Sanhedrin Daf 45 - Sekilah, Kra K'diksiv
Summary
- This shiur presents the Mishnah’s laws of how and when a condemned person is undressed before stoning, the machloket between Rabbi Yehuda and the Chachamim, and the Gemara’s double s’tirah with the laws of a sotah alongside its resolutions about concern for *hirhur*, dignity, and ואהבת לרעך כמוך—ברור לו מיתה יפה. It details the procedure and height of the Beit ha-Sekilah, the derivations from the Har Sinai pasuk for דחייה and throwing the stone לדורות, the weight and handling of the stone, and the replacement and burial of implements. It explains limits on height due to *nivul ha-met*, the reasons eidim execute first, and the rule that practically the second stone was never needed. It then presents Shmuel’s chiddush that eidim without hands prevent execution based on יד העדים תהיה בו בראשונה, and the broader sugya of whether we require קרא כדכתיב, including exceptions in רוצח and גואל הדם and the special drashah structure by a *ben sorer u’moreh*.
- The Mishnah rules that once the condemned is within *arba amot* of the Beit ha-Sekilah, the court removes his clothing there at the last permissible moment. Rabbi Yehuda states that a man is covered in front and a woman in front and back because of her *ervah*, and he holds אותו בלא כסותו applies equally to men and women. The Chachamim state that the man is נסקל ערום while the woman is not undressed at all, deriving from ורגמו אותו that אותו בלא כסותו applies to him, not to her. Tosafot notes that the real derashah of אותו is “בלא כסותו,” and the woman’s remaining clothed stems from reasons such as *hirhur* or her *bizayon*, not strictly from the pasuk.
- The Gemara registers a s’tirah: here the Chachamim seem concerned for *hirhur* (keeping a woman clothed), while Rabbi Yehuda is not; yet in sotah, Rabbi Yehuda restricts exposure if she is attractive, while the Chachamim allow tearing and disheveling. Rabbah answers for Rabbi Yehuda that the sotah may leave Beit Din innocent and the sight may incite the *pirchei kehunah*, whereas here the condemned is about to be executed; and the claim of secondary incitement is rejected by גמירי אין יצר הרע שולט אלא במי שעיניו רואות. For the Chachamim, there is no *hirhur* concern at sekilah; rather, ונוסרו כל הנשים ולא תעשינה כזמתכנה and ואהבת לרעך כמוך—ברור לו מיתה יפה limit needless humiliation because her suffering is already maximal. All agree to Rav Nachman’s principle of ברור לו מיתה יפה; they argue whether a person prefers reduced bodily pain even with greater humiliation (Rabbi Yehuda) or reduced humiliation even if death is marginally less immediate (Chachamim).
- Tosafot explains why ואהבת לרעך כמוך applies to חייבי מיתות: the wording לרעך signals a context where literal כמוך is viable, which is chiefly בשעת מיתה, as shown by the desert case of a single jug where חייך קודמין. Rav Yerucham Fishel Perla infers that the ikkar chiyuv of ואהבת לרעך כמוך is לאחר מיתה, and by a קל וחומר its application בחיים is primarily in the negative form—do not do to others what you would not want done to you—harmonizing sources like Nedarim 65 and Kiddushin 41. The Rambam, however, applies ואהבת לרעך כמוך positively to living obligations (Hilchot De’ot 6:3; Hilchot Avel), framing chesed practices as derabanan details that fulfill the de’oraita. The Netziv reconciles כמוך as reciprocity: do for another what you would reasonably want others to do for you, which calibrates expectations and explains why many בין אדם לחבירו norms apply within Am Yisrael but not identically toward a בן נח.
- The Mishnah describes a Beit ha-Sekilah of two “komot” in height; the first witness pushes the condemned from behind, they turn him face-up if needed, and if he dies the court has fulfilled the mitzvah. If not, the second witness casts a stone onto his chest; if he still does not die, all Israel continue stoning in sequence, fulfilling יד העדים תהיה בו בראשונה להמיתו ויד כל העם באחרונה. The beraita adds that with the fall the effective drop is שלש קומות (including his own height), and the Gemara justifies this increased height by ואהבת לרעך כמוך—ברור לו מיתה יפה to ensure immediate death. The height cannot be excessively greater משום דמנוול, because of *nivul ha-met*, derived from לא תלין נבלתו על העץ, and here חז״ל are *doresh ta’ama d’kra* since the reason is explicit.
- The Tiferes Yisrael sets two “komot” at six amot (a man’s height times two), while Tosafot (Shabbat 92) counts a man’s head beyond three amot to total seven amot for two “komot,” aligning with mikveh displacement and standard amah metrics. Rashi earlier equates נפל מן הגג with sekilah because a typical room is about seven amot high (Bava Batra 98b: half-width plus half-length on a 6×8). The Mishnah’s “נותן את האבן” is read by Acharonim as either rhetorical for a very heavy drop (Tosafot Yom Tov; Rambam: משליך), or as R. Yaakov Emden’s remez to the tzibbur-funded “gift” of the execution implement. The Rambam explains that the eidim execute first because they alone saw the crime and are most certain of the chiyuv, while the Ralbag adds deterrence: knowing they must carry out the act makes eidim far more cautious in their testimony.
- The derashah from the Har Sinai pasuk teaches both דחייה and סקילה: סקל יסקל או ירה יירה, with או indicating that death by pushing alone suffices, and סקל יסקל establishing this לדורות. The stone is משוי two men; two lift together and one throws so it strikes with maximum force. The clause “ואם לאו רגימתו בכל ישראל” is theoretical, since the beraita testifies מעולם לא שנה בה אדם; it states the din if needed even though it never occurred. The Gemara instructs that if the implement was buried, the court procured a replacement for future cases.
- The rule “כולם נקברין עמו” refers to burial עמו בתפיסתו, not literally in the same grave, resolving the apparent contradiction with a beraita stating they are not buried “with him.” The Rambam (Sanhedrin 15:9) gives the reason “כדי שלא יהיה לו זכרון רע,” and Rashi links it to the derashah of קבר תקברנו (as applied at least to the gallows; the extension to all implements is assumed). Rav Zilberstein (Chashukei Chemed) argues that modern terror weapons (e.g., a tractor) would not be buried with victims if the concern is only זכרון רע, since it is beneficial to remember what Amalek does; if it were a pure גזירת הכתוב, one might have argued otherwise, but the practice does not follow that.
- Shmuel states that if the *edim* lack hands, the execution is stayed because the Torah requires יד העדים תהיה בו בראשונה. If they were amputated later, the verse “יד העדים שהיתה כבר” resolves that initial eligibility remains; if they never had hands, Shmuel holds they cannot effect the mitzvah. The case of two *edim* reporting a prior conviction is limited by Shmuel to בהן הן עדיו, preserving the requirement that the original *edim* act first. The broader rule of קרא כדכתיב is limited: although רוצח may be executed “בכל מיתה שאתה יכול” from מות יומת המכה, that is a special din, and alongside גואל הדם—where מצוה בגואל הדם extends via בפגעו בו to court-appointed agents—these are שני כתובים הבאים כאחד and אין מלמדים. The exclusionary literalism in a *ben sorer u’moreh*—where lacking parental capacity (hands, legs, speech, sight, hearing) disqualifies the case—derives from an entirely extra verse, marking it as a special scriptural structure rather than a general demand for קרא כדכתיב.
Previous Page
Next Page
Daf Images are property of Vagshal and may not be reproduced.
Suggestions