The Source for Torturous Prison

The Talmud Sanhedrin 81b states:

ומאי כיפה? - אמר רב יהודה: מלא קומתו, והיכא רמיזא? - אמר ריש לקיש: (תהלים ל"ד) תמותת רשע רעה. ואמר ריש לקיש: מאי דכתיב (קהלת ט') כי [גם] לא ידע האדם את עתו כדגים שנאחזים במצודה רעה, מאי מצודה רעה? אמר ריש לקיש: חכה

What is a kipah prison? Rav Yehuda says, It fills his height. Where is this hinted? Resh Lakish said, (Psalms 34:22) "Evil will kill the wicked." And Resh Lakish said, "What does it mean that which is written (Kohelet 9:12) For a person does not even know his time, like the fish that are caught with an evil trap..." What is an "evil trap"? Resh Lakish said, A fish hook.

What are we to make of this passage? What is the proof for a small prison where a person is too big for it?

It seems, at first glance, that Resh Lakish has a consistent interpretation of the word "ra'ah" for the wicked. And that is, he relates the verse of "ra'ah" will kill the wicked, to being put in prison that is too small. But it remains unclear what the connection is, until you see that he believes a fish caught in an "evil trap" refers to a fish hook, which is small and causes lots of pain. So "ra'ah" refers to something that is small and causes great pain.

But this is not in the words, and seems to have nothing particular to do with Psalms 34:22. Until you look at the context.

What's interesting is that the Psalmist promises to save the righteous and "guard his bones," and then the verse comes that "evil will kill the wicked."

20 Many evils befall the righteous, but the Lord saves him from them all.
21 He guards all his bones; not one of them was broken.
22 Evil will kill the wicked, and those who hate the righteous shall be accounted guilty.

What if Resh Lakish saw the relationship between God's act for the righetous, making sure his bones are alright, and the act for the wicked, which is to kill him through "ra'ah", which is apparently to break his bones (or at least hurt them)? And thus, he looks at the "ra'ah" in the case of a fish, and says, these are similar!

-------
3/23/17

Another issue of sources is the next Mishnah, which states:

ההורג נפש שלא בעדים. מכניסין אותו לכיפה ומאכילין אותו לחם צר ומים לחץ

One who kills someone in the absence of witnesses, they put him in a prison and feed him sparing bread and scant water.

The issue here is that the previous statement was this:

One who is lashed [as punishment for a transgression] and then repeats [that transgression], the court puts him in the dome and feeds him barley until his stomach bursts.

So why is it that a person who kills gets fed bad water and bread in prison, while a repeat offender of malkut gets death by torture? The Talmud suggests the following answer: In both cases, the person gets death by torture. How is this accomplished? By feeding him first scant water and bread til his stomach shrinks, and then feeding him barley (which expands in water), thus making his stomach burst.

The Talmud's question is why these punishments should be different, and answers that they are indeed not. But it is not concerned for the order, nor the reason why the Mishnah simply doesn't say it like how the Talmud describes it. If the Talmud is right, the provision of scant water, etc, should come before the provision of barley. This is not only out of order, but against pshat.

In Margoliot HaYam, Rav Reuven provides the suggestion (if I recall it correctly) that the murder case would obviously get the death penalty, but it wasn't obvious for the repeat offender. Therefore, it had to be explicit of the end punishment for the repeat offender, which it didn't have to do for the murderer without witnesses.

This led me to examine the last part of the provision to feed him "lechem tzar umayim lachatz." The Mesorat Hashas notes that this is a quote from Isaiah 30:20. It is a very strange verse to draw from for the concept of torturing a person, because it says that "God gives you bread of adversity, and water of affliction, yet your teacher shall not withdraw himself any more..." This is a metaphor! And seemingly positive outcome from it!

There is little doubt in my mind that there is a girsa issue here, and the more appropriate sources is actually I Kings 22:27 (comes up in II Chronicles 18:26). There, Achav imprisons Michayahu, the prophet who tells him what he doesn't want to hear. Achav commands שִׂימוּ אֶת-זֶה, בֵּית הַכֶּלֶא; וְהַאֲכִלֻהוּ לֶחֶם לַחַץ, וּמַיִם לַחַץ. "Put this guy in prison, and feed him with scant bread and with scant water."

This makes much more sense to allude to - especially if our theory is correct and the rabbis had some reservations about employing this method (to be discussed elsewhere).