָה.

GEMARA: The Gemara asks: If there are no witnesses, from where do we know that he killed a person and is liable to be punished? Rav says: The tanna of the mishna is speaking about a case of disjointed testimony, where the witnesses were not together and they witnessed the murder from different vantage points. The court cannot convict a person for committing a murder based on that type of testimony even though it is clear that the witnesses are telling the truth. And Shmuel says: The tanna of the mishna is speaking about a case where the witnesses testified that they witnessed the murder but there was no forewarning, and therefore the court cannot convict him.

וְרַב חִסְדָּא אָמַר אֲבִימִי: כְּגוֹן דְּאִיתַּכְחוּשׁ בִּבְדִיקוֹת וְלָא אִיתַּכְחוּשׁ בַּחֲקִירוֹת, כְּדִתְנַן: מַעֲשֶׂה וּבָדַק בֶּן זַכַּאי בְּעוּקְצֵי תְאֵנִים.

And Rav Ḥisda says that Avimi says: The tanna of the mishna is speaking of a case where the witnesses contradicted each other in the examinations that involve matters peripheral to the murder but did not contradict each other in the interrogations, which are integral to the murder, i.e., time and place. Therefore, it is clear to the court that the accused is guilty and consequently they place him in the vaulted chamber. As we learned in a mishna (40a): There was an incident and ben Zakkai examined the witnesses with regard to the stems of figs on the fig tree beneath which the murder took place. Rabban Yoḥanan ben Zakkai questioned the witnesses about the thickness of the stems in order to determine whether they would contradict each other in this peripheral detail in order to save the accused (see 41a).

וּמַאֲכִילִין אוֹתוֹ לֶחֶם צָר וּמַיִם לָחַץ. מַאי שְׁנָא הָכָא דְּקָתָנֵי: נוֹתְנִין לוֹ לֶחֶם צָר וּמַיִם לָחַץ, וּמַאי שְׁנָא הָתָם דְּקָתָנֵי: מַאֲכִילִין אוֹתוֹ שְׂעוֹרִין עַד שֶׁכְּרֵיסוֹ מִתְבַּקַּעַת? אָמַר רַב שֵׁשֶׁת: אִידֵּי וְאִידֵּי נוֹתְנִין לוֹ לֶחֶם צָר וּמַיִם לָחַץ עַד שֶׁיּוּקְטַן מַעְיָינוֹ, וַהֲדַר מַאֲכִילִין אוֹתוֹ שְׂעוֹרִין עַד שֶׁכְּרֵיסוֹ מִתְבַּקַּעַת.

The mishna teaches: And feeds him sparing bread and scant water. The Gemara asks: What is different in the mishna here that the tanna teaches that the court gives him sparing bread and scant water in the vaulted chamber, and what is different in the previous mishna there that the tanna teaches that the court feeds him barley bread until his belly ruptures; are these two different punishments? Rav Sheshet says: Both this and that are one punishment; first, the court gives him sparing bread and scant water until his intestines contract due to his starvation diet, and then the court feeds him barley bread that expands in his innards until his belly ruptures.

מַתְנִי׳ הַגּוֹנֵב אֶת הַקַּסְוָה, וְהַמְקַלֵּל בְּקוֹסֵם, וְהַבּוֹעֵל אֲרַמִּית – קַנָּאִין פּוֹגְעִין בּוֹ. כֹּהֵן שֶׁשִּׁמֵּשׁ בְּטוּמְאָה – אֵין אֶחָיו הַכֹּהֲנִים מְבִיאִין אוֹתוֹ לְבֵית דִּין, אֶלָּא פִּרְחֵי כְהוּנָּה מוֹצִיאִין אוֹתוֹ חוּץ לָעֲזָרָה וּמְפַצְיעִין אֶת מוֹחוֹ בִּגְזִירִין. זָר שֶׁשִּׁמֵּשׁ בַּמִּקְדָּשׁ – רַבִּי עֲקִיבָא אוֹמֵר: בְּחֶנֶק, וַחֲכָמִים אוֹמְרִים: בִּידֵי שָׁמַיִם.

MISHNA: With regard to one who steals a kasva , and one who curses with a sorcerer, and one who engages in intercourse with an Aramean woman, zealots strike him and kill him. Although the Torah does not say that one who performs one of these actions is liable to be executed, it is permitted for anyone who zealously takes the vengeance of the Lord to do so. In the case of a priest who performed the Temple service in a state of ritual impurity, his priestly brethren do not bring him to court for judgment; rather, the young men of the priesthood remove him from the Temple courtyard and pierce his skull with pieces of wood. In the case of a non-priest who performed the service in the Temple, Rabbi Akiva says: His execution is by strangulation, and the Rabbis say: He is not executed with a court-imposed death penalty; rather, he is liable to receive death at the hand of Heaven.

גְּמָ׳ מַאי קַסְוָה? אָמַר רַב יְהוּדָה: כְּלִי שָׁרֵת. וְכֵן הוּא אוֹמֵר: ״וְאֶת קְשׂוֹת הַנָּסֶךְ״. וְהֵיכָא רְמִיזָא? ״וְלֹא יָבֹאוּ לִרְאוֹת כְּבַלַּע אֶת הַקֹּדֶשׁ וָמֵתוּ״.

GEMARA: The Gemara asks: What is the kasva mentioned in the mishna? Rav Yehuda says: It is a term used to describe any service vessel utilized in the Temple. And likewise, it is stated: “And the jars [ kesot ] with which to pour libations” (Numbers 4:7). The Gemara asks: And where is it intimated that one who steals a service vessel is liable to be killed by zealots? The Gemara answers that it is intimated in the verse: “But they shall not come to see the sacred items as they are being covered [ kevala ], lest they die” (Numbers 4:20). The Gemara interprets the term kevala as one who ingests, i.e., who takes (see Job 20:15), and the verse thereby teaches that one who steals a service vessel is liable to be killed.

וְהַמְקַלֵּל בְּקוֹסֵם. תָּנֵי רַב יוֹסֵף: יַכֶּה קוֹסֵם אֶת קוֹסְמוֹ. רַבָּנַן, וְאִיתֵּימָא רַבָּה בַּר מָרִי, אָמְרִי: יַכֵּהוּ קוֹסֵם לוֹ וּלְקוֹנוֹ וּלְמַקְנוֹ.

The mishna teaches: And one who curses with a sorcerer is among those liable to be killed by zealots. Rav Yosef teaches that the reference is to one who says: Let the sorcerer strike his sorcerer, meaning one who curses God in the name of idol worship. He does not explicitly say God’s name, but he believes that a sorcerer can curse the sorcerer who provided him with his powers, i.e., the Divine Presence. The Rabbis, and some say that it was Rabba, son of Mari, say that the reference is to one who says: Let the sorcerer strike him, i.e., the individual with whom he is quarreling, and his Creator and his Provider. Since he curses God, it is permitted for zealots to kill him.

וְהַבּוֹעֵל אֲרַמִּית, בְּעָא מִינֵּיהּ רַב כָּהֲנָא מֵרַב:

The mishna teaches that one who engages in intercourse with an Aramean woman is among those liable to be killed by zealots. Rav Kahana asked of Rav: