Sanhedrin Daf 43 - Beis Hasekilah, Viduy Before Execution
Summary
- This segment derives that Beit ha-sekila is outside all three machanot via Rav Pappa’s reading of repeated “machutz la-machaneh” and Rav Ashi’s reading of the doubled “chutz,” refines laws of the stoning act from “even/avanim,” and weighs a gezerah shavah against direct pesukim amid Kodashim-learning rules. It assigns communal funding for execution instruments and for the intoxicant given to dull pain, queries who funds rescue-enabling items, and traces the custom of saying “le-chaim.” It examines whether a would-be melamed zechut who goes mute or dies affects the case, how to judge “yesh mamash be-divarav,” and mandates a public announcement specifying details to enable edim zomemim, including the censored passage about Yeshu ha-Notzri. It presents Rabbi Yehoshua ben Levi’s teachings on teshuvah and kapparah, prescribes viduy before execution with Achan as proof of kapparah, and concludes with Achan’s goral, the count of his cheirem transgressions, and when arevut begins, including the dispute whether hidden sins ever generate communal liability.
- Rav Pappa says Moshe sits in the *machaneh Leviya* when commanded “הוצא את המקלל אל מחוץ למחנה,” and “ויוציאו את המקלל אל מחוץ למחנה” adds an extra machaneh, proving removal beyond *machaneh Yisrael* as well, since “ובני ישראל עשו כאשר צוה ה' את משה” already records the asiyah. Rav Ashi says the single pasuk’s doubled “חוץ … אל מחוץ למחנה” itself yields two exclusions: beyond the *machaneh Leviya* and beyond the *machaneh Yisrael*, while “ויוציאו את המקלל” reports the asiyah of procedures like *semikhah* and *dekhiyyah*. The Gemara leaves as a kashya how to darshen the multiple “hotza’ot” by the *parim ha-nisrafim* according to Rav Ashi.
- The phrase “ויארגמו אותו אבן” teaches “אותו ולא בכסותו,” so the stoning impacts his body directly, and “אבן” teaches that death by a single stone suffices. The Torah also writes “אבנים” to require multiple stones if one stone does not cause death, but “אבן” keeps the default to one when it suffices.
- The baraita presents a gezerah shavah basis “had the pasuk not stated it,” whereas once the pasuk states it explicitly, no gezerah shavah is needed. Chiddushei ha-Ran explains why Rav Pappa and Rav Ashi do not rely on the gezerah shavah: Tosafot’s difficulty that learning from the *parim ha-nisrafim* (the melamed derived by *hekesh* among Kodashim) may not teach via gezerah shavah, hinging on the Zevachim dispute whether “ein lamed min ha-melamed” follows the lomed (here, chullin) or the melamed (here, kodashim). The Sefer Hamra VeChayei suggests the kashya against Rav Ashi is lighter than a tiyuvta because only by the mekallel’s “hotza” was alternate phrasing possible, signaling an extra drashah, unlike by *parim ha-nisrafim*.
- Rav Huna states that the stone, tree, sword, and cloth used for the ארבע מיתות Beit Din are funded by the community, since “we do not say to him: go bring and kill yourself.” Tosafot notes the omission of the *psilah* used in burning; Chiddushei ha-Ran explains it is inexpensive yet likewise communal by the same rationale. Rav Huna inquires who funds the flag and horse used to facilitate potential rescue: since the *hatzalah* is for his life it may be his, or since Beit Din must facilitate *hatzalah* it may be theirs; the sugya leaves this query and proceeds.
- Rav Chiya bar Ashi in the name of Rav Chisda states that the condemned is given a measure of frankincense in wine to confuse his mind, as it says “תנו שכר לאובד ויין למרי נפש,” and a baraita records that generous women of Yerushalayim volunteer this. If they do not volunteer, the cost is on the community, since “תנו” imposes the giving on us. The Kol Bo links the practice of saying “*savri maranan ve-rabanan*” and answering “*le-chaim*” over a cup to distinguish this life-affirming cup from the execution’s intoxicating cup; other reasons cite tragic wine episodes such as Noach and Adam.
- Rav Sheshet rejects the notion that a mere claim “יש לי ללמד עליו זכות” that is never articulated should halt the execution, equating it to fearing a hypothetical advocate “at the end of the world.” A proof from Rabbi Yosi bar Chanina states that if a student actually presented zechut and then died, he is counted as alive and his zechut stands; this proves only when he already was mezakeh. The sugya leaves the case of one who claimed he had zechut and then went mute or died as an unresolved eibaya, while the Rambam rules “harei zeh k’mi she-eino,” counting him as nothing; the Radbaz roots this in Rav Sheshet’s stance, and the Lechem Mishneh reads the sugya as effectively resolved from Rabbi Yosi bar Chanina.
- The baraita states that on the first and second returns, they bring him back whether or not “יש ממש בדבריו,” and thereafter only if “יש ממש בדבריו.” Rav Pappa reads the Mishnah’s requirement of “יש ממש בדבריו” as beginning from the second time onward. Abaye says they assign a pair of scholars to accompany him to assess whether “יש ממש בדבריו,” yet they do not assign them at the first two times because fear prevents him from articulating his points then.
- The Mishnah requires a crier to announce the person, offense, witnesses, and the specifics “ביום פלוני ובשעה פלונית ובמקום פלוני” to enable edim to create *edim zomemim*. The censored Chaseronot ha-Shas records that on Erev Pesach they executed Yeshu ha-Notzri and issued a forty-day announcement inviting any zechut, yet none was found; Ulla rejects seeking zechut for a *masit*, but explains that with Yeshu, they did so because he was “karov la-malchut.” The baraita enumerates five students—Meiti, Nakkai, Netzer, Buni, and Toda—each attempting self-exoneration via pesukim, with counter-pesukim used to convict; the Maharil explains “Notzri” as indicating natural human conception, while to gentiles one answers “from Nazareth.”
- Rabbi Yehoshua ben Levi says that one who slaughters his yetzer and confesses—“זובח תודה יכבדנני”—honors Hashem in both worlds. He adds that in the absence of the Mikdash, a contrite spirit equals all offerings—“זבחי אלהים רוח נשברה”—and Hashem does not despise a “לב נשבר ונדכה.”
- The Mishnah instructs that at ten amot from Beit ha-sekila they tell him to confess, promising a share in Olam HaBa, and proves from Achan’s confession—“אמנה אנכי חטאתי …”—and from “ביום הזה … אבל אי אתה עכור לעולם הבא” that viduy brings kapparah. If he cannot confess, they coach him to say “tehei mitati kapparah al kol avonotai.” Rabbi Yehuda says that if he knows he is innocent of this offense, he may add “chutz me-avon zeh,” while the Chachamim object that this will let everyone claim innocence; the Acharonim debate whether Rabbi Yehuda’s formula is instructed or merely permitted without silencing him.
- “נא” is lashon bakashah, and when Hashem tells Yehoshua “חטא ישראל,” Yehoshua draws a goral that falls on Achan; Achan protests the evidentiary value of a goral, and Yehoshua urges him not to discredit gorallot, which will apportion Eretz Yisrael—“אך בגורל יחלק את הארץ”—with Tosafot noting the corroboration by the Urim ve-Tumim. Ravina says Yehoshua “שחודי שחדיה במילי,” coaxing an admission, and Achan confesses “וכזאת וכזאת עשיתי.” Rabbi Chanina says Achan violated three cheirem, while Rabbi Yochanan in the name of Rabbi Elazar ben Rabbi Shimon says five, and explains that punishment for hidden sins begins only after crossing the Jordan due to arevut. Rabbi Yehuda derives from the nekudot over “לנו ולבנינו” and the ayin of “עד” that before the Jordan there is no punishment for hidden sins, while Rabbi Nechemia maintains that hidden sins are never punished, and Achan’s case is not truly hidden because his wife and children knew; the Ran notes that scribes avoid placing dots on “לה' אלהינו” to avert any hint of erasing the Divine Name.
Previous Page
Next Page
Daf Images are property of Vagshal and may not be reproduced.
Suggestions