Sanhedrin 43A

״ובני ישראל עשו כאשר צוה ה׳ את משה״.

“And the children of Israel did as YHWH commanded Moses.”

אלא מעתה: ״וירגמו אתו אבן״ מאי עבדי ליה? ההוא מבעי ליה לכדתניא: ״וירגמו אתו באבן״⁠ – ״אתו״ ולא בכסותו, ״אבן״ שאם מת באבן אחת יצא.

The Talmud asks: If that is so, what do they do with the words in the verse: “And they stoned him with a stone”? These words appear to be superfluous, as even without them we would know that God’s instructions to stone the blasphemer were implemented. What then do they serve to teach? The Talmud answers: That phrase is necessary for that which is taught in a baraita: The verse states: “And they stoned him with a stone.” The word “him” teaches that they stoned him alone, while he was naked, but not while he was in his clothing. The verse uses the singular term “stone [aven]” rather than the plural term stones [avanim] to teach that if the condemned man died after being struck with one stone, the court has fulfilled its obligation.

ואצטריך למיכתב ״אבן״, ואיצטריך למיכתב ״אבנים״. דאי כתב רחמנא ״אבן״, הוה אמינא: היכא דלא מת בחדא, לא ניתי אחריתי וניקטליה. כתב רחמנא ״אבנים״. ואי כתב רחמנא ״אבנים״, הוה אמינא: מעיקרא נייתי תרתי. כתב רחמנא ״אבן״.

The Talmud notes: And it was necessary to write with regard to the blasphemer that “they stoned him with a stone,” in the singular, and it was necessary to write with regard to the man who gathered sticks on Shabbat that “they stoned him with stones” (Numbers 15:36), in the plural. As, had God written only “stone,” I would say that where the condemned man did not die after being struck with one stone, they do not bring other stones and kill him with them. Therefore, God writes “stones.” And had God written only “stones,” I would say that from the outset they should bring two or more stones. Therefore, God writes “stone.”