## Sanhedrin Daf 45b

###### Sanhedrin 45b:1
[Sanhedrin 45b:1](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Sanhedrin/r/45b:1)

תַּלְמוּד לוֹמַר: ״סָקוֹל יִסָּקֵל״.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**The verse states: “He shall be stoned [*sakol yissakel* ],”** with the doubled verb form indicating that the *halakha* applies in all places and at all times.


###### Sanhedrin 45b:2
[Sanhedrin 45b:2](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Sanhedrin/r/45b:2)

וְאִם לָאו, עֵד הַשֵּׁנִי נוֹטֵל אֶת הָאֶבֶן. נוֹטֵל? וְהָתַנְיָא: רַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן בֶּן אֶלְעָזָר אוֹמֵר, אֶבֶן הָיְתָה שָׁם מַשּׂוֹי שְׁנֵי בְּנֵי אָדָם, נוֹטְלָהּ וְנוֹתְנָהּ עַל לִבּוֹ. אִם מֵת בָּהּ – יָצָא. וְלִיטַעְמָיךְ, תִּיקְשֵׁי לָךְ הִיא גּוּפַהּ: מַשּׂוֹי שְׁנֵי בְּנֵי אָדָם, נוֹטְלָהּ וְנוֹתְנָהּ עַל לִבּוֹ?

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
§ The mishna teaches that **if** the condemned party does **not** die from his fall, **the second witness takes the stone** that had been prepared for this task and casts it on his chest. The Gemara asks: Does the witness **take** the stone by himself? **But isn’t it taught** in a *baraita* that **Rabbi Shimon ben Elazar says: A stone was there** with **a weight** that could be lifted only by **two men.** The witness **takes it and places,** i.e., casts, **it on** the condemned party’s **chest. If he dies with** the casting of **this** stone, the obligation to stone the transgressor **is fulfilled.** This indicates that one individual could not lift the stone by himself. The Gemara answers: **And according to your reasoning,** the *baraita* **itself should pose a difficulty for you,** as it first states that the stone was of **a weight** that could be lifted only by **two men,** and then it says that the witness **takes it and places it on** the condemned party’s **chest,** apparently acting alone.


###### Sanhedrin 45b:3
[Sanhedrin 45b:3](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Sanhedrin/r/45b:3)

אֶלָּא, דְּמַדְלֵי לַהּ בַּהֲדֵי חַבְרֵיהּ, וְשָׁדֵי לַהּ אִיהוּ, כִּי הֵיכִי דְּתֵיתֵי מֵרַזְיָא.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**Rather,** both the mishna and the *baraita* should be explained as follows: The second witness **lifts** the stone **together with the other** witness, **but** then the second witness alone **casts it so that it should fall with force** upon the condemned party’s chest, as two people working together cannot aim their throw with precision.


###### Sanhedrin 45b:4
[Sanhedrin 45b:4](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Sanhedrin/r/45b:4)

וְאִם לָאו, רְגִימָתוֹ כּוּ׳. וְהָתַנְיָא: מֵעוֹלָם לֹא שָׁנָה בָּהּ אָדָם! מִי קָאָמֵינָא דְּעָבֵיד? דְּאִי מִצְּרִיךְ קָאָמֵינָא.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The mishna teaches: **And if** the condemned party does **not** die with the first stone, then **his stoning** is completed by all of the Jewish people. The Gemara raises a difficulty: **But isn’t it taught** in a *baraita*: **Never did a person repeat** the stoning, as the condemned party always died with the first stone cast upon him? The Gemara answers: **Did we say that they acted** so? Rather, **we said that if** the condemned party did not die with the casting of the first stone and **it was necessary** to try again, the stoning is completed by all of the people who assembled for the execution.


###### Sanhedrin 45b:5
[Sanhedrin 45b:5](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Sanhedrin/r/45b:5)

אָמַר מָר: אֶבֶן הָיְתָה כּוּ׳. וְהָתַנְיָא: אַחַת אֶבֶן שֶׁנִּסְקָל בָּהּ, וְאַחַת עֵץ שֶׁנִּתְלֶה עָלָיו, וְאֶחָד סַיִיף שֶׁנֶּהֱרָג בּוֹ, וְאֶחָד סוּדָר שֶׁנֶּחְנָק בּוֹ – כּוּלָּן נִקְבָּרִין עִמּוֹ. לָא צְרִיכָא דִּמְתַקְּנִי וּמַיְיתִי אַחֲרִינֵי חִלּוּפַיְיהוּ.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**The Master said** in the *baraita* that **a stone was** there, indicating that a special stone was kept in the place of stoning and used time and time again for this purpose. The Gemara asks: **But isn’t it taught** in a *baraita*: **The stone with which** the condemned party **was stoned and the tree on which** his corpse **was hung, or the sword with which he was killed, or the cloth with which he was strangled, all** of them **are buried** together **with him?** If so, the same stone could not have been used for every execution. The Gemara answers: **No,** it is **necessary** to teach **that** after the stones were buried with the transgressor, **they would prepare other** stones **and bring them** to the place of stoning **in their place.**


###### Sanhedrin 45b:6
[Sanhedrin 45b:6](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Sanhedrin/r/45b:6)

נִקְבָּרִין עִמּוֹ. וְהָתַנְיָא: אֵין נִקְבָּרִין עִמּוֹ? אָמַר רַב פָּפָּא: מַאי ״עִמּוֹ״? עִמּוֹ בִּתְפִיסָתוֹ.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The *baraita* teaches that all of the items used in the execution **are buried** together **with** the transgressor. The Gemara asks: **But isn’t it taught** in another *baraita* that **they are not buried** together **with** the transgressor? **Rav Pappa said: What** does the *baraita* mean when it says that these items are buried together **with him?** They are not actually buried together with him in the same grave; rather, they are buried **within his grasp,** i.e., in the area surrounding his grave.


###### Sanhedrin 45b:7
[Sanhedrin 45b:7](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Sanhedrin/r/45b:7)

אָמַר שְׁמוּאֵל: נִקְטְעָה יַד הָעֵדִים – פָּטוּר. מַאי טַעְמָא? דְּבָעֵינָא ״יַד הָעֵדִים תִּהְיֶה בּוֹ בָרִאשׁוֹנָה,״ וְלֵיכָּא.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
§ **Shmuel says:** If **the witnesses’ hands were severed** after the transgressor was sentenced to be stoned, so that they can no longer stone him themselves, the transgressor is **exempt** from punishment and is not executed. **What is the reason** for this? This is **because I need** to fulfill what is stated in the verse: **“The hand of the witnesses shall be first upon him to put him to death”** (Deuteronomy 17:7), **and** here this is **not** possible.


###### Sanhedrin 45b:8
[Sanhedrin 45b:8](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Sanhedrin/r/45b:8)

אֶלָּא מֵעַתָּה, עֵדִים גִּידְמִין דְּמֵעִיקָּרָא, הָכִי נָמֵי דִּפְסִילִי? שָׁאנֵי הָתָם, דְּאָמַר קְרָא: ״יַד הָעֵדִים״, שֶׁהָיְתָה כְּבָר.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara asks: **If that is so,** that the witnesses themselves must stone the transgressor or else the sentence is not carried out, if **the witnesses lacked hands from the outset,** when they offered their testimony, **are they also disqualified?** The Gemara answers: **There it is different, as the verse states: “The hand of the witnesses,”** indicating that the hands **that were** there **already** when the witnesses gave their testimony must throw the first stone when the transgressor is executed. If the witnesses already lacked hands at the time of their testimony, others can throw the first stone.


###### Sanhedrin 45b:9
[Sanhedrin 45b:9](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Sanhedrin/r/45b:9)

מֵיתִיבִי: כׇּל מָקוֹם שֶׁיְּעִידוּהוּ שְׁנַיִם וְיֹאמְרוּ, ״מְעִידִין אָנוּ בְּאִישׁ פְּלוֹנִי שֶׁנִּגְמַר דִּינוֹ בְּבֵית דִּין פְּלוֹנִי, וּפְלוֹנִי וּפְלוֹנִי עֵדָיו״ – הֲרֵי זֶה יֵהָרֵג. תַּרְגְּמָא שְׁמוּאֵל בְּ״הֵּן הֵן עֵדָיו״.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara **raises an objection** to the opinion of Shmuel from what is taught in a mishna (*Makkot* 7a): In **any place where two** witnesses **testify** before a court **and say: We testify about so-and-so that his** death **sentence was issued in such and such a court, and so-and-so and so-and-so** were **his witnesses, he is executed,** and there is no need to retry him. This seems to indicate that the transgressor is put to death even if the witnesses are not there to throw the first stone. The Gemara explains: **Shmuel interpreted** the mishna as referring to a case where the witnesses who testify about the transgressor’s conviction **in** a different court **are the same witnesses** who had testified against him at his original trial, and they are present to throw the first stone.


###### Sanhedrin 45b:10
[Sanhedrin 45b:10](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Sanhedrin/r/45b:10)

וּמִי בָּעֵינַן קְרָא כְּדִכְתִיב? וְהָתַנְיָא: ״מוֹת יוּמַת הַמַּכֶּה רוֹצֵחַ הוּא״ – אֵין לִי אֶלָּא בְּמִיתָה הַכְּתוּבָה בּוֹ. מִנַּיִן שֶׁאִם אִי אַתָּה יָכוֹל לַהֲמִיתוֹ בְּמִיתָה הַכְּתוּבָה בּוֹ שֶׁאַתָּה מְמִיתוֹ בְּכׇל מִיתָה שֶׁאַתָּה יָכוֹל לַהֲמִיתוֹ? תַּלְמוּד לוֹמַר: ״מוֹת יוּמַת הַמַּכֶּה״ – מִכׇּל מָקוֹם.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara raises another difficulty against the opinion of Shmuel: **But do we** really **need** to fulfill what is stated in **the verse** exactly **as it is written? But isn’t it taught** in a *baraita*: The verse with regard to a murderer states: **“He that smote him shall be put to death, for he is a murderer”** (Numbers 35:21)? **I have** derived **only** that the murderer is put to death **with the** mode of **execution written concerning him,** i.e., decapitation. **From where** do I derive **that if you cannot put him to death with the** mode of **execution written concerning him,** e.g., if he is escaping from the court, **you can put him to death with any** mode of **execution with which you can put him to death? The verse states: “He that smote him shall be put to death [*mot yumat*],”** where the doubled verb teaches that he is put to death **in any case,** by any mode of execution. Here too, the condemned party should be executed even if the witnesses cannot cast the first stone.


###### Sanhedrin 45b:11
[Sanhedrin 45b:11](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Sanhedrin/r/45b:11)

שָׁאנֵי הָתָם, דְּאָמַר קְרָא: ״מוֹת יוּמַת״.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara answers: **There,** concerning a murderer, **it is different, as the verse** explicitly **states: “He** that smote him **shall be put to death,”** which serves to include all modes of execution.


###### Sanhedrin 45b:12
[Sanhedrin 45b:12](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Sanhedrin/r/45b:12)

וְלִיגְמַר מִינֵּיהּ? מִשּׁוּם דְּהָוֵה רוֹצֵחַ וְגוֹאֵל הַדָּם שְׁנֵי כְּתוּבִין הַבָּאִין כְּאֶחָד, וְכׇל שְׁנֵי כְּתוּבִין הַבָּאִין כְּאֶחָד אֵין מְלַמְּדִין.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara asks: **But** why not **learn from** this *halakha* a principle that can be applied in all cases of capital punishment? The Gemara responds: This case does not prove a principle, **because** the *halakhot* of **the murderer and** of **the blood redeemer,** i.e., a relative of one who was killed who takes it upon himself to redeem his relative’s death, **are two verses that come as one, and** the rule is that **two verses that come as one do not teach** a principle. In other words, if a *halakha* is stated in the Torah with regard to two individual cases, the *halakha* is understood to apply only to those cases. Had the *halakha* applied to all other relevant cases as well, it would not have been necessary for the Torah to teach it twice. The fact that two cases are mentioned indicates that they are the exceptions rather than the rule.


###### Sanhedrin 45b:13
[Sanhedrin 45b:13](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Sanhedrin/r/45b:13)

רוֹצֵחַ – הָא דַּאֲמַרַן. גּוֹאֵל הַדָּם מַאי הִיא? דְּתַנְיָא: ״גֹּאֵל הַדָּם יָמִית אֶת הָרֹצֵחַ״ – מִצְוָה בְּגוֹאֵל הַדָּם. וּמִנַּיִין שֶׁאִם אֵין לוֹ גּוֹאֵל שֶׁבֵּית דִּין מַעֲמִידִין לוֹ גּוֹאֵל? שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר: ״בְּפִגְעוֹ בּוֹ״ – מִכׇּל מָקוֹם.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara explains: The *halakha* that capital punishment need not necessarily be imposed in accordance with the Torah’s specific instructions is taught with regard to two cases, that of the murderer and that of the blood redeemer. The case of **a murderer** is **this** *halakha* **that we said**. With regard to the case of **a blood redeemer, what is it? As it is taught** in a *baraita*: The verse states: **“The blood redeemer shall slay the murderer** when he meets him” (Numbers 35:21). This **mitzva** of redeeming the death caused by an unintentional killer falls **on the blood redeemer,** a relative of the victim. **And from where** is it derived **that if** the victim **has no** blood **redeemer the court appoints** a blood **redeemer for him? As it is stated: “When he meets him,”** which teaches that **in any case** he shall slay the murderer, whether he is a relative or a court-appointed blood redeemer.


###### Sanhedrin 45b:14
[Sanhedrin 45b:14](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Sanhedrin/r/45b:14)

אֲמַר לֵיהּ מָר קַשִּׁישָׁא בְּרֵיהּ דְּרַב חִסְדָּא לְרַב אָשֵׁי: וּמִי לָא בָּעֵינַן קְרָא כְּדִכְתִיב? וְהָתְנַן: הָיָה אֶחָד מֵהֶן גִּידֵּם, אוֹ אִילֵּם, אוֹ חִיגֵּר, אוֹ סוֹמֵא, אוֹ חֵרֵשׁ – אֵינוֹ נַעֲשָׂה בֵּן סוֹרֵר וּמוֹרֶה.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**Mar Kashisha, son of Rav Ḥisda, said to Rav Ashi: And do we not need** to fulfill what is stated in **the verse** exactly **as it is written? But didn’t we learn** in a mishna (*Sanhedrin* 71a) with regard to a stubborn and rebellious son: If **one of** the boy’s parents **is without a hand, or** is **mute, or lame, or blind, or deaf,** the boy **is not rendered a stubborn and rebellious son?**


###### Sanhedrin 45b:15
[Sanhedrin 45b:15](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Sanhedrin/r/45b:15)

שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר: ״וְתָפְשׂוּ בוֹ״ – וְלֹא גִּידְמִין, ״וְהוֹצִיאוּ אֹתוֹ״ – וְלֹא חִיגְּרִין, ״וְאָמְרוּ״ – וְלֹא אִילְּמִין, ״בְּנֵנוּ זֶה״ – וְלֹא סוֹמִין, ״אֵינֶנּוּ שֹׁמֵעַ בְּקֹלֵנוּ״ – וְלֹא חֵרְשִׁין.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
This *halakha* is derived **as it is stated:** “Then shall his father and his mother lay hold of him, and bring him out to the elders of his city and to the gate of his place” (Deuteronomy 21:19). This serves to teach: His father and mother **“lay hold of him,” but not** those **without a hand** who cannot grab him; **“and bring him out,” but not** those who are **lame** and cannot take him out. And it is stated: “And they shall say to the elders of his city: This our son is stubborn and rebellious; he does not obey our voice; he is a glutton and a drunkard” (Deuteronomy 21:20). This verse serves to teach: **“And they shall say,” but not mute people; “this our son,” but not the blind,** who cannot point to the boy; **“he does not obey our voice,” but not the deaf.**


###### Sanhedrin 45b:16
[Sanhedrin 45b:16](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Sanhedrin/r/45b:16)

מַאי טַעְמָא? לָאו מִשּׁוּם דְּבָעֵינַן קְרָא כְּדִכְתִיב? לָא, שָׁאנֵי הָתָם, דְּכוּלֵּיהּ קְרָא יַתִּירָא הוּא.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**What is the reason** that in all these cases the boy is not rendered a stubborn and rebellious son? **Is it not because we need** to fulfill what is stated in **the verse** exactly **as it is written,** and this principle should hold true with regard to other verses as well? The Gemara rejects this explanation: **No, there,** in the case of the stubborn and rebellious son, **it is different, as the entire verse is superfluous.** Therefore, all of the conditions inferred from the verse must be precisely met or else the boy cannot be rendered a stubborn and rebellious son. One cannot apply this principle to other verses.


###### Sanhedrin 45b:17
[Sanhedrin 45b:17](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Sanhedrin/r/45b:17)

תָּא שְׁמַע: אֵין לָהּ רְחוֹב – אֵין נַעֲשֵׂית עִיר הַנִּדַּחַת, דִּבְרֵי רַבִּי יִשְׁמָעֵאל. רַבִּי עֲקִיבָא אוֹמֵר: אֵין לָהּ רְחוֹב – עוֹשִׂין לָהּ רְחוֹב.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara suggests: **Come** and **hear** a proof from what is taught in a *baraita* with regard to an idolatrous city, the majority of whose inhabitants engaged in idol worship, about which the verse states: “And you shall gather all the spoil of it into the midst of the open place of the city, and shall burn with fire both the city and the entire plunder taken in it” (Deuteronomy 13:17): If the city **does not have an open place, it is not rendered an idolatrous city;** this is **the statement of Rabbi Yishmael. Rabbi Akiva says:** If **it does not have an open place, they make an open place for it.**


###### Sanhedrin 45b:18
[Sanhedrin 45b:18](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Sanhedrin/r/45b:18)

עַד כָּאן לָא פְּלִיגִי, אֶלָּא דְּמָר סָבַר: ״רְחוֹבָהּ״ דְּמֵעִיקָּרָא בָּעִינַן, וּמָר סָבַר: רְחוֹבָהּ דְּהַשְׁתָּא נָמֵי כִּדְמֵעִיקָּרָא דָּמֵי. אֲבָל דְּכוּלֵּי עָלְמָא בָּעֵינַן קְרָא כְּדִכְתִיב.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara explains: Rabbi Yishmael and Rabbi Akiva **disagree only with regard to** this detail, **that** one **Sage,** Rabbi Yishmael, **holds** that **we need an open place** that existed **from the outset** when the idolatry was committed, **while the** other **Sage,** Rabbi Akiva, **holds** that **an open place** that exists **now is like** an open place that existed **from the outset. But everyone** agrees that **we need** to fulfill what is stated in **the verse** exactly **as it is written.**


###### Sanhedrin 45b:19
[Sanhedrin 45b:19](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Sanhedrin/r/45b:19)

תַּנָּאֵי הִיא, דִּתְנַן: אֵין לוֹ בֹּהֶן יָד, בֹּהֶן רֶגֶל, אֹזֶן יָמָנִית – אֵין לוֹ טׇהֳרָה עוֹלָמִית. רַבִּי אֱלִיעֶזֶר אוֹמֵר: נוֹתֵן עַל מְקוֹמוֹ וְיוֹצֵא. רַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן אוֹמֵר: נוֹתֵן עַל שְׂמֹאלוֹ וְיוֹצֵא.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara answers: This issue **is** the subject of a dispute between ***tanna’im*. As we learned** in a mishna (*Nega’im* 14:9) concerning the purification process of a leper, during the course of which blood and oil must be applied to his right thumb, right big toe, and right ear: If the leper **has no** right **thumb,** right **big toe,** or **right ear, he can never** attain **ritual purity,** as he cannot fulfill the conditions of the verse. **Rabbi Eliezer says:** In such a case, the priest may **apply** the blood and oil **to the place** where the missing finger, toe, or ear should have been, **and** the leper **has** thereby **fulfilled** his obligation. **Rabbi Shimon says:** The priest may **apply** it **to his left** thumb, left big toe, or left ear, **and** the leper **has** thereby **fulfilled** his obligation. The first *tanna* apparently holds that the Torah’s instructions must be fulfilled exactly as they are written, while Rabbi Eliezer and Rabbi Shimon disagree and say that when this is impossible, they are dispensable.


###### Sanhedrin 45b:20
[Sanhedrin 45b:20](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Sanhedrin/r/45b:20)

**מַתְנִי׳** כׇּל הַנִּסְקָלִין נִתְלִין, דִּבְרֵי רַבִּי אֱלִיעֶזֶר. וַחֲכָמִים אוֹמְרִים: אֵינוֹ נִתְלֶה אֶלָּא הַמְגַדֵּף וְהָעוֹבֵד עֲבוֹדָה זָרָה.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**MISHNA:** The corpses of all those **who are stoned are hung** after their death; this is **the statement of Rabbi Eliezer. And the Rabbis say: Only** the corpse of **the blasphemer,** who has cursed God, **and** the corpse of **the idol worshipper are hung.**


###### Sanhedrin 45b:21
[Sanhedrin 45b:21](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Sanhedrin/r/45b:21)

הָאִישׁ תּוֹלִין אוֹתוֹ פָּנָיו כְּלַפֵּי הָעָם, וְהָאִשָּׁה פָּנֶיהָ כְּלַפֵּי הָעֵץ; דִּבְרֵי רַבִּי אֱלִיעֶזֶר. וַחֲכָמִים אוֹמְרִים: הָאִישׁ נִתְלֶה וְאֵין הָאִשָּׁה נִתְלֵית. אָמַר לָהֶן רַבִּי אֱלִיעֶזֶר: וַהֲלֹא שִׁמְעוֹן בֶּן שָׁטַח תָּלָה נָשִׁים בְּאַשְׁקְלוֹן? אָמְרוּ לוֹ: שְׁמוֹנִים נָשִׁים תָּלָה, וְאֵין דָּנִין שְׁנַיִם בְּיוֹם אֶחָד.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The corpse of **a man is hung facing the people, but** the corpse of **a woman,** out of modesty, is hung **facing the tree;** this is **the statement of Rabbi Eliezer. And the Rabbis say:** the corpse of **a man is hung, but** the corpse of **a woman is not hung. Rabbi Eliezer said to** the Rabbis: **Did Shimon ben Shataḥ not hang in Ashkelon women** who were found guilty of witchcraft, proving that the corpse of a woman who is executed is also hung? **They said to him:** No proof can be brought from here, as **he hanged eighty women** on that day, **and** the *halakha* is that the same court **may not judge** even **two** people charged with capital transgressions **on the same day.** It is therefore clear that he was not acting in accordance with Torah law, but rather his execution of the eighty women was an extraordinary punishment necessitated by unusually pressing circumstances.


###### Sanhedrin 45b:22
[Sanhedrin 45b:22](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Sanhedrin/r/45b:22)

**גְּמָ׳** תָּנוּ רַבָּנַן: ״וְהוּמָת וְתָלִיתָ״ – יָכוֹל כׇּל הַמּוּמָתִין נִתְלִין? תַּלְמוּד לוֹמַר: ״כִּי קִלְלַת אֱלֹהִים תָּלוּי״. מָה מְקַלֵּל זֶה שֶׁבִּסְקִילָה, אַף כֹּל שֶׁבִּסְקִילָה. דִּבְרֵי רַבִּי אֱלִיעֶזֶר.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**GEMARA:** The mishna teaches that the corpses of all those who are killed by stoning are hung after their death. **The Sages taught** in a related *baraita*: The verse states: “And if a man has committed a sin worthy of death, **and he is put to death, and you shall hang** him on a tree” (Deuteronomy 21:22): One **might** have thought that the corpses of **all those who are put to death are hung.** To counter this, **the verse states:** “His body shall not remain all night upon the tree…**for he that is hung is a curse of God”** (Deuteronomy 21:23), teaching that **just as the blasphemer,** who **is** liable **to** be punished by **stoning,** is hung after his death, **so too, all those** who are liable **to** be punished by **stoning** are later hung, but those who are liable to be executed in other ways are not hung after their death. This is **the statement of Rabbi Eliezer.**


###### Sanhedrin 45b:23
[Sanhedrin 45b:23](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Sanhedrin/r/45b:23)

וַחֲכָמִים אוֹמְרִים: מָה מְקַלֵּל זֶה שֶׁכָּפַר בָּעִיקָּר, אַף כֹּל שֶׁכָּפַר בָּעִיקָּר.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The *baraita* continues: **And the Rabbis say: Just as the blasphemer,** who **denies the principle** of belief in God, is hung after his death, **so too, all who deny the principle** of belief in God are hung after they die. But others, even if they are liable to be punished by stoning, are not hung after they are put to death.


###### Sanhedrin 45b:24
[Sanhedrin 45b:24](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Sanhedrin/r/45b:24)

בְּמַאי קָא מִיפַּלְגִי? רַבָּנַן דָּרְשִׁי כְּלָלֵי וּפְרָטֵי, רַבִּי אֱלִיעֶזֶר דָּרֵישׁ רִיבּוּיֵי וּמִיעוּטֵי.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara clarifies: **With regard to what do they disagree? The Rabbis interpret** the verses based on the principle of **generalizations and details,** one of the methods by which the Torah is interpreted. And **Rabbi Eliezer interprets** them based on the principle of **amplifications and restrictions,** a different approach to biblical exegesis.


###### Sanhedrin 45b:25
[Sanhedrin 45b:25](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Sanhedrin/r/45b:25)

רַבָּנַן דָּרְשִׁי כְּלָלֵי וּפְרָטֵי: ״וְהוּמָת וְתָלִיתָ״ – כְּלָל, ״כִּי קִלְלַת״ – פְּרָט. אִי הֲווֹ מְקָרְבִי לַהֲדָדֵי, אָמְרִינַן: אֵין בַּכְּלָל אֶלָּא מַה שֶּׁבַּפְּרָט. הָנֵי – אִין, מִידֵּי אַחֲרִינָא – לָא.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
How so? **The Rabbis expound** the verses based on the principle of **generalizations and details.** The phrase **“And he is put to death, and you shall hang** him” is **a generalization,** as no particular offense is specified. The phrase **“For** he that is hung is **a curse of** God” is **a detail,** as a specific transgression is mentioned. **Were** the generalization and the detail **next to each other** in the same verse, **we would** apply the principle of generalizations and details and **say** that **the generalization includes only that which is** stated **in the detail.** Therefore, **this** transgressor, the blasphemer, **yes,** his corpse is subject to being hung after he is executed, but the corpse of **anyone else** is **not.**