## Jerusalem Talmud Sanhedrin Chapter 9

###### Jerusalem Talmud Sanhedrin 9:1:1
[Jerusalem Talmud Sanhedrin 9:1:1](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Jerusalem%20Talmud%20Sanhedrin/r/9:1:1)

**משנה:** אֵילּוּ הֵן הַנִּשְׂרָפִין הַבָּא עַל אִשָּׁה וּבִתָּהּ וּבַת כֹּהֵן שֶׁזִּנְּתָה. יֵשׁ בִּכְלָל אִשָּׁה וּבִתָּהּ בִּתּוֹ וּבַת בִּתּוֹ וּבַת בְּנוֹ וּבַת אִשְׁתּוֹ וּבַת בִּתָּהּ וּבַת בְּנָהּ.

**Le Talmud de Jérusalem, traduit par Moise Schwab, 1878-1890 [fr]:**
**MISHNAH:** The following are to be burned: one who copulates with a woman and her daughter,¹. 20:14. and the daughter of a Cohen who committed adultery². 21:9.. In the category of *a woman and her daughter* are included his daughter, his daughter’s daughter, his son’s daughter, his wife’s daughter, her daughter’s daughter, and her son’s daughter³. 18:17 includes relations with a woman and her granddaughter with the prohibition of a woman and her daughter. The Mishnaiot in the Babli and most independent Mishnah mss. include mention of the mother and the grandmother-in-law. This is logically redundant.. The following are to be beheaded: the murderer,⁴ and the inhabitants of a seduced town⁵. 13:16; Halakhot 7:1,10:7,8..

footnotes:
¹ Lev
² Lev
³ Lev
⁴ Chapter 7, Note 4.
⁵ Deut


###### Jerusalem Talmud Sanhedrin 9:1:2
[Jerusalem Talmud Sanhedrin 9:1:2](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Jerusalem%20Talmud%20Sanhedrin/r/9:1:2)

**הלכה:** אֵילּוּ הֵן הַנִּשְׂרָפִין כול׳. תַּמָּן תַּנִּינָן.

**Le Talmud de Jérusalem, traduit par Moise Schwab, 1878-1890 [fr]:**
**HALAKHAH:** “The following are to be burned,” etc. There, we have stated⁶ 11:1, explained there in Notes 4–65. The text here does not always follow the same order as given there. The Notes here are restricted to indicate where the text of *Yebamot* (Y) was preferred for translation. The corruptions in the *Sanhedrin* text make it clear that the Y text is original.:

footnotes:
⁶ The entire following Halakhah is a copy of Yebamot


###### Jerusalem Talmud Sanhedrin 9:1:3
[Jerusalem Talmud Sanhedrin 9:1:3](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Jerusalem%20Talmud%20Sanhedrin/r/9:1:3)

נוֹשְׂאִין עַל הָאֲנוּסָה וְעַל הַמְפוּתָּה. כֵּינִי מַתְנִיתָא. נוֹשְׂאִין אחד הָאֲנוּסָה וְאחד הַמְפוּתָּה. אָנַס אִשָּׁה מוּתָּר בְּאִמָּהּ. פִּיתֶּה אִשָּׁה מוּתָּר בְּבִתָּהּ.

**Le Talmud de Jérusalem, traduit par Moise Schwab, 1878-1890 [fr]:**
“One may marry [relatives of] a rape victim or a seduced woman.” So is the Mishnah: One may marry after⁷ a rape or after a seduction. If he raped a woman, her mother is permitted. If he seduced a woman, he daughter is permitted.

footnotes:
⁷ The reading of Y אחר clearly is the correct one, not אחד “one,” as written here.


###### Jerusalem Talmud Sanhedrin 9:1:4
[Jerusalem Talmud Sanhedrin 9:1:4](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Jerusalem%20Talmud%20Sanhedrin/r/9:1:4)

הָאוֹנֵס וְהַמְפַתֶּה עַל הַנְּשׂוּאָה חַיָיב. אָמַר רִבִּי יוֹחָנָן. דֶּרֶךְ נִישּׂוּאִין שָׁנוּ. נָשָׂא אִשָּׁה וְאַחַר כָּךְ אָנַס אֶת אִמָּהּ חַיָיב. נָשָׂא אִשָּׁה וְאַחַר כָּךְ פִּיתָּה אֶת בִּתָּהּ חַיָיב.

**Le Talmud de Jérusalem, traduit par Moise Schwab, 1878-1890 [fr]:**
“He who rapes or seduces [a relative of] a married woman is [criminally] liable.” Rebbi Joḥanan said, one stated this for marriage. If he married a woman and then raped her mother, he is [criminally] liable. If he married a woman and then seduced her daughter, he is [criminally] liable.


###### Jerusalem Talmud Sanhedrin 9:1:5
[Jerusalem Talmud Sanhedrin 9:1:5](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Jerusalem%20Talmud%20Sanhedrin/r/9:1:5)

אָמַר רִבִּי לָעְזָר. סוּמָכוֹס וְרִבִּי יוֹחָנָן בֶּן נוּרִי אָמְרוּ דָּבָר אֶחָד. דְּתַנִּינָן תַּמָּן. שְׁחָטָהּ וְאֶת בַּת בִּתָּהּ וְאַחַר כָּךְ שָׁחַט אֶת בִּתָּהּ סוֹפֵג אֶת הָאַרְבָּעִים. סוּמָכוֹס אוֹמֵר מִשּׁוּם רַבִּי מֵאִיר. סוֹפֵג אֶת שְׁמוֹנִים. תַּמָּן תַּנִּינָן. רַבִּי יוֹחָנָן בֶּן נוּרִי אוֹמֵר. הַבָּא עַל חֲמוֹתוֹ חַיָיב עָלֶיהָ מִשּׁוּם חֲמוֹתוֹ וְאֵם חֲמוֹתוֹ וְאֵם חָמִיו. אָמְרוּ לוֹ. שְׁלָשְׁתָּן שֵׁם אֶחָד הֵן. רִבִּי יוּדָה בַּר פָּזִי בְשֵׁם רִבִּי יוֹחָנָן. מוֹדֶה סוּמָכוֹס לְרִבִּי יוֹחָנָן. אַשְׁכַּח תַּנֵּי. עוֹד הִיא בְמַחֲלוֹקֶת. מַה טַעֲמָא דְרִבִּי יוֹחָנָן בֶּן נוּרִי. מַה אִשָּׁה וּבִתָּהּ וּבַת בִּתָּהּ בִּשְׁנֵי לָאוִין. אַף אִשָּׁה (וּבִתָּהּ) וּבַת בִּתָּהּ בִּשְׁנֵי לָאוִין. מַה טַעֲמוֹן דְּרַבָּנִין. מַה בַת בְּנָהּ וּבַת בִּתָּהּ בְּלָאו אֶחָד אַף אִשָּׁה וּבַת בִּתָּהּ וּבַת בְּנָהּ בְּלָאו אֶחָד.

**Le Talmud de Jérusalem, traduit par Moise Schwab, 1878-1890 [fr]:**
Rebbi Eleazar said, Symmachos and Rebbi Joḥanan ben Nuri said the same thing, since we stated there: “If he slaughtered her, her daughter’s daughter, and afterwards her daughter, he absorbs forty [lashes]. Symmachos said in Rebbi Meïr’s name, he absorbs eighty.” There, we have stated: “Rebbi Joḥanan ben Nuri said, he who copulates with his mother-in-law may be liable because of his mother-in-law, his mother-in-law’s mother, and his father-in-law’s mother. They said to him, all three fall under the same law.” Rebbi Jehudah bar Pazi in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: Symmachos agrees with Rebbi Joḥanan. It was found stated: it still is in dispute. What is Rebbi Joḥanan ben Nuri’s reason? Since a woman and her daughter and a woman and her daughter’s daughter fall under two separate prohibitions, also a woman and (her daughter) [her son’s daughter]⁸ (in parentheses) simply is a copy of the preceding sentence. and her daughter’s daughter fall under two separate prohibitions. What is the reason of the rabbis? Since a woman and her daughter and a woman and her daughter’s daughter fall under one and the same prohibition, also a woman and her son’s daughter and her daughter’s daughter fall the under same prohibition.

footnotes:
⁸ Text of Y. The text of Sanhedrin


###### Jerusalem Talmud Sanhedrin 9:1:6
[Jerusalem Talmud Sanhedrin 9:1:6](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Jerusalem%20Talmud%20Sanhedrin/r/9:1:6)

כְּתִיב עֶרְוַת אִשָּׁה וּבִתָּהּ לֹא תְגַלֵּה. וּכְתִיב וְאִישׁ אֲשֶׁר יִַקּח אֶת אִשָּׁה וְאֶת אִמָּהּ זִמָּה הִיא. בְּכוּלְּהֹם כְּתִיב שְׁכִיבָה וּבָהּ כְּתִיב לְקִיחָה. לְלַמְּדָךְ שֶׁאֵינוֹ חַיָיב עַל הַשְּׁנִיָיה עַד שֶׁתְּהֵא לְקוּחָה לוֹ. אוֹ אֵינוֹ מִתְחַיֵיב עָלֶיהָ אֶלָּא עַל דֶּרֶךְ נִישּׂוּאִין. לָמַדְנוּ שֶׁאֵין קִידּוּשִׁין תּוֹפְסִין בָּעֲרָיוֹת. וְהָא כְתִיב לֹא יִַקּח אִישׁ אֶת אֵשֶׁת אָבִיו וְלֹא יְגַלֶּה כֲּנף אָבִיו. בָּא לְהוֹדִיעָךְ שֶׁהָיָה מוּתָּר בָּהּ עַד שֶׁלֹּא נִישֵּׂאת לְאָבִיו. וְהָכְתִיב וְאִישׁ אֲשֶׁר יִקַּח אֶת אֵשֶׁת אָחִיו. מָה הוּא בָא לְהוּדִיעָךְ. שֶׁהָיָה מוּתָּר בָּהּ עַד שֶׁלֹּא נִישֵּׂאת לְאָחִיו. וְתוּבָן עַל יְדֵי יִיבּוּם. וְהָכְתִיב וְאִשָּׁה אֶל אֲחוֹתָהּ לֹא תִקָּח. בָּא לְהוֹדִיעָךְ שֶׁהָיָה מוּתָּר עַד שֶׁלֹּא נָשָׂא אֲחוֹתָהּ. וְתוּבָן לְאַחַר מִיתַת אַחוֹתָהּ. וְהָכְתִיב וְאִישׁ אֲשֶׁר יִקַּח אֶת אֲחוֹתוֹ בַּת אָבִיו אוֹ בַת אִמּוֹ וְרָאָה אֶת עֶרְוָתָהּ וְהִיא תִרְאֶה אֶת עֶרְוָתוֹ חֶסֶד הוּא. שֶׁלֹּא תֹאמַר. קַיִן נָשָׂא אֶת אֲחוֹתוֹ. הֶבֶל נָשָׂא אֶת אֲחוֹתוֹ. חֶסֶד עָשִׂיתִי עִם הָרִאשׁוֹנִים שֶׁיִיבָּנֶה הָעוֹלָם מֵהֶם. אָמַרְתִּי עוֹלָם חֶסֶד יִבָּנֶה. וְהָכְתִיב אַלְמָנָה וּגְרוּשָׁה וַחֲלָלָה זוֹנָה אֶת אֵלֶּה לֹא יִקָּח. בָּא לְהוֹדִיעָךְ שֶׂאִם קִידְּשָׁהּ תָּפְסוּ בָהּ קִידּוּשִׁין.

**Le Talmud de Jérusalem, traduit par Moise Schwab, 1878-1890 [fr]:**
It is written, *the genitals of a woman and her daughter you shall not uncover*, and it is written, *if a man take a woman and her mother, it is taboo*. Everywhere is written *lying with*, but here is written *taking*, to teach you that he cannot be [criminally] liable for the second woman unless she be taken by him. Or maybe he is [criminally] liable only by marriage? We already said that there is no valid incestuous marriage. But is it not written: *Nobody may marry his father’s wife, and he should not uncover his father’s garment’s corner*? This comes to tell that she was permitted to him before his father married her. But is it not written: *If a man take his brother’s wife*? This comes to tell you that she was permitted to him before his brother married her. This is understood by levirate. But is it not written: *You should not take a woman in addition to her sister*? This comes to tell you that she was permitted to him before he married her sister. This is understood after her sister’s death. But is it not written: *A man who would take his sister, his father’s daughter or his mother’s daughter, it is ḥesed*? That you should not say that Cain married his sister, Abel married his sister, *it is charitable*, I was charitable with the first generations so the world could be inhabited; *I said, the world was built on ḥesed*. But is it not written: *Widow, divorcee, and desecrated, these he shall not take*? This comes to tell you that if he became betrothed to her, the betrothal is valid.


###### Jerusalem Talmud Sanhedrin 9:1:7
[Jerusalem Talmud Sanhedrin 9:1:7](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Jerusalem%20Talmud%20Sanhedrin/r/9:1:7)

רַב הוּנָא אָמַר. עַד כְּדוֹן בַּת בִּתּוֹ לְנִישּׂוּאִין. בַּת בִּתּוֹ מִן הָאוֹנְסִין. כְּתִיב עֶרְוַת בַּת בִּנְךָ אוֹ בַת בִּתְּךָ לֹא תְגַלֶּה עֶרְוָתָן. מָה אֲנָן קַיָימִין. אִם לְנִישּׂוּאִין הֲרֵי כְּבָר אָמוּר. אֶלָּא אִם אֵינוֹ עִנְיָין לְנִישּׂוּאִין תְּנֵיהוּ עִנְיָין לְאוֹנְסִין. עַד כְּדוֹן בַּת בִּתּוֹ. בִּתּוֹ מְנַיִין. רַב אָמַר. אִם עַל בַּת בִּתּוֹ הוּא מוּזְהָר עַל בִּתּוֹ לֹא כָל שֶׁכֵּן. אִם עַל בַּת בִּתּוֹ הוּא עָנוּשׁ כָּרֵת לֹא כָל שֶׁכֵּן עַל בִּתּוֹ.

**Le Talmud de Jérusalem, traduit par Moise Schwab, 1878-1890 [fr]:**
(Rav Huna said:)⁹ so far his daughter’s daughter from marriage. His daughter’s daughter from a rape? It is written, *the genitals of your son’s daughter or your daughter’s daughter you shall not uncover*. Where do we hold? If from marriage, it already had been said. So it cannot refer to marriage but must refer to rape. So far about his daughter’s daughter; from where his daughter? Rav said, if he is forewarned about his daughter’s daughter, so much more for his daughter! If for his daughter’s daughter he is subject to punishment (by extirpation)⁹, so much more for his daughter!

footnotes:
⁹ Missing in Y, probably spurious.
⁹ Missing in Y, probably spurious.


###### Jerusalem Talmud Sanhedrin 9:1:8
[Jerusalem Talmud Sanhedrin 9:1:8](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Jerusalem%20Talmud%20Sanhedrin/r/9:1:8)

מְנָא לֵיהּ. אַשְׁכַּח תַּנֵּי חִזְקִיָּה. וּבַת אִישׁ כֹּהֵן כִּי תֵחֵל לִזְנוֹת. מַה תַלְמוּד לוֹמַר אִישׁ. אֶלָּא לָהָבִיא הַבָּא עַל בִּתּוֹ מִן הָאוֹנְסִין שֶׁהוּא בִשְׂרֵיפָה.

**Le Talmud de Jérusalem, traduit par Moise Schwab, 1878-1890 [fr]:**
¹⁰ From where does he have this? If was found stated by Ḥizqiah: *And if the daughter of a Cohen man start to whore*¹¹. 21:9.. Why does the verse say *man*? To include one who copulates with his daughter from a rape among the burned¹²; this excludes an incestuous relationship, in which the father desecrates his daughter..

footnotes:
¹⁰ Missing in Y. Rav’s argument is rejected in the Babli 76a since it violates a fundamental principle of criminal law that no act is punishable which is not listed as punishable in the written law. Therefore one needs a verse which punishes sexual relations with an illegitimate daughter.
¹¹ Lev
¹² The verse states clearly that the priesthood is inherited from the male line. A daughter of a Cohen who is not the daughter of the Cohen’s wife still is a Cohen’s daughter and subject to the rules of the priesthood. But the Babli 76a rejects the argument given here since the verse states that the Cohen’s daughter has to be burned because she desecrates her father


###### Jerusalem Talmud Sanhedrin 9:1:9
[Jerusalem Talmud Sanhedrin 9:1:9](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Jerusalem%20Talmud%20Sanhedrin/r/9:1:9)

רַב חוּנָה שָׁמַע כּוּלְּהוֹן מִן הָכָא. עֶרְוַת אִשָּׁה וּבִתָּהּ לֹא תְגַלֵּה. וּכְתִיב וְאִישׁ אֲשֶׁר יִקַּח אֶת אִשָּׁה וְאֶת אִמָּהּ זִמָּה הִיא. זִמָּה זִמָּה לִגְזֵירָה שָׁוָה. מַה לְמַטָּן שְׁלֹשָׁה דוֹרוֹת אַף לְמַעֲלָן שְׁלֹשָׁה דוֹרוֹת. מַה לְמַטָּן בְּלֹא תַעֲשֶׂה אַף לְמַעֲלָן בְּלֹא תַעֲשֶׂה. מַה לְמַטָּן דֶּרֶךְ נִישּׂוּאִין אַף לְמַעֲלָן דֶּרֶךְ נִישּׂוּאִין. מַה לְמַטָּן בִּשְׂרֵיפָה אַף לְמַעֲלָן בִּשְׂרֵיפָה. מַה לְמַטָּן עָשָׂה בַת זָכָר כְּבַת נְקֵיבָה אַף לְמַעֲלָן נַעֲשָׂה בַת זָכָר כְּבַת נְקֵיבָה.

**Le Talmud de Jérusalem, traduit par Moise Schwab, 1878-1890 [fr]:**
¹³ text is the correct one, where in the references to *Lev*. 20:14 “upwards” and “downwards” have to be interchanged and in the last sentence “mother” replaces “daughter”. Rav Huna understood all of these [rules] from this verse: *The genitals of a woman and her daughter you should nor uncover*. And it is written, *if a man take a woman and her daughter, it is taboo*. Taboo-taboo for an equal cut. Since there are three generations downwards, so there are three generations upwards. Since there is a prohibition downwards, there is a prohibition upwards. Since downwards one requires marriage, so upwards one requires marriage. Since downwards they are burned, so upwards they are burned. Since downwards He gave the male’s daughter the same status as the female’s daughter, so upwards we give the male’s daughter the same status as the female’s daughter.

footnotes:
¹³ The changes from or additions to the text in Y are underlined. It is clear that the Yebamot


###### Jerusalem Talmud Sanhedrin 9:1:10
[Jerusalem Talmud Sanhedrin 9:1:10](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Jerusalem%20Talmud%20Sanhedrin/r/9:1:10)

וּכְרִבִּי מֵאִיר. דְּרִבִּי מֵאִיר אָמַר. גְּזֵירָה שָׁוָה בְּמָקוֹם שֶׁבָּא. דּוֹר שְׁלִישִׁי לְמַטָּה מְנַיִין שֶׂהוּא בְלֹא תַעֲשֶׂה. (וּכְרַבָּנִין דִּינּוּן אָמְרִין. גְּזֵירָה שָׁוָה בְּמָקוֹם שֶׁבָּאת. דּוֹר שְׁלִישִׁי לְמַטָּה מְנַיִין שֶׂהוּא בָא בְלֹא תַעֲשֶׂה.) וּכְרַבָּנִין דִּינּוּן אָמְרִין. גְּזֵירָה שָׁוָה כָּאָמוּר בָּהּ. דּוֹר שְׁלִישִׁי לְמַעֲלָה מְנַיִין שֶׂהוּא בִּשְׂרֵיפָה. בֵּין כְּרַבָּנִין בֵּין כְּרִבִּי מֵאִיר דּוֹר שְׁלִישִׁי לְמַטָּה מְנַיִין שֶׂהוּא בְלֹא תַעֲשֶׂה. אָמַר רִבִּי יוֹסֵי. מִכֵּיוָן דִכְתִיב זִמָּה זִמָּה כְּמִי שֶׁכּוּלְּהֹם כָּאן.

**Le Talmud de Jérusalem, traduit par Moise Schwab, 1878-1890 [fr]:**
And following Rebbi Meïr? Since Rebbi Meïr said, a *gezerah šawah* is at the place it comes from, from where is the third generation downwards forbidden? (And following the rabbis, who say, a *gezerah šawah* is at the place it comes from, from where is the third generation downwards forbidden?)⁹ And following the rabbis, who say, a *gezerah šawah* is said about them, from where is the third generation upwards punished by burning? Both for Rebbi Meïr and the rabbis, from where that the third generation downwards is forbidden? (Rebbi Yose said,)⁹ since it is written *taboo-taboo*, it is as if all were there.

footnotes:
⁹ Missing in Y, probably spurious.
⁹ Missing in Y, probably spurious.


###### Jerusalem Talmud Sanhedrin 9:1:11
[Jerusalem Talmud Sanhedrin 9:1:11](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Jerusalem%20Talmud%20Sanhedrin/r/9:1:11)

אָמַר רִבִּי יוֹסֵי בֵּירִבִּי בּוּן. עוֹד הוּא אִית לֵיהּ אַזְהָרָה מִן תַּמָּן. אַל תְּחַלֵּל אֶת בִּתְּךָ לְהַזְנוֹתָהּ.

**Le Talmud de Jérusalem, traduit par Moise Schwab, 1878-1890 [fr]:**
¹⁴ it follows the paragraph after the next. All sexual offenses against a daughter are covered by *Lev*. 19:29; punishment only has to be specified in different cases. Babli 76a. Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Abun said, one may even understand this from the warning: *Do not desecrate your daughter to force her into prostitution*.

footnotes:
¹⁴ This sentence is quite out of place here; in Yebamot


###### Jerusalem Talmud Sanhedrin 9:1:12
[Jerusalem Talmud Sanhedrin 9:1:12](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Jerusalem%20Talmud%20Sanhedrin/r/9:1:12)

רִבִּי חַגַּיי בְּעָא קוֹמֵי רִבִּי יוּסֵי. לָמָּה לֵי נָן אָמְרִין. בִּתְּךָ לֹא תְגַלֶּה בַּת בִּתְּךָ לֹא תְגַלֶּה. אָמַר לֵיהּ. וְיֵימַר קִרְיָיא עֶרְוַת אִשָּׁה וּבַת בִּתָּהּ לֹא תְגַלֶּה וַאֲנָן אָמְרִין. בִּתְּךָ לֹא תְגַלֶּה בַּת בִּתְּךָ לֹא תְגַלֶּה.

**Le Talmud de Jérusalem, traduit par Moise Schwab, 1878-1890 [fr]:**
Rebbi Ḥaggai asked before Rebbi Yose: Why do we not say, “your daughter you should not uncover, your daughter’s daughter you should not uncover”? He said, if it were written “the genitals of a woman and her daughter’s daughter you shall not uncover,” we would have said “your daughter you should not uncover, your daughter’s daughter you should not uncover”.


###### Jerusalem Talmud Sanhedrin 9:1:13
[Jerusalem Talmud Sanhedrin 9:1:13](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Jerusalem%20Talmud%20Sanhedrin/r/9:1:13)

שְׁנַיִם לָאוִין וְכָרֵת אֶחָד לָאוין חוֹלְקִין אֶת הַהִכָּרֵת. וּמַה טַעֲמָא. עַל בְּשַׂר אָדָם לֹא יִיסָךְ וּבְמַתְכֹּנְתּוֹ לֹא תַעֲשׂוּ כָּמוֹהוּ וגו׳. וּכְתִיב אִישׁ אֲשֶׁר יִרְקַח כָּמוֹהוּ וגו׳. הָדָא אָמְרָה. שְׁנֵי לָאוִין וְכָרֵת אֶחָד חוֹלְקִין אֶת הַהִכָּרֵת.

**Le Talmud de Jérusalem, traduit par Moise Schwab, 1878-1890 [fr]:**
If there are two prohibitions and one liability to extirpation, the prohibitions split the extirpation. What is the reason? *On human flesh it may not be rubbed and in its proportions you should not make [a compound] like it*, etc.. And it is written: *A man who would compound like it, etc*. This implies that for two prohibitions and one liability to extirpation, the prohibitions split the extirpation.


###### Jerusalem Talmud Sanhedrin 9:1:14
[Jerusalem Talmud Sanhedrin 9:1:14](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Jerusalem%20Talmud%20Sanhedrin/r/9:1:14)

בְּעוֹן קוּמֵי רִבִּי אַבָּהוּ. הַבָּא עַל אִשָׁה וְיָלְדָה בַת וְחָזַר וּבָא עָלֶיהָ חַיָיב עָלֶיהָ מִשׁוּם אִשָּׁה וּבִתָּהּ וּבַת בִּתָּהּ וּבַת בְּנָהּ. אָמַר לוֹן שַׁאֲרָה הֵנָּה זִמָּה הִיא. כּוּלְּהֹם מִשׁוּם זִימָּה.

**Le Talmud de Jérusalem, traduit par Moise Schwab, 1878-1890 [fr]:**
They asked before Rebbi Abbahu: If [a man] copulated with a woman, she had a daughter, and after that he came and copulated with the latter. Is he [criminally] liable about her because of a woman and her daughter, her daughter’s daughter, and her son’s daughter? He said to them, *they are relatives, it is taboo*, all because of taboo.


###### Jerusalem Talmud Sanhedrin 9:1:15
[Jerusalem Talmud Sanhedrin 9:1:15](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Jerusalem%20Talmud%20Sanhedrin/r/9:1:15)

מַה טַעֲמָא דְרִבִּי יְהוּדָה. לֹא יִקַּח אִישׁ אֶת אֵשֶׁת אָבִיו לֹא יְגַלֶּה כֲּנף אָבִיו. זוֹ אֲנוּסָתוֹ. מַה מְקַיְימִין רַבָּנִין כְּנַף. תַּמָּן אָמְרִין וְלָא יָדְעִין אִין שְׁמוּעָה זוֹ. כָּנָף זוֹ שֶׁהִוא זְקוּקָה לְאָבִיו. וְלֹא כָךְ אֵינוֹ חַיָיב עָלֶיהָ מִשּׁוּם אֵשֶׁת אָבִיו. אָמַר רִבִּי הִילָא. לְהַתְרָיָיה. שֶׁאִם הְתְרוּ בוֹ מִשּׁוּם אֵשֶׁת אָב לוֹקֶה. מִשּׁוּם כָּנָף לוֹקֶה. מוֹדֶה רִבִּי יוּדָה בְמַכּוֹת. מוֹדֶה רִבִּי יוּדָה בְקָרְבָּן. מוֹדֶה רִבִּי יוּדָה בִשְׁאָר כָּל הָאֲנָשִׁים שֶׁהוּא פָטוּר. מוֹדֶה רִבִּי יוּדָה שֶׁאִם קִידְּשָׁהּ תָּפְשׂוּ בָהּ קִידּוּשִׁין.

**Le Talmud de Jérusalem, traduit par Moise Schwab, 1878-1890 [fr]:**
What is the reason of Rebbi Jehudah? *A man may not take his father’s wife, and he should not uncover his father’s wing;* that is his rape victim. How do the rabbis explain “his father’s wing”? There, they say and they do not know the origin of the tradition, that refers to a wing which is in need of his father. Would he not anyhow be [criminally] liable for her because of “his father’s wife”? Rebbi Hila said, because of forewarning; if he was warned because of his father’s wife he will be whipped, and because of his father’s wing he will be whipped. Rebbi Jehudah agrees about whipping. Rebbi Jehudah agrees about sacrifice. Rebbi Jehudah agrees about all other men¹⁵ that he is free. Rebbi Jehudah agrees that if he marries her preliminarily that the preliminary marriage is legally valid.

footnotes:
¹⁵ Probably for האנשים one should read האנסים “the rapists.” A man can have relations with a woman raped or seduced by any close relative except his father, and even marry her. In Y the reading is הספיקות “the doubts” (see there, Note 61.)


###### Jerusalem Talmud Sanhedrin 9:1:16
[Jerusalem Talmud Sanhedrin 9:1:16](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Jerusalem%20Talmud%20Sanhedrin/r/9:1:16)

רִבִּי חַגַּיי בְּעָא קוֹמֵי רִבִּי יוֹסֵי. מַהוּ שֶׁיְּהֵא הַוְולָד מַמְזֵר כְּרִבִּי יוּדָה. אָמַר לֵיהּ. לֹא יָבוֹא פְצוּעַ דַּכָּא וּכְרוּת שָׁפְכָה בִּקְהַל יְי הִפְסִיק הָעִנְיָין. וְיַפְסִיק הָעְנְיָין לְעִנְיָין אֵשֶׁת אָב. אֵשֶׁת אָב בִּכְלָל כָּל הָעֲרָיוֹת הָיְתָה וְיָצָאת מִכְּלָלָהּ לְלַמֵּד עַל כָּל הָעֲרָיוֹת לְמַמְזֵר. וְתֵצֵא אֲנוּסָה וּתְלַמֵּד עַל כָּל הָאֲונֻסִים לְאִסּוּר. אֵשֶׁת אָב בִּכְלָל כָּל הָעֲרָיוֹת הָיָית וְיָצָאת מִכְּלָלָהּ לְלַמֵּד עַל כָּל הָעֲרָיוֹת לְמַמְזֵר. אִית לָךְ מֵימַר הָכָא. אֲנוּסָה בִּכְלָל הָיָית וְיָצָאת מִכְּלָלָהּ לְלַמֵּד עַל כָּל הָאֲונֻסִים. וְתֵצֵא אֵשֶׁת אָב וּתְלַמֵּד עַל אֲנוּסָתָהּ. אָמַר לֵיהּ. אִם אֵשֶׁת אָב הִיא אֵינָהּ אֲנוּסָה. וְאִם אֲנוּסָה הִיא אֵינָהּ אֵשֶׁת אָב.

**Le Talmud de Jérusalem, traduit par Moise Schwab, 1878-1890 [fr]:**
¹⁶ 11:1, Notes 62–65. Rebbi Ḥaggai asked before Rebbi Yose: Is the child a bastard following Rebbi Jehudah? He said to him, *No one with a damaged testicle or with cut-off penis may marry into the Eternal’s congregation* interrupts the argument. It interrupted the argument in the matter of the father’s wife. The father’s wife was part of the set of all incest prohibitions; it was selected from this set to teach about bastardy for all incest prohibitions. Similarly, let the rape victim be selected to teach a prohibition concerning all rape victims. The father’s wife was part of the set of all incest prohibitions; it was selected from this set to teach about bastardy for all incest prohibitions. Can you say here that the rape victim was in the set, that it could teach a prohibition concerning all rape victims? Why cannot the father’s wife be selected to teach about the rape victim in her case? He said to him, if she is his father’s wife, she is not his rape victim; if she is the father’s rape victim, she is not his wife.

footnotes:
¹⁶ In this paragraph, the indications of who is the speaker of each sentence are given in Yebamot


###### Jerusalem Talmud Sanhedrin 9:2:1
[Jerusalem Talmud Sanhedrin 9:2:1](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Jerusalem%20Talmud%20Sanhedrin/r/9:2:1)

**משנה:** וְאֵילּוּ הֵן הַנֶּהֱרָגִין הָרוֹצֵחַ וְאַנְשֵׁי עִיר הַנִּדַּחַת. רוֹצֵחַ שֶׁהִכָּה אֶת רֵעֵהוּ בָאֶבֶן אוֹ בַבַּרְזֶל וְכָבַשׁ עָלָיו לְתוֹךְ הַמַּיִם אוֹ לְתוֹךְ הָאוּר וְאֵינוֹ יָכוֹל לַעֲלוֹת מִשָּׁם וָמֵת חַיָיב. דְּחָפוֹ לְתוֹךְ הַמַּיִם אוֹ לְתוֹךְ הָאוּר וְיָכוֹל הוּא לַעֲלוֹת מִשָּׁם וָמֵת פָּטוּר. שִׁיסָּה בוֹ אֶת הַכֶּלֶב שִׁיסָּה בוֹ אֶת הַנָּחָשׁ פָּטוּר. הִשִּׁיךְ בּוֹ אֶת הַנָּחָשׁ רִבִּי יְהוּדָה מְחַיֵיב וַחֲכָמִים פּוֹטְרִין.

**Le Talmud de Jérusalem, traduit par Moise Schwab, 1878-1890 [fr]:**
**MISHNAH:** A murderer who attacked someone with a stone or an iron¹⁷ 35:16,17., or forced him under water or into fire so he could not escape from there and died, is [criminally] liable. If he pushed him into water or fire and he could have escaped from there by himself but died, he is not [criminally] liable¹⁸. If he provoked a dog or a snake against him, he is not [criminally] liable¹⁸. If he let a snake bite him¹⁹, Rebbi Jehudah declares him [criminally] liable but for the Sages he is not [criminally] liable.

footnotes:
¹⁷ These are the cases described in the Torah, Num.
¹⁸ This is a case of indirect causation, not covered by biblical law.
¹⁸ This is a case of indirect causation, not covered by biblical law.
¹⁹ The murderer held the poisonous snake until it started to bite the victim. For R. Jehudah it is a case of murder, for the Sages one of indirect causation.


###### Jerusalem Talmud Sanhedrin 9:2:2
[Jerusalem Talmud Sanhedrin 9:2:2](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Jerusalem%20Talmud%20Sanhedrin/r/9:2:2)

**הלכה:** רוֹצֵחַ שֶׁהִכָּה אֶת רֵעֵהוּ כול׳. כְּתִיב וְאִם בְּאֶבֶן יָד אֲשֶׁר יָמוּת בָּהּ הִכָּהוּ וַיָּמֹת מוֹת יוּמַת הַמַּכֶּה רוֹצֵחַ הוּא מוֹת יוּמַת הָרוֹצֵחַ. אוֹ בִּכְלִי עֵץ יָד אֲשֶׁר יָמוּת בָּהּ הִכָּהוּ וַיָּמֹת רוֹצֵחַ הוּא מוֹת יוּמַת הָרוֹצֵחַ. כְּשֶׁהוּא בָא אֶצֶל הַבַּרְזֶל אֵינוֹ אוֹמֵר לֹא שֶׁיָּמוּת בּוֹ וְלֹא שֶׁלֹּא יָמוּת בּוֹ. אֶלָּא אֲפִילוּ צִינּוֹרָה קָטַנָּה דְהִיא יָכְלָה מֵקִים גַּו וֶושְׁטָא וּמִיקְטְלִינֵיהּ. וְהוּא שֶׁיְּהֵא בָאֶבֶן כְּדֵי לַהֲמִיתוֹ. בָּעֵץ כְּדֵי לַהֲמִיתוֹ. כִּיוְונוֹ כְּנֶגֶד הַסּוּס. כִּיוְונוֹ כְּנֶגֶד הַחֵץ. כִּיוְונוֹ כְּנֶגֶד הָרוֹמַח. הֶעֱמִידוֹ בַצִּינָּה. הִשְׁקָה אוֹתוֹ מַיִם רָעִים. הֶעֱבִיר אֶת הַתִּקְרָה מֵעָלָיו וְיָרְדוּ עָלָיו גְּשָׁמִים וַהֲרָגוּהוּ. פָּתַק אַמַּת הַמַּיִם עָלָיו וּבָאוּ עָלָיו הַמַּיִם וּשְׁטָפוּהוּ.

**Le Talmud de Jérusalem, traduit par Moise Schwab, 1878-1890 [fr]:**
**HALAKHAH:** “A murderer who attacked someone,” etc. It is written²⁰. 35:17.: *If he hit him with a lethal stone in his hand so that he died, (the hitter shall die, he is a murderer,)*²¹. 35:21; the quote is not appropriate*the murderer shall be put to death. Or he hit him with a lethal wooden implement in his hand so that he died, the murderer shall be put to death*²². 35:18.. When He comes to iron²³. 35:16. Babli 76b., He does not speak of lethal or not lethal, but even a small hook when applied to the esophagus could kill him; but a stone must be lethal, wood must be lethal²⁴. If he put him in front of a horse²⁵, in front of an arrow, in front of a spear, put him out in the cold, gave him bad water to drink, removed the ceiling over him and the rains came down and killed him, or he opened a water canal whose waters swept over him²⁶.

footnotes:
²⁰ Num
²¹ Num
²² Num
²³ Num
²⁴ Prosecution of murder with a stone or wood is possible only if the stone or wood can be classified as lethal; otherwise the murderer can claim that the slain person was the victim of an accident.
²⁵ In the following cases, it is presumed that the murderer somehow immobilized his victim. In these cases, the murderer is guilty if the horse already was galloping, or the arrow or spear already flying, etc. Then the action of the murderer is murder. But according to the Mishnah, tying a person as a target for other people’s future shots is indirect causation. Babli 77a.
²⁶ It is murder if the first wave of water is lethal.


###### Jerusalem Talmud Sanhedrin 9:2:3
[Jerusalem Talmud Sanhedrin 9:2:3](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Jerusalem%20Talmud%20Sanhedrin/r/9:2:3)

מַה טַעֲמָא דְרִבִּי יוּדָה. מִפְּנֵי הָאֶרֶס הַנָּתוּן בֵּין הַנְּקָבִים. מַה טַעֲמוֹן דְּרַבָּנִין. לְעוֹלָם אֵין הָאֵֶירֶס נָתוּן בֵּין הַנְּקָבִים עַד שֶׁיַּחֲזוֹר וְיָקִיא.

**Le Talmud de Jérusalem, traduit par Moise Schwab, 1878-1890 [fr]:**
What is Rebbi Jehudah’s reason? Because of the poison in the hollow teeth²⁷. What is the reason of the rabbis? There is no poison in the hollow teeth until it excretes it.

footnotes:
²⁷ For R. Jehudah, the moment when the snake starts biting, the poison starts to flow. Therefore holding a snake is no different from holding a dagger. The rabbis hold that the snake has to push out the poison by the action of some of its muscles; this makes the action of the murderer indirect causation; Babli 78a.


###### Jerusalem Talmud Sanhedrin 9:3:1
[Jerusalem Talmud Sanhedrin 9:3:1](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Jerusalem%20Talmud%20Sanhedrin/r/9:3:1)

**משנה:** הַמַּכֶּה אֶת חֲבֵרוֹ בֵּין בָּאֶבֶן בֵּין בָּאֶגְרוֹף וַאֲמָדוּהוּ לְמִיתָה וְהֵקַל מִמַּה שֶּׁהָיָה וּלְאַחַר מִכָּאן הִכְבִּיד וָמֵת חַיָיב. רִבִּי נְחֶמְיָה אוֹמֵר פָּטוּר שֶׁרַגְלַיִם לַדָּבָר:

**Le Talmud de Jérusalem, traduit par Moise Schwab, 1878-1890 [fr]:**
**MISHNAH:** If somebody injures another person by a stone or with his fist²⁸. 21:18. and they expected him to die, but he got better and only afterwards deteriorated and died; he is [criminally] liable. Rebbi Neḥemiah declares him not liable since it is not unsubstantiated²⁹.

footnotes:
²⁸ The language is from Ex
²⁹ For R. Nehemiah it is probable that the death was not caused by the injury; for the rabbis the opposite is true.


###### Jerusalem Talmud Sanhedrin 9:3:2
[Jerusalem Talmud Sanhedrin 9:3:2](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Jerusalem%20Talmud%20Sanhedrin/r/9:3:2)

**הלכה:** הַמַּכֶּה אֶת חֲבֵרוֹ כול׳. כֵּינִי מַתְנִיתָא. רִבִּי נְחֶמְיָה פוֹטֵר וַחֲכָמִים מְחַיְיבִין. שֶׁרַגְלַיִם לַדָּבָר. רַבָּנִין אָמְרִין. שְׁנֵי אֲמוּדִין רָבִים עַל עוֹמֶד אֶחָד. רִבִּי נְחֶמְיָה אוֹמֵר. עוֹמֶד הָאֶמְצָעִי רָבָה עַל שְׁנֵיהֶן. מַה טַעֲמָא דְּרִבִּי נְחֶמְיָה. אִם יָקוּם וְהִתְהַלֵּךְ בַּחוּץ עַל מִשְׁעַנְתּוֹ וְנִקָּה הַמַּכֶּה. וְכִי עָלְתָה עַל דַּעְתָּךְ שֶׁיְּהֵא זֶה מְהַלֵּךְ בַּשּׁוּק וַהֲלָה נֶהֱרַג עַל יָדָיו. אֶלָּא אֲפִילוּ מֵת בָּעֲמִידָה רִאשׁוֹנָה פָּטוּר. מַה טַעֲמוֹן דְּרַבָּנִין. וְלֹא יָמוּת וְנָפַל לְמִשְׁכָּב. וְכִי אֵין אָנוּ יוֹדְעִין שֶׁאִם לֹא יָמוּת וְנָפַל לְמִשְׁכָּב. אֶלָּא בְּשֶׁלֹּא עֲמָדוּהוּ לְמִיתָה. אִם בְּשֶׁלֹּא עֲמָדוּהוּ לְמִיתָה בְדָא כְתִיב וְאִם יָקוּם וְהִתְהַלֵּךְ בַּחוּץ עַל מִשְׁעַנְתּוֹ וְנִקָּה הַמַּכֶּה. הָא אִם לֹא קָם חַיָיב. אֶלָּא בְּשֶׁעֲמָדוּהוּ לְמִיתָה. אִם בְּשֶׁעֲמָדוּהוּ לְמִיתָה בְדָא כְתִיב רַק שִׁבְתּוֹ יִתֵּן וְרַפֹּא יְרַפֵּא. רִבִּי הִילָא בְשֵׁם רִבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן בֶּן לָקִישׁ. חִידּוּשׁ מִקְרָא הוּא שֶׁיִּתֵּן. רִבִּי אַבָּהוּ בְשֵׁם רִבִּי יוֹסֵי בֶּן חֲנִינָה. עוֹמֶד שֶׁלְּטָעוּת הָיְיתָה. מַה מַפְקָה מִבֵּינֵיהוֹן. הֵיקַל מִמַּה שֶּׁהָיָה וְאַחַר כָּךְ הִכְבִּיד וָמֵת חַיָיב. רִבִּי נְחֶמְיָה פוֹטֵר. שֶׁרַגְלַיִם לַדָּבָר. מָאן דְּאָמַר. חִידּוּשׁ מִקְרָא הוּא שֶׁיִּתֵּן. נָתַן נָתַן. לֹא נָתַן מָהוּ שֶׁיִּתֵּן. מָאן דְּאָמַר. עוֹמֶד שֶׁלְּטָעוּת הָיָה. לֹא נָתַן אֵין אוֹמְרִים לוֹ שֶׁיִּתֵּן. נָתַן מָהוּ שֶׁיִּטּוֹל. מַתְנִיתָא מְסַיְיעָה לְדֵין וּמַתְנִיתָא מְסַיְיעָה לְדֵין. מַתְנִיתָא מְסַיְיעָה לְרִבִּי יוֹסֵי בַּר חֲנִינָה. אֲמָדוּהוּ לְחַיִים וָמֵת. מֵאֵימָתַי מוֹנִין לוֹ. מִשֶׁיַכְבִּיד. הָדָא אָמְרָה. עוֹמֶד שֶׁלְּטָעוּת הָיְתָה. וְאִין תֵּימַר. חִידּוּשׁ מִקְרָא הוּא שֶׁיִּתֵּן. יִתֵּן מִשָּׁעָה הָרִאשׁוֹנָה. מַתְנִיתָא מְסַיְיעָא לְרִבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן בֶּן לָקִישׁ. עֲמָדוּהוּ לְמִיתָה וְחָיָה. מֵאֵימָתַי מוֹנִין לוֹ. מִשֶׁיַכְבִּיד. אָמַר רִבִּי יסֵי. לֵית כָּאן מִשֶׁיַכְבִּיד אֶלָּא מִשָּׁעָה הָרִאשׁוֹנָה. הָדָא אָמְרָה. חִידּוּשׁ מִקְרָא הוּא שֶׁיִּתֵּן. וְאִין תֵּימַר. עוֹמֶד שֶׁלְּטָעוּת הָיָית. נוֹתֵן עַד שָׁעָה שֶׁיָּמוּת.

**Le Talmud de Jérusalem, traduit par Moise Schwab, 1878-1890 [fr]:**
**HALAKHAH:** “If somebody injures another person,” etc. So is the Mishnah: ³⁰ 9:5, explained there in Notes 163–186 with due attention given to the differences in reading in *Sanhedrin*.“Rebbi Neḥemiah declares him not [criminally] liable but the Sages declare him [criminally] liable since it is not unsubstantiated.” The Sages say, two estimations have precedence over one estimation; Rebbi Neḥemiah says, the intermediate estimation has precedence over the two. What is Rebbi Neḥemiah’s reason? *If he gets up and walks outside on his cane, the attacker is exonerated*. Could you think that this one walks in the market and the other one is executed because of him? But even if he dies according to the first estimation, he cannot be prosecuted. What is the rabbi’s reason? *If he does not die but is bedridden*. Would we not know that even if he does not die that he will be bedridden? But if they did not estimate that he would die. If they did not estimate that he would die, that is what is written: *If he gets up and walks outside on his cane, the attacker is exonerated*. Therefore, if he does not get up, [the attacker] is [criminally] liable. But if they estimated that he would die? If they estimated that he would die, that is what is written: *But he has to pay for his disability and the medical costs*. Rebbi Hila in the name of Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish: It is an extraordinary decree of Scripture that he has to pay. Rebbi Abbahu in the name of Rebbi Yose ben Ḥanina: It was an erroneous estimation. What is the difference between them? “But he got better and only afterwards deteriorated and died; he is [criminally] liable. Rebbi Neḥemiah declares him not liable since it is not unsubstantiated.” For him who said, it is an extraordinary decree of Scripture that he has to pay; if he paid, he paid. If he did not pay, does he have to pay? For him who said, it was an erroneous estimation; if he did not pay, one does not order him to pay. If he paid, can he take it back? A *baraita* supports one and a *baraita* supports the other. A *baraita* supports Rebbi Yose bar Ḥanina: If they estimated that he would live but he died, from when does one count for him? From the moment he turns worse³¹ Note 179).. This implies that the estimate was wrong. If you would say, it is an extraordinary decree of Scripture that he has to pay, he should pay from the first moment. A *baraita* supports Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish: If they estimated that he would die but he lived, from when does one count for him? From the moment he turns worse. Rebbi Yose said, it does not say here “from the moment he turns worse” but “from the moment he turns better.” That means, it is an extraordinary decree of Scripture that he has to pay. But if you say, it was an erroneous estimation, he has to pay until [the victim] dies.

footnotes:
³⁰ The entire Halakhah is also Nazir
³¹ A Genizah reading: “improves” (Nazir


###### Jerusalem Talmud Sanhedrin 9:3:3
[Jerusalem Talmud Sanhedrin 9:3:3](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Jerusalem%20Talmud%20Sanhedrin/r/9:3:3)

הִכָּהוּ עַל יָדוֹ וְצָבָת. אָמְרִין אַסָּיָיא. אִין מִקְטְעָא יָדֵיהּ חַיי הוּא. מָהוּ שֶׁיִּתֵּן דְּמֵי הַיָּד. נִישְׁמְעִינָהּ מִן הָדָא. כִּי יִנָּצוּ אֲנָשִׁים. וְכִי יְרִיבוּן אֲנָשִׁים. הִיא מְרִיבָה הִיא מַצּוּת. מַה תַלְמוּד לוֹמַר כִּי יִנָּצוּ כִּי יְרִיבוּן. כִּי יְרִיבוּן כִּי יִנָּצוּ. אֶלָּא לִיתֵּן הַמִּתְכַּוֵּין עַל שֶׁאֵינוֹ מִתְכַּוֵּין וְאֶת שֶׁאֵינוֹ מִתְכַּוֵּין עַל הַמִּתְכַּוֵּין. נִיחָא אֶת הַמִּתְכַּוֵּין עַל שֶׁאֵינוֹ מִתְכַּוֵּין. וְאֶת שֶׁאֵינוֹ מִתְכַּוֵּין עַל הַמִּתְכַּוֵּין. אִם שֶׁאֵינוֹ מִתְכַּוֵּין הוּא מִתְחַיֵיב לֹא כָל שֶׁכֵּן עַל הַמִּתְכַּוֵּין. אֶלָּא כֵינִי. הִכָּהוּ עַל יָדוֹ וְצָבָת. אָמְרִין אַסָּיָיא. אִין מִקְטְעָה יָדֵיהּ חַיי הוּא. מָהוּ שֶׁיִּתֵּן דְּמֵי הַיָּד. כְּמַה דַּתְּ אָמַר תַּמָּן. חִידּוּשׁ מִקְרָא הוּא שֶׁיִּתֵּן דְּמֵי הַיָּד. וּמַה חִידּוּשׁ מִקְרָא הוּא שֶׁיִּתֵּן דְּמֵי הַיָּד.

**Le Talmud de Jérusalem, traduit par Moise Schwab, 1878-1890 [fr]:**
³⁰ 9:5, explained there in Notes 163–186 with due attention given to the differences in reading in *Sanhedrin*. If he hit him on his hand and it withered. The physicians said, if his hand is amputated he will live. Does he have to pay for the hand? Let us hear from the following: *If people quarrel, if people brawl*. Is not brawl quarrel? Why does the verse say, *if people quarrel, if people brawl*? To apply the rules of the intended to the unintended and of the unintended to the intended. One understands from the intended to the unintended. Of the unintended to the intended? It must be the following: If he hit him on his hand and it withered. The physicians said, if his hand is amputated he will live. Does he have to pay for the hand? Since you say there, it is an extraordinary decree of Scripture that he pay for the hand, so here it is an extraordinary decree of Scripture that he pay for the hand.

footnotes:
³⁰ The entire Halakhah is also Nazir


###### Jerusalem Talmud Sanhedrin 9:3:4
[Jerusalem Talmud Sanhedrin 9:3:4](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Jerusalem%20Talmud%20Sanhedrin/r/9:3:4)

נִתְכַּוֵון לַהֲרוֹג אֶת הַבְּהֵמָה כול׳. רִבִּי יִצְחָק שָׁאַל. עֲמָדוּהוּ לְחַיִים וָמֵת. וְדֶרֶךְ הַחַיִים לָמוּת. מִכֵּיוָן דִּכְתִיב רַק שִׁבְתּוֹ יִתֵּן וְרַפֹּא יְרַפֵּא חַיָיב לִיתֵּן לוֹ שֶׁבֶת וְרִיפּוּי. רִבִּי יִצְחָק שָׁאַל. עֲמָדוּהוּ לְמִיתָה וְחָיָה. וְאֵין דֶּרֶךְ הַמֵּתִים לִחְיוֹת. מִכֵּיוָן דִּכְתִיב רַק שִׁבְתּוֹ יִתֵּן וְרַפֹּא יְרַפֵּא חַיָיב לִיתֵּן לוֹ שֶׁבֶת וְרִיפּוּי.

**Le Talmud de Jérusalem, traduit par Moise Schwab, 1878-1890 [fr]:**
“If one intended to kill an animal,” etc. Rebbi Isaac asked: If they estimated that he would survive but he died; is it not common for the living to die? Since it is written³⁴. 21:19. *but he has to pay for his disability and the medical costs*, he is liable to pay for disability and medical costs³⁵. Rebbi Isaac asked: If they estimated that he would die but he survived; is it not common for the dying to live. Since it is written *but he has to pay for his disability and the medical costs*, he is liable to pay for disability and medical costs³⁶.

footnotes:
³⁴ Ex
³⁵ This still belongs to Halakhah 3. Since we have a principle that nobody subject to criminal punishment pays damages, why was it stated earlier that if medical opinion was that the victim would survive, the attacker has to pay the victim’s expenses and loss of earnings even though in the end he faces prosecution for murder? His monetary obligation starts immediately with the act of agression; he faces trial only after the victim’s death.
³⁶ The moment it becomes clear that the agressor does not face criminal charges, the monetary obligations are activated.


###### Jerusalem Talmud Sanhedrin 9:4:1
[Jerusalem Talmud Sanhedrin 9:4:1](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Jerusalem%20Talmud%20Sanhedrin/r/9:4:1)

**משנה:** נִתְכַּוֵון לַהֲרוֹג אֶת הַבְּהֵמָה וְהָרַג אֶת הָאָדָם לַנָּכְרִי וְהָרַג אֶת יִשְׂרָאֵל לַנְּפָלִים וְהָרַג בֶּן קַיָימָא פָּטוּר. נִתְכַּוֵון לְהַכּוֹתוֹ עַל מָתְנָיו וְלֹא הָיָה בָהּ כְּדֵי לְהָמִית עַל מָתְנָיו וְהָלְכָה לָהּ עַל לִבּוֹ וְהָיָה בָהּ כְּדֵי לְהָמִית עַל לִבּוֹ וָמֵת פָּטור. נִתְכַּוֵון לְהַכּוֹתוֹ עַל לִבּוֹ וְהָיָה בָהּ כְּדֵי לְהָמִית עַל לִבּוֹ וְהָלְכָה לָהּ עַל מָתְנָיו וְלֹא הָיָה בָהּ כְּדֵי לְהָמִית עַל מָתְנָיו וָמֵת פָּטוּר. נִתְכַּוֵון לְהַכּוֹת אֶת הַגָּדוֹל וְלֹא הָיָה בָהּ כְּדֵי לְהָמִית אֶת הַגָּדוֹל וְהָלְכָה לָהּ עַל הַקָּטָן וְהָיָה בָהּ כְּדֵי לְהָמִית אֶת הַקָּטָן וָמֵת פָּטוּר. נִתְכַּוֵון לְהַכּוֹת אֶת הַקָּטָן וְהָיָה בָהּ כְּדֵי לְהָמִית אֶת הַקָּטָן וְהָלְכָה לָהּ עַל הַגָּדוֹל וְלֹא הָיָה בָהּ כְּדֵי לְהָמִית אֶת הַגָּדוֹל וָמֵת פָּטוּר. נִתְכַּוֵון לְהַכּוֹתוֹ עַל מָתְנָיו וְהָיָה בָהּ כְּדֵי לְהָמִית עַל מָתְנָיו וְהָלְכָה לָהּ עַל לִבּוֹ וָמֵת חַיָיב. נִתְכַּוֵון לְהַכּוֹת אֶת הַגָּדוֹל וְהָיָה בָהּ כְּדֵי לְהָמִית אֶת הַגָּדוֹל וְהָלְכָה לָהּ עַל הַקָּטָן וָמֵת חַיָיב. רִבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן אוֹמֵר אֲפִלּוּ נִתְכַּוֵון לַהֲרוֹג אֶת זֶה וְהָרַג אֶת זֶה פָּטוּר:

**Le Talmud de Jérusalem, traduit par Moise Schwab, 1878-1890 [fr]:**
**MISHNAH:** If one intended to kill an animal but he killed a human, a Non-Jew but he killed a Jew, a stillborn³² but he killed a viable baby, he is not criminally liable³³ 3, based on *Ex*. 21:1). These cases cannot be tried in rabbinic court; they are cases for the king’s police powers or extrajudicial powers of the communal court (Mishnah 10)..
If one intended to hit someone on his hips where it would not have been enough to kill but it went on his heart where it was enough to kill and he died, he cannot be prosecuted. If one intended to hit someone on his heart where it would have been enough to kill but it went on his hips where it was not enough to kill but he died, he cannot be prosecuted. If one intended to hit someone big whom it would not have been enough to kill but it went on somebody small whom it was enough to kill and he died, he cannot be prosecuted. If one intended to hit someone small whom it would have been enough to kill but it went on somebody big whom it was not enough to kill but he died, he cannot be prosecuted.
If one intended to hit someone on his hips where it was enough to kill but it went on his heart and he died; [or] if one intended to hit someone big and it was enough to kill but it went on somebody small and he died; he is [criminally] liable³⁷. Rebbi Simeon says, even if he intended to kill one person but killed another, he is not criminally liable³⁸.

footnotes:
³² A newborn who is not expected to live for 30 days is considered stillborn.
³³ Biblical law provides sanctions for murder and unintentional homicide, but not for intentional homicide that fails to qualify as murder. Similarly, biblical law is not applicable to Gentiles (Tanḥuma Mišpatim
³⁷ These cases all fit the definition of premeditated murder.
³⁸ Cf. Mishnah 4 and Note 33. In his opinion, not only is it homicide if a human is killed instead of an animal, but even if a different human is killed than the intended victim. In Tosephta 12:4 he is opposed by R. Jehudah.


###### Jerusalem Talmud Sanhedrin 9:4:2
[Jerusalem Talmud Sanhedrin 9:4:2](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Jerusalem%20Talmud%20Sanhedrin/r/9:4:2)

**הלכה:** נִתְכַּוֵון לְהַכּוֹתוֹ עַל מָתְנָיו כול׳. חִזְקִיָּה שָׁאַל. זָרַק אֶת הָאֶבֶן וְהָיָה בָהּ כְּדֵי לְהָמִית. הֵמִית אֶת זֶה וְשִׁיבֵּר אֶת כֵּלָיו שֶׁלָּזֶה. בָּזֶה חִידֵּשׁ הַכָּתוּב וּבָזֶה לֹא חִידֵּשׁ. חִזְקִיָּה שְׁאִיל. זָרַק אֶת הָאֶבֶן וְלֹא הָיָה בָהּ כְּדֵי לְהָמִית. הֵמִית אֶת זֶה וְשִׁיבֵּר אֶת כֵּלָיו שֶׁלָּזֶה. בָּזֶה חִידֵּשׁ הַכָּתוּב וּבָזֶה לֹא חִידֵּשׁ.

**Le Talmud de Jérusalem, traduit par Moise Schwab, 1878-1890 [fr]:**
**HALAKHAH:** “If one intended to hit someone on his hips,” etc. Ḥizqiah asked: If one threw a deadly stone which killed one person and broke another’s vessels, did the verse give the law for one but not for the other³⁹ 21:22–23 it is spelled out that in case of injuries, payment is due only if there is no criminal case. But this refers only to one person. If the stone had killed one person and broke the same person’s vessels, no payment for the vessels would be due. But this says nothing about the obligations of the thrower towards a third person, not involved in the personal injury case.? Ḥizqiah asked: If one threw a stone which was not deadly but which killed one person⁴⁰. 35:17) but only sued for money by the heirs of the slain person. In the Babli 79b both questions are answered in the negative. and broke another’s vessels, did the verse give the law for one but not for the other?

footnotes:
³⁹ In Ex.
⁴⁰ Assuming that in the previous case the law was that the thrower could not be sued by the owner of the vessels, the question remains open whether he can be sued if the thrower cannot be sued for murder (Num


###### Jerusalem Talmud Sanhedrin 9:4:3
[Jerusalem Talmud Sanhedrin 9:4:3](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Jerusalem%20Talmud%20Sanhedrin/r/9:4:3)

אָמַר רִבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן. אִילֵּין דְּבֵית רִבִּי תְּנַיָין. אֲפִלּוּ נִתְכַּוֵון לַהֲרוֹג אֶת זֶה וְהָרַג אֶת זֶה פָּטוּר. וְאַתְיָיא דְּבֵי רִבִּי כְּרִבִּי נָתָן. דְּתַנֵּי בְשֵׁם רִבִּי נָתָן. הָיָה עוֹמֵד בְּצַד סִיעָה שֶׁלִּבְנֵי אָדָם. אָמַר. לְאֶחָד מִכֶּם אֲנִי מִתְכַּוֵּין לַהֲרוֹג. אֲפִלּוּ נִתְכַּוֵון לַהֲרוֹג אֶת זֶה וְהָרַג אֶת זֶה פָּטוּר.

**Le Talmud de Jérusalem, traduit par Moise Schwab, 1878-1890 [fr]:**
Rebbi Simeon⁴¹ says, those of the House of Rebbi state: even if he intended to kill one person but killed another, he is not criminally liable⁴². The House of Rebbi follows Rebbi Nathan, as it was stated in the name of Rebbi Nathan: If one was standing next to a group of people and said, I am intending to kill one of you⁴³. Even if he intended to kill one person but killed another, he is not criminally liable.

footnotes:
⁴¹ This R. Simeon must be the Amora R. Simeon ben Laqish; he cannot be the Tanna R. Simeon ben Iohai mentioned in the Mishnah, who lived a full generation before Rebbi.
⁴² He cannot be prosecuted for premeditated murder unless he stated before witnesses the name of the person whom he intended to kill. All other cases are cases of willful homicide, not covered by biblical law (Note 33).
⁴³ But he did not specify whom he intended to kill.


###### Jerusalem Talmud Sanhedrin 9:5:1
[Jerusalem Talmud Sanhedrin 9:5:1](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Jerusalem%20Talmud%20Sanhedrin/r/9:5:1)

**משנה:** רוֹצֵחַ שֶׁנִּתְעָרֵב בַּאֲחֵרִים כּוּלָּן פְּטוּרִין. רִבִּי יְהוּדָה אוֹמֵר כּוֹנְסִין אוֹתָן לַכִּיפָּה. כָּל חַיָיבֵי מִיתוֹת שֶׁנִּתְעָרְבוּ זֶה בָזֶה יִדּוֹנוּ בַּקַּלָּה. הַנִּסְקָלִין בַנִּשְׂרָפִין רַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן אוֹמֵר יִידּוֹנוּ בִּסְקִילָה שֶׁהַשְּׂרֵיפָה חֲמוּרָה וַחֲכָמִים אוֹמְרִים יִידּוֹנוּ בִּשְׂרֵיפָה שֶׁהַסְּקִילָה חֲמוּרָה. אָמַר לָהֶן רַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן אִילּוּ לֹא הָיְתָה שְׂרֵיפָה חֲמוּרָה לֹא נִיתְּנָה לְבַת כֹּהֵן שֶׁזִּינָּת. אָמְרוּ לוֹ אִילּוּ לֹא הָיְתָה סְקִילָה חֲמוּרָה לֹא נִתְּנָה לַמְגַדֵּף וְלָעוֹבְדֵי עֲבוֹדָה זָרָה. הַנֶּהֱרָגִין בַּנֶּחֱנָקִין רַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן אוֹמֵר בַּסַּיִיף וַחֲכָמִים אוֹמְרִים בַּחֶנֶק:

**Le Talmud de Jérusalem, traduit par Moise Schwab, 1878-1890 [fr]:**
**MISHNAH:** If a murderer was mixed up with others, none of them are criminally liable⁴⁴. Rebbi Jehudah says, one keeps them in jail⁴⁵. Any condemned to death who were mixed up with others⁴⁶ shall be executed by the easier way. Those to be stoned with those to be burned, Rebbi Simeon says they shall be stoned because burning is more painful, but the Sages say they shall be burned since stoning is more painful.
Rebbi Simeon told them, if burning were not more painful it would not have been prescribed for a Cohen’s daughter who committed adultery. They answered him, if stoning were not more painful, it would not have been prescribed for the blasphemer and those who worship strange cults. Those to be slain with those to be strangled, Rebbi Simeon says by the sword, but the Sages say by strangulation⁴⁷.

footnotes:
⁴⁴ Since nobody can be convicted if he was not identified by witnesses.
⁴⁵ Until each person be identified by witnesses.
⁴⁶ Also condemned to death.
⁴⁷ Mishnah 7:1.


###### Jerusalem Talmud Sanhedrin 9:5:2
[Jerusalem Talmud Sanhedrin 9:5:2](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Jerusalem%20Talmud%20Sanhedrin/r/9:5:2)

**הלכה:** רוֹצֵחַ שֶׁנִּתְעָרֵב בַּאֲחֵרִים כול׳. אָמַר רִבִּי יוֹחָנָן. בְּרוֹצֵחַ שֶׁנִּתְעָרֵב בַּכְּשֵׁירִין הִיא מַתְנִיתָא. רִבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן בֶּן לָקִישׁ אָמַר. בְּרוֹצֵחַ שֶׁלֹּא נִגְמַר דִּינוֹ וְנִתְעָרֵב בְּרוֹצֵחַ שֶׁנִּגְמַר דִּינוֹ הִיא מַתְנִיתָא. שְׁמוּאֵל אָמַר. בְּשׁוֹר בַּשְּׁוָורִים הִיא מַתְנִיתָא. אִם בְּשׁוֹר בַּשְּׁוָורִים הִיא מַתְנִיתָא בְּדָא תַנִּינָן כּוֹנְסִין אוֹתוֹ לַכִּיפָּה.

**Le Talmud de Jérusalem, traduit par Moise Schwab, 1878-1890 [fr]:**
**HALAKHAH:** “If a murderer was mixed up with others,” etc. Rebbi Joḥanan said, the Mishnah deals with a murderer mixed up with innocent people⁴⁸. Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish said, the Mishnah deals with a murderer being tried mixed up with a murderer who already was convicted. Samuel said, the Mishnah deals with a bull mixed up with other bulls. If the Mishnah referred to a bull⁵⁰ mixed up with other bulls, would we state about them that “one keeps them in jail”?

footnotes:
⁴⁸ In this interpretation, R. Jehudah allows the police to arrest innocent people and keep them in prison until they have proven their innocence.
⁵⁰ A bull which has killed a human and must be stoned by the verdict of a court of 23. Humans can be identified by witnesses; cattle all look alike.


###### Jerusalem Talmud Sanhedrin 9:5:3
[Jerusalem Talmud Sanhedrin 9:5:3](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Jerusalem%20Talmud%20Sanhedrin/r/9:5:3)

רִבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן אוֹמֵר. חֲמוּרָה שְׂרֵיפָה מִסְּקִילָה. וְרַבָּנִין אָמְרִין. חֲמוּרָה סְקִילָה מִשְּׂרֵיפָה. רִבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן אוֹמֵר. חָמוּר חֶנֶק מֵהֶרֶג. וְרַבָּנִין אָמְרִין. חָמוּר הֶרֶג מֵחֶנֶק.

**Le Talmud de Jérusalem, traduit par Moise Schwab, 1878-1890 [fr]:**
Rebbi Simeon says, burning is worse than stoning, but the rabbis teach that stoning is worse than burning. Rebbi Simeon says, strangulation is worse than decapitation; but the rabbis teach that decapitation is worse than strangulation⁵¹.

footnotes:
⁵¹ Halakhah 7:1, first sentences.


###### Jerusalem Talmud Sanhedrin 9:6:1
[Jerusalem Talmud Sanhedrin 9:6:1](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Jerusalem%20Talmud%20Sanhedrin/r/9:6:1)

**משנה:** מִי שֶׁנִּתְחַיֵיב שְׁתֵּי מִיתוֹת בֵּית דִּין יִידּוֹן בַּחֲמוּרָה. עָבַר עֲבֵרָה שֶׁיֶּשׁ בָּהּ שְׁתֵּי מִיתוֹת יִידּוֹן בַּחֲמוּרָה. רִבִּי יוֹסֵי אוֹמֵר יִידּוֹן בְּזִיקָּה הָרִאשׁוֹנָה שֶׁבָּאָת עָלָיו: מִי שֶׁלָּקָה וְשָׁנָה בֵּית דִּין מַכְנִיסִים אוֹתוֹ לַכִּיפָּה וּמַאֲכִילִין אוֹתוֹ שְׂעוֹרִין עַד שֶׁכְּרֵיסוֹ מִתְבַּקַּעַת. הַהוֹרֵג נֶפֶשׁ שֶׁלֹּא בְעֵדִים מַכְנִיסִין אוֹתוֹ לַכִּיפָּה וּמַאֲכִילִין אוֹתוֹ לֶחֶם צַר וּמַיִם לַחַץ:

**Le Talmud de Jérusalem, traduit par Moise Schwab, 1878-1890 [fr]:**
**MISHNAH:** Somebody who was found guilty of two death penalties shall be convicted to the more painful one. One who committed one crime punishable by two death penalties shall be convicted to the more painful one. Rebbi Yose says, he shall be convicted for the first connection.
If somebody was repeatedly whipped, the court sends him to jail⁵² where he is fed barley until his belly bursts. One sends the murderer without witnesses to jail and feeds him scanty bread and sparing water⁵³. 30:20.

footnotes:
⁵² For the third conviction of the same kind. These rules have no biblical justification.
⁵³ Is


###### Jerusalem Talmud Sanhedrin 9:6:2
[Jerusalem Talmud Sanhedrin 9:6:2](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Jerusalem%20Talmud%20Sanhedrin/r/9:6:2)

**הלכה:** מִי שֶׁנִּתְחַיֵיב שְׁתֵּי מִיתוֹת בֵּית דִּין כול׳. תַּמָּן תַּנִּינָן. תַּנֵּי. רִבִּי יוֹסֵי אוֹמֵר יִדּוֹן בְּזִיקָּה הָרִאשׁוֹנָה שֶׁבָּאָת עָלָיו. כֵּיצַד. חֲמוֹתוֹ וְנַעֲשִׂית אֵשֶׁת אִישׁ הֲרֵי זוֹ בִשְׂרֵיפָה. אֵשֶׁת אִישׁ וְאַחַר כָּךְ נַעֲשִׂית חֲמוֹתוֹ בַחֲנִיקָה. בָּא עַל חֲמוֹתוֹ. וְהֵיי דָא לָהּ חֲמוֹתוֹ וְכַלָּתוֹ. הֵיךְ עֲבִידָא. גְּבַר נְסַב אִיתָא וְלִבְרַתֵּיהּ דַּאַחֲוָהּ וְלִבְרַתֵּיהּ דְּאִיתְתֵיהּ. אֲתַא עַל סַבְתָּא חַיָיב עָלֶיהָ מִשּׁוּם חֲמוֹתוֹ וְאֵם חֲמוֹתוֹ וְאֵם חָמִיו. חֲמוֹתוֹ וְכַלָּתוֹ כְּאַחַת מָה אָמַר בָּהּ רִבִּי יוּסֵה. חוֹמֶר בַּקַּל מָה אָמַר בָּהּ רִבִּי יוּסֵי. שְׁנֵי אִיסּוּרִין כְּאַחַת מָה אָמַר בָּהּ רִבִּי יוּסֵי.

**Le Talmud de Jérusalem, traduit par Moise Schwab, 1878-1890 [fr]:**
**HALAKHAH:** “Somebody who was found guilty of two death penalties,” etc. There⁵⁴ it was stated that one states: “Rebbi Yose says, he shall be convicted for the first connection.” How is this? His mother-in-law⁵⁵ who then became a married woman⁵⁶ is [executed] by burning. As a married woman⁵⁷ who later became his mother-in-law it is by strangulation, if he copulated with his mother-in-law. How with his mother-in-law and daughter-in-law? How can this be? A man married a woman, and her brother’s daughter, and the woman’s daughter. If he copulated with the old woman⁵⁸ he is liable for her because of his mother-in-law, the mother of his mother-in-law, and the mother of his father-in-law. If his mother-in-law is simultaneously his daughter-in-law⁵⁹, how does Rebbi Yose treat this? The more severe and the lesser, how does Rebbi Yose treat this⁶⁰? Two simultaneous prohibitions, how does Rebbi Yose treat this⁶¹?

footnotes:
⁵⁴ In Babylonia, Babli 81a.
⁵⁵ Who was a widow or a single parent at the moment of his marriage.
⁵⁶ If he sleeps with her after her remarriage.
⁵⁷ If she was forbidden to him as a married woman before his marriage.
⁵⁸ The first wife’s mother who is his other two wives’ grandmother.
⁵⁹ He married a woman whose mother was married to his son.
⁶⁰ The Babli indicates that R. Yose might accept that a more general and more stringent prohibition supersedes the more narrow one. The Yerushalmi strongly disagrees, as explained in the next paragraph.
⁶¹ In the example of the man with three wives his mother-in-law who is the mother of his father-in-law is doubly forbidden in the same degree. For which crime does he have to be prosecuted first and, since a person can be executed only once, the only time?


###### Jerusalem Talmud Sanhedrin 9:6:3
[Jerusalem Talmud Sanhedrin 9:6:3](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Jerusalem%20Talmud%20Sanhedrin/r/9:6:3)

אָמְרִין. כְּמַה דְאִישְׁתָּאִלַת עַל דְּרִבִּי יוֹסֵי כָּךְ אִשְׁתָּאִלַת עַל דְּרִבִּי יִשְׁמָעֵאל. דְּתַנֵּי בְשֵׁם רִבִּי יִשְׁמָעֵאל. נִתְאַלְמְנָה נִתְגָּרְשָׁה נִתְחַלְּלָה זִינָת וְאַחַר כָּךְ בָּא עָלֶיהָ אֵינוֹ חַיָיב אֶלָּא אַחַת. זִינָת וְנִתְחַלְּלָה וְאַחַר כָּךְ בָּא עָלֶיהָ חַיָיב עַל כָּל אַחַת וְאַחַת. נִתְאַלְמְנָה וְנִתְגָּרְשָׁה כְּאַחַת מָה אָמַר בָּהּ רִבִּי יִשְׁמָעֵאל. חוֹמֶר בַּקַּל מָה אָמַר בָּהּ רִבִּי יִשְׁמָעֵאל. שְׁנֵי אִיסּוּרִין כְּאַחַת מָה אָמַר בָּהּ רִבִּי יִשְׁמָעֵאל.

**Le Talmud de Jérusalem, traduit par Moise Schwab, 1878-1890 [fr]:**
They said, what was asked of Rebbi Yose also can be asked of Rebbi Ismael since it was stated in the name of Rebbi Ismael: If she became widowed, divorced, desecrated, and a whore in this order⁶². 21:14, speaking of the High Priest: *A widow, divorcee, desecrated woman, whore, these he may not take*.
A desecrated woman is one who had forbidden sexual contact with a Cohen, e. g., a divorcee who is forbidden to a common priest. A whore is a woman who slept with a man whom she could not marry, e. g., a close relative or a Gentile.
Since the verse treats the four prohibitions as one, a High Priest who inadvertently sleeps with a woman who became forbidden to him on all four counts in the order enumerated in the verse has to bring a single purification offering.
In the Babli, *Qiddušin* 77a, the argument is the opposite one. A widow is forbidden only to the high priest. A divorcee is also forbidden to a common priest. A desecrated woman of priestly descent in addition of being barred from marrying a priest is barred from eating heave. A whore may also be forbidden to an Israel; in case she was a married woman who committed adultery she becomes forbidden to her husband. Since the prohibitions cover an ever wider circle, they are cumulative. Therefore, for the Babli, a High Priest who sleeps with a divorcee who afterwards became a widow is liable only for one purification offering, whereas the next sentence shows that for the Yerushalmi he is liable for two.: when afterwards he copulated with her, he is liable only once. If she whored, was desecrated⁶³, and after that he copulated with her, he is liable for every single [transgression]. If she became widowed and divorced simultaneously⁶⁴ 89b). If then the second man dies exactly at the moment when she receives the first man’s bill of divorce, she becomes simultaneously a widow and a divorcee., how does Rebbi Ismael treat this? The more severe and the lesser, how does Rebbi Ismael treat this⁶⁰? Two simultaneous prohibitions, how does Rebbi Ismael treat this⁶¹?

footnotes:
⁶² This refers to Lev
⁶³ A whore is forbidden to a priest. If he sleeps with her the first time, he desecrates her. If then she again sleeps with a priest, this one sleeps with a woman who first whored and then became desecrated.
⁶⁴ If a first man had contracted with her a legally defective preliminary marriage and then a second man contracted a clearly legal preliminary marriage, the first man has to divorce her and the second may marry her (Babli Gittin
⁶⁰ The Babli indicates that R. Yose might accept that a more general and more stringent prohibition supersedes the more narrow one. The Yerushalmi strongly disagrees, as explained in the next paragraph.
⁶¹ In the example of the man with three wives his mother-in-law who is the mother of his father-in-law is doubly forbidden in the same degree. For which crime does he have to be prosecuted first and, since a person can be executed only once, the only time?


###### Jerusalem Talmud Sanhedrin 9:6:4
[Jerusalem Talmud Sanhedrin 9:6:4](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Jerusalem%20Talmud%20Sanhedrin/r/9:6:4)

רַב אָמַר. בְּמִפְּנִים עֵדָיו הִיא מַתְנִיתָא. רִבִּי יוֹסֵי בֶּן חֲנִינָה אָמַר. בְּשֶׁאֵינוֹ יָכוֹל לְקַבֵּל הַתְרָיָיה.

**Le Talmud de Jérusalem, traduit par Moise Schwab, 1878-1890 [fr]:**
Rav said, the Mishnah [deals with the case that the crime was committed] inside from the witnesses. Rebbi Yose ben Ḥanina said, when he could not receive warning⁶⁵. 23:7), no commonwealth can exist which lets 99.99% of all murders go unpunished. It is agreed that the death penalty cannot be imposed if not all conditions for such a judgment are satisfied. A rabbinic court cannot be oblivious of *Deut*. 19:15 which clearly requires two eye witnesses for criminal conviction and excludes circumstantial evidence and testimony of a single witness. It is explained that a sentence of life in jail can be imposed on the testimony of two witnesses whose testimony would be inadmissible in a death penalty case. According to Rav, one possible scenario is that of Halakhah 4:11, where two witnesses testify that the accused entered a room where the victim was alive, left with a bloody sword, and the victim was found inside stabbed to death. R. Yose ben Hanina points to another scenario, where there were eye witnesses to the murder but it had not been possible to deliver the statutory warning before the murder was committed..

footnotes:
⁶⁵ This refers to Mishnah 10. While for all other death penalty cases one can be satisfied with letting Heaven mete out the penalty (Ex


###### Jerusalem Talmud Sanhedrin 9:7:1
[Jerusalem Talmud Sanhedrin 9:7:1](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Jerusalem%20Talmud%20Sanhedrin/r/9:7:1)

**משנה:** הַגּוֹנֵב אֶת הַקַּסְוָוה וְהַמְקַלֵּל בַּקֶּסֶם וְהַבּוֹעֵל אֲרַמִּית פּוֹגְעִין בָּהֶן. כֹּהֵן שֶׁשִּׁימֵּשׁ בְּטוּמְאָה אֵין אֶחָיו הַכֹּהֲנִים מְבִיאִין אוֹתוֹ לְבֵית דִּין אֶלָּא פִירְחֵי כְהוּנָּה מוֹצִיאִין אוֹתוֹ חוּץ לָעֲזָרָה וּמְפַצְּעִין אֶת מוֹחוֹ בְּגִיזִירִין. זָר שֶׁשִּׁמֵּשׁ בַּקּוֹדֶשׁ רִבִּי עֲקִיבָה אוֹמֵר בְּחֶנֶק וַחֲכָמִים אוֹמְרִים בִּידֵי שָׁמַיִם:

**Le Talmud de Jérusalem, traduit par Moise Schwab, 1878-1890 [fr]:**
**MISHNAH:** He who steals the chalice⁶⁶, or who curses by charms, or who copulates with a Gentile woman, one⁶⁷ 25:11 where Phineas is praised for being a zealot by killing the chieftain who copulated with the Midianite princess. The Babli 82a makes clear that the offender may be killed with impunity only during the act. If the parties are still together naked but not engaged in actual intercourse, killing them is prosecutable murder. strikes him. If a priest officiated while impure, his brother priests do not bring him to court but the young priests take him outside the courtyard and smash his brain with bats⁶⁸. A non-priest who officiated in the Temple: Rebbi Aqiba said, by strangulation, but the Sages say, by the hands of Heaven.

footnotes:
⁶⁶ A Temple vessel.
⁶⁷ In all other sources of the Mishnah, and an indirect quote in the Hahakhah: Zealots hit him, referring to Num.
⁶⁸ These are straight pieces of lumber which are impervious to impurity. The offending priest is killed without his executioners becoming impure.


###### Jerusalem Talmud Sanhedrin 9:7:2
[Jerusalem Talmud Sanhedrin 9:7:2](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Jerusalem%20Talmud%20Sanhedrin/r/9:7:2)

**הלכה:** הַגּוֹנֵב אֶת הַקַּסְוָוה כול׳. קַסְוָוה. קִיסְטָא. רַב יְהוּדָה אָמַר. כֵּלִי מִשֶּׁל בֵּית הַמִּקְדָּשׁ הָיָה. כְּמַה דְתֵימַר וְאֵת קְשׂוֹת הַנָּסֶךְ.

**Le Talmud de Jérusalem, traduit par Moise Schwab, 1878-1890 [fr]:**
**HALAKHAH:** “He who steals the chalice,” etc. קסווה *cista*⁶⁹. Rav Jehudah said, it was a Temple vessel, as one says *and the libation chalices*⁷⁰. 4:7. The same explanation in the Babli, 81b..

footnotes:
⁶⁹ Also cf. Greek κίστη “basket, hamper; writing case; voting urn”.
⁷⁰ Num


###### Jerusalem Talmud Sanhedrin 9:7:3
[Jerusalem Talmud Sanhedrin 9:7:3](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Jerusalem%20Talmud%20Sanhedrin/r/9:7:3)

הַמְקַלֵּל בַּקֶּסֶם. כְּגוֹן אִילֵּין נַפַּתָּאֵי דִּמְקַלְלִין לְקָנְיָיךְ קַיְינָךְ קָנְווּךְ.

**Le Talmud de Jérusalem, traduit par Moise Schwab, 1878-1890 [fr]:**
“He who curses by a charm.” Like those Nabateans who curse “your creator, your smith, your acquisition⁷¹ 1:2)..

footnotes:
⁷¹ Explanation of J. Levy in his Dictionary, based on Arabic קני “to acquire, to create”, קינ “smith; any craftsman”; a similar but Hebrew formulation in the Babli 81a. He also notes that the words might be substitutes for others, similar to קונם, קונח, קונס used for קָרְבָּן in vows (cf. Mishnah Nedarim


###### Jerusalem Talmud Sanhedrin 9:7:4
[Jerusalem Talmud Sanhedrin 9:7:4](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Jerusalem%20Talmud%20Sanhedrin/r/9:7:4)

הַבּוֹעֵל אֲרַמִּית. תַּנֵּי רִבִּי יִשְׁמָעֵאל. זֶה שֶׁהוּא נוֹשֵׂא גוֹיָה וּמוֹלִיד בָּנִים וּמַעֲמִיד אוֹיְבִים מִמֶּנָּה לַמָּקוֹם. כְּתִיב וַיַּרְא פִּינְחָס בֶּן אֶלְעָזָר בֶּן אַהֲרֹן הַכֹּהֵן. מָה רָאָה. רָאָה אֶת הַמַּעֲשֶׂה וְנִזְכַּר לַהֲלָכָה הַבּוֹעֵל אֲרַמִּית הַקַּנָּאִים פּוֹגְעִין בָּהֶן. תַּנֵּי. שֶׁלֹּא כִרְצוֹן חֲכָמִים. וּפִינְחָס שֶׁלֹּא כִרְצוֹן חֲכָמִים. אָמַר רִבִּי יוּדָה בַּר פָּזִי. בִּיקְשׁוּ לְנַדּוֹתוֹ אִילוּלֵי שֶׁקָּפְצָה עָלָיו רוּחַ הַקּוֹדֶשׁ וְאָמְרָה וְהָיְתָה לּוֹ וּלְזַרְעוֹ אַחֲרָיו בְּרִית כְּהוּנַּת עוֹלָם וגו׳.

**Le Talmud de Jérusalem, traduit par Moise Schwab, 1878-1890 [fr]:**
“One who copulates with a Gentile woman,” etc. Rebbi Ismael stated: This is one who marries a Gentile woman, sires children, and from her raises enemies of the Omnipresent⁷² 4:10 (Babli 25a) this is R. Ismael’s explanation of *Lev*. 18:21, giving one’s descendants to the Moloch.. ⁷³. *rabba* 20(26), *Tanhuma Balaq* 21, *Tanhuma Buber Balaq* 30. *Num*. 25:7. It is written: *Phineas ben Eleazar ben Aharon the priest saw*. What did he see⁷⁴? He understood what happened and remembered practice: “One who copulates with a Gentile woman, zealots strike him.” It was stated: not with the agreement of the Sages⁷⁵. Would Phineas act against the Sages? Rebbi Jehudah bar Pazi said, they wanted to excommunicate him had not the Holy Spirit jumped on him and declared that *an eternal covenant of priesthood shall be for him and his descendants after him*⁷⁶. 25:12., etc.

footnotes:
⁷² In Megillah
⁷³ Babli 82a, Num
⁷⁴ Since Zimri did his deed in public, everybody saw.
⁷⁵ Since in most cases the zealot’s intervention would be first degree murder.
⁷⁶ Num


###### Jerusalem Talmud Sanhedrin 9:7:5
[Jerusalem Talmud Sanhedrin 9:7:5](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Jerusalem%20Talmud%20Sanhedrin/r/9:7:5)

מַה טַעֲמֵיהּ דְּרִבִּי עֲקִיבָה. נֶאֱמַר כָּאן מוֹת יוּמַת וְנֶאֱמַר לְהַלָּן כֹּל הַקָּרֵב הַקָּרֵב אֶל מִשְׁכַּן יְי יָמוּת וגו׳. מַה טַעֲמוֹן דְּרַבָּנִין. נֶאֱמַר כָּאן מוֹת יוּמַת וְנֶאֱמַר לְהַלָּן וְהַזָּר הַקָּרֵב יוּמָת. מוּטָּב שֶׁיְלַמֵּד יוּמַת מִיּוּמָת וְאַל יְלַמֵּד יוּמָת מִיָּמוּת.

**Le Talmud de Jérusalem, traduit par Moise Schwab, 1878-1890 [fr]:**
What is Rebbi Aqiba’s reason? It says here, *dying he shall be put to death*⁷⁷ 20:10. An unspecified death penalty is by strangling;, and it says there, *anybody acceding to the Eternal’s abode will die, etc*.⁷⁸ 17:28. While the verse speaks of the access of non-priests to the Sanctuary, it supports only the rabbis’ argument since it clearly refers to Heaven’s actions. The parallel in the Babli 84a (*Sifry Deut*. 116, end) makes more sense. What is the rabbis’ reason? It says here, *dying he shall be put to death*, but it says there, *any outsider coming close shall be put to death*⁷⁹. 18:7. This verse supports R. Aqiba.. It is better to compare *shall be put to death* with *shall be put to death* and *not shall be put to death with shall die*⁸⁰.

footnotes:
⁷⁷ E. g. Lev.
⁷⁸ Num.
⁷⁹ Num
⁸⁰ To transfer the interpretation of one word to another verse, the word has to be in the same grammatical form. It is clear that the positions of יומת and ימות have to be switched.