Please ensure Javascript is enabled for purposes of website accessibility Skip to content

Today's Daf Yomi

September 5, 2017 | 讬状讚 讘讗诇讜诇 转砖注状讝

  • This month's learning is sponsored by Terri Krivosha for the Refuah Shlemah of her husband Harav Hayim Yehuda Ben Faiga Rivah.聽

  • This month's learning is dedicated by Debbie and Yossi Gevir to Rabbanit Michelle and the Hadran Zoom group for their kindness, support, and care during a medically challenging year.

Sanhedrin 51

A braita 脳聼s quoted in which a range of possibilities are suggested regarding the verse about the daughter of a kohen who gets burned for disgracing her father. 聽After each suggestion the braita concludes with what the verse is actually referring to. 聽The gemara questions each of the suggestions and explains the opinion of Rabbi Eliezer which is hard to understand.

PlayPlay

If the lesson doesn't play, click "Download"

讗讬谉 诇讬 讗诇讗 砖谞讬住转 诇讻讛谉 谞讬住转 诇诇讜讬 讜诇讬砖专讗诇 诇讻讜转讬 诇讞诇诇 诇诪诪讝专 讜诇谞转讬谉 诪谞讬讬谉 转诇诪讜讚 诇讜诪专 壮讜讘转 讗讬砖 讻讛谉壮 讗祝 注诇 驻讬 砖讗讬谞讛 讻讛谞转

I have a source only for the case of a priest鈥檚 daughter who married a priest. From where do I derive that she is also liable to be executed by burning if she married a Levite or an Israelite, a Samaritan, a priest disqualified due to flawed lineage [岣lal], a son born from an incestuous or adulterous relationship [mamzer], or a Gibeonite? The verse states: 鈥淎nd the daughter of a priest,鈥 indicating that this halakha applies even if she is not now a priestess, having married a non-priest.

壮讛讬讗壮 讘砖专讬驻讛 讜讗讬谉 讘讜注诇讛 讘砖专讬驻讛 壮讛讬讗壮 讘砖专讬驻讛 讜讗讬谉 讝讜诪诪讬讛 讘砖专讬驻讛

It is derived from the verse: 鈥淪he shall be burned with fire,鈥 that she is executed by burning, but her paramour is not executed by burning; his punishment is the same as that of one who engages in adulterous intercourse with the betrothed or married daughter of a non-priest. It is further derived from the word 鈥渟he鈥 that she is executed by burning, but witnesses who testified concerning her that she committed adultery and who were proven to be conspiring witnesses are not executed by burning.

专讘讬 讗诇讬注讝专 讗讜诪专 讗转 讗讘讬讛 讘砖专讬驻讛 讜讗转 讞诪讬讛 讘住拽讬诇讛

The baraita concludes: Rabbi Eliezer says: If she is with her father she is executed by burning, and if she is with her father-in-law she is executed by stoning, as the Gemara will explain below.

讗诪专 诪专 讬讻讜诇 讗驻讬诇讜 讞讬诇诇讛 砖讘转 讞讬诇诇讛 砖讘转 讘转 住拽讬诇讛 讛讬讗

搂 After quoting this baraita, the Gemara now clarifies and discusses it. The Master said in the baraita: One might have thought that even one who desecrated Shabbat should be executed by burning. The Gemara asks: If she desecrated Shabbat she is liable to be executed by stoning, just like anyone else who desecrates Shabbat, so why would one think that because she is the daughter of a priest she should be executed by burning, a less severe type of capital punishment?

讗诪专 专讘讗 讛讗 诪谞讬 专讘讬 砖诪注讜谉 讛讬讗 讚讗诪专 砖专讬驻讛 讞诪讜专讛 住诇拽讗 讚注转讱 讗诪讬谞讗 讛讜讗讬诇 讜讗讞诪讬专 讘讛讜 专讞诪谞讗 讘讻讛谞讬 讚专讘讬 讘讛讜 诪爪讜转 讬转讬专讜转 转讬讚讜谉 讘砖专讬驻讛 拽讗 诪砖诪注 诇谉

Rava says: In accordance with whose opinion is this? It is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Shimon, who says that burning is more severe than stoning. It might enter your mind to say that since the Merciful One treats priests more stringently, in that He gave them additional mitzvot, the daughter of a priest should be punished for desecrating Shabbat by burning, which, according to Rabbi Shimon, is more severe than stoning. Therefore, the verse teaches us that with regard to the desecration of Shabbat, the daughter of a priest receives the same punishment as the rest of the Jewish people.

诪讗讬 砖谞讗 诪讬谞讬讛 讚讬讚讬讛

The Gemara asks: In what way is she different from the priest himself? A priest who desecrates Shabbat is executed by stoning, so why would one have thought that the daughter of a priest should be punished by burning?

住诇拽讗 讚注转讱 讗诪讬谞讗 讗讬讛讜 讚讗讬砖转专讬讗 诇讬讛 砖讘转 诇讙讘讬 注讘讜讚讛 讛讬讗 讻讬讜谉 讚诇讗 讗砖转专讬讗 砖讘转 诇讙讘讛 讗讬诪讗 转讬讚讜谉 讘砖专讬驻讛 拽讗 诪砖诪注 诇谉

The Gemara answers: It might enter your mind to say that concerning the priest himself, the halakhot of Shabbat are less stringent, as acts that are forbidden on Shabbat are permitted to him with regard to the performance of the Temple service. Therefore, one might have thought that if a priest desecrates Shabbat in a manner that is forbidden to him, his punishment should not be more severe than that of a non-priest. But concerning her, the daughter of a priest, since acts that are forbidden on Shabbat are not permitted to her at all, as she does not perform the Temple service, one might say that she should be punished by burning, which is more severe. Therefore, the verse teaches us that this is not so.

讬讻讜诇 讗驻讬诇讜 驻谞讜讬讛 讛讗 诇讝谞讜转 讻转讬讘

The baraita teaches: One might have thought that even if she is unmarried and engages in promiscuous intercourse she should be executed by burning. The Gemara asks: Why might one think this? Isn鈥檛 it written in the verse: 鈥淲hen she profanes herself by playing the harlot [liznot]鈥? This term is referring to a sinful relationship such as adultery and not to the promiscuous intercourse of an unmarried woman.

讻讚专讘讬 讗诇注讝专 讚讗诪专 驻谞讜讬 讛讘讗 注诇 讛驻谞讜讬讛 砖诇讗 诇砖讜诐 讗讬砖讜转 注砖讗讛 讝讜谞讛

The Gemara answers: The statement of the baraita is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Elazar, who says: An unmarried man who engages in intercourse with an unmarried woman, not for the purpose of marriage, has rendered her a zona, i.e., a woman who has engaged in intercourse with a man forbidden to her by the Torah. In the opinion of Rabbi Elazar, the term liznot is referring to any promiscuous intercourse.

讗讜 讗讬谞讜 讗讜诪专 壮讗讘讬讛壮 讗诇讗 诇讛讜爪讬讗 讗转 讻诇 讗讚诐 讗诇讗 诪讗讬 谞讬讛讜 砖讝讬谞转讛 诪讗讘讬讛 诪讗讬 讗讬专讬讗 讘转 讻讛谉 讗驻讬诇讜 讘转 讬砖专讗诇 谞诪讬

The baraita teaches: Or perhaps one might have thought that the verse states 鈥渉er father鈥 only in order to exclude all men other than her father. The Gemara asks: Rather, what case is the verse referring to? Is it a case where she engaged in intercourse with her father? If so, why does the verse specifically mention the daughter of a priest? Even the daughter of a non-priest is executed by burning in such a case.

讚讗诪专 专讘讗 讗诪专 诇讬 专讘 讬爪讞拽 讘专 讗讘讜讚讬诪讬 讗转讬讗 讛谞讛 讛谞讛

The Gemara answers that the prohibition of and punishment for intercourse between a father and daughter are not stated explicitly in the Torah; rather, they are derived by means of two verbal analogies. As Rava said: Rav Yitz岣k bar Avudimi said to me: This prohibition is derived by means of a verbal analogy between the word henna in the verse: 鈥淭he nakedness of your son鈥檚 daughter, or of your daughter鈥檚 daughter, their nakedness you shall not uncover; for theirs [henna] is your own nakedness鈥 (Leviticus 18:10), and the word henna in a different verse: 鈥淵ou shall not uncover the nakedness of a woman and her daughter; you shall not take her son鈥檚 daughter, or her daughter鈥檚 daughter, to uncover her nakedness. They [henna] are near kinswomen; it is lewdness鈥 (Leviticus 18:17). This verbal analogy indicates that just as it is prohibited to engage in intercourse with one鈥檚 granddaughter and with one鈥檚 wife鈥檚 daughter or granddaughter, so too, it is prohibited to engage in intercourse with one鈥檚 daughter.

讗转讬讗 讝诪讛 讝诪讛

Furthermore, it is derived from a verbal analogy between the word 鈥渓ewdness鈥 (Leviticus 18:17) and the word 鈥渓ewdness鈥 in the verse: 鈥淎nd if a man take with his wife also her mother, it is lewdness; they shall be burned with fire, both he and they, so that there be no lewdness among you鈥 (Leviticus 20:14), that one who engages in intercourse with his daughter or granddaughter is liable to be executed by burning.

讗讬爪讟专讬讱 住诇拽讗 讚注转讱 讗诪讬谞讗 拽专讗 诇讗驻讜拽讬 诪讚专讘讗 诪讚讙诇讬 专讞诪谞讗 讘讘转 讻讛谉 讜诇讗 讘讘转 讬砖专讗诇 拽讗 诪砖诪注 诇谉

Since the punishment for engaging in intercourse with one鈥檚 daughter is derived from a verbal analogy and is not stated explicitly, it was necessary for the verse to indicate that the daughter of a priest is liable to be executed by burning even if she commits adultery with a man who is not her father. Otherwise, it might enter your mind to say that the verse concerning the daughter of a priest is stated to exclude the statement of Rava in the following manner: From the fact that the Merciful One revealed this punishment explicitly with regard to the daughter of a priest and not with regard to the daughter of a non-priest, it may be derived that the punishment of burning does not apply to the daughter of a non-priest. Therefore, the verse teaches us through the expression 鈥渟he profanes鈥 that it is referring to a priest鈥檚 daughter who committed adultery with any man, and not just with her father.

壮讘转 讻讛谉壮 讗讬谉 诇讬 讗诇讗 砖谞讬住转 诇讻讛谉 谞讬住转 诇诇讜讬 诇讬砖专讗诇 讜诇讻讜转讬 讜诇讞诇诇 诇谞转讬谉 讜诇诪诪讝专 诪谞讬讬谉 转诇诪讜讚 诇讜诪专 壮讘转 讗讬砖 讻讛谉壮 讗祝 注诇 驻讬 砖讗讬谞讛 讻讛谞转

The baraita teaches: From the expression 鈥渢he daughter of a priest,鈥 I have a source only for the case of a priest鈥檚 daughter who married a priest. From where is it derived that she is also liable to be executed by burning if she married a Levite, an Israelite, a Samaritan, a 岣lal, a Gibeonite, or a mamzer? The verse states: 鈥淎nd the daughter of a priest,鈥 indicating that this halakha applies even if she is not now a priestess.

诪砖讜诐 讚讗讬谞住讘讗 诇讛讜 诇讛谞讬 诇讗讜 讘转 讻讛谉 讛讬讗 讜转讜 诪讬讚讬 讻讛谞转 诇讻讛谉 讻转讬讘

The Gemara asks: Because she married one of these men who are not priests, is she no longer the daughter of a priest? Why should her punishment be different in these cases? And furthermore, is it written: A priestess who married a priest? The verse refers only to the status of her father, not to that of her husband.

住诇拽讗 讚注转讱 讗诪讬谞讗 讻讬 转讞诇 诇讝谞讜转 讗诪专 专讞诪谞讗 讛谞讬 诪讬诇讬 讛讬讻讗 讚拽讗 诪转讞诇讗 讛砖转讗 讗讘诇 讛讗 讻讬讜谉 讚拽讗 诪转讞诇讗 讜拽讬讬诪讗 诪注讬拽专讗

The Gemara answers: It might enter your mind to say that when the Merciful One states: 鈥淲hen she profanes herself by playing the harlot,鈥 it indicates that this matter applies only in a case where she profanes herself now by committing adultery. But in this case, where she is married to a non-priest, since she is already profaned from the outset, from the time of her marriage, the verse does not apply to her.

讚讗诪专 诪专 讜讘转 讻讛谉 讻讬 转讛讬讛 诇讗讬砖 讝专 讻讬讜谉 砖谞讘注诇讛 诇驻住讜诇 诇讛 驻住诇讛

The Gemara clarifies: If she is married to a man of flawed lineage, she is already profaned. As the Master said, it is derived from the verse: 鈥淎nd if a priest鈥檚 daughter be married to a non-priest, she shall not eat of that which is set apart from the sacred鈥 (Leviticus 22:12), that once she engaged in intercourse with one who is unfit for her, he has disqualified her from ever partaking of teruma.

诇诇讜讬 讜讬砖专讗诇 谞诪讬 讜砖讘讛 讗诇 讘讬转 讗讘讬讛 讻谞注讜专讬讛 诪讻诇诇 讚讻讬 讗讬转讬讛 讙讘讬讛 诇讗 讗讻诇讛

And if she is married to a Levite or an Israelite, she is also disqualified from partaking of teruma for as long as they are married; as the verse states: 鈥淏ut if a priest鈥檚 daughter is a widow, or divorced, and has no child, and returns to her father鈥檚 house, as in her youth, she may eat of her father鈥檚 bread鈥 (Leviticus 22:13). By inference, while she is with her non-priest husband, she does not partake of teruma.

讗讬诪讗 诇讗 转讬讚讜谉 讘砖专讬驻讛 拽讗 诪砖诪注 诇谉

Evidently, the marriage of the daughter of a priest to anyone who is not a priest involves some measure of profanation, and therefore one might say that she should not be punished by burning, the punishment unique to the daughter of a priest, if she committed adultery. Therefore, the verse teaches us that the punishment of execution by burning applies to any daughter of a priest, regardless of the status of her husband.

讜讚诇讗 讻专讘讬 诪讗讬专 讚转谞讬讗 讘转 讻讛谉 砖谞讬住转 诇讬砖专讗诇 讜讗讻诇讛 转专讜诪讛 诪砖诇诪转 讗转 讛拽专谉 讜讗讬谞讛 诪砖诇诪转 讗转 讛讞讜诪砖 讜诪讬转转讛 讘砖专讬驻讛

The Gemara adds: And this baraita is not in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Meir. As it is taught in a baraita: With regard to a priest鈥檚 daughter who married an Israelite and then unwittingly partook of teruma, she pays the principal, as she partook of teruma to which she has no rights, but she does not pay the additional one-fifth, the fine paid by a non-priest who partakes of teruma unwittingly. This is because she is not completely disqualified from the priesthood; if she were to be widowed or divorced without children, it would again be permitted for her to partake of teruma. And, as befits the daughter of a priest, if she commits adultery, her death penalty is by burning.

谞讬住转 诇讗讞讚 诪谉 讛驻住讜诇讬谉 诪砖诇诪转 拽专谉 讜讞讜诪砖 讜诪讬转转讛 讘讞谞拽 讚讘专讬 专讘讬 诪讗讬专

Rabbi Meir continues: But if she married one of the men who are unfit for her, e.g., a 岣lal, a mamzer, or a Gibeonite, and she unwittingly partook of teruma, she pays the principal and the additional one-fifth, as she is permanently disqualified from partaking of teruma. And similarly, if she commits adultery, her death penalty is by strangulation, like the daughter of a non-priest, as she is completely disqualified from the priesthood. This is the statement of Rabbi Meir.

讜讞讻诪讬诐 讗讜诪专讬诐 讝讜 讜讝讜 诪砖诇诪讜转 拽专谉 讜诇讗 讞讜诪砖 讜诪讬转转谉 讘砖专讬驻讛

And the Rabbis say: Both this one, who married an Israelite, and that one, who married a man of flawed lineage, pay the principal and not the additional one-fifth, as they do not entirely forfeit their priesthood, and their death penalty is by burning, in accordance with the above baraita.

专讘讬 讗诇讬注讝专 讗讜诪专 讗转 讗讘讬讛 讘砖专讬驻讛 讜讗转 讞诪讬讛 讘住拽讬诇讛 诪讗讬 讗转 讗讘讬讛 讜讗转 讞诪讬讛

The Gemara continues its analysis of the baraita, which teaches: Rabbi Eliezer says: If she is with her father she is executed by burning, and if she is with her father-in-law, she is executed by stoning. The Gemara asks: What is the meaning of the expressions: With her father, and: With her father-in-law?

讗讬诇讬诪讗 讗转 讗讘讬讛 诪讗讘讬讛 讜讗转 讞诪讬讛 诪讞诪讬讛 诪讗讬 讗讬专讬讗 讘转 讻讛谉 讗驻讬诇讜 讘转 讬砖专讗诇 谞诪讬 讘转讜 讘砖专讬驻讛 讜讻诇转讜 讘住拽讬诇讛

If we say that with her father means she engages in intercourse with her father, and with her father-in-law means she engages in intercourse with her father-in-law, why is this halakha stated specifically with regard to the daughter of a priest? Even in the case of the daughter of a non-priest the halakha is the same; in the case of one who engages in intercourse with his daughter, they are executed by burning, and in the case of one who engages in intercourse with his daughter-in-law, they are executed by stoning.

讗诇讗 讗转 讗讘讬讛 讘专砖讜转 讗讘讬讛 讜讗转 讞诪讬讛 讘专砖讜转 讞诪讬讛

Rather, the expression: With her father, means under her father鈥檚 authority, i.e., she is still betrothed and not married yet, and the expression: With her father-in-law, means under her father-in-law鈥檚 authority, i.e., she is married.

讻诪讗谉 讗讬 讻专讘谞谉 讛讗诪专讬 谞砖讜讗讛 讬爪讗转 诇砖专讬驻讛 讜诇讗 讗专讜住讛 讗讬 讻专讘讬 砖诪注讜谉 讛讗诪专 讗讞转 讗专讜住讛 讜讗讞转 谞砖讜讗讛 讘砖专讬驻讛

The Gemara asks: In accordance with whose opinion is this statement? If it is in accordance with the opinion of the Rabbis, don鈥檛 they say that the married daughter of a priest who committed adultery is singled out for execution by burning, but not one who is betrothed? If it is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Shimon, doesn鈥檛 he say that both the betrothed daughter of a priest and the married one are executed by burning? The opinion of Rabbi Eliezer does not accord with either of these opinions.

讜讗讬 讻专讘讬 讬砖诪注讗诇 讛讗诪专 讗专讜住讛 讬爪讗转 诇砖专讬驻讛 讜诇讗 谞砖讜讗讛 讗转 讞诪讬讛 讞谞拽 讛讜讗

And if it is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yishmael (see 51b), doesn鈥檛 he say that only the betrothed daughter of a priest is singled out for execution by burning, but not one who is married? In his opinion, if the daughter of a priest is under the authority of her father-in-law, i.e., if she is married, her punishment is death by strangulation, like any other married woman who committed adultery.

砖诇讞 专讘讬谉 诪砖诪讬讛 讚专讘讬 讬讜住讬 讘专讘讬 讞谞讬谞讗 讻讱 讛讬讗 讛爪注讛 砖诇 诪砖谞讛 诇注讜诇诐 讻专讘谞谉 讜讛讻讬 拽讗诪专 讻诇 砖讛讜讗 诇诪讟讛 诪诪讬转转 讗讘讬讛 讜诪讗讬 谞讬讛讜 谞砖讜讗讛 讘转 讬砖专讗诇 讚讗讬诇讜 谞砖讜讗讛 讘转 讬砖专讗诇 讘讞谞拽 讛讻讗 讘诪讬转转 讗讘讬讛 讘砖专讬驻讛

Ravin sent the following explanation in the name of Rabbi Yosei, son of Rabbi 岣nina: This is the explanation [hatza鈥檃] of this mishna, i.e., the baraita: Actually, it is in accordance with the opinion of the Rabbis. And this is what it is saying: With regard to any act of adultery whose punishment is less severe than the death penalty for one who engages in intercourse with her father, here, in the case of the daughter of a priest, she receives the death penalty of one who engages in intercourse with her father, namely, execution by burning. And what act of adultery carries a less severe punishment than intercourse with one鈥檚 father? It is the case of the married daughter of a non-priest; as the married daughter of a non-priest who committed adultery is executed by strangulation.

讻诇 砖讛讬讗 诇诪注诇讛 诪诪讬转转 讗讘讬讛 讜诪讗讬 谞讬讛讜 讗专讜住讛 讘转 讬砖专讗诇 讚讗讬诇讜 讗专讜住讛 讘转 讬砖专讗诇 讘注诇诪讗 讘住拽讬诇讛 讛讻讗 讘诪讬转转 讞诪讬讛 讘住拽讬诇讛

With regard to any act of adultery whose punishment is more severe than the death penalty for one who engages in intercourse with her father, here, in the case of the daughter of a priest, she receives the death penalty of one who engages in intercourse with her father-in-law, namely, execution by stoning. And what case is it? It is the case of the betrothed daughter of a non-priest, as in general, the betrothed daughter of a non-priest who committed adultery is executed by stoning.

诪转拽讬祝 诇讛 专讘讬 讬专诪讬讛 诪讬讚讬 诇诪注诇讛 诇诪讟讛 拽转谞讬 讗诇讗 讗诪专 专讘讬 讬专诪讬讛

Rabbi Yirmeya objects to this explanation: Does the baraita teach the words more and less? These words, central to this interpretation, are not mentioned at all. Rather, Rabbi Yirmeya says an alternative interpretation:

诇注讜诇诐 讻专讘讬 讬砖诪注讗诇 讜讛讻讬 拽讗诪专 讗转 讗讘讬讛 讘专砖讜转 讗讘讬讛 讘砖专讬驻讛 讜讗转 讞诪讬讛 诪讞诪讬讛 讘住拽讬诇讛 讜讻诇 讗讚诐 讘讞谞拽

Actually, Rabbi Eliezer鈥檚 statement is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yishmael, and this is what he is saying: The expression: With her father, means under her father鈥檚 authority, i.e., she is still betrothed, and she is executed by burning if she commits adultery. And the expression: With her father-in-law, means that after getting married, she engages in intercourse with her father-in-law, and she is therefore executed by stoning. And if she commits adultery with any other man after getting married, she is executed by strangulation, like any other married woman.

讗诪专 专讘讗 诪讗讬 砖谞讗 讗讜 讗讬讚讬 讜讗讬讚讬 诪诪砖 讗讜 讗讬讚讬 讜讗讬讚讬 专砖讜转

Rava says: What is different between the wording of the two clauses of Rabbi Eliezer鈥檚 statement that allows for them to be understood differently? Either explain this one and that one literally, i.e., that she engages in intercourse with her father or father-in-law, or explain this one and that one as referring to the authority of the father or father-in-law.

讗诇讗 讗诪专 专讘讗 诇注讜诇诐 讻专讘讬 砖诪注讜谉 讜拽住讘专 专讘讬 讗诇讬注讝专 谞砖讜讗讛 讻讗专讜住讛 诪讛 讗专讜住讛 讞讚 讚专讙讗 诪住拽讬谞谉 诇讛 诪住拽讬诇讛 诇砖专讬驻讛 讗祝 谞砖讜讗讛 讞讚 讚专讙讗 诪住拽讬谞谉 诇讛 诪讞谞拽 诇住拽讬诇讛

Rather, Rava says: Actually, Rabbi Eliezer鈥檚 statement is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Shimon that burning is more severe than stoning, and Rabbi Eliezer holds that the halakha of the married daughter of a priest is comparable to that of the betrothed one. Just as with regard to the betrothed daughter of a priest we raise her punishment by one level vis-脿-vis the betrothed daughter of a non-priest, from stoning to burning, so too, with regard to the married daughter of a priest, we raise her punishment by one level vis-脿-vis the married daughter of a non-priest, from strangulation to stoning.

诪转拽讬祝 诇讛 专讘讬 讞谞讬谞讗 讛讗 讗讬讚讬 讜讗讬讚讬 专讘讬 砖诪注讜谉 讘砖专讬驻讛 拽讗诪专

Rav 岣nina objects to this explanation: Doesn鈥檛 Rabbi Shimon himself say that both in this case and in that case, i.e., whether she is betrothed or married, the daughter of a priest is executed by burning? His opinion cannot be interpreted contrary to his own statement.

讗诇讗 讗诪专 专讘讬谞讗 诇注讜诇诐 讻专讘谞谉 讜讗讬驻讜讱 讗转 讗讘讬讛 讘住拽讬诇讛 讜讗转 讞诪讬讛 讘砖专讬驻讛 讜讛讗讬 讚拽讗诪专 讗转 讗讘讬讛 住讬专讻讗 讘注诇诪讗 谞拽讟

Rather, Ravina says: Actually, Rabbi Eliezer鈥檚 statement is in accordance with the opinion of the Rabbis, that the married daughter of a priest is executed by burning and the betrothed daughter of a priest is executed by stoning. And reverse the wording of Rabbi Eliezer鈥檚 statement as follows: When she is with her father, i.e., when she is betrothed, she is executed by stoning, and when she is with her father-in-law, i.e., when she is married, she is executed by burning. And the fact that the tanna states the phrase: With her father, instead of simply stating that she is betrothed, is because he was merely drawn to the common usage, i.e., the wording of the verse, and employed it.

讗诪专 专讘 谞讞诪谉 讗诪专 专讘讛 讘专 讗讘讜讛 讗诪专 专讘 讛诇讻讛 讻讚砖诇讞 专讘讬谉 诪砖诪讬讛 讚专讘讬 讬讜住讬 讘专讘讬 讞谞讬谞讗 讗诪专 专讘 讬讜住祝 讛诇讻转讗 诇诪砖讬讞讗

Rav Na岣an says that Rabba bar Avuh says that Rav says: The halakha in this matter is in accordance with the explanation that Ravin sent in the name of Rabbi Yosei, son of Rabbi 岣nina. Rav Yosef said in response: Does one issue a halakha for the messianic period? Since the destruction of the Temple, courts do not have the authority to adjudicate capital cases (see 52b), and this authority will be restored only once the Temple is rebuilt, in the messianic period. Therefore, what is the purpose of stating the halakha in this matter when it is not currently relevant?

讗诪专 诇讬讛 讗讘讬讬 讗诇讗 诪注转讛 砖讞讬讟转 拽讚砖讬诐 诇讗 诇讬转谞讬 讛诇讻转讗 诇诪砖讬讞讗 讗诇讗 讚专讜砖 讜拽讘诇 砖讻专 讛讻讗 谞诪讬 讚专讜砖 讜拽讘诇 砖讻专

Abaye said to him: If that is so, let the tanna not teach all the halakhot of the slaughter of sacrificial animals, i.e., tractate Zeva岣m, as it is entirely a halakha for the messianic period. Rather, one studies these halakhot due to the principle of: Study Torah and receive reward, i.e., one is rewarded for the study of Torah regardless of its practical applicability. Here too, study Torah and receive reward.

讛讻讬 拽讗诪专讬 讛诇讻转讗 诇诪讛 诇讬 住讜讙讬讗 讚砖诪注转讗 讛诇讻讛 拽讗诪专

Rav Yosef responded: This is what I meant to say: Why do I need the halakha with regard to this subject to be stated? Is a halakha stated in the discussion of Rabbi Eliezer鈥檚 statement? The statements of the amora鈥檌m are merely explanations of how to understand the wording of Rabbi Eliezer鈥檚 statement, but there is no difference between them with regard to the halakha.

诪讗讬 专讘讬 讬砖诪注讗诇 讚转谞讬讗 壮讜讘转 [讗讬砖] 讻讛谉 讻讬 转讞诇 诇讝谞讜转壮 讘谞注专讛 讜讛讬讗 讗专讜住讛 讛讻转讜讘 诪讚讘专

搂 The Gemara discusses the opinion of Rabbi Yishmael that the betrothed daughter of a priest who committed adultery is executed by burning, whereas the married daughter of a priest who committed adultery is executed by strangulation. What is the source for the opinion of Rabbi Yishmael? It is as it is taught in a baraita: With regard to the verse: 鈥淎nd the daughter of a priest, when she profanes herself by playing the harlot鈥 (Leviticus 21:9), the verse is speaking of a young woman who is betrothed.

讗转讛 讗讜诪专 讘谞注专讛 讜讛讬讗 讗专讜住讛 讗讜 讗讬谞讜 讗诇讗 讗驻讬诇讜 谞砖讜讗讛 转诇诪讜讚 诇讜诪专 壮讗讬砖 讗砖专 讬谞讗祝 讗转 讗砖转 专注讛讜 诪讜转 讬讜诪转 讛谞讗祝 讜讛谞讗驻转壮 讛讻诇 讛讬讜 讘讻诇诇 讛谞讜讗祝 讜讛谞讜讗驻转 讛讜爪讬讗 讛讻转讜讘 讘转 讬砖专讗诇 讘住拽讬诇讛 讜讘转 讻讛谉 讘砖专讬驻讛 诪讛 讻砖讛讜爪讬讗 讛讻转讜讘 讗转 讘转 讬砖专讗诇 诇住拽讬诇讛 讗专讜住讛 讜诇讗 谞砖讜讗讛 讗祝 讻砖讛讜爪讬讗 讛讻转讜讘 讘转 讻讛谉 诇砖专讬驻讛 讗专讜住讛 讜诇讗 谞砖讜讗讛

Do you say that it is referring only to a young woman who is betrothed, or that it is referring even to a married woman? The verse states: 鈥淎nd a man who commits adultery with another man鈥檚 wife, he who commits adultery with his neighbor鈥檚 wife, both the adulterer and the adulteress shall be put to death鈥 (Leviticus 20:10). All adulterers were included in the category of: 鈥淭he adulterer and the adulteress,鈥 and were executed by strangulation, until the verse singled out the betrothed daughter of a non-priest for execution by stoning and the daughter of a priest for execution by burning. It is therefore derived that just as when the verse singles out the daughter of a non-priest for stoning the Torah states that the reference is to a woman who is betrothed and not married, so too, when the verse singles out the daughter of a priest for burning it is referring to a woman who is betrothed and not married.

讝讜诪诪讬讛 讜讘讜注诇讛 讘讻诇诇 壮讜注砖讬转诐 诇讜 讻讗砖专 讝诪诐壮 讜讙讜壮

The baraita continues: The conspiring witnesses concerning the daughter of a priest, and the paramour of the daughter of a priest, are included in the verse: 鈥淎nd you shall do to him as he conspired to do to his brother鈥 (Deuteronomy 19:19).

讘讜注诇讛 诪讗讬 讻讗砖专 讝诪诐 讗讬讻讗 讗诇讗 讝讜诪诪讬讛 讘讻诇诇 诪讬转转 讘讜注诇讛

The Gemara interjects and asks: What reason is there for the punishment of 鈥渁s he conspired鈥 to be applied with regard to her paramour? Rather, the baraita should be read: Her conspiring witnesses are included in the death penalty of her paramour, i.e., they are executed by strangulation, which they sought to impose upon her paramour. They are not executed by burning, which is the death penalty that they sought to impose upon her.

诪砖讜诐 砖谞讗诪专 壮讜注砖讬转诐 诇讜 讻讗砖专 讝诪诐 诇注砖讜转 诇讗讞讬讜壮 讜诇讗 诇讗讞讜转讜 讚讘专讬 专讘讬 讬砖诪注讗诇

This is because it is stated: 鈥淎nd you shall do to him as he conspired to do to his brother,鈥 which is interpreted to mean: 鈥淭o his brother,鈥 but not to his sister. This is the statement of Rabbi Yishmael.

专讘讬 注拽讬讘讗 讗讜诪专 讗讞转 讗专讜住讛 讜讗讞转 谞砖讜讗讛 讬爪讗转 诇砖专讬驻讛 讬讻讜诇 讗驻讬诇讜 驻谞讜讬讛 谞讗诪专 讻讗谉 壮讗讘讬讛壮 讜谞讗诪专 诇讛诇谉 壮讗讘讬讛壮 诪讛 诇讛诇谉 讝谞讜转 注诐 讝讬拽转 讛讘注诇 讗祝 讻讗谉 讝谞讜转 注诐 讝讬拽转 讛讘注诇

Rabbi Akiva says: Both the betrothed and the married daughter of a priest are singled out for execution by burning. One might have thought that even an unmarried daughter of a priest who engaged in promiscuous intercourse should be executed by burning. This is incorrect, as here it is stated: 鈥淗er father,鈥 and there it is stated, with regard to a betrothed woman who committed adultery: 鈥淗er father鈥 (Deuteronomy 22:21). It is derived through a verbal analogy that just as below, the reference is to the promiscuous intercourse of one who has a bond to a husband, so too here, the reference is to the promiscuous intercourse of one who has a bond to a husband.

讗诪专 诇讜 专讘讬 讬砖诪注讗诇 讗讬 诪讛 诇讛诇谉 谞注专讛 讜讛讬讗 讗专讜住讛 讗祝 讻讗谉 谞注专讛 讜讛讬讗 讗专讜住讛

Rabbi Yishmael said to him: If the halakha of a priest鈥檚 daughter who committed adultery is compared to the halakha of a betrothed woman who committed adultery, then it can be inferred that just as there the reference is specifically to a young woman who is betrothed, so too here, the reference is to a young woman who is betrothed. This serves as a proof for the opinion of Rabbi Yishmael, which is that only the betrothed daughter of a priest is executed by burning.

讗诪专 诇讜 专讘讬 注拽讬讘讗 讬砖诪注讗诇 讗讞讬 壮讘转壮 壮讜讘转壮 讗谞讬 讚讜专砖

Rabbi Akiva said to him: Yishmael, my brother, I derive it from the fact that the verse could have stated: 鈥淭he daughter of a priest,鈥 but instead states: 鈥淎nd the daughter of a priest,鈥 with the conjunction 鈥渁nd,鈥 that married daughters of priests are also included in this punishment.

讗诪专 诇讜 讜讻讬 诪驻谞讬 砖讗转讛 讚讜专砖 壮讘转壮 壮讜讘转壮 谞讜爪讬讗 讝讜 诇砖专讬驻讛 讗诐 诪砖诪注 诇讛讘讬讗 讗转 讛谞砖讜讗讛 讛讘讬讗 讗转 讛驻谞讜讬讛 讜讗诐 诪砖诪注 诇讛讜爪讬讗 讗转 讛驻谞讜讬讛 讛讜爪讬讗 讗转 讛谞砖讜讗讛

Rabbi Yishmael said to him: And because you derive this from the difference between the term 鈥渢he daughter鈥 and the term 鈥渁nd the daughter,鈥 we should take this married daughter of a priest out to be executed by burning? This derivation of yours is inconsistent, because if the conjunction 鈥渁nd鈥 indicates the inclusion of the married daughter of a priest, then it should include the unmarried daughter of a priest too. And if it indicates the exclusion of an unmarried one, exclude the married one as well.

讜专讘讬 注拽讬讘讗 讗讛谞讬 讙讝讬专讛 砖讜讛 诇诪注讜讟讬 驻谞讜讬讛 讜讗讛谞讬 讘转 讜讘转 诇专讘讜转 讗转 讛谞砖讜讗讛

The Gemara asks: And how would Rabbi Akiva respond? The Gemara answers: According to Rabbi Akiva, the verbal analogy between the halakha of the daughter of a priest and the halakha of a betrothed woman serves to exclude the case of an unmarried daughter of a priest from execution by burning, and the distinction between the terms 鈥渢he daughter鈥 and 鈥渁nd the daughter鈥 serves to include the case of a married woman.

讜专讘讬 讬砖诪注讗诇 住讘专 诪讚拽讗诪专 诇讬讛 讘转 讜讘转 砖诪注 诪讬谞讛 讛讚专 讘讬讛 诪讙讝讬专讛 砖讜讛

And Rabbi Yishmael challenged Rabbi Akiva鈥檚 opinion because he thought that since Rabbi Akiva had said to him that a married woman is included due to the distinction between 鈥渢he daughter鈥 and 鈥渁nd the daughter,鈥 it was possible to conclude from it that Rabbi Akiva had retracted his derivation from the verbal analogy, which would have included a married woman, and instead derived the halakha only from the conjunction 鈥渁nd鈥 in the term 鈥渁nd the daughter.鈥 But in fact, Rabbi Akiva combined this derivation with the verbal analogy.

讜专讘讬 讬砖诪注讗诇 讛讗讬 讘转 讜讘转 诪讗讬 讚专讬砖 讘讬讛 诪讬讘注讬 诇讬讛 诇讻讚转谞讬 讗讘讜讛讬 讚砖诪讜讗诇 讘专 讗讘讬谉 诇驻讬 砖诪爪讬谞讜 砖讞诇拽 讛讻转讜讘 讘讝讻专讬诐 讘讬谉 转诪讬诪讬诐 诇讘注诇讬 诪讜诪讬谉 讬讻讜诇 谞讞诇讜拽 讘讘谞讜转讬讛谉 转诇诪讜讚 诇讜诪专 讘转 讜讘转

The Gemara asks: And as for Rabbi Yishmael, what does he derive from this distinction between 鈥渢he daughter鈥 and 鈥渁nd the daughter鈥? The Gemara answers: He requires it for that which the father of Shmuel bar Avin taught in a baraita: Since we find that the verse differentiates with regard to male priests between unblemished priests and blemished priests, as only unblemished priests may perform the Temple service, one might have thought we should differentiate between their daughters as well, and rule that the daughter of a blemished priest should not be sentenced to execution by burning for adultery. Therefore, instead of stating: 鈥淭he daughter,鈥 the verse states: 鈥淎nd the daughter,鈥 to include the daughter of a blemished priest.

讜专讘讬 注拽讬讘讗 诪讜讛诐 诪拽专讬讘诐 讜讛讬讜 拽讚砖 谞驻拽讗

The Gemara asks: And from where does Rabbi Akiva derive this? The Gemara answers: He derives it from the verse: 鈥淭hey shall be holy to their God, and not profane the name of their God; for the offerings of the Lord, the bread of their Lord, they offer; and they shall be holy鈥 (Leviticus 21:6). From the phrase 鈥淎nd they shall be holy鈥 it is derived that all priests are considered holy, even if they cannot bring offerings in the Temple. Consequently, there is no difference in this regard between the daughter of a blemished priest and the daughter of an unblemished priest.

讜专讘讬 讬砖诪注讗诇 讗讬 诪讛讛讬讗 讛讜讛 讗诪讬谞讗 讛谞讬 诪讬诇讬 讗讬谞讛讜 讗讘诇 讘谞讜转讬讛谉 诇讗 拽讗 诪砖诪注 诇谉

The Gemara asks: And why does Rabbi Yishmael not derive this halakha from this verse? The Gemara answers: Rabbi Yishmael would say: If it were to be derived from that verse, I would say that this matter applies with regard to the priests themselves, who are considered holy even if they are blemished, but not with regard to their daughters. Therefore, the term 鈥渁nd the daughter鈥 teaches us that the halakha with regard to the daughters of blemished priests is just like the halakha with regard to the daughters of unblemished priests.

讜专讘讬 讬砖诪注讗诇

The Gemara asks: And as for Rabbi Yishmael,

  • This month's learning is sponsored by Terri Krivosha for the Refuah Shlemah of her husband Harav Hayim Yehuda Ben Faiga Rivah.聽

  • This month's learning is dedicated by Debbie and Yossi Gevir to Rabbanit Michelle and the Hadran Zoom group for their kindness, support, and care during a medically challenging year.

Want to explore more about the Daf?

See insights from our partners, contributors and community of women learners

Sorry, there aren't any posts in this category yet. We're adding more soon!

Sanhedrin 51

The William Davidson Talmud | Powered by Sefaria

Sanhedrin 51

讗讬谉 诇讬 讗诇讗 砖谞讬住转 诇讻讛谉 谞讬住转 诇诇讜讬 讜诇讬砖专讗诇 诇讻讜转讬 诇讞诇诇 诇诪诪讝专 讜诇谞转讬谉 诪谞讬讬谉 转诇诪讜讚 诇讜诪专 壮讜讘转 讗讬砖 讻讛谉壮 讗祝 注诇 驻讬 砖讗讬谞讛 讻讛谞转

I have a source only for the case of a priest鈥檚 daughter who married a priest. From where do I derive that she is also liable to be executed by burning if she married a Levite or an Israelite, a Samaritan, a priest disqualified due to flawed lineage [岣lal], a son born from an incestuous or adulterous relationship [mamzer], or a Gibeonite? The verse states: 鈥淎nd the daughter of a priest,鈥 indicating that this halakha applies even if she is not now a priestess, having married a non-priest.

壮讛讬讗壮 讘砖专讬驻讛 讜讗讬谉 讘讜注诇讛 讘砖专讬驻讛 壮讛讬讗壮 讘砖专讬驻讛 讜讗讬谉 讝讜诪诪讬讛 讘砖专讬驻讛

It is derived from the verse: 鈥淪he shall be burned with fire,鈥 that she is executed by burning, but her paramour is not executed by burning; his punishment is the same as that of one who engages in adulterous intercourse with the betrothed or married daughter of a non-priest. It is further derived from the word 鈥渟he鈥 that she is executed by burning, but witnesses who testified concerning her that she committed adultery and who were proven to be conspiring witnesses are not executed by burning.

专讘讬 讗诇讬注讝专 讗讜诪专 讗转 讗讘讬讛 讘砖专讬驻讛 讜讗转 讞诪讬讛 讘住拽讬诇讛

The baraita concludes: Rabbi Eliezer says: If she is with her father she is executed by burning, and if she is with her father-in-law she is executed by stoning, as the Gemara will explain below.

讗诪专 诪专 讬讻讜诇 讗驻讬诇讜 讞讬诇诇讛 砖讘转 讞讬诇诇讛 砖讘转 讘转 住拽讬诇讛 讛讬讗

搂 After quoting this baraita, the Gemara now clarifies and discusses it. The Master said in the baraita: One might have thought that even one who desecrated Shabbat should be executed by burning. The Gemara asks: If she desecrated Shabbat she is liable to be executed by stoning, just like anyone else who desecrates Shabbat, so why would one think that because she is the daughter of a priest she should be executed by burning, a less severe type of capital punishment?

讗诪专 专讘讗 讛讗 诪谞讬 专讘讬 砖诪注讜谉 讛讬讗 讚讗诪专 砖专讬驻讛 讞诪讜专讛 住诇拽讗 讚注转讱 讗诪讬谞讗 讛讜讗讬诇 讜讗讞诪讬专 讘讛讜 专讞诪谞讗 讘讻讛谞讬 讚专讘讬 讘讛讜 诪爪讜转 讬转讬专讜转 转讬讚讜谉 讘砖专讬驻讛 拽讗 诪砖诪注 诇谉

Rava says: In accordance with whose opinion is this? It is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Shimon, who says that burning is more severe than stoning. It might enter your mind to say that since the Merciful One treats priests more stringently, in that He gave them additional mitzvot, the daughter of a priest should be punished for desecrating Shabbat by burning, which, according to Rabbi Shimon, is more severe than stoning. Therefore, the verse teaches us that with regard to the desecration of Shabbat, the daughter of a priest receives the same punishment as the rest of the Jewish people.

诪讗讬 砖谞讗 诪讬谞讬讛 讚讬讚讬讛

The Gemara asks: In what way is she different from the priest himself? A priest who desecrates Shabbat is executed by stoning, so why would one have thought that the daughter of a priest should be punished by burning?

住诇拽讗 讚注转讱 讗诪讬谞讗 讗讬讛讜 讚讗讬砖转专讬讗 诇讬讛 砖讘转 诇讙讘讬 注讘讜讚讛 讛讬讗 讻讬讜谉 讚诇讗 讗砖转专讬讗 砖讘转 诇讙讘讛 讗讬诪讗 转讬讚讜谉 讘砖专讬驻讛 拽讗 诪砖诪注 诇谉

The Gemara answers: It might enter your mind to say that concerning the priest himself, the halakhot of Shabbat are less stringent, as acts that are forbidden on Shabbat are permitted to him with regard to the performance of the Temple service. Therefore, one might have thought that if a priest desecrates Shabbat in a manner that is forbidden to him, his punishment should not be more severe than that of a non-priest. But concerning her, the daughter of a priest, since acts that are forbidden on Shabbat are not permitted to her at all, as she does not perform the Temple service, one might say that she should be punished by burning, which is more severe. Therefore, the verse teaches us that this is not so.

讬讻讜诇 讗驻讬诇讜 驻谞讜讬讛 讛讗 诇讝谞讜转 讻转讬讘

The baraita teaches: One might have thought that even if she is unmarried and engages in promiscuous intercourse she should be executed by burning. The Gemara asks: Why might one think this? Isn鈥檛 it written in the verse: 鈥淲hen she profanes herself by playing the harlot [liznot]鈥? This term is referring to a sinful relationship such as adultery and not to the promiscuous intercourse of an unmarried woman.

讻讚专讘讬 讗诇注讝专 讚讗诪专 驻谞讜讬 讛讘讗 注诇 讛驻谞讜讬讛 砖诇讗 诇砖讜诐 讗讬砖讜转 注砖讗讛 讝讜谞讛

The Gemara answers: The statement of the baraita is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Elazar, who says: An unmarried man who engages in intercourse with an unmarried woman, not for the purpose of marriage, has rendered her a zona, i.e., a woman who has engaged in intercourse with a man forbidden to her by the Torah. In the opinion of Rabbi Elazar, the term liznot is referring to any promiscuous intercourse.

讗讜 讗讬谞讜 讗讜诪专 壮讗讘讬讛壮 讗诇讗 诇讛讜爪讬讗 讗转 讻诇 讗讚诐 讗诇讗 诪讗讬 谞讬讛讜 砖讝讬谞转讛 诪讗讘讬讛 诪讗讬 讗讬专讬讗 讘转 讻讛谉 讗驻讬诇讜 讘转 讬砖专讗诇 谞诪讬

The baraita teaches: Or perhaps one might have thought that the verse states 鈥渉er father鈥 only in order to exclude all men other than her father. The Gemara asks: Rather, what case is the verse referring to? Is it a case where she engaged in intercourse with her father? If so, why does the verse specifically mention the daughter of a priest? Even the daughter of a non-priest is executed by burning in such a case.

讚讗诪专 专讘讗 讗诪专 诇讬 专讘 讬爪讞拽 讘专 讗讘讜讚讬诪讬 讗转讬讗 讛谞讛 讛谞讛

The Gemara answers that the prohibition of and punishment for intercourse between a father and daughter are not stated explicitly in the Torah; rather, they are derived by means of two verbal analogies. As Rava said: Rav Yitz岣k bar Avudimi said to me: This prohibition is derived by means of a verbal analogy between the word henna in the verse: 鈥淭he nakedness of your son鈥檚 daughter, or of your daughter鈥檚 daughter, their nakedness you shall not uncover; for theirs [henna] is your own nakedness鈥 (Leviticus 18:10), and the word henna in a different verse: 鈥淵ou shall not uncover the nakedness of a woman and her daughter; you shall not take her son鈥檚 daughter, or her daughter鈥檚 daughter, to uncover her nakedness. They [henna] are near kinswomen; it is lewdness鈥 (Leviticus 18:17). This verbal analogy indicates that just as it is prohibited to engage in intercourse with one鈥檚 granddaughter and with one鈥檚 wife鈥檚 daughter or granddaughter, so too, it is prohibited to engage in intercourse with one鈥檚 daughter.

讗转讬讗 讝诪讛 讝诪讛

Furthermore, it is derived from a verbal analogy between the word 鈥渓ewdness鈥 (Leviticus 18:17) and the word 鈥渓ewdness鈥 in the verse: 鈥淎nd if a man take with his wife also her mother, it is lewdness; they shall be burned with fire, both he and they, so that there be no lewdness among you鈥 (Leviticus 20:14), that one who engages in intercourse with his daughter or granddaughter is liable to be executed by burning.

讗讬爪讟专讬讱 住诇拽讗 讚注转讱 讗诪讬谞讗 拽专讗 诇讗驻讜拽讬 诪讚专讘讗 诪讚讙诇讬 专讞诪谞讗 讘讘转 讻讛谉 讜诇讗 讘讘转 讬砖专讗诇 拽讗 诪砖诪注 诇谉

Since the punishment for engaging in intercourse with one鈥檚 daughter is derived from a verbal analogy and is not stated explicitly, it was necessary for the verse to indicate that the daughter of a priest is liable to be executed by burning even if she commits adultery with a man who is not her father. Otherwise, it might enter your mind to say that the verse concerning the daughter of a priest is stated to exclude the statement of Rava in the following manner: From the fact that the Merciful One revealed this punishment explicitly with regard to the daughter of a priest and not with regard to the daughter of a non-priest, it may be derived that the punishment of burning does not apply to the daughter of a non-priest. Therefore, the verse teaches us through the expression 鈥渟he profanes鈥 that it is referring to a priest鈥檚 daughter who committed adultery with any man, and not just with her father.

壮讘转 讻讛谉壮 讗讬谉 诇讬 讗诇讗 砖谞讬住转 诇讻讛谉 谞讬住转 诇诇讜讬 诇讬砖专讗诇 讜诇讻讜转讬 讜诇讞诇诇 诇谞转讬谉 讜诇诪诪讝专 诪谞讬讬谉 转诇诪讜讚 诇讜诪专 壮讘转 讗讬砖 讻讛谉壮 讗祝 注诇 驻讬 砖讗讬谞讛 讻讛谞转

The baraita teaches: From the expression 鈥渢he daughter of a priest,鈥 I have a source only for the case of a priest鈥檚 daughter who married a priest. From where is it derived that she is also liable to be executed by burning if she married a Levite, an Israelite, a Samaritan, a 岣lal, a Gibeonite, or a mamzer? The verse states: 鈥淎nd the daughter of a priest,鈥 indicating that this halakha applies even if she is not now a priestess.

诪砖讜诐 讚讗讬谞住讘讗 诇讛讜 诇讛谞讬 诇讗讜 讘转 讻讛谉 讛讬讗 讜转讜 诪讬讚讬 讻讛谞转 诇讻讛谉 讻转讬讘

The Gemara asks: Because she married one of these men who are not priests, is she no longer the daughter of a priest? Why should her punishment be different in these cases? And furthermore, is it written: A priestess who married a priest? The verse refers only to the status of her father, not to that of her husband.

住诇拽讗 讚注转讱 讗诪讬谞讗 讻讬 转讞诇 诇讝谞讜转 讗诪专 专讞诪谞讗 讛谞讬 诪讬诇讬 讛讬讻讗 讚拽讗 诪转讞诇讗 讛砖转讗 讗讘诇 讛讗 讻讬讜谉 讚拽讗 诪转讞诇讗 讜拽讬讬诪讗 诪注讬拽专讗

The Gemara answers: It might enter your mind to say that when the Merciful One states: 鈥淲hen she profanes herself by playing the harlot,鈥 it indicates that this matter applies only in a case where she profanes herself now by committing adultery. But in this case, where she is married to a non-priest, since she is already profaned from the outset, from the time of her marriage, the verse does not apply to her.

讚讗诪专 诪专 讜讘转 讻讛谉 讻讬 转讛讬讛 诇讗讬砖 讝专 讻讬讜谉 砖谞讘注诇讛 诇驻住讜诇 诇讛 驻住诇讛

The Gemara clarifies: If she is married to a man of flawed lineage, she is already profaned. As the Master said, it is derived from the verse: 鈥淎nd if a priest鈥檚 daughter be married to a non-priest, she shall not eat of that which is set apart from the sacred鈥 (Leviticus 22:12), that once she engaged in intercourse with one who is unfit for her, he has disqualified her from ever partaking of teruma.

诇诇讜讬 讜讬砖专讗诇 谞诪讬 讜砖讘讛 讗诇 讘讬转 讗讘讬讛 讻谞注讜专讬讛 诪讻诇诇 讚讻讬 讗讬转讬讛 讙讘讬讛 诇讗 讗讻诇讛

And if she is married to a Levite or an Israelite, she is also disqualified from partaking of teruma for as long as they are married; as the verse states: 鈥淏ut if a priest鈥檚 daughter is a widow, or divorced, and has no child, and returns to her father鈥檚 house, as in her youth, she may eat of her father鈥檚 bread鈥 (Leviticus 22:13). By inference, while she is with her non-priest husband, she does not partake of teruma.

讗讬诪讗 诇讗 转讬讚讜谉 讘砖专讬驻讛 拽讗 诪砖诪注 诇谉

Evidently, the marriage of the daughter of a priest to anyone who is not a priest involves some measure of profanation, and therefore one might say that she should not be punished by burning, the punishment unique to the daughter of a priest, if she committed adultery. Therefore, the verse teaches us that the punishment of execution by burning applies to any daughter of a priest, regardless of the status of her husband.

讜讚诇讗 讻专讘讬 诪讗讬专 讚转谞讬讗 讘转 讻讛谉 砖谞讬住转 诇讬砖专讗诇 讜讗讻诇讛 转专讜诪讛 诪砖诇诪转 讗转 讛拽专谉 讜讗讬谞讛 诪砖诇诪转 讗转 讛讞讜诪砖 讜诪讬转转讛 讘砖专讬驻讛

The Gemara adds: And this baraita is not in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Meir. As it is taught in a baraita: With regard to a priest鈥檚 daughter who married an Israelite and then unwittingly partook of teruma, she pays the principal, as she partook of teruma to which she has no rights, but she does not pay the additional one-fifth, the fine paid by a non-priest who partakes of teruma unwittingly. This is because she is not completely disqualified from the priesthood; if she were to be widowed or divorced without children, it would again be permitted for her to partake of teruma. And, as befits the daughter of a priest, if she commits adultery, her death penalty is by burning.

谞讬住转 诇讗讞讚 诪谉 讛驻住讜诇讬谉 诪砖诇诪转 拽专谉 讜讞讜诪砖 讜诪讬转转讛 讘讞谞拽 讚讘专讬 专讘讬 诪讗讬专

Rabbi Meir continues: But if she married one of the men who are unfit for her, e.g., a 岣lal, a mamzer, or a Gibeonite, and she unwittingly partook of teruma, she pays the principal and the additional one-fifth, as she is permanently disqualified from partaking of teruma. And similarly, if she commits adultery, her death penalty is by strangulation, like the daughter of a non-priest, as she is completely disqualified from the priesthood. This is the statement of Rabbi Meir.

讜讞讻诪讬诐 讗讜诪专讬诐 讝讜 讜讝讜 诪砖诇诪讜转 拽专谉 讜诇讗 讞讜诪砖 讜诪讬转转谉 讘砖专讬驻讛

And the Rabbis say: Both this one, who married an Israelite, and that one, who married a man of flawed lineage, pay the principal and not the additional one-fifth, as they do not entirely forfeit their priesthood, and their death penalty is by burning, in accordance with the above baraita.

专讘讬 讗诇讬注讝专 讗讜诪专 讗转 讗讘讬讛 讘砖专讬驻讛 讜讗转 讞诪讬讛 讘住拽讬诇讛 诪讗讬 讗转 讗讘讬讛 讜讗转 讞诪讬讛

The Gemara continues its analysis of the baraita, which teaches: Rabbi Eliezer says: If she is with her father she is executed by burning, and if she is with her father-in-law, she is executed by stoning. The Gemara asks: What is the meaning of the expressions: With her father, and: With her father-in-law?

讗讬诇讬诪讗 讗转 讗讘讬讛 诪讗讘讬讛 讜讗转 讞诪讬讛 诪讞诪讬讛 诪讗讬 讗讬专讬讗 讘转 讻讛谉 讗驻讬诇讜 讘转 讬砖专讗诇 谞诪讬 讘转讜 讘砖专讬驻讛 讜讻诇转讜 讘住拽讬诇讛

If we say that with her father means she engages in intercourse with her father, and with her father-in-law means she engages in intercourse with her father-in-law, why is this halakha stated specifically with regard to the daughter of a priest? Even in the case of the daughter of a non-priest the halakha is the same; in the case of one who engages in intercourse with his daughter, they are executed by burning, and in the case of one who engages in intercourse with his daughter-in-law, they are executed by stoning.

讗诇讗 讗转 讗讘讬讛 讘专砖讜转 讗讘讬讛 讜讗转 讞诪讬讛 讘专砖讜转 讞诪讬讛

Rather, the expression: With her father, means under her father鈥檚 authority, i.e., she is still betrothed and not married yet, and the expression: With her father-in-law, means under her father-in-law鈥檚 authority, i.e., she is married.

讻诪讗谉 讗讬 讻专讘谞谉 讛讗诪专讬 谞砖讜讗讛 讬爪讗转 诇砖专讬驻讛 讜诇讗 讗专讜住讛 讗讬 讻专讘讬 砖诪注讜谉 讛讗诪专 讗讞转 讗专讜住讛 讜讗讞转 谞砖讜讗讛 讘砖专讬驻讛

The Gemara asks: In accordance with whose opinion is this statement? If it is in accordance with the opinion of the Rabbis, don鈥檛 they say that the married daughter of a priest who committed adultery is singled out for execution by burning, but not one who is betrothed? If it is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Shimon, doesn鈥檛 he say that both the betrothed daughter of a priest and the married one are executed by burning? The opinion of Rabbi Eliezer does not accord with either of these opinions.

讜讗讬 讻专讘讬 讬砖诪注讗诇 讛讗诪专 讗专讜住讛 讬爪讗转 诇砖专讬驻讛 讜诇讗 谞砖讜讗讛 讗转 讞诪讬讛 讞谞拽 讛讜讗

And if it is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yishmael (see 51b), doesn鈥檛 he say that only the betrothed daughter of a priest is singled out for execution by burning, but not one who is married? In his opinion, if the daughter of a priest is under the authority of her father-in-law, i.e., if she is married, her punishment is death by strangulation, like any other married woman who committed adultery.

砖诇讞 专讘讬谉 诪砖诪讬讛 讚专讘讬 讬讜住讬 讘专讘讬 讞谞讬谞讗 讻讱 讛讬讗 讛爪注讛 砖诇 诪砖谞讛 诇注讜诇诐 讻专讘谞谉 讜讛讻讬 拽讗诪专 讻诇 砖讛讜讗 诇诪讟讛 诪诪讬转转 讗讘讬讛 讜诪讗讬 谞讬讛讜 谞砖讜讗讛 讘转 讬砖专讗诇 讚讗讬诇讜 谞砖讜讗讛 讘转 讬砖专讗诇 讘讞谞拽 讛讻讗 讘诪讬转转 讗讘讬讛 讘砖专讬驻讛

Ravin sent the following explanation in the name of Rabbi Yosei, son of Rabbi 岣nina: This is the explanation [hatza鈥檃] of this mishna, i.e., the baraita: Actually, it is in accordance with the opinion of the Rabbis. And this is what it is saying: With regard to any act of adultery whose punishment is less severe than the death penalty for one who engages in intercourse with her father, here, in the case of the daughter of a priest, she receives the death penalty of one who engages in intercourse with her father, namely, execution by burning. And what act of adultery carries a less severe punishment than intercourse with one鈥檚 father? It is the case of the married daughter of a non-priest; as the married daughter of a non-priest who committed adultery is executed by strangulation.

讻诇 砖讛讬讗 诇诪注诇讛 诪诪讬转转 讗讘讬讛 讜诪讗讬 谞讬讛讜 讗专讜住讛 讘转 讬砖专讗诇 讚讗讬诇讜 讗专讜住讛 讘转 讬砖专讗诇 讘注诇诪讗 讘住拽讬诇讛 讛讻讗 讘诪讬转转 讞诪讬讛 讘住拽讬诇讛

With regard to any act of adultery whose punishment is more severe than the death penalty for one who engages in intercourse with her father, here, in the case of the daughter of a priest, she receives the death penalty of one who engages in intercourse with her father-in-law, namely, execution by stoning. And what case is it? It is the case of the betrothed daughter of a non-priest, as in general, the betrothed daughter of a non-priest who committed adultery is executed by stoning.

诪转拽讬祝 诇讛 专讘讬 讬专诪讬讛 诪讬讚讬 诇诪注诇讛 诇诪讟讛 拽转谞讬 讗诇讗 讗诪专 专讘讬 讬专诪讬讛

Rabbi Yirmeya objects to this explanation: Does the baraita teach the words more and less? These words, central to this interpretation, are not mentioned at all. Rather, Rabbi Yirmeya says an alternative interpretation:

诇注讜诇诐 讻专讘讬 讬砖诪注讗诇 讜讛讻讬 拽讗诪专 讗转 讗讘讬讛 讘专砖讜转 讗讘讬讛 讘砖专讬驻讛 讜讗转 讞诪讬讛 诪讞诪讬讛 讘住拽讬诇讛 讜讻诇 讗讚诐 讘讞谞拽

Actually, Rabbi Eliezer鈥檚 statement is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yishmael, and this is what he is saying: The expression: With her father, means under her father鈥檚 authority, i.e., she is still betrothed, and she is executed by burning if she commits adultery. And the expression: With her father-in-law, means that after getting married, she engages in intercourse with her father-in-law, and she is therefore executed by stoning. And if she commits adultery with any other man after getting married, she is executed by strangulation, like any other married woman.

讗诪专 专讘讗 诪讗讬 砖谞讗 讗讜 讗讬讚讬 讜讗讬讚讬 诪诪砖 讗讜 讗讬讚讬 讜讗讬讚讬 专砖讜转

Rava says: What is different between the wording of the two clauses of Rabbi Eliezer鈥檚 statement that allows for them to be understood differently? Either explain this one and that one literally, i.e., that she engages in intercourse with her father or father-in-law, or explain this one and that one as referring to the authority of the father or father-in-law.

讗诇讗 讗诪专 专讘讗 诇注讜诇诐 讻专讘讬 砖诪注讜谉 讜拽住讘专 专讘讬 讗诇讬注讝专 谞砖讜讗讛 讻讗专讜住讛 诪讛 讗专讜住讛 讞讚 讚专讙讗 诪住拽讬谞谉 诇讛 诪住拽讬诇讛 诇砖专讬驻讛 讗祝 谞砖讜讗讛 讞讚 讚专讙讗 诪住拽讬谞谉 诇讛 诪讞谞拽 诇住拽讬诇讛

Rather, Rava says: Actually, Rabbi Eliezer鈥檚 statement is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Shimon that burning is more severe than stoning, and Rabbi Eliezer holds that the halakha of the married daughter of a priest is comparable to that of the betrothed one. Just as with regard to the betrothed daughter of a priest we raise her punishment by one level vis-脿-vis the betrothed daughter of a non-priest, from stoning to burning, so too, with regard to the married daughter of a priest, we raise her punishment by one level vis-脿-vis the married daughter of a non-priest, from strangulation to stoning.

诪转拽讬祝 诇讛 专讘讬 讞谞讬谞讗 讛讗 讗讬讚讬 讜讗讬讚讬 专讘讬 砖诪注讜谉 讘砖专讬驻讛 拽讗诪专

Rav 岣nina objects to this explanation: Doesn鈥檛 Rabbi Shimon himself say that both in this case and in that case, i.e., whether she is betrothed or married, the daughter of a priest is executed by burning? His opinion cannot be interpreted contrary to his own statement.

讗诇讗 讗诪专 专讘讬谞讗 诇注讜诇诐 讻专讘谞谉 讜讗讬驻讜讱 讗转 讗讘讬讛 讘住拽讬诇讛 讜讗转 讞诪讬讛 讘砖专讬驻讛 讜讛讗讬 讚拽讗诪专 讗转 讗讘讬讛 住讬专讻讗 讘注诇诪讗 谞拽讟

Rather, Ravina says: Actually, Rabbi Eliezer鈥檚 statement is in accordance with the opinion of the Rabbis, that the married daughter of a priest is executed by burning and the betrothed daughter of a priest is executed by stoning. And reverse the wording of Rabbi Eliezer鈥檚 statement as follows: When she is with her father, i.e., when she is betrothed, she is executed by stoning, and when she is with her father-in-law, i.e., when she is married, she is executed by burning. And the fact that the tanna states the phrase: With her father, instead of simply stating that she is betrothed, is because he was merely drawn to the common usage, i.e., the wording of the verse, and employed it.

讗诪专 专讘 谞讞诪谉 讗诪专 专讘讛 讘专 讗讘讜讛 讗诪专 专讘 讛诇讻讛 讻讚砖诇讞 专讘讬谉 诪砖诪讬讛 讚专讘讬 讬讜住讬 讘专讘讬 讞谞讬谞讗 讗诪专 专讘 讬讜住祝 讛诇讻转讗 诇诪砖讬讞讗

Rav Na岣an says that Rabba bar Avuh says that Rav says: The halakha in this matter is in accordance with the explanation that Ravin sent in the name of Rabbi Yosei, son of Rabbi 岣nina. Rav Yosef said in response: Does one issue a halakha for the messianic period? Since the destruction of the Temple, courts do not have the authority to adjudicate capital cases (see 52b), and this authority will be restored only once the Temple is rebuilt, in the messianic period. Therefore, what is the purpose of stating the halakha in this matter when it is not currently relevant?

讗诪专 诇讬讛 讗讘讬讬 讗诇讗 诪注转讛 砖讞讬讟转 拽讚砖讬诐 诇讗 诇讬转谞讬 讛诇讻转讗 诇诪砖讬讞讗 讗诇讗 讚专讜砖 讜拽讘诇 砖讻专 讛讻讗 谞诪讬 讚专讜砖 讜拽讘诇 砖讻专

Abaye said to him: If that is so, let the tanna not teach all the halakhot of the slaughter of sacrificial animals, i.e., tractate Zeva岣m, as it is entirely a halakha for the messianic period. Rather, one studies these halakhot due to the principle of: Study Torah and receive reward, i.e., one is rewarded for the study of Torah regardless of its practical applicability. Here too, study Torah and receive reward.

讛讻讬 拽讗诪专讬 讛诇讻转讗 诇诪讛 诇讬 住讜讙讬讗 讚砖诪注转讗 讛诇讻讛 拽讗诪专

Rav Yosef responded: This is what I meant to say: Why do I need the halakha with regard to this subject to be stated? Is a halakha stated in the discussion of Rabbi Eliezer鈥檚 statement? The statements of the amora鈥檌m are merely explanations of how to understand the wording of Rabbi Eliezer鈥檚 statement, but there is no difference between them with regard to the halakha.

诪讗讬 专讘讬 讬砖诪注讗诇 讚转谞讬讗 壮讜讘转 [讗讬砖] 讻讛谉 讻讬 转讞诇 诇讝谞讜转壮 讘谞注专讛 讜讛讬讗 讗专讜住讛 讛讻转讜讘 诪讚讘专

搂 The Gemara discusses the opinion of Rabbi Yishmael that the betrothed daughter of a priest who committed adultery is executed by burning, whereas the married daughter of a priest who committed adultery is executed by strangulation. What is the source for the opinion of Rabbi Yishmael? It is as it is taught in a baraita: With regard to the verse: 鈥淎nd the daughter of a priest, when she profanes herself by playing the harlot鈥 (Leviticus 21:9), the verse is speaking of a young woman who is betrothed.

讗转讛 讗讜诪专 讘谞注专讛 讜讛讬讗 讗专讜住讛 讗讜 讗讬谞讜 讗诇讗 讗驻讬诇讜 谞砖讜讗讛 转诇诪讜讚 诇讜诪专 壮讗讬砖 讗砖专 讬谞讗祝 讗转 讗砖转 专注讛讜 诪讜转 讬讜诪转 讛谞讗祝 讜讛谞讗驻转壮 讛讻诇 讛讬讜 讘讻诇诇 讛谞讜讗祝 讜讛谞讜讗驻转 讛讜爪讬讗 讛讻转讜讘 讘转 讬砖专讗诇 讘住拽讬诇讛 讜讘转 讻讛谉 讘砖专讬驻讛 诪讛 讻砖讛讜爪讬讗 讛讻转讜讘 讗转 讘转 讬砖专讗诇 诇住拽讬诇讛 讗专讜住讛 讜诇讗 谞砖讜讗讛 讗祝 讻砖讛讜爪讬讗 讛讻转讜讘 讘转 讻讛谉 诇砖专讬驻讛 讗专讜住讛 讜诇讗 谞砖讜讗讛

Do you say that it is referring only to a young woman who is betrothed, or that it is referring even to a married woman? The verse states: 鈥淎nd a man who commits adultery with another man鈥檚 wife, he who commits adultery with his neighbor鈥檚 wife, both the adulterer and the adulteress shall be put to death鈥 (Leviticus 20:10). All adulterers were included in the category of: 鈥淭he adulterer and the adulteress,鈥 and were executed by strangulation, until the verse singled out the betrothed daughter of a non-priest for execution by stoning and the daughter of a priest for execution by burning. It is therefore derived that just as when the verse singles out the daughter of a non-priest for stoning the Torah states that the reference is to a woman who is betrothed and not married, so too, when the verse singles out the daughter of a priest for burning it is referring to a woman who is betrothed and not married.

讝讜诪诪讬讛 讜讘讜注诇讛 讘讻诇诇 壮讜注砖讬转诐 诇讜 讻讗砖专 讝诪诐壮 讜讙讜壮

The baraita continues: The conspiring witnesses concerning the daughter of a priest, and the paramour of the daughter of a priest, are included in the verse: 鈥淎nd you shall do to him as he conspired to do to his brother鈥 (Deuteronomy 19:19).

讘讜注诇讛 诪讗讬 讻讗砖专 讝诪诐 讗讬讻讗 讗诇讗 讝讜诪诪讬讛 讘讻诇诇 诪讬转转 讘讜注诇讛

The Gemara interjects and asks: What reason is there for the punishment of 鈥渁s he conspired鈥 to be applied with regard to her paramour? Rather, the baraita should be read: Her conspiring witnesses are included in the death penalty of her paramour, i.e., they are executed by strangulation, which they sought to impose upon her paramour. They are not executed by burning, which is the death penalty that they sought to impose upon her.

诪砖讜诐 砖谞讗诪专 壮讜注砖讬转诐 诇讜 讻讗砖专 讝诪诐 诇注砖讜转 诇讗讞讬讜壮 讜诇讗 诇讗讞讜转讜 讚讘专讬 专讘讬 讬砖诪注讗诇

This is because it is stated: 鈥淎nd you shall do to him as he conspired to do to his brother,鈥 which is interpreted to mean: 鈥淭o his brother,鈥 but not to his sister. This is the statement of Rabbi Yishmael.

专讘讬 注拽讬讘讗 讗讜诪专 讗讞转 讗专讜住讛 讜讗讞转 谞砖讜讗讛 讬爪讗转 诇砖专讬驻讛 讬讻讜诇 讗驻讬诇讜 驻谞讜讬讛 谞讗诪专 讻讗谉 壮讗讘讬讛壮 讜谞讗诪专 诇讛诇谉 壮讗讘讬讛壮 诪讛 诇讛诇谉 讝谞讜转 注诐 讝讬拽转 讛讘注诇 讗祝 讻讗谉 讝谞讜转 注诐 讝讬拽转 讛讘注诇

Rabbi Akiva says: Both the betrothed and the married daughter of a priest are singled out for execution by burning. One might have thought that even an unmarried daughter of a priest who engaged in promiscuous intercourse should be executed by burning. This is incorrect, as here it is stated: 鈥淗er father,鈥 and there it is stated, with regard to a betrothed woman who committed adultery: 鈥淗er father鈥 (Deuteronomy 22:21). It is derived through a verbal analogy that just as below, the reference is to the promiscuous intercourse of one who has a bond to a husband, so too here, the reference is to the promiscuous intercourse of one who has a bond to a husband.

讗诪专 诇讜 专讘讬 讬砖诪注讗诇 讗讬 诪讛 诇讛诇谉 谞注专讛 讜讛讬讗 讗专讜住讛 讗祝 讻讗谉 谞注专讛 讜讛讬讗 讗专讜住讛

Rabbi Yishmael said to him: If the halakha of a priest鈥檚 daughter who committed adultery is compared to the halakha of a betrothed woman who committed adultery, then it can be inferred that just as there the reference is specifically to a young woman who is betrothed, so too here, the reference is to a young woman who is betrothed. This serves as a proof for the opinion of Rabbi Yishmael, which is that only the betrothed daughter of a priest is executed by burning.

讗诪专 诇讜 专讘讬 注拽讬讘讗 讬砖诪注讗诇 讗讞讬 壮讘转壮 壮讜讘转壮 讗谞讬 讚讜专砖

Rabbi Akiva said to him: Yishmael, my brother, I derive it from the fact that the verse could have stated: 鈥淭he daughter of a priest,鈥 but instead states: 鈥淎nd the daughter of a priest,鈥 with the conjunction 鈥渁nd,鈥 that married daughters of priests are also included in this punishment.

讗诪专 诇讜 讜讻讬 诪驻谞讬 砖讗转讛 讚讜专砖 壮讘转壮 壮讜讘转壮 谞讜爪讬讗 讝讜 诇砖专讬驻讛 讗诐 诪砖诪注 诇讛讘讬讗 讗转 讛谞砖讜讗讛 讛讘讬讗 讗转 讛驻谞讜讬讛 讜讗诐 诪砖诪注 诇讛讜爪讬讗 讗转 讛驻谞讜讬讛 讛讜爪讬讗 讗转 讛谞砖讜讗讛

Rabbi Yishmael said to him: And because you derive this from the difference between the term 鈥渢he daughter鈥 and the term 鈥渁nd the daughter,鈥 we should take this married daughter of a priest out to be executed by burning? This derivation of yours is inconsistent, because if the conjunction 鈥渁nd鈥 indicates the inclusion of the married daughter of a priest, then it should include the unmarried daughter of a priest too. And if it indicates the exclusion of an unmarried one, exclude the married one as well.

讜专讘讬 注拽讬讘讗 讗讛谞讬 讙讝讬专讛 砖讜讛 诇诪注讜讟讬 驻谞讜讬讛 讜讗讛谞讬 讘转 讜讘转 诇专讘讜转 讗转 讛谞砖讜讗讛

The Gemara asks: And how would Rabbi Akiva respond? The Gemara answers: According to Rabbi Akiva, the verbal analogy between the halakha of the daughter of a priest and the halakha of a betrothed woman serves to exclude the case of an unmarried daughter of a priest from execution by burning, and the distinction between the terms 鈥渢he daughter鈥 and 鈥渁nd the daughter鈥 serves to include the case of a married woman.

讜专讘讬 讬砖诪注讗诇 住讘专 诪讚拽讗诪专 诇讬讛 讘转 讜讘转 砖诪注 诪讬谞讛 讛讚专 讘讬讛 诪讙讝讬专讛 砖讜讛

And Rabbi Yishmael challenged Rabbi Akiva鈥檚 opinion because he thought that since Rabbi Akiva had said to him that a married woman is included due to the distinction between 鈥渢he daughter鈥 and 鈥渁nd the daughter,鈥 it was possible to conclude from it that Rabbi Akiva had retracted his derivation from the verbal analogy, which would have included a married woman, and instead derived the halakha only from the conjunction 鈥渁nd鈥 in the term 鈥渁nd the daughter.鈥 But in fact, Rabbi Akiva combined this derivation with the verbal analogy.

讜专讘讬 讬砖诪注讗诇 讛讗讬 讘转 讜讘转 诪讗讬 讚专讬砖 讘讬讛 诪讬讘注讬 诇讬讛 诇讻讚转谞讬 讗讘讜讛讬 讚砖诪讜讗诇 讘专 讗讘讬谉 诇驻讬 砖诪爪讬谞讜 砖讞诇拽 讛讻转讜讘 讘讝讻专讬诐 讘讬谉 转诪讬诪讬诐 诇讘注诇讬 诪讜诪讬谉 讬讻讜诇 谞讞诇讜拽 讘讘谞讜转讬讛谉 转诇诪讜讚 诇讜诪专 讘转 讜讘转

The Gemara asks: And as for Rabbi Yishmael, what does he derive from this distinction between 鈥渢he daughter鈥 and 鈥渁nd the daughter鈥? The Gemara answers: He requires it for that which the father of Shmuel bar Avin taught in a baraita: Since we find that the verse differentiates with regard to male priests between unblemished priests and blemished priests, as only unblemished priests may perform the Temple service, one might have thought we should differentiate between their daughters as well, and rule that the daughter of a blemished priest should not be sentenced to execution by burning for adultery. Therefore, instead of stating: 鈥淭he daughter,鈥 the verse states: 鈥淎nd the daughter,鈥 to include the daughter of a blemished priest.

讜专讘讬 注拽讬讘讗 诪讜讛诐 诪拽专讬讘诐 讜讛讬讜 拽讚砖 谞驻拽讗

The Gemara asks: And from where does Rabbi Akiva derive this? The Gemara answers: He derives it from the verse: 鈥淭hey shall be holy to their God, and not profane the name of their God; for the offerings of the Lord, the bread of their Lord, they offer; and they shall be holy鈥 (Leviticus 21:6). From the phrase 鈥淎nd they shall be holy鈥 it is derived that all priests are considered holy, even if they cannot bring offerings in the Temple. Consequently, there is no difference in this regard between the daughter of a blemished priest and the daughter of an unblemished priest.

讜专讘讬 讬砖诪注讗诇 讗讬 诪讛讛讬讗 讛讜讛 讗诪讬谞讗 讛谞讬 诪讬诇讬 讗讬谞讛讜 讗讘诇 讘谞讜转讬讛谉 诇讗 拽讗 诪砖诪注 诇谉

The Gemara asks: And why does Rabbi Yishmael not derive this halakha from this verse? The Gemara answers: Rabbi Yishmael would say: If it were to be derived from that verse, I would say that this matter applies with regard to the priests themselves, who are considered holy even if they are blemished, but not with regard to their daughters. Therefore, the term 鈥渁nd the daughter鈥 teaches us that the halakha with regard to the daughters of blemished priests is just like the halakha with regard to the daughters of unblemished priests.

讜专讘讬 讬砖诪注讗诇

The Gemara asks: And as for Rabbi Yishmael,

Scroll To Top