סנהדרין דף עו ע"ב

This is what it means: Who is the poor man who is a cunning wicked one? This is one who keeps his daughter waiting until she is a bogeres.^[1]

הכי קאמר איזה עני רשע ערום - who becomes wicked because of poverty: “this is one who keeps waiting” etc. And so it was stated: There is no poor, cunning, wicked man in Israel except one who keeps his daughter waiting until she is a bogeres.

And Rav Kahana said in the name of Rabbi Akiva: Beware of one who advises you according to his own way.

לפי דרכו - for his own benefit.

Rav Yehudah said in the name of Rav: One who marries his daughter to an old man, one who marries a woman to his son who is a minor, and one who returns a lost object to a Kuthi^[2] – of him the verse says (Devarim 29:18) “To add the sated to the thirsty; Hashem will not be willing to forgive him.”

למען ספות - to join, as in “add year to year” (Yeshayahu 29).

רוה את הצמאה - one who is sated in a matter together with one who thirsts for it: an old man and a young girl – she thirsts for intimacy and the old man is sated; and likewise a grown woman with a minor.

והמחזיר אבידה לכותי - he has equated and joined the Kuthi with a Jew, and shows of himself that returning a lost object is not important to him as his Creator’s commandment, since he does it even for a Kuthi, regarding whom he was not commanded.

רוה - the idolaters, who are sated and do not thirst for their Creator; “the thirsty” is the congregation of Israel, which thirsts and yearns for the fear of its Creator and to fulfil His commandments.

They raised an objection: One who loves his wife as himself, honours her more than himself, guides his sons and daughters on a straight path, and marries them off close to their coming of age^[3] – of him the verse says (Iyov 5:24) “And you shall know that your tent is at peace; you shall visit your home and not sin.”

והמכבדה - with fine jewellery.

סמוך לפירקן - they are still minors.

Close to their coming of age^[4] – is different.

סמוך לפירקן שאני - he is not so much of a minor; for a year or half a year she will not be unfaithful to him.

The Rabbis taught: One who loves his neighbours, draws his relatives close, marries his sister’s daughter,^[5] and lends a sela to a poor man at the time of his distress – of him the verse says (Yeshayahu 58:9) “Then you shall call, and Hashem will answer.”

תקרא וה' יענה - just before it is written “Is it not to share your bread with the hungry” etc. “and do not hide yourself from your own flesh” – that is one who marries his sister’s daughter and draws his relatives close; and loving one’s neighbours is also like drawing one’s relatives close, as it is written (Mishlei 27) “Better a near neighbour than a far-off brother”; and lending a sela to a poor man at the time of his distress is included in “share your bread with the hungry” and “when you see the naked”.

The Rabbis taught: (Vayikra 20:14) “Him and them (oso ve’eschen)” – him and one of them; these are the words of Rabbi Yishmael.^[6]

אתהן - Rabbi Yishmael understands it as “the one of them,” for in Greek they call one hina; and the verse means: “And a man who takes a woman” – this is his wife – and then her mother, “they shall burn in fire him and” his mother-in-law.

Rabbi Akiva says: Him and both of them.

ר"ע אומר אותו ואת שתיהן - the Gemara goes on to explain what they disagree about; for certainly Rabbi Akiva did not mean that his wife is burned.

What is the difference between them?

Abaye said: The sense in which they expound the word is the difference between them.^[7]

משמעות דורשין - they expound the sense of the verse’s wording.

Rabbi Yishmael holds: “Him and them” – him and one of them, for in Greek they call “one” hina; and his mother-in-law’s mother^[8] – comes from a drasha.

לר' ישמעאל אתהן חדא הוא - and it refers to his mother-in-law; and his mother-in-law’s mother comes from the drasha of zimah, as was said above: From where do we know to treat below like above etc.

Rabbi Akiva holds: “Him and them” – him and both of them, and his mother-in-law’s mother is written here.

לר"ע אתהן תרתי משמע - his mother-in-law and his mother-in-law’s mother; and the verse means: “they shall burn him and them” – they are two mothers, as where he took a woman, her mother and her mother’s mother.

Rava said: His mother-in-law after death^[9] is the difference between them.

רבא אמר חמותו שבא עליה חתנה לאחר מיתת בתה איכא בינייהו - but his mother-in-law’s mother, according to both, comes from the drasha.

Rabbi Yishmael holds: his mother-in-law after death is by burning,

ר' ישמעאל סבר חמותו לאחר מיתה בשריפה - as during [his wife’s] lifetime; for the verse means: even if only one of them survives, she is burned – for certainly the verse did not say that his wife is burned.

and Rabbi Akiva holds: it is merely a prohibition.

ר"ע סבר - “them” means both; and the verse means: if his wife is alive, his mother-in-law is burned; if not, there is no punishment of burning here, only the prohibition of “Cursed is he who lies with his mother-in-law.”

MISHNAH. And these are the ones executed by the sword:^[10] the murderer, and the people of an ir hanidachas.^[11]

A murderer who struck his fellow with a stone or with iron, or held him down in water or in fire, and he could not come up from there and died – he is liable.

מתני' כבש - priemer in the vernacular:^[12] he grasps his fellow’s head and presses it into the water so that he cannot lift his head, and he thrashes and dies.

If he pushed him into water or into fire, and he could have come up from there and died – he is exempt.

If he set a dog on him, or set a snake on him – he is exempt.

שיסה - incited.

If he made the snake bite him – Rabbi Yehudah holds him liable, and the Sages exempt him.^[13]

השיך - he held the snake in his hand and brought it, so that the snake’s teeth reached his fellow’s hand. The dispute of Rabbi Yehudah and the Rabbis is explained in the Gemara.

GEMARA. Shmuel said: Why was “hand”^[14] not said regarding iron? Because iron kills with any amount.

גמ' לא נאמר יד בברזל - as it says (Bamidbar 35) “with a stone of the hand,” “with a wooden vessel of the hand” – “hand” implies something with a full hand-grip, for we require a size; but regarding iron it is written “and if he struck him with an iron vessel.”

שהברזל ממית בכל שהוא - by piercing: he pierces a needle into his gullet or his heart.

It was also taught so in a beraisa: Rebbi says: It is revealed and known before the One Who spoke and the world came into being that iron kills with any amount; therefore the Torah did not give it a measure.

And this applies only where he pierced him.

דברזיה מיבריז - ponchet in the vernacular (a stab); but if he struck him with it lengthwise, in the manner of a blow, it requires a size.

Or held him down in water:^[15]

The first clause teaches us a novelty, and the last clause teaches us a novelty.

The first clause teaches us a novelty: even though he was not the one who pushed him in, since he could not come up from there and died, he is liable.

אף על גב דלאו איהו דחפו - rather he fell in by himself, and this one came and held him down and did not let him lift his head.

The last clause teaches us a novelty: even though he pushed him in, since he could have come up from there and died, he is exempt.

שיכול לעלות משם - another person in such a situation [could have got out], and the moment caused it for him.

פטור - the one who pushed, for he did not do an act of the size that kills.

Holding down^[16] – from where do we know it?

Shmuel said: For the verse says (Bamidbar 35:21) “or in enmity”^[17] – to include one who confines.

או לרבות את המצמצם - that is one who holds down, who confined him there so that he could not rise.

There was a certain man who confined his fellow’s animal in the sun, and it died.

Ravina held him liable;^[18] Rav Acha bar Rav exempted him.

Ravina held him liable by a kal vachomer: If in the case of a murderer, where the Torah did not treat the unintentional as intentional nor the accidental as wilful,^[19] it made him liable for confining …

Tosfos

איזהו עני רשע ערום - There are many cunning wicked men, as is explained in Sotah, in the chapter Hayah Notel (Sotah 20a); but a poor, cunning, wicked man there is none except this one alone.

סמוך לפירקן - It implies here that it refers to his sons as well. This is difficult: in the chapter Cheresh (Yevamos 112b) we say that for a minor the Rabbis did not institute marriage, and in Ha’ishah Rabbah (ibid. 96b) it says that their wives are exempt from chalitzah and yibum – so it is an act of promiscuity! One can answer that at any rate it is not considered promiscuity, for it says in the chapter Hakoseiv (Kesubos 90a) that a minor whom his father married to a woman – her kesubah stands.

והמלוה סלע לעני כו' - It implies that he is doing a mitzvah. This is difficult: in the first chapter of Chagigah (5a) we say: “Many evils and troubles” – this is one who supplies money to a poor man at the time of his distress. Rabbeinu Tam explains that here it is a loan for food, but there it deals with when the government presses to collect from him taxes, poll-tax and levies, and had he found nothing they would have left him alone; now this lender causes it, the government presses him, and later the lender comes and seizes his house and fields and he loses – and that is “many evils and troubles.” That is what it says there: “Money for grain is not to be found – meaning, to buy grain – for tlisa it is found,” meaning when they press him to sell or pledge his house and fields, as in “it was hung up and sold” (Bava Basra 47b). And the Kuntres^[20] explained there that it refers to “whether good or bad” – this is one who gives money to a poor man in public; and it says “this is one who supplies money to a poor man at the time of his distress,” and he explains “money for grain is not to be found” as supplying his charity to the poor man at the time of the pressure, and not at the time before the pressure, when he could provide for his food by buying grain in the cheap season and gain; “for tlisa it is found” – to buy bread from the baker day by day, so that he loses; and that is “whether good or bad.” He calls it tlisa because they hang the bread in a basket. But that is not the proper way to do it, as it says in Arvei Pesachim (111a): “Hanging [food] in the house is hard for poverty.” However, one can explain that it is called tlisa because we expound (Menachos 103b): “And your life shall hang” – this is one who relies on the baker. And some reverse the reading: for grain it is found – when he buys grain all at once, bread is to be found in his house; for tlisa it is not found – when he takes bread from the baker, bread is not to be found in his house.

שברזל ממית בכל שהוא - The Kuntres explained: that he pierces a needle into his gullet or his heart. This is difficult: if so, a thorn as well! Rather it seems that it is because it says in the chapter Rabbi Eliezer Demilah (Shabbos 134a), in the chapter Behemah Hamaksheh (Chullin 77b) and in Ha’arel (Yevamos 76a) that iron inflames [the wound].

רוצח שלא עשה בו אונס כרצון - like that of the chapter Hamani’ach (Bava Kamma 32b): one who knocks down his wall onto the rubbish heap, where the public are not usually found, is an anus (accidental). Likewise, if he had a stone lying in his lap and never knew of it – for damages he is liable, for exile he is exempt, at the end of the chapter Keitzad (ibid. 26b). And there are kinds of accident for which he is exempt even for damages, as the Yerushalmi distinguishes between one who came and slept beside the vessels and one who was already asleep when they brought the vessels beside him; and such as darkness and a corner in the chapter Hamani’ach (Bava Kamma 27b), and in Hagozel Basra (ibid. 112a), and in the chapter Elu Na’aros (Kesubos 34b): if their father left them a borrowed cow and they slaughtered and ate it, they pay etc. what they benefited, but not what they damaged; and in the chapter Haparah (Bava Kamma 47a), regarding one who entered a householder’s yard without permission, where it exempts the householder when he damaged the one who entered, where he did not know of him. Further, in the chapter Hamani’ach: if the owner of the barrel was first and the owner of the beam last, and the barrel broke on the beam, he is liable; but if the owner of the barrel stopped, he is exempt. And at the end of Hasocher es Ha’umanin (Bava Metzia 82b): one who carries a barrel from place to place and broke it – Rabbi Yehudah says an unpaid guardian^[21] swears etc. Since we exempt the unpaid guardian and do not hold him liable on the grounds of a person who damages, learn from it that in an accident akin to theft and loss he is exempt, and therefore a paid guardian is liable. And if you ask: at the end of Keitzad Haregel (Bava Kamma 27a) they hold liable one who fell from the roof in an unusual wind, even though an unusual wind is akin to theft and loss, as it says in the chapter Shor Shenagach Arba’ah Vachamishah (Bava Kamma 45a) regarding four who took the owner’s place: if [the ox] killed, a mu’ad is killed and they pay the kofer, and he must pay the value of the ox to its owner, except the unpaid guardian; and it establishes it where he guarded it with a lesser guarding – the unpaid guardian fulfilled his guarding, and the others did not fulfil their guarding; and it asks: According to whom? If according to Rabbi Yehudah, who says a renter is like a paid guardian, let it teach “and all of them, with a mu’ad, are exempt from the kofer” – meaning, because for a mu’ad a lesser guarding suffices according to Rabbi Yehudah; and that is a door that can withstand a usual wind but cannot withstand an unusual wind, as is proven at the beginning of Hakoness (Bava Kamma 55b). And since we hold the paid guardian liable and exempt the unpaid guardian, learn from it that an unusual wind is akin to theft and loss – and even so we hold a person who damages liable, as I explained. One can answer that an unusual wind is akin to loss, and for it we hold one who damages liable; while one who stumbles, according to Rabbi Yehudah, is akin to theft, for which we exempt a person who damages, as it says in Hasho’el (Bava Metzia 94b) that theft is close to accident and loss is close to negligence, and regarding a paid guardian both make him liable. And so it is proven in Hagozel Kamma (Bava Kamma 99b), regarding an expert butcher who spoiled [the animal], where it challenges the one who exempts [him] when unpaid from the beraisa that teaches: if he gave an animal to a butcher and it became a neveilah, he is liable, because he is like a paid guardian – so the questioner thought that even when unpaid he is liable, like a paid guardian who is liable for loss; and it answers: read “because he is a paid guardian” – therefore when paid he is liable, but when unpaid he is exempt, since it is akin to theft.

Notes

1. 1. A bogeres is a girl past twelve and a half, fully mature. A father who holds off marrying her, because of poverty or stinginess, risks her falling into sin; this is the “poor man who is a cunning wicked one” of the statement on the previous amud.
2. 2. Returning a lost object (hashavas aveidah, Devarim 22:1–3) is commanded toward a fellow Jew, “your brother.” The text here reads Kuthi (other editions: nochri, a gentile). One who returns it to him, Rashi explains, shows that he treats the mitzvah as a mere courtesy, not as his Creator’s command.
3. 3. Close to their coming of age: just before they reach maturity (thirteen for a boy, twelve for a girl), while they are still minors, as Rashi explains.
4. 4. The objection: the beraisa praises marrying off sons and daughters while still minors, which seems to contradict Rav’s condemnation of marrying a woman to a son who is a minor. The answer distinguishes a child just short of maturity: the gap is short, so the marriage does not lead to infidelity (Rashi).
5. 5. Marrying one’s sister’s daughter was considered especially praiseworthy: a man’s love for his sister makes him cherish her daughter (see Yevamos 62b). Rashi reads it into “do not hide yourself from your own flesh.”
6. 6. Vayikra 20:14: “A man who takes a woman and her mother – it is depravity (zimah); they shall burn in fire him and them.” The wife herself, married first, is permitted and is certainly not burned, so the question is whom “them” refers to.
7. 7. That is, they do not differ in law, only in how to read the word ve’eschen – as “one of them” or as “both of them.”
8. 8. His wife’s grandmother is also forbidden on pain of burning. For Rabbi Yishmael this is learnt from a drasha on the word zimah; for Rabbi Akiva it is written in our verse itself.
9. 9. That is, relations with his mother-in-law after his wife has died. For Rava the dispute is practical: whether the penalty of burning still applies once the wife is no longer alive.
10. 10. Of the four court executions (stoning, burning, the sword and strangling), this Mishnah lists those who die by the sword (hereg).
11. 11. Ir hanidachas: a city whose majority was led astray into idolatry (Devarim 13:13–19). Its inhabitants are executed by the sword and the city is burned.
12. 12. Bela’az, “in the vernacular”: Rashi often glosses a word in the Old French of his day, written in Hebrew letters.
13. 13. The Gemara (78a) explains: Rabbi Yehudah holds that a snake’s venom sits between its teeth, so one who brings its teeth to the victim kills him directly; the Sages hold that the snake releases the venom by itself, so he is only an indirect cause.
14. 14. For stone and wood the Torah says “with a stone of the hand” and “with a wooden vessel of the hand” (Bamidbar 35:17–18), requiring an implement big enough to kill. For iron (35:16) it does not say “hand,” so any size makes him liable.
15. 15. The Mishnah’s clause: one who held his victim down in water or fire so that he could not come up is liable, while one who pushed him in where he could have climbed out is exempt. The Gemara asks what each half adds.
16. 16. Holding down strikes no blow; the water or the fire kills the victim. So the Gemara seeks a source that such a killing still counts as murder.
17. 17. Bamidbar 35:21: “or in enmity he struck him with his hand and he died; the striker shall be put to death.” The extra “or” is expounded to include other ways of killing, such as confining.
18. 18. The question here is payment for the animal: Ravina holds him liable as a person who damages, and Rav Acha bar Rav exempts him, since he did nothing to it directly.
19. 19. In murder the Torah distinguishes: an unintentional killer only goes into exile, and one who kills by accident is wholly exempt. In damages “a person is always mu’ad” and pays even when it was unintentional. So if confining counts as killing for murder, all the more so for damages.
20. 20. The Kuntres (“the booklet”) is Tosfos’ usual name for Rashi’s commentary.
21. 21. An unpaid guardian (shomer chinam) is liable only for negligence; a paid guardian (shomer sachar) is also liable for theft and loss, but not for accidents. Tosfos uses these grades to measure which mishaps exempt a person who damages.