Let's finish Mishnayos in memory of those who were murdered in Israel.
Pledge Mishnayos
Mishnah.org Logo

Mishnayos Sanhedrin Perek 11 Mishnah 1

סנהדרין פרק י"א משנה א׳


These are the transgressors who are strangled in the implementation of the court-imposed death penalty: One who strikes his father or his mother, and one who abducts a Jewish person, and a rebellious elder according to the court, and a false prophet, and one who prophesies in the name of idol worship, and one who engages in intercourse with a married woman, and conspiring witnesses who testify that the daughter of a priest committed adultery, even though were she guilty, she would be executed by burning. And her paramour is also executed via strangulation as in any case where a man engages in intercourse with a married woman. One who strikes his father or his mother is not liable to be executed unless he wounds one of them. This is a stringency with regard to one who curses his father that is more severe than the halakha with regard to one who strikes his father, as one who curses his father or his mother after his or her death is liable, but one who strikes one of them after his or her death is exempt, as he did not cause a wound. gemara The Sages taught in a baraita that it is written: “For any man who curses his father and his mother shall be put to death, he has cursed his father and his mother; his blood shall be upon him who curses his father and his mother shall die; he has cursed his father and his mother; his blood shall be upon him” (Leviticus 20:9). This is referring to one who curses his parents even after their death, as one might have thought: Since one is liable for striking and one is liable for cursing, just as one who strikes is liable only when his father or mother are alive, so too, one who curses is liable only when they are alive. One who abducts a Jewish person is not liable to be executed unless he brings the abductee into his domain. Rabbi Yehuda says: He is not liable unless he brings him into his domain and exploits him, as it is stated: “If a man shall be found abducting a person of his brethren from the children of Israel, and he exploited him and sold him, then that abductor shall die” (Deuteronomy 24:7). The phrase “exploited him” indicates using him for labor. With regard to one who abducts his own son and sells him, Rabbi Yishmael, son of Rabbi Yoḥanan ben Beroka, deems him liable, and the Rabbis deem him exempt. If one abducted one who is a half-slave half-freeman, i.e., a Canaanite slave who belonged to two owners and was emancipated by one of them, Rabbi Yehuda deems him liable, and the Rabbis deem him exempt.

אֵלּוּ הֵן הַנֶּחֱנָקִין, הַמַּכֶּה אָבִיו וְאִמּוֹ, וְגוֹנֵב נֶפֶשׁ מִיִּשְׂרָאֵל, וְזָקֵן מַמְרֵא עַל פִּי בֵית דִּין, וּנְבִיא הַשֶּׁקֶר, וְהַמִּתְנַבֵּא בְּשֵׁם עֲבוֹדָה זָרָה, וְהַבָּא עַל אֵשֶׁת אִישׁ, וְזוֹמְמֵי בַת כֹּהֵן וּבוֹעֲלָהּ. הַמַּכֶּה אָבִיו וְאִמּוֹ אֵינוֹ חַיָּב עַד שֶׁיַּעֲשֶׂה בָהֶן חַבּוּרָה. זֶה חֹמֶר בַּמְקַלֵּל מִבַּמַּכֶּה, שֶׁהַמְקַלֵּל לְאַחַר מִיתָה חַיָּב, וְהַמַּכֶּה לְאַחַר מִיתָה פָּטוּר. הַגּוֹנֵב נֶפֶשׁ מִיִּשְׂרָאֵל אֵינוֹ חַיָּב עַד שֶׁיַּכְנִיסֶנּוּ לִרְשׁוּתוֹ. רַבִּי יְהוּדָה אוֹמֵר, עַד שֶׁיַּכְנִיסֶנּוּ לִרְשׁוּתוֹ וְיִשְׁתַּמֵּשׁ בּוֹ, שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר (דברים כד) וְהִתְעַמֶּר בּוֹ וּמְכָרוֹ. הַגּוֹנֵב אֶת בְּנוֹ, רַבִּי יִשְׁמָעֵאל בְּנוֹ שֶׁל רַבִּי יוֹחָנָן בֶּן בְּרוֹקָה מְחַיֵּב, וַחֲכָמִים פּוֹטְרִין. גָּנַב מִי שֶׁחֶצְיוֹ עֶבֶד וְחֶצְיוֹ בֶן חוֹרִין, רַבִּי יְהוּדָה מְחַיֵּב, וַחֲכָמִים פּוֹטְרִין:


אלו הן הנחנקין. ממרא על פי בית דין – he rebels against the words of the Great Jewish court that was in the Chamber of the Hewn Stones.

זוממי בת כהן – even though they come to make her liable for [the punishment] of burning [by drinking a molten-liquid], they are not judged other than through the death that they were making liable those who engaged in sexual intercourse with her, which is by strangulation, like the others who come upon a married woman, as it is written (Leviticus 21:9): “she shall be put to the fire,” she and not the person who engaged in sexual intercourse with her, and those who falsely testified [through scheming] against her, we derive from (Deuteronomy 19:19): “[You shall do to him] as he schemed to do to his fellow,” but not to his sister.

ובועלה – the daughter of a Kohen when she is married, but an engaged one, he and her sexual partner [are punished] by stoning.

שהמקלל לאחר מיתה חייב – as it is written (Leviticus 20:9): “he has insulted his father and his mother. [His bloodguilt is upon him].” And the extra verse is to include after death.

והמכה לאחר מיתה פטור – for he is not liable until he makes in him a wound, but there is no wound after death.

עד שיכניסנו לרשותו – as it is written (Exodus 21:16): “or if he be found in his hand”, and “his hand” means his domain. And similarly, it says (Numbers 21:26): “and taken all his land out of his hand,…”

וישתמש בו – usage that has the value of the equivalent of a Perutah/penny. And the first Tanna obligates him even with usage tha tis less than the equivalent of a penny. And the Halakha is according to the First Tanna.

הגונב את בנו – the reason that the Rabbis exempt him, as it is written (Exodus 21:16): “or is still holding him,” and it is an extra verse, for it is written (Deuteronomy 24:7): “If a man is found [to have kidnapped a fellow Israelite…]”, to extrapolate from it, and exclude this one, who is already in his power. And the Halakha is according to the Sages.

רבי יהודה מחייב – as it is written (Deuteronomy 24:7): “of his brethren of the children of Israel” – “of his brethren”, to exclude slaves, “of the children of Israel” – if it had written “of Israel”, we would have excluded someone who is half a servant and half a free-man. Now that it is written, from “of the children of Israel”, this is another exclusion, and where there is a double exclusion it indicates an exemplification (see Bava Kamma 86b). But the Rabbis hold, that “of his brethren” does not come to exclude slaves, for they are “brothers” in the commandments. Rather, the words “the children of Israel” excludes slaves; “of [the children of Israel]” excludes someone who is half-slave and half a free-man (see Mishnah Eduyot, Chapter 1, Mishnah 13 and Mishnah Gittin 4:5 which deals specifically with the case of someone who is a half-slave and half a free-man). And the Halakha is according to the Sages.

אלו הן הנחנקין. ממרא על פי בית דין. שמסרב על דברי בית דין הגדול שבלשכת הגזית:

וזוממי בת כהן. אע״פ שהם באים לחייבה שריפה, אין נדונים אלא במיתה שהיו מחייבים את בועלה שהוא בחנק, כשאר הבא על אשת איש, דכתיב (ויקרא כ״א:ט׳) היא באש תשרף, היא ולא בועלה. וזוממיה ילפינן מכאשר זמם לעשות לאחיו, ולא לאחותו:

ובועלה. לבת כהן כשהיא נשואה. אבל ארוסה, היא ובועלה בסקילה:

שהמקלל לאחר מיתה חייב. דכתיב (שם כ׳) אביו ואמו קלל, וקרא יתירא הוא לרבות לאחר מיתה:

והמכה לאחר מיתה פטור. דהא לא מחייב עד שיעשה בו חבורה, ואין חבורה לאחר מיתה:

עד שיכניסנו לרשותו. דכתיב (שמות כ״א) ונמצא בידו, ואין ידו אלא רשותו, וכן הוא אומר (במדבר כ״א) ויקח את כל ארצו מידו:

וישתמש בו. תשמיש שיש בו שוה פרוטה. ות״ק מחייב אפילו בתשמיש שהוא פחות משוה פרוטה. והלכה כת״ק:

הגונב את בנו. טעמייהו דרבנן דפטרי, דכתיב ונמצא בידו, וקרא יתירא הוא, דהא כתיב (דברים כ״ד:ז׳) כי ימצא איש, אלא למדרש מינה פרט לזה שהוא מצוי. והלכה כחכמים:

רבי יהודה מחייב. דכתיב (שם) מאחיו מבני ישראל, מאחיו למעוטי עבדים, מבני ישראל, אי כתב בני ישראל הוה ממעטינן מי שחציו עבד וחציו בן חורין, השתא דכתיב מבני ישראל, מיעוטא אחרינא, ואין מיעוט אחר מיעוט אלא לרבות. ורבנן סברי, מאחיו לאו למעוטי עבדים, דהא אחים הם במצות, אלא, בני ישראל למעוטי עבדים, מבני ישראל, למעוטי מי שחציו עבד וחציו בן חורין. והלכה כחכמים: