## Sanhedrin Daf 86a

###### Sanhedrin 86a:1
[Sanhedrin 86a:1](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Sanhedrin/r/86a:1)

תָּנֵי תַּנָּא קַמֵּיהּ דְּרַב שֵׁשֶׁת. אֲמַר לֵיהּ: אֲנִי שׁוֹנֶה רַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן אוֹמֵר ״מֵאֶחָיו״ – עַד שֶׁיּוֹצִיאֶנּוּ מֵרְשׁוּת אֶחָיו, וְאַתְּ אָמְרַתְּ חַיָּיב?! תְּנִי: פָּטוּר.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**A *tanna*** who recited *mishnayot* and *baraitot* in the study hall **recited** that *baraita*, where the *tanna* holds that one is liable for abducting another and selling him to the abductee’s father, **before Rav Sheshet.** Rav Sheshet **said to him: I teach** that **Rabbi Shimon says:** From the term **“of his brethren”** it is derived that there is no liability **unless he removes** the abductee **from the domain of his brethren, and you say** that one who sells the abductee to his father is **liable?** Emend the *baraita* and **teach** instead: He is **exempt.**


###### Sanhedrin 86a:2
[Sanhedrin 86a:2](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Sanhedrin/r/86a:2)

מַאי קוּשְׁיָא? דִּילְמָא הָא רַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן, הָא רַבָּנַן.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara asks: **What** is **the difficulty** raised by Rav Sheshet? **Perhaps that** statement that he cited is the opinion of **Rabbi Shimon,** while **this** *baraita* is the opinion of **the Rabbis,** who disagree with him.


###### Sanhedrin 86a:3
[Sanhedrin 86a:3](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Sanhedrin/r/86a:3)

לָא סָלְקָא דַּעְתָּךְ, דְּאָמַר רַבִּי יוֹחָנָן: סְתָם מַתְנִיתִין – רַבִּי מֵאִיר, סְתַם תּוֹסֶפְתָּא – רַבִּי נְחֶמְיָה, סְתַם סִפְרָא – רַבִּי יְהוּדָה, סְתַם סִפְרֵי – רַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן, וְכוּלְּהוּ אַלִּיבָּא דְּרַבִּי עֲקִיבָא.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara responds: That should **not enter your mind, as** the unattributed *baraita* that was cited is a passage from the halakhic midrash on the books of Numbers and Deuteronomy entitled *Sifrei*, and **Rabbi Yoḥanan says: An unattributed mishna** is in accordance with the opinion of **Rabbi Meir; an unattributed** *baraita* in the ***Tosefta*** is in accordance with the opinion of **Rabbi Neḥemya; an unattributed** *baraita* in the ***Sifra*,** the halakhic midrash on the book of Leviticus, is in accordance with the opinion of **Rabbi Yehuda;** and **an unattributed** *baraita* in the ***Sifrei*** is in accordance with the opinion of **Rabbi Shimon. And all of these are in accordance with** the opinion **of Rabbi Akiva,** as all the Sages mentioned were his disciples. Therefore, it is unlikely that an unattributed *baraita* from the *Sifrei* would run counter to the opinion of Rabbi Shimon.


###### Sanhedrin 86a:4
[Sanhedrin 86a:4](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Sanhedrin/r/86a:4)

הַגּוֹנֵב בְּנוֹ – מַאי טַעְמָא דְּרַבָּנַן?

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
§ The mishna teaches that there is a dispute between Rabbi Yehuda and the Rabbis with regard to the liability of **one who abducts his son.** The Gemara asks: **What is the reason** for the opinion **of the Rabbis,** who deem him exempt?


###### Sanhedrin 86a:5
[Sanhedrin 86a:5](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Sanhedrin/r/86a:5)

אָמַר אַבָּיֵי: דְּאָמַר קְרָא, ״כִּי יִמָּצֵא״ – פְּרָט לְמָצוּי.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**Abaye said:** It is derived **from the verse** that **states: “If** a man **shall be found** abducting a person of his brethren” (Deuteronomy 24:7), to **exclude** one who is already **found** in the custody of the abductor before the abduction. Since the son is already in the custody of his father, the father is not liable for abducting him.


###### Sanhedrin 86a:6
[Sanhedrin 86a:6](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Sanhedrin/r/86a:6)

אֲמַר לֵיהּ רַב פָּפָּא לְאַבָּיֵי: אֶלָּא מֵעַתָּה, ״כִּי יִמָּצֵא אִישׁ שֹׁכֵב עִם אִשָּׁה בְעֻלַת בַּעַל״, הָכִי נָמֵי ״כִּי יִמָּצֵא״ – פְּרָט לְמָצוּי? כְּגוֹן שֶׁל בֵּית פְּלוֹנִי דִּשְׁכִיחָן גַּבַּיְיהוּ, הָכִי נָמֵי דִּפְטִירִי?

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**Rav Pappa said to Abaye: If that is so,** then the verse: **“If a man shall be found lying with a woman married to a husband,** then they shall both of them die” (Deuteronomy 22:22), may **also** be interpreted: **“If** a man **shall be found,”** to **exclude** one who was already **found. So too,** would one say **that** adulterers **are exempt** from liability if they commit adultery in, **for example, the house of so-and-so, where** married women **are commonly** found and they have a preexisting reputation for licentiousness?


###### Sanhedrin 86a:7
[Sanhedrin 86a:7](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Sanhedrin/r/86a:7)

אֲמַר לֵיהּ: ״אֲנָא מִ״וְנִמְצָא בְּיָדוֹ״ קָאָמֵינָא.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
Abaye **said to** Rav Pappa: The Rabbis’ opinion is derived from the phrase: **“Or if he is found in his possession,** he shall be put to death” (Exodus 21:16), from which **I am saying** my inference, that it is derived: If he is found, to the exclusion of one who was already found.


###### Sanhedrin 86a:8
[Sanhedrin 86a:8](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Sanhedrin/r/86a:8)

אָמַר רָבָא: הִלְכָּךְ, הָנֵי מַקְרֵי דַרְדְּקֵי וּמַתְנוּ רַבָּנַן כִּמְצוּיִין בְּיָדָן דָּמוּ, וּפְטִירִי.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**Rava said: Therefore,** with regard to **those teachers of children [*dardekei*] and those who recite** *mishnayot* **to Torah scholars,** the status of their students **is as** though they are **found in their possession, and** the teachers **are exempt** from liability for abducting them.


###### Sanhedrin 86a:9
[Sanhedrin 86a:9](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Sanhedrin/r/86a:9)

גָּנַב מִי שֶׁחֶצְיוֹ וְכוּ׳. תְּנַן הָתָם, רַבִּי יְהוּדָה אוֹמֵר: אֵין לַעֲבָדִים בּוֹשֶׁת.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
§ The mishna teaches that there is a dispute between Rabbi Yehuda and the Rabbis with regard to liability if **one abducted one who is half-slave** half-freeman. **We learned** in a mishna **there** (*Bava Kamma* 87a) that **Rabbi Yehuda says: There is no** indemnity for the **humiliation of a slave,** since he is not a full-fledged Jew.


###### Sanhedrin 86a:10
[Sanhedrin 86a:10](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Sanhedrin/r/86a:10)

מַאי טַעְמָא דְּרַבִּי יְהוּדָה? אָמַר קְרָא: ״כִּי יִנָּצוּ אֲנָשִׁים יַחְדָּו אִישׁ וְאָחִיו״. מִי שֶׁיֵּשׁ לוֹ אַחְוָה – יָצָא עֶבֶד שֶׁאֵין לוֹ אַחְוָה.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara asks: **What is the reason** for the opinion **of Rabbi Yehuda?** It is derived from **the verse** that **states: “When men struggle together, a man and his brother,** and the wife of the one drew near to deliver her husband from the hand of the one who smites him, and extended her hand, and grabbed his genitals” (Deuteronomy 25:11). This is the source for liability to pay restitution for humiliating another. From the term “his brother” it is derived that **one who has brotherhood,** i.e., who is halakhically related to his biological family, receives payment for humiliation. **A slave is excluded, as he has no brotherhood,** i.e., he is not halakhically related to his family.


###### Sanhedrin 86a:11
[Sanhedrin 86a:11](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Sanhedrin/r/86a:11)

וְרַבָּנַן, אָחִיו הוּא בְּמִצְוֹת.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**And** what is the reason for the opinion of **the Rabbis?** They hold that although the slave has no family ties, he **is the brother of** the assailant **with regard to** the fulfillment of **mitzvot,** as a Canaanite slave is obligated to fulfill the same mitzvot that a woman is obligated to fulfill.


###### Sanhedrin 86a:12
[Sanhedrin 86a:12](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Sanhedrin/r/86a:12)

וְהָכָא, הֵיכִי דָּרֵישׁ רַבִּי יְהוּדָה?

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara asks: **And here,** with regard to abduction, **how does Rabbi Yehuda interpret** the verses and arrive at the conclusion that one is liable for abducting one who is half-slave half-freeman? Shouldn’t the term “from his brethren” render exempt from liability one who abducts a slave?


###### Sanhedrin 86a:13
[Sanhedrin 86a:13](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Sanhedrin/r/86a:13)

סָבַר: ״מֵאֶחָיו״ – לְאַפּוֹקֵי עֲבָדִים, ״בְּנֵי יִשְׂרָאֵל״ – לְמַעוֹטֵי מִי שֶׁחֶצְיוֹ עֶבֶד וְחֶצְיוֹ בֶּן חוֹרִין, ״מִבְּנֵי יִשְׂרָאֵל״ – לְמַעוֹטֵי מִי שֶׁחֶצְיוֹ עֶבֶד וְחֶצְיוֹ בֶּן חוֹרִין. הָוֵי מִיעוּט אַחַר מִיעוּט, וְאֵין מִיעוּט אַחַר מִיעוּט אֶלָּא לְרַבּוֹת.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara answers that Rabbi Yehuda **holds** that the term in the verse: **“From his brethren”** (Deuteronomy (24:7), serves **to exclude** from liability one who abducts **slaves.** Had the verse continued: **The children of Israel,** that phrase would have been interpreted **to exclude** from liability one who abducts **one who is half-slave half-freeman.** Since the verse states: **“From the children of Israel,”** the prefix letter *mem*, meaning from, indicates that there are some from the children of Israel for whose abduction one is liable and there are some for whose abduction one is exempt. That prefix also serves **to exclude** from liability one who abducts **one who is half-slave half-freeman.** Therefore, **this is** an example of **a restriction following a restriction, and** there is a hermeneutical principle that **a restriction following a restriction** serves **only to amplify** the *halakha* and to include in the category of those who are liable one who abducts one who is half-slave half-freeman.


###### Sanhedrin 86a:14
[Sanhedrin 86a:14](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Sanhedrin/r/86a:14)

וְרַבָּנַן, ״מֵאֶחָיו״ לְאַפּוֹקֵי עֲבָדִים לָא מַשְׁמַע לְהוּ, דְּהָא אָחִיו הוּא בְּמִצְוֹת. ״בְּנֵי יִשְׂרָאֵל״ ״מִבְּנֵי יִשְׂרָאֵל״ – חַד לְמַעוֹטֵי עֶבֶד, וְחַד לְמַעוֹטֵי מִי שֶׁחֶצְיוֹ עֶבֶד וְחֶצְיוֹ בֶּן חוֹרִין.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**And the Rabbis,** who deem one who abducts one who is half-slave half-freeman exempt, how do they interpret the verse? **They do not exclude slaves** based on the term **“from his brethren,” as** the slave **is the brother of** the abductor **with regard to the** fulfillment of **mitzvot.** Concerning the expression **“children of Israel”** and the more expanded expression **“from the children of Israel,” one** serves **to exclude** from liability one who abducts **slaves,** as the slave is not a full-fledged Jew, **and one** serves **to exclude** from liability one who abducts **one who is half-slave half-freeman.**


###### Sanhedrin 86a:15
[Sanhedrin 86a:15](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Sanhedrin/r/86a:15)

אַזְהָרָה לְגוֹנֵב נֶפֶשׁ מִנַּיִן? רַבִּי יֹאשִׁיָּה אָמַר: מִ״לֹּא תִגְנֹב״. רַבִּי יוֹחָנָן אָמַר: מִ״לֹּא יִמָּכְרוּ מִמְכֶּרֶת עֶבֶד״. וְלָא פְּלִיגִי, מָר קָא חָשֵׁיב לָאו דִּגְנֵיבָה, וּמָר קָא חָשֵׁיב לָאו דִּמְכִירָה.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
§ The Gemara asks: **From where** is **a prohibition against abducting a person** derived? **Rabbi Yoshiya says** that it is derived **from** the verse: **“You shall not steal”** (Exodus 20:13). **Rabbi Yoḥanan says** that it is derived **from** the verse: **“They shall not be sold as slaves”** (Leviticus 25:42). The Gemara comments: **And they do not disagree,** as each requires both verses to derive the prohibition. One **Sage,** Rabbi Yoshiya, **enumerates** the **prohibition against abduction, and** one **Sage,** Rabbi Yoḥanan, **enumerates** the **prohibition against selling** the abductee into slavery.


###### Sanhedrin 86a:16
[Sanhedrin 86a:16](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Sanhedrin/r/86a:16)

תָּנוּ רַבָּנַן: ״לֹא תִגְנֹב״ – בְּגוֹנֵב נְפָשׁוֹת הַכָּתוּב מְדַבֵּר. אַתָּה אוֹמֵר בְּגוֹנֵב נְפָשׁוֹת, אוֹ אֵינוֹ אֶלָּא בְּגוֹנֵב מָמוֹן? אָמַרְתָּ: צֵא וּלְמַד מִשְּׁלֹשׁ עֶשְׂרֵה מִדּוֹת שֶׁהַתּוֹרָה נִדְרֶשֶׁת בָּהֶן, דָּבָר הַלָּמֵד מֵעִנְיָינוֹ. בְּמָה הַכָּתוּב מְדַבֵּר? בִּנְפָשׁוֹת. אַף כָּאן בִּנְפָשׁוֹת.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**The Sages taught** in a *baraita*: **“You shall not steal”** (Exodus 20:13), and it is **with regard to** one who **abducts people** that **the verse is speaking. Do you say** that the verse is speaking **with regard to** one who **abducts people, or** perhaps the verse is speaking **only with regard to** one who **steals property? You say: Go out and learn from** one of **the thirteen hermeneutical principles: A matter derived from its context. With regard to what** context are the adjacent prohibitions “You shall not kill; you shall not commit adultery” in **the verse speaking?** They are speaking **with regard to capital** cases. **So too here,** the prohibition is speaking **with regard to a capital** case of abduction.


###### Sanhedrin 86a:17
[Sanhedrin 86a:17](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Sanhedrin/r/86a:17)

תַּנְיָא אִידַּךְ: ״לֹא תִגְנֹבוּ״ – בְּגוֹנֵב מָמוֹן הַכָּתוּב מְדַבֵּר. אַתָּה אוֹמֵר בְּגוֹנֵב מָמוֹן, אוֹ אֵינוֹ אֶלָּא בְּגוֹנֵב נְפָשׁוֹת? אָמַרְתָּ: צֵא וּלְמַד מִשְּׁלֹשׁ עֶשְׂרֵה מִדּוֹת שֶׁהַתּוֹרָה נִדְרֶשֶׁת בָּהֶן, דָּבָר הַלָּמֵד מֵעִנְיָנוֹ. בְּמָה הַכָּתוּב מְדַבֵּר? בְּמָמוֹן. אַף כָּאן בְּמָמוֹן.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**It is taught** in **another** *baraita*: **“You shall not steal”** (Leviticus 19:11), and it is **with regard to** one who **steals property** that **the verse is speaking. Do you say** that the verse is speaking **with regard to** one who **steals property, or** perhaps the verse is speaking **only with regard to** one who **abducts people? You say: Go out and learn from** one of **the thirteen hermeneutical principles: A matter derived from its context. With regard to what** context **is the** subsequent **verse:** “You shall neither exploit your neighbor nor rob him” (Leviticus 19:13), **speaking?** It is speaking **with regard to property. So too here,** the verse is speaking **with regard to property.**


###### Sanhedrin 86a:18
[Sanhedrin 86a:18](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Sanhedrin/r/86a:18)

אִיתְּמַר: עֵידֵי גְנֵיבָה וְעֵידֵי מְכִירָה בְּנֶפֶשׁ שֶׁהוּזַּמּוּ, חִזְקִיָּה אָמַר: אֵין נֶהֱרָגִין. רַבִּי יוֹחָנָן אָמַר: נֶהֱרָגִין.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**It was stated:** If **the witnesses to the abduction and the witnesses to the sale of a person were rendered conspiring witnesses, Ḥizkiyya says:** The typical sentence of conspiring witnesses is not implemented and **they are not executed. Rabbi Yoḥanan says: They are executed.**


###### Sanhedrin 86a:19
[Sanhedrin 86a:19](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Sanhedrin/r/86a:19)

חִזְקִיָּה, דְּאָמַר כְּרַבִּי עֲקִיבָא, דְּאָמַר: ״דָּבָר״ וְלֹא חֲצִי דָּבָר. וְרַבִּי יוֹחָנָן אָמַר: כְּרַבָּנַן, דְּאָמְרִי: ״דָּבָר״, וַאֲפִילּוּ חֲצִי דָּבָר.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara elaborates: It is **Ḥizkiyya who said** his statement **in accordance with** the opinion of **Rabbi Akiva, who said** one derives from the verse: “On the basis of two witnesses…shall a matter be established” (Deuteronomy 19:15), that the testimony of witnesses is valid only when they attest to an entire **matter, but not** to **half a matter.** Since each pair of witnesses provides testimony concerning only half the transgression for which the perpetrator would be liable, i.e., they each testify to only the abduction or the sale, the testimony of each pair is not valid. Therefore, when they are deemed conspiring witnesses, they are not executed. **And Rabbi Yoḥanan says** his statement **in accordance with** the opinion of **the Rabbis, who said** that one derives from the verse that the testimony is valid when they testify with regard to an entire **matter, and even** when they testify with regard to **half a matter.** Since the testimony of the two pairs of witnesses together constitutes a complete testimony, if they are rendered conspiring witnesses, they are executed.


###### Sanhedrin 86a:20
[Sanhedrin 86a:20](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Sanhedrin/r/86a:20)

וּמוֹדֶה חִזְקִיָּה בְּעֵדִים הָאַחֲרוֹנִים שֶׁל בֶּן סוֹרֵר וּמוֹרֶה שֶׁהוּזַּמּוּ, שֶׁנֶּהֱרָגִין, מִתּוֹךְ שֶׁיְּכוֹלִים לוֹמַר הָרִאשׁוֹנִים:

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara notes: **And Ḥizkiyya concedes with regard to the final witnesses of a stubborn and rebellious son who were rendered conspiring witnesses that they are executed.** A stubborn and rebellious son is executed only if witnesses testified that he engaged in gluttonous and drunken conduct and he was flogged, and then a second pair of witnesses testifies that he again engaged in gluttonous and drunken conduct. His death sentence is based solely on the testimony of the second pair, **as the first** witnesses **could say:**