Sanhedrin Daf 53 - Stam Misah is Chenek, List of Chayavei Sekilah
Summary
- The shiur situates the Mishnah at the end of 52b that details the procedure of *chenek*, establishes through derashot that the unspecified Torah death penalty defaults to *chenek*, derives when other offenses receive *sekilah* from *Ov ve-Yidoni* using “dimeihem bam,” and lists eighteen offenses liable to *sekilah* while identifying cases of multiple overlapping issurim. The sugya presents the positions of Rabbi Yoshiya, Rabbi Yonatan, and Rabbi about why *chenek* is the default, addresses exclusions like a *katan* and an *eshet katan*, analyzes whether there is *ishut* for non‑Jews, and considers Rava’s tradition of four *mitot* together with a suggested source for Rambam’s rule that a king executes only by *sayif*. The Gemara assigns “mot yumat” to authorize execution “bechol mitah” when the prescribed method is not feasible (with a dispute between Tosafot and Rambam on scope), justifies learning *sekilah* for other offenses from “dimeihem bam,” and records the Mishnah’s eighteen *chayavei sekilah* and the three multiple-issur cases, including Rabbi Yehuda’s view that one who is ba’al imo is not additionally chayav for *eshet av*. The sugya tests whether Rabbi Yehuda follows Rabbi Akiva’s view that there is no *tefisat kiddushin* in *chayavei lavin* and concludes he does not, then explores and rejects two derivations for Rabbi Yehuda’s ruling, reserving Rava’s final approach for the continuation.
- The shiur is sponsored by אבישי and אלישבע נומן לזכות רפואה שלימה for חיים נפתלי בן פרומט פרידא and for שרה פרידא בת חיה, with a tefillah for רפואה שלימה בתוך שאר חולי ישראל. The daf is Sanhedrin 53 and the learning begins with the Mishnah at the bottom of 52b.
- The Mishnah states that for *chenek* they immerse the condemned knee-deep in manure, place a coarse rope wrapped in a soft cloth around his neck, and the two witnesses pull from opposite sides until death. The procedure differs from *sereifah*, where they only pull enough to open the mouth for the molten lead, while here they pull with lethal force. Aderet Eliyahu explains the manure prevents soiling mid‑procedure that would require starting over, and the Lechem Mishneh explains Rashi that since by הנסרפין they immobilize to hasten death, they do so here as well, fulfilling “ואהבת לרעך כמוך ברור לו מיתה יפה.”
- The Beraita expounds “ish” to exclude a *katan*, “asher yinaf et eshet ish” to exclude an *eshet katan*, and “eshet re’ehu” to exclude the wife of a non‑Jew. The phrase “mot yumat” in that context signifies *chenek*, and Rabbi Yoshiya rules that a stam “mitah” is the most lenient death; Rabbi Yonatan rules that any stam “mitah” is categorically *chenek*; Rabbi derives equivalence to *mitah bidei shamayim*, a death that leaves no physical mark, thus identifying *chenek*.
- The Gemara rejects identifying *sereifah* as the stam “mitah” that leaves no mark by invoking the explicit *sereifah* of a *bat kohen*, which implies a regular *eshet ish* is not *sereifah*. Rava establishes by tradition that there are four *mitot*, addressing the challenge to Rabbi Yoshiya’s leniency logic and tying the dispute about which death is most lenient to the dispute of Rabbi Shimon and the Rabbanan.
- The Rishonim explain the exclusion of a *katan*: Tosafot (Kiddushin 19) considers the hava amina that the minor would die as the adult partner does, analogizing to a *beheimah* by *rove’a v’nirba*, and the derashah excludes that; Yeraim and Smag interpret the derashah as exempting the woman when the male is under nine and thus not a *bar bi’ah*, while if he is nine to twelve the woman is chayav and the boy is exempt as a minor. Rashba citing Raavad proposes that *hana’ah* could have replaced *da’at* to generate liability without the exclusion “ish,” with broader implications for other issurim unless learned from here. Rashi explains “eshet katan” as no *kiddushin* at all, while in Kiddushin 19 he posits the nine‑year‑old *yavam* acquires his *yevamah* de’oraita for inheritance yet the adulterer is exempt from *mitah*, and Tosafot there disputes, holding a minor effects no de’oraita *ishut*, and the rabbinic status would not trigger *mitah*.
- Tosafot read “eshet re’ehu” to exclude a *kuti* and assert that while there is no *kiddushin* for non‑Jews, there is an issur grounded in “vedavak be’ishto velo be’eshet chaveiro,” evidenced by the heter of *yefat to’ar* “afilu eshet ish.” The definition of *ishut* for non‑Jews follows societal legal marriage structures consistent with a man‑woman union.
- Rava asserts the four *mitot* are received tradition, and the identification of the most lenient death tracks the dispute whether *hereg* or *chenek* is lighter. Rambam (Melachim 3) rules that a king executes a rebel only by *sayif*, and Ohel Moed (cited in Pninim on the Metivta) suggests our sugya as a source: absent the tradition of four *mitot*, the default among three would be *sayif*, so royal executions revert to that, though the shiur questions this logic.
- The Gemara assigns the derivation of *sekilah* for other offenses to “dimeihem bam,” not to “mot yumat,” reserving “mot yumat” to teach that if the prescribed death cannot be administered, the court executes “bechol mitah” available. Binyan Shlomo reads this as supporting Tosafot (45b) that this rule applies only where the Torah uses “mot yumat,” while Rambam (Sanhedrin 14) applies it to all *mitot beit din*, creating tension with our sugya’s phrasing.
- The Gemara eliminates potential objections based on *eshet ish* and *makeh aviv ve’imo* and explains that learning from “mot yumat” would default to the lighter model of *eshet ish*, whereas the tradition fixes the *sekilah* derivations through “dimeihem bam.” The analysis addresses the principle of favoring stringency in *hekesh* and limits it regarding *gezeirah shavah*, while acknowledging that *gezeirah shavah* requires mesorah with leeway to locate its nodes.
- The Mishnah lists eighteen: ha‑ba al ha‑em, al eshet ha‑av, al ha‑kalah, al ha‑zachar, al ha‑behemah, veha‑ishah ha‑mevi’ah et ha‑behemah, ha‑megadef, oveid avodah zarah, noten mi‑zar’o la‑Molech, ba’al *Ov ve‑Yidoni*, mechalel et ha‑Shabbat, mekallel aviv ve’imo, ha‑ba al na’arah ha‑me’orasah, ha‑mesit ve‑ha‑madiach, ha‑mekhashef, and ben sorer u’moreh. The Mishnah states that ba’al imo is chayav for both “em” and “eshet av,” while Rabbi Yehuda obligates only for “em”; ba’al eshet av is chayav for “eshet av” and “eshet ish,” whether during the father’s life or after his death, and from *erusin* or *nisu’in*; ba’al kalato is chayav for “kalato” and “eshet ish,” whether during the son’s life or after his death, and from *erusin* or *nisu’in*. Yad Ramah reads the “after death” clauses as limiting the remaining issur to the familial one, and Ran explains that remarriage does not sever the permanent status of “kalato.”
- Rashi states that mekallel aviv ve’imo is more severe than *makeh* because it contains two elements, קלון אביו ואמו ומוציא שם שמים לבטלה. Acharonim analyze whether the issur is specifically misuse of the Name and note, per Chatam Sofer, that written cursing may lack the element of מוציא שם שמים לבטלה.
- A Beraita records Rabbi Yehuda that if the mother was not “re’uyah” to the father he obligates only for “em,” which implies he treats *chayavei lavin* like Rabbi Akiva’s view of no *tefisat kiddushin*. A challenge from the laws of *yibbum* and *chalitzah* shows that Rabbi Yehuda cannot adopt Rabbi Akiva’s full equation of *chayavei lavin* to *chayavei keritot*, and the Gemara resolves that Rabbi Yehuda may be addressing the Tanna Kamma’s terms “le‑divreihem” rather than endorsing the premise.
- The version in our Mishnah has Rabbi Yehuda obligating only for “em” even when the parents’ marriage is kosher, and the Gemara tests “emkha hi” as a limiting derashah but assigns “emkha hi” to Rav Sheshet bar Rav Idi’s halachah that the *sekilah* for ba’al imo applies whether she is eshet aviv or anusat aviv. The Gemara tests “ervatah” as a singular‑issur limiter and rejects it in light of “kalato,” concluding that the word form reflects one person with multiple issurim rather than a halachic cap, and it leaves the source for Rabbi Yehuda to Rava’s forthcoming approach.
Previous Page
Next Page
Daf Images are property of Vagshal and may not be reproduced.
Suggestions