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

Today's Daf Yomi

September 5, 2017 | ื™ืดื“ ื‘ืืœื•ืœ ืชืฉืขืดื–

  • This monthโ€™s learning is sponsored by Shlomo and Amalia Klapper in honor of the birth of Chiyenna Yochana, named after her great-great-grandmother, Chiyenna Kossovsky.

  • This month's learning is sponsored by Elaine Hochberg in honor of her husband, Arie Hochberg, who continues to journey through Daf Yomi with her. โ€œAnd with thanks to Rabbanit Farber and Hadran who have made our learning possible.โ€

Sanhedrin 51

A braita ร—ยŸs 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. ย After each suggestion the braita concludes with what the verse is actually referring to. ย 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"

ืื™ืŸ ืœื™ ืืœื ืฉื ื™ืกืช ืœื›ื”ืŸ ื ื™ืกืช ืœืœื•ื™ ื•ืœื™ืฉืจืืœ ืœื›ื•ืชื™ ืœื—ืœืœ ืœืžืžื–ืจ ื•ืœื ืชื™ืŸ ืžื ื™ื™ืŸ ืชืœืžื•ื“ ืœื•ืžืจ ืณื•ื‘ืช ืื™ืฉ ื›ื”ืŸืณ ืืฃ ืขืœ ืคื™ ืฉืื™ื ื” ื›ื”ื ืช

I have a source only for the case of a priestโ€™s 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 [แธฅalal], a son born from an incestuous or adulterous relationship [mamzer], or a Gibeonite? The verse states: โ€œAnd the daughter of a priest,โ€ indicating that this halakha applies even if she is not now a priestess, having married a non-priest.

ืณื”ื™ืืณ ื‘ืฉืจื™ืคื” ื•ืื™ืŸ ื‘ื•ืขืœื” ื‘ืฉืจื™ืคื” ืณื”ื™ืืณ ื‘ืฉืจื™ืคื” ื•ืื™ืŸ ื–ื•ืžืžื™ื” ื‘ืฉืจื™ืคื”

It is derived from the verse: โ€œShe shall be burned with fire,โ€ 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 โ€œsheโ€ 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.

ืจื‘ื™ ืืœื™ืขื–ืจ ืื•ืžืจ ืืช ืื‘ื™ื” ื‘ืฉืจื™ืคื” ื•ืืช ื—ืžื™ื” ื‘ืกืงื™ืœื”

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.

ืืžืจ ืžืจ ื™ื›ื•ืœ ืืคื™ืœื• ื—ื™ืœืœื” ืฉื‘ืช ื—ื™ืœืœื” ืฉื‘ืช ื‘ืช ืกืงื™ืœื” ื”ื™ื

ยง 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?

ืืžืจ ืจื‘ื ื”ื ืžื ื™ ืจื‘ื™ ืฉืžืขื•ืŸ ื”ื™ื ื“ืืžืจ ืฉืจื™ืคื” ื—ืžื•ืจื” ืกืœืงื ื“ืขืชืš ืืžื™ื ื ื”ื•ืื™ืœ ื•ืื—ืžื™ืจ ื‘ื”ื• ืจื—ืžื ื ื‘ื›ื”ื ื™ ื“ืจื‘ื™ ื‘ื”ื• ืžืฆื•ืช ื™ืชื™ืจื•ืช ืชื™ื“ื•ืŸ ื‘ืฉืจื™ืคื” ืงื ืžืฉืžืข ืœืŸ

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.

ืžืื™ ืฉื ื ืžื™ื ื™ื” ื“ื™ื“ื™ื”

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?

ืกืœืงื ื“ืขืชืš ืืžื™ื ื ืื™ื”ื• ื“ืื™ืฉืชืจื™ื ืœื™ื” ืฉื‘ืช ืœื’ื‘ื™ ืขื‘ื•ื“ื” ื”ื™ื ื›ื™ื•ืŸ ื“ืœื ืืฉืชืจื™ื ืฉื‘ืช ืœื’ื‘ื” ืื™ืžื ืชื™ื“ื•ืŸ ื‘ืฉืจื™ืคื” ืงื ืžืฉืžืข ืœืŸ

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.

ื™ื›ื•ืœ ืืคื™ืœื• ืคื ื•ื™ื” ื”ื ืœื–ื ื•ืช ื›ืชื™ื‘

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? Isnโ€™t it written in the verse: โ€œWhen she profanes herself by playing the harlot [liznot]โ€? This term is referring to a sinful relationship such as adultery and not to the promiscuous intercourse of an unmarried woman.

ื›ื“ืจื‘ื™ ืืœืขื–ืจ ื“ืืžืจ ืคื ื•ื™ ื”ื‘ื ืขืœ ื”ืคื ื•ื™ื” ืฉืœื ืœืฉื•ื ืื™ืฉื•ืช ืขืฉืื” ื–ื•ื ื”

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.

ืื• ืื™ื ื• ืื•ืžืจ ืณืื‘ื™ื”ืณ ืืœื ืœื”ื•ืฆื™ื ืืช ื›ืœ ืื“ื ืืœื ืžืื™ ื ื™ื”ื• ืฉื–ื™ื ืชื” ืžืื‘ื™ื” ืžืื™ ืื™ืจื™ื ื‘ืช ื›ื”ืŸ ืืคื™ืœื• ื‘ืช ื™ืฉืจืืœ ื ืžื™

The baraita teaches: Or perhaps one might have thought that the verse states โ€œher fatherโ€ 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.

ื“ืืžืจ ืจื‘ื ืืžืจ ืœื™ ืจื‘ ื™ืฆื—ืง ื‘ืจ ืื‘ื•ื“ื™ืžื™ ืืชื™ื ื”ื ื” ื”ื ื”

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 Yitzแธฅak bar Avudimi said to me: This prohibition is derived by means of a verbal analogy between the word henna in the verse: โ€œThe nakedness of your sonโ€™s daughter, or of your daughterโ€™s daughter, their nakedness you shall not uncover; for theirs [henna] is your own nakednessโ€ (Leviticus 18:10), and the word henna in a different verse: โ€œYou shall not uncover the nakedness of a woman and her daughter; you shall not take her sonโ€™s daughter, or her daughterโ€™s daughter, to uncover her nakedness. They [henna] are near kinswomen; it is lewdnessโ€ (Leviticus 18:17). This verbal analogy indicates that just as it is prohibited to engage in intercourse with oneโ€™s granddaughter and with oneโ€™s wifeโ€™s daughter or granddaughter, so too, it is prohibited to engage in intercourse with oneโ€™s daughter.

ืืชื™ื ื–ืžื” ื–ืžื”

Furthermore, it is derived from a verbal analogy between the word โ€œlewdnessโ€ (Leviticus 18:17) and the word โ€œlewdnessโ€ in the verse: โ€œAnd 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 youโ€ (Leviticus 20:14), that one who engages in intercourse with his daughter or granddaughter is liable to be executed by burning.

ืื™ืฆื˜ืจื™ืš ืกืœืงื ื“ืขืชืš ืืžื™ื ื ืงืจื ืœืืคื•ืงื™ ืžื“ืจื‘ื ืžื“ื’ืœื™ ืจื—ืžื ื ื‘ื‘ืช ื›ื”ืŸ ื•ืœื ื‘ื‘ืช ื™ืฉืจืืœ ืงื ืžืฉืžืข ืœืŸ

Since the punishment for engaging in intercourse with oneโ€™s 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 โ€œshe profanesโ€ that it is referring to a priestโ€™s daughter who committed adultery with any man, and not just with her father.

ืณื‘ืช ื›ื”ืŸืณ ืื™ืŸ ืœื™ ืืœื ืฉื ื™ืกืช ืœื›ื”ืŸ ื ื™ืกืช ืœืœื•ื™ ืœื™ืฉืจืืœ ื•ืœื›ื•ืชื™ ื•ืœื—ืœืœ ืœื ืชื™ืŸ ื•ืœืžืžื–ืจ ืžื ื™ื™ืŸ ืชืœืžื•ื“ ืœื•ืžืจ ืณื‘ืช ืื™ืฉ ื›ื”ืŸืณ ืืฃ ืขืœ ืคื™ ืฉืื™ื ื” ื›ื”ื ืช

The baraita teaches: From the expression โ€œthe daughter of a priest,โ€ I have a source only for the case of a priestโ€™s 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 แธฅalal, a Gibeonite, or a mamzer? The verse states: โ€œAnd the daughter of a priest,โ€ indicating that this halakha applies even if she is not now a priestess.

ืžืฉื•ื ื“ืื™ื ืกื‘ื ืœื”ื• ืœื”ื ื™ ืœืื• ื‘ืช ื›ื”ืŸ ื”ื™ื ื•ืชื• ืžื™ื“ื™ ื›ื”ื ืช ืœื›ื”ืŸ ื›ืชื™ื‘

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.

ืกืœืงื ื“ืขืชืš ืืžื™ื ื ื›ื™ ืชื—ืœ ืœื–ื ื•ืช ืืžืจ ืจื—ืžื ื ื”ื ื™ ืžื™ืœื™ ื”ื™ื›ื ื“ืงื ืžืชื—ืœื ื”ืฉืชื ืื‘ืœ ื”ื ื›ื™ื•ืŸ ื“ืงื ืžืชื—ืœื ื•ืงื™ื™ืžื ืžืขื™ืงืจื

The Gemara answers: It might enter your mind to say that when the Merciful One states: โ€œWhen she profanes herself by playing the harlot,โ€ 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.

ื“ืืžืจ ืžืจ ื•ื‘ืช ื›ื”ืŸ ื›ื™ ืชื”ื™ื” ืœืื™ืฉ ื–ืจ ื›ื™ื•ืŸ ืฉื ื‘ืขืœื” ืœืคืกื•ืœ ืœื” ืคืกืœื”

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: โ€œAnd if a priestโ€™s daughter be married to a non-priest, she shall not eat of that which is set apart from the sacredโ€ (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.

ืœืœื•ื™ ื•ื™ืฉืจืืœ ื ืžื™ ื•ืฉื‘ื” ืืœ ื‘ื™ืช ืื‘ื™ื” ื›ื ืขื•ืจื™ื” ืžื›ืœืœ ื“ื›ื™ ืื™ืชื™ื” ื’ื‘ื™ื” ืœื ืื›ืœื”

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: โ€œBut if a priestโ€™s daughter is a widow, or divorced, and has no child, and returns to her fatherโ€™s house, as in her youth, she may eat of her fatherโ€™s breadโ€ (Leviticus 22:13). By inference, while she is with her non-priest husband, she does not partake of teruma.

ืื™ืžื ืœื ืชื™ื“ื•ืŸ ื‘ืฉืจื™ืคื” ืงื ืžืฉืžืข ืœืŸ

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.

ื•ื“ืœื ื›ืจื‘ื™ ืžืื™ืจ ื“ืชื ื™ื ื‘ืช ื›ื”ืŸ ืฉื ื™ืกืช ืœื™ืฉืจืืœ ื•ืื›ืœื” ืชืจื•ืžื” ืžืฉืœืžืช ืืช ื”ืงืจืŸ ื•ืื™ื ื” ืžืฉืœืžืช ืืช ื”ื—ื•ืžืฉ ื•ืžื™ืชืชื” ื‘ืฉืจื™ืคื”

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 priestโ€™s 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.

ื ื™ืกืช ืœืื—ื“ ืžืŸ ื”ืคืกื•ืœื™ืŸ ืžืฉืœืžืช ืงืจืŸ ื•ื—ื•ืžืฉ ื•ืžื™ืชืชื” ื‘ื—ื ืง ื“ื‘ืจื™ ืจื‘ื™ ืžืื™ืจ

Rabbi Meir continues: But if she married one of the men who are unfit for her, e.g., a แธฅalal, 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.

ื•ื—ื›ืžื™ื ืื•ืžืจื™ื ื–ื• ื•ื–ื• ืžืฉืœืžื•ืช ืงืจืŸ ื•ืœื ื—ื•ืžืฉ ื•ืžื™ืชืชืŸ ื‘ืฉืจื™ืคื”

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.

ืจื‘ื™ ืืœื™ืขื–ืจ ืื•ืžืจ ืืช ืื‘ื™ื” ื‘ืฉืจื™ืคื” ื•ืืช ื—ืžื™ื” ื‘ืกืงื™ืœื” ืžืื™ ืืช ืื‘ื™ื” ื•ืืช ื—ืžื™ื”

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?

ืื™ืœื™ืžื ืืช ืื‘ื™ื” ืžืื‘ื™ื” ื•ืืช ื—ืžื™ื” ืžื—ืžื™ื” ืžืื™ ืื™ืจื™ื ื‘ืช ื›ื”ืŸ ืืคื™ืœื• ื‘ืช ื™ืฉืจืืœ ื ืžื™ ื‘ืชื• ื‘ืฉืจื™ืคื” ื•ื›ืœืชื• ื‘ืกืงื™ืœื”

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.

ืืœื ืืช ืื‘ื™ื” ื‘ืจืฉื•ืช ืื‘ื™ื” ื•ืืช ื—ืžื™ื” ื‘ืจืฉื•ืช ื—ืžื™ื”

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

ื›ืžืืŸ ืื™ ื›ืจื‘ื ืŸ ื”ืืžืจื™ ื ืฉื•ืื” ื™ืฆืืช ืœืฉืจื™ืคื” ื•ืœื ืืจื•ืกื” ืื™ ื›ืจื‘ื™ ืฉืžืขื•ืŸ ื”ืืžืจ ืื—ืช ืืจื•ืกื” ื•ืื—ืช ื ืฉื•ืื” ื‘ืฉืจื™ืคื”

The Gemara asks: In accordance with whose opinion is this statement? If it is in accordance with the opinion of the Rabbis, donโ€™t 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, doesnโ€™t 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.

ื•ืื™ ื›ืจื‘ื™ ื™ืฉืžืขืืœ ื”ืืžืจ ืืจื•ืกื” ื™ืฆืืช ืœืฉืจื™ืคื” ื•ืœื ื ืฉื•ืื” ืืช ื—ืžื™ื” ื—ื ืง ื”ื•ื

And if it is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yishmael (see 51b), doesnโ€™t 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.

ืฉืœื— ืจื‘ื™ืŸ ืžืฉืžื™ื” ื“ืจื‘ื™ ื™ื•ืกื™ ื‘ืจื‘ื™ ื—ื ื™ื ื ื›ืš ื”ื™ื ื”ืฆืขื” ืฉืœ ืžืฉื ื” ืœืขื•ืœื ื›ืจื‘ื ืŸ ื•ื”ื›ื™ ืงืืžืจ ื›ืœ ืฉื”ื•ื ืœืžื˜ื” ืžืžื™ืชืช ืื‘ื™ื” ื•ืžืื™ ื ื™ื”ื• ื ืฉื•ืื” ื‘ืช ื™ืฉืจืืœ ื“ืื™ืœื• ื ืฉื•ืื” ื‘ืช ื™ืฉืจืืœ ื‘ื—ื ืง ื”ื›ื ื‘ืžื™ืชืช ืื‘ื™ื” ื‘ืฉืจื™ืคื”

Ravin sent the following explanation in the name of Rabbi Yosei, son of Rabbi แธคanina: This is the explanation [hatzaโ€™a] 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 oneโ€™s 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.

ื›ืœ ืฉื”ื™ื ืœืžืขืœื” ืžืžื™ืชืช ืื‘ื™ื” ื•ืžืื™ ื ื™ื”ื• ืืจื•ืกื” ื‘ืช ื™ืฉืจืืœ ื“ืื™ืœื• ืืจื•ืกื” ื‘ืช ื™ืฉืจืืœ ื‘ืขืœืžื ื‘ืกืงื™ืœื” ื”ื›ื ื‘ืžื™ืชืช ื—ืžื™ื” ื‘ืกืงื™ืœื”

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.

ืžืชืงื™ืฃ ืœื” ืจื‘ื™ ื™ืจืžื™ื” ืžื™ื“ื™ ืœืžืขืœื” ืœืžื˜ื” ืงืชื ื™ ืืœื ืืžืจ ืจื‘ื™ ื™ืจืžื™ื”

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:

ืœืขื•ืœื ื›ืจื‘ื™ ื™ืฉืžืขืืœ ื•ื”ื›ื™ ืงืืžืจ ืืช ืื‘ื™ื” ื‘ืจืฉื•ืช ืื‘ื™ื” ื‘ืฉืจื™ืคื” ื•ืืช ื—ืžื™ื” ืžื—ืžื™ื” ื‘ืกืงื™ืœื” ื•ื›ืœ ืื“ื ื‘ื—ื ืง

Actually, Rabbi Eliezerโ€™s 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 fatherโ€™s 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.

ืืžืจ ืจื‘ื ืžืื™ ืฉื ื ืื• ืื™ื“ื™ ื•ืื™ื“ื™ ืžืžืฉ ืื• ืื™ื“ื™ ื•ืื™ื“ื™ ืจืฉื•ืช

Rava says: What is different between the wording of the two clauses of Rabbi Eliezerโ€™s 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.

ืืœื ืืžืจ ืจื‘ื ืœืขื•ืœื ื›ืจื‘ื™ ืฉืžืขื•ืŸ ื•ืงืกื‘ืจ ืจื‘ื™ ืืœื™ืขื–ืจ ื ืฉื•ืื” ื›ืืจื•ืกื” ืžื” ืืจื•ืกื” ื—ื“ ื“ืจื’ื ืžืกืงื™ื ืŸ ืœื” ืžืกืงื™ืœื” ืœืฉืจื™ืคื” ืืฃ ื ืฉื•ืื” ื—ื“ ื“ืจื’ื ืžืกืงื™ื ืŸ ืœื” ืžื—ื ืง ืœืกืงื™ืœื”

Rather, Rava says: Actually, Rabbi Eliezerโ€™s 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-ร -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-ร -vis the married daughter of a non-priest, from strangulation to stoning.

ืžืชืงื™ืฃ ืœื” ืจื‘ื™ ื—ื ื™ื ื ื”ื ืื™ื“ื™ ื•ืื™ื“ื™ ืจื‘ื™ ืฉืžืขื•ืŸ ื‘ืฉืจื™ืคื” ืงืืžืจ

Rav แธคanina objects to this explanation: Doesnโ€™t 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.

ืืœื ืืžืจ ืจื‘ื™ื ื ืœืขื•ืœื ื›ืจื‘ื ืŸ ื•ืื™ืคื•ืš ืืช ืื‘ื™ื” ื‘ืกืงื™ืœื” ื•ืืช ื—ืžื™ื” ื‘ืฉืจื™ืคื” ื•ื”ืื™ ื“ืงืืžืจ ืืช ืื‘ื™ื” ืกื™ืจื›ื ื‘ืขืœืžื ื ืงื˜

Rather, Ravina says: Actually, Rabbi Eliezerโ€™s 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 Eliezerโ€™s 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.

ืืžืจ ืจื‘ ื ื—ืžืŸ ืืžืจ ืจื‘ื” ื‘ืจ ืื‘ื•ื” ืืžืจ ืจื‘ ื”ืœื›ื” ื›ื“ืฉืœื— ืจื‘ื™ืŸ ืžืฉืžื™ื” ื“ืจื‘ื™ ื™ื•ืกื™ ื‘ืจื‘ื™ ื—ื ื™ื ื ืืžืจ ืจื‘ ื™ื•ืกืฃ ื”ืœื›ืชื ืœืžืฉื™ื—ื

Rav Naแธฅman 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 แธคanina. 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?

ืืžืจ ืœื™ื” ืื‘ื™ื™ ืืœื ืžืขืชื” ืฉื—ื™ื˜ืช ืงื“ืฉื™ื ืœื ืœื™ืชื ื™ ื”ืœื›ืชื ืœืžืฉื™ื—ื ืืœื ื“ืจื•ืฉ ื•ืงื‘ืœ ืฉื›ืจ ื”ื›ื ื ืžื™ ื“ืจื•ืฉ ื•ืงื‘ืœ ืฉื›ืจ

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 Zevaแธฅim, 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.

ื”ื›ื™ ืงืืžืจื™ ื”ืœื›ืชื ืœืžื” ืœื™ ืกื•ื’ื™ื ื“ืฉืžืขืชื ื”ืœื›ื” ืงืืžืจ

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 Eliezerโ€™s statement? The statements of the amoraโ€™im are merely explanations of how to understand the wording of Rabbi Eliezerโ€™s statement, but there is no difference between them with regard to the halakha.

ืžืื™ ืจื‘ื™ ื™ืฉืžืขืืœ ื“ืชื ื™ื ืณื•ื‘ืช [ืื™ืฉ] ื›ื”ืŸ ื›ื™ ืชื—ืœ ืœื–ื ื•ืชืณ ื‘ื ืขืจื” ื•ื”ื™ื ืืจื•ืกื” ื”ื›ืชื•ื‘ ืžื“ื‘ืจ

ยง 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: โ€œAnd the daughter of a priest, when she profanes herself by playing the harlotโ€ (Leviticus 21:9), the verse is speaking of a young woman who is betrothed.

ืืชื” ืื•ืžืจ ื‘ื ืขืจื” ื•ื”ื™ื ืืจื•ืกื” ืื• ืื™ื ื• ืืœื ืืคื™ืœื• ื ืฉื•ืื” ืชืœืžื•ื“ ืœื•ืžืจ ืณืื™ืฉ ืืฉืจ ื™ื ืืฃ ืืช ืืฉืช ืจืขื”ื• ืžื•ืช ื™ื•ืžืช ื”ื ืืฃ ื•ื”ื ืืคืชืณ ื”ื›ืœ ื”ื™ื• ื‘ื›ืœืœ ื”ื ื•ืืฃ ื•ื”ื ื•ืืคืช ื”ื•ืฆื™ื ื”ื›ืชื•ื‘ ื‘ืช ื™ืฉืจืืœ ื‘ืกืงื™ืœื” ื•ื‘ืช ื›ื”ืŸ ื‘ืฉืจื™ืคื” ืžื” ื›ืฉื”ื•ืฆื™ื ื”ื›ืชื•ื‘ ืืช ื‘ืช ื™ืฉืจืืœ ืœืกืงื™ืœื” ืืจื•ืกื” ื•ืœื ื ืฉื•ืื” ืืฃ ื›ืฉื”ื•ืฆื™ื ื”ื›ืชื•ื‘ ื‘ืช ื›ื”ืŸ ืœืฉืจื™ืคื” ืืจื•ืกื” ื•ืœื ื ืฉื•ืื”

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: โ€œAnd a man who commits adultery with another manโ€™s wife, he who commits adultery with his neighborโ€™s wife, both the adulterer and the adulteress shall be put to deathโ€ (Leviticus 20:10). All adulterers were included in the category of: โ€œThe adulterer and the adulteress,โ€ 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.

ื–ื•ืžืžื™ื” ื•ื‘ื•ืขืœื” ื‘ื›ืœืœ ืณื•ืขืฉื™ืชื ืœื• ื›ืืฉืจ ื–ืžืืณ ื•ื’ื•ืณ

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: โ€œAnd you shall do to him as he conspired to do to his brotherโ€ (Deuteronomy 19:19).

ื‘ื•ืขืœื” ืžืื™ ื›ืืฉืจ ื–ืžื ืื™ื›ื ืืœื ื–ื•ืžืžื™ื” ื‘ื›ืœืœ ืžื™ืชืช ื‘ื•ืขืœื”

The Gemara interjects and asks: What reason is there for the punishment of โ€œas he conspiredโ€ 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.

ืžืฉื•ื ืฉื ืืžืจ ืณื•ืขืฉื™ืชื ืœื• ื›ืืฉืจ ื–ืžื ืœืขืฉื•ืช ืœืื—ื™ื•ืณ ื•ืœื ืœืื—ื•ืชื• ื“ื‘ืจื™ ืจื‘ื™ ื™ืฉืžืขืืœ

This is because it is stated: โ€œAnd you shall do to him as he conspired to do to his brother,โ€ which is interpreted to mean: โ€œTo his brother,โ€ but not to his sister. This is the statement of Rabbi Yishmael.

ืจื‘ื™ ืขืงื™ื‘ื ืื•ืžืจ ืื—ืช ืืจื•ืกื” ื•ืื—ืช ื ืฉื•ืื” ื™ืฆืืช ืœืฉืจื™ืคื” ื™ื›ื•ืœ ืืคื™ืœื• ืคื ื•ื™ื” ื ืืžืจ ื›ืืŸ ืณืื‘ื™ื”ืณ ื•ื ืืžืจ ืœื”ืœืŸ ืณืื‘ื™ื”ืณ ืžื” ืœื”ืœืŸ ื–ื ื•ืช ืขื ื–ื™ืงืช ื”ื‘ืขืœ ืืฃ ื›ืืŸ ื–ื ื•ืช ืขื ื–ื™ืงืช ื”ื‘ืขืœ

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: โ€œHer father,โ€ and there it is stated, with regard to a betrothed woman who committed adultery: โ€œHer fatherโ€ (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.

ืืžืจ ืœื• ืจื‘ื™ ื™ืฉืžืขืืœ ืื™ ืžื” ืœื”ืœืŸ ื ืขืจื” ื•ื”ื™ื ืืจื•ืกื” ืืฃ ื›ืืŸ ื ืขืจื” ื•ื”ื™ื ืืจื•ืกื”

Rabbi Yishmael said to him: If the halakha of a priestโ€™s 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.

ืืžืจ ืœื• ืจื‘ื™ ืขืงื™ื‘ื ื™ืฉืžืขืืœ ืื—ื™ ืณื‘ืชืณ ืณื•ื‘ืชืณ ืื ื™ ื“ื•ืจืฉ

Rabbi Akiva said to him: Yishmael, my brother, I derive it from the fact that the verse could have stated: โ€œThe daughter of a priest,โ€ but instead states: โ€œAnd the daughter of a priest,โ€ with the conjunction โ€œand,โ€ that married daughters of priests are also included in this punishment.

ืืžืจ ืœื• ื•ื›ื™ ืžืคื ื™ ืฉืืชื” ื“ื•ืจืฉ ืณื‘ืชืณ ืณื•ื‘ืชืณ ื ื•ืฆื™ื ื–ื• ืœืฉืจื™ืคื” ืื ืžืฉืžืข ืœื”ื‘ื™ื ืืช ื”ื ืฉื•ืื” ื”ื‘ื™ื ืืช ื”ืคื ื•ื™ื” ื•ืื ืžืฉืžืข ืœื”ื•ืฆื™ื ืืช ื”ืคื ื•ื™ื” ื”ื•ืฆื™ื ืืช ื”ื ืฉื•ืื”

Rabbi Yishmael said to him: And because you derive this from the difference between the term โ€œthe daughterโ€ and the term โ€œand the daughter,โ€ 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 โ€œandโ€ 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.

ื•ืจื‘ื™ ืขืงื™ื‘ื ืื”ื ื™ ื’ื–ื™ืจื” ืฉื•ื” ืœืžืขื•ื˜ื™ ืคื ื•ื™ื” ื•ืื”ื ื™ ื‘ืช ื•ื‘ืช ืœืจื‘ื•ืช ืืช ื”ื ืฉื•ืื”

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 โ€œthe daughterโ€ and โ€œand the daughterโ€ serves to include the case of a married woman.

ื•ืจื‘ื™ ื™ืฉืžืขืืœ ืกื‘ืจ ืžื“ืงืืžืจ ืœื™ื” ื‘ืช ื•ื‘ืช ืฉืžืข ืžื™ื ื” ื”ื“ืจ ื‘ื™ื” ืžื’ื–ื™ืจื” ืฉื•ื”

And Rabbi Yishmael challenged Rabbi Akivaโ€™s opinion because he thought that since Rabbi Akiva had said to him that a married woman is included due to the distinction between โ€œthe daughterโ€ and โ€œand the daughter,โ€ 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 โ€œandโ€ in the term โ€œand the daughter.โ€ But in fact, Rabbi Akiva combined this derivation with the verbal analogy.

ื•ืจื‘ื™ ื™ืฉืžืขืืœ ื”ืื™ ื‘ืช ื•ื‘ืช ืžืื™ ื“ืจื™ืฉ ื‘ื™ื” ืžื™ื‘ืขื™ ืœื™ื” ืœื›ื“ืชื ื™ ืื‘ื•ื”ื™ ื“ืฉืžื•ืืœ ื‘ืจ ืื‘ื™ืŸ ืœืคื™ ืฉืžืฆื™ื ื• ืฉื—ืœืง ื”ื›ืชื•ื‘ ื‘ื–ื›ืจื™ื ื‘ื™ืŸ ืชืžื™ืžื™ื ืœื‘ืขืœื™ ืžื•ืžื™ืŸ ื™ื›ื•ืœ ื ื—ืœื•ืง ื‘ื‘ื ื•ืชื™ื”ืŸ ืชืœืžื•ื“ ืœื•ืžืจ ื‘ืช ื•ื‘ืช

The Gemara asks: And as for Rabbi Yishmael, what does he derive from this distinction between โ€œthe daughterโ€ and โ€œand the daughterโ€? 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: โ€œThe daughter,โ€ the verse states: โ€œAnd the daughter,โ€ to include the daughter of a blemished priest.

ื•ืจื‘ื™ ืขืงื™ื‘ื ืžื•ื”ื ืžืงืจื™ื‘ื ื•ื”ื™ื• ืงื“ืฉ ื ืคืงื

The Gemara asks: And from where does Rabbi Akiva derive this? The Gemara answers: He derives it from the verse: โ€œThey 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 holyโ€ (Leviticus 21:6). From the phrase โ€œAnd they shall be holyโ€ 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.

ื•ืจื‘ื™ ื™ืฉืžืขืืœ ืื™ ืžื”ื”ื™ื ื”ื•ื” ืืžื™ื ื ื”ื ื™ ืžื™ืœื™ ืื™ื ื”ื• ืื‘ืœ ื‘ื ื•ืชื™ื”ืŸ ืœื ืงื ืžืฉืžืข ืœืŸ

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 โ€œand the daughterโ€ 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.

ื•ืจื‘ื™ ื™ืฉืžืขืืœ

The Gemara asks: And as for Rabbi Yishmael,

  • This monthโ€™s learning is sponsored by Shlomo and Amalia Klapper in honor of the birth of Chiyenna Yochana, named after her great-great-grandmother, Chiyenna Kossovsky.

  • This month's learning is sponsored by Elaine Hochberg in honor of her husband, Arie Hochberg, who continues to journey through Daf Yomi with her. โ€œAnd with thanks to Rabbanit Farber and Hadran who have made our learning possible.โ€

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

ืื™ืŸ ืœื™ ืืœื ืฉื ื™ืกืช ืœื›ื”ืŸ ื ื™ืกืช ืœืœื•ื™ ื•ืœื™ืฉืจืืœ ืœื›ื•ืชื™ ืœื—ืœืœ ืœืžืžื–ืจ ื•ืœื ืชื™ืŸ ืžื ื™ื™ืŸ ืชืœืžื•ื“ ืœื•ืžืจ ืณื•ื‘ืช ืื™ืฉ ื›ื”ืŸืณ ืืฃ ืขืœ ืคื™ ืฉืื™ื ื” ื›ื”ื ืช

I have a source only for the case of a priestโ€™s 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 [แธฅalal], a son born from an incestuous or adulterous relationship [mamzer], or a Gibeonite? The verse states: โ€œAnd the daughter of a priest,โ€ indicating that this halakha applies even if she is not now a priestess, having married a non-priest.

ืณื”ื™ืืณ ื‘ืฉืจื™ืคื” ื•ืื™ืŸ ื‘ื•ืขืœื” ื‘ืฉืจื™ืคื” ืณื”ื™ืืณ ื‘ืฉืจื™ืคื” ื•ืื™ืŸ ื–ื•ืžืžื™ื” ื‘ืฉืจื™ืคื”

It is derived from the verse: โ€œShe shall be burned with fire,โ€ 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 โ€œsheโ€ 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.

ืจื‘ื™ ืืœื™ืขื–ืจ ืื•ืžืจ ืืช ืื‘ื™ื” ื‘ืฉืจื™ืคื” ื•ืืช ื—ืžื™ื” ื‘ืกืงื™ืœื”

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.

ืืžืจ ืžืจ ื™ื›ื•ืœ ืืคื™ืœื• ื—ื™ืœืœื” ืฉื‘ืช ื—ื™ืœืœื” ืฉื‘ืช ื‘ืช ืกืงื™ืœื” ื”ื™ื

ยง 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?

ืืžืจ ืจื‘ื ื”ื ืžื ื™ ืจื‘ื™ ืฉืžืขื•ืŸ ื”ื™ื ื“ืืžืจ ืฉืจื™ืคื” ื—ืžื•ืจื” ืกืœืงื ื“ืขืชืš ืืžื™ื ื ื”ื•ืื™ืœ ื•ืื—ืžื™ืจ ื‘ื”ื• ืจื—ืžื ื ื‘ื›ื”ื ื™ ื“ืจื‘ื™ ื‘ื”ื• ืžืฆื•ืช ื™ืชื™ืจื•ืช ืชื™ื“ื•ืŸ ื‘ืฉืจื™ืคื” ืงื ืžืฉืžืข ืœืŸ

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.

ืžืื™ ืฉื ื ืžื™ื ื™ื” ื“ื™ื“ื™ื”

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?

ืกืœืงื ื“ืขืชืš ืืžื™ื ื ืื™ื”ื• ื“ืื™ืฉืชืจื™ื ืœื™ื” ืฉื‘ืช ืœื’ื‘ื™ ืขื‘ื•ื“ื” ื”ื™ื ื›ื™ื•ืŸ ื“ืœื ืืฉืชืจื™ื ืฉื‘ืช ืœื’ื‘ื” ืื™ืžื ืชื™ื“ื•ืŸ ื‘ืฉืจื™ืคื” ืงื ืžืฉืžืข ืœืŸ

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.

ื™ื›ื•ืœ ืืคื™ืœื• ืคื ื•ื™ื” ื”ื ืœื–ื ื•ืช ื›ืชื™ื‘

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? Isnโ€™t it written in the verse: โ€œWhen she profanes herself by playing the harlot [liznot]โ€? This term is referring to a sinful relationship such as adultery and not to the promiscuous intercourse of an unmarried woman.

ื›ื“ืจื‘ื™ ืืœืขื–ืจ ื“ืืžืจ ืคื ื•ื™ ื”ื‘ื ืขืœ ื”ืคื ื•ื™ื” ืฉืœื ืœืฉื•ื ืื™ืฉื•ืช ืขืฉืื” ื–ื•ื ื”

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.

ืื• ืื™ื ื• ืื•ืžืจ ืณืื‘ื™ื”ืณ ืืœื ืœื”ื•ืฆื™ื ืืช ื›ืœ ืื“ื ืืœื ืžืื™ ื ื™ื”ื• ืฉื–ื™ื ืชื” ืžืื‘ื™ื” ืžืื™ ืื™ืจื™ื ื‘ืช ื›ื”ืŸ ืืคื™ืœื• ื‘ืช ื™ืฉืจืืœ ื ืžื™

The baraita teaches: Or perhaps one might have thought that the verse states โ€œher fatherโ€ 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.

ื“ืืžืจ ืจื‘ื ืืžืจ ืœื™ ืจื‘ ื™ืฆื—ืง ื‘ืจ ืื‘ื•ื“ื™ืžื™ ืืชื™ื ื”ื ื” ื”ื ื”

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 Yitzแธฅak bar Avudimi said to me: This prohibition is derived by means of a verbal analogy between the word henna in the verse: โ€œThe nakedness of your sonโ€™s daughter, or of your daughterโ€™s daughter, their nakedness you shall not uncover; for theirs [henna] is your own nakednessโ€ (Leviticus 18:10), and the word henna in a different verse: โ€œYou shall not uncover the nakedness of a woman and her daughter; you shall not take her sonโ€™s daughter, or her daughterโ€™s daughter, to uncover her nakedness. They [henna] are near kinswomen; it is lewdnessโ€ (Leviticus 18:17). This verbal analogy indicates that just as it is prohibited to engage in intercourse with oneโ€™s granddaughter and with oneโ€™s wifeโ€™s daughter or granddaughter, so too, it is prohibited to engage in intercourse with oneโ€™s daughter.

ืืชื™ื ื–ืžื” ื–ืžื”

Furthermore, it is derived from a verbal analogy between the word โ€œlewdnessโ€ (Leviticus 18:17) and the word โ€œlewdnessโ€ in the verse: โ€œAnd 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 youโ€ (Leviticus 20:14), that one who engages in intercourse with his daughter or granddaughter is liable to be executed by burning.

ืื™ืฆื˜ืจื™ืš ืกืœืงื ื“ืขืชืš ืืžื™ื ื ืงืจื ืœืืคื•ืงื™ ืžื“ืจื‘ื ืžื“ื’ืœื™ ืจื—ืžื ื ื‘ื‘ืช ื›ื”ืŸ ื•ืœื ื‘ื‘ืช ื™ืฉืจืืœ ืงื ืžืฉืžืข ืœืŸ

Since the punishment for engaging in intercourse with oneโ€™s 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 โ€œshe profanesโ€ that it is referring to a priestโ€™s daughter who committed adultery with any man, and not just with her father.

ืณื‘ืช ื›ื”ืŸืณ ืื™ืŸ ืœื™ ืืœื ืฉื ื™ืกืช ืœื›ื”ืŸ ื ื™ืกืช ืœืœื•ื™ ืœื™ืฉืจืืœ ื•ืœื›ื•ืชื™ ื•ืœื—ืœืœ ืœื ืชื™ืŸ ื•ืœืžืžื–ืจ ืžื ื™ื™ืŸ ืชืœืžื•ื“ ืœื•ืžืจ ืณื‘ืช ืื™ืฉ ื›ื”ืŸืณ ืืฃ ืขืœ ืคื™ ืฉืื™ื ื” ื›ื”ื ืช

The baraita teaches: From the expression โ€œthe daughter of a priest,โ€ I have a source only for the case of a priestโ€™s 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 แธฅalal, a Gibeonite, or a mamzer? The verse states: โ€œAnd the daughter of a priest,โ€ indicating that this halakha applies even if she is not now a priestess.

ืžืฉื•ื ื“ืื™ื ืกื‘ื ืœื”ื• ืœื”ื ื™ ืœืื• ื‘ืช ื›ื”ืŸ ื”ื™ื ื•ืชื• ืžื™ื“ื™ ื›ื”ื ืช ืœื›ื”ืŸ ื›ืชื™ื‘

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.

ืกืœืงื ื“ืขืชืš ืืžื™ื ื ื›ื™ ืชื—ืœ ืœื–ื ื•ืช ืืžืจ ืจื—ืžื ื ื”ื ื™ ืžื™ืœื™ ื”ื™ื›ื ื“ืงื ืžืชื—ืœื ื”ืฉืชื ืื‘ืœ ื”ื ื›ื™ื•ืŸ ื“ืงื ืžืชื—ืœื ื•ืงื™ื™ืžื ืžืขื™ืงืจื

The Gemara answers: It might enter your mind to say that when the Merciful One states: โ€œWhen she profanes herself by playing the harlot,โ€ 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.

ื“ืืžืจ ืžืจ ื•ื‘ืช ื›ื”ืŸ ื›ื™ ืชื”ื™ื” ืœืื™ืฉ ื–ืจ ื›ื™ื•ืŸ ืฉื ื‘ืขืœื” ืœืคืกื•ืœ ืœื” ืคืกืœื”

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: โ€œAnd if a priestโ€™s daughter be married to a non-priest, she shall not eat of that which is set apart from the sacredโ€ (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.

ืœืœื•ื™ ื•ื™ืฉืจืืœ ื ืžื™ ื•ืฉื‘ื” ืืœ ื‘ื™ืช ืื‘ื™ื” ื›ื ืขื•ืจื™ื” ืžื›ืœืœ ื“ื›ื™ ืื™ืชื™ื” ื’ื‘ื™ื” ืœื ืื›ืœื”

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: โ€œBut if a priestโ€™s daughter is a widow, or divorced, and has no child, and returns to her fatherโ€™s house, as in her youth, she may eat of her fatherโ€™s breadโ€ (Leviticus 22:13). By inference, while she is with her non-priest husband, she does not partake of teruma.

ืื™ืžื ืœื ืชื™ื“ื•ืŸ ื‘ืฉืจื™ืคื” ืงื ืžืฉืžืข ืœืŸ

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.

ื•ื“ืœื ื›ืจื‘ื™ ืžืื™ืจ ื“ืชื ื™ื ื‘ืช ื›ื”ืŸ ืฉื ื™ืกืช ืœื™ืฉืจืืœ ื•ืื›ืœื” ืชืจื•ืžื” ืžืฉืœืžืช ืืช ื”ืงืจืŸ ื•ืื™ื ื” ืžืฉืœืžืช ืืช ื”ื—ื•ืžืฉ ื•ืžื™ืชืชื” ื‘ืฉืจื™ืคื”

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 priestโ€™s 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.

ื ื™ืกืช ืœืื—ื“ ืžืŸ ื”ืคืกื•ืœื™ืŸ ืžืฉืœืžืช ืงืจืŸ ื•ื—ื•ืžืฉ ื•ืžื™ืชืชื” ื‘ื—ื ืง ื“ื‘ืจื™ ืจื‘ื™ ืžืื™ืจ

Rabbi Meir continues: But if she married one of the men who are unfit for her, e.g., a แธฅalal, 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.

ื•ื—ื›ืžื™ื ืื•ืžืจื™ื ื–ื• ื•ื–ื• ืžืฉืœืžื•ืช ืงืจืŸ ื•ืœื ื—ื•ืžืฉ ื•ืžื™ืชืชืŸ ื‘ืฉืจื™ืคื”

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.

ืจื‘ื™ ืืœื™ืขื–ืจ ืื•ืžืจ ืืช ืื‘ื™ื” ื‘ืฉืจื™ืคื” ื•ืืช ื—ืžื™ื” ื‘ืกืงื™ืœื” ืžืื™ ืืช ืื‘ื™ื” ื•ืืช ื—ืžื™ื”

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?

ืื™ืœื™ืžื ืืช ืื‘ื™ื” ืžืื‘ื™ื” ื•ืืช ื—ืžื™ื” ืžื—ืžื™ื” ืžืื™ ืื™ืจื™ื ื‘ืช ื›ื”ืŸ ืืคื™ืœื• ื‘ืช ื™ืฉืจืืœ ื ืžื™ ื‘ืชื• ื‘ืฉืจื™ืคื” ื•ื›ืœืชื• ื‘ืกืงื™ืœื”

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.

ืืœื ืืช ืื‘ื™ื” ื‘ืจืฉื•ืช ืื‘ื™ื” ื•ืืช ื—ืžื™ื” ื‘ืจืฉื•ืช ื—ืžื™ื”

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

ื›ืžืืŸ ืื™ ื›ืจื‘ื ืŸ ื”ืืžืจื™ ื ืฉื•ืื” ื™ืฆืืช ืœืฉืจื™ืคื” ื•ืœื ืืจื•ืกื” ืื™ ื›ืจื‘ื™ ืฉืžืขื•ืŸ ื”ืืžืจ ืื—ืช ืืจื•ืกื” ื•ืื—ืช ื ืฉื•ืื” ื‘ืฉืจื™ืคื”

The Gemara asks: In accordance with whose opinion is this statement? If it is in accordance with the opinion of the Rabbis, donโ€™t 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, doesnโ€™t 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.

ื•ืื™ ื›ืจื‘ื™ ื™ืฉืžืขืืœ ื”ืืžืจ ืืจื•ืกื” ื™ืฆืืช ืœืฉืจื™ืคื” ื•ืœื ื ืฉื•ืื” ืืช ื—ืžื™ื” ื—ื ืง ื”ื•ื

And if it is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yishmael (see 51b), doesnโ€™t 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.

ืฉืœื— ืจื‘ื™ืŸ ืžืฉืžื™ื” ื“ืจื‘ื™ ื™ื•ืกื™ ื‘ืจื‘ื™ ื—ื ื™ื ื ื›ืš ื”ื™ื ื”ืฆืขื” ืฉืœ ืžืฉื ื” ืœืขื•ืœื ื›ืจื‘ื ืŸ ื•ื”ื›ื™ ืงืืžืจ ื›ืœ ืฉื”ื•ื ืœืžื˜ื” ืžืžื™ืชืช ืื‘ื™ื” ื•ืžืื™ ื ื™ื”ื• ื ืฉื•ืื” ื‘ืช ื™ืฉืจืืœ ื“ืื™ืœื• ื ืฉื•ืื” ื‘ืช ื™ืฉืจืืœ ื‘ื—ื ืง ื”ื›ื ื‘ืžื™ืชืช ืื‘ื™ื” ื‘ืฉืจื™ืคื”

Ravin sent the following explanation in the name of Rabbi Yosei, son of Rabbi แธคanina: This is the explanation [hatzaโ€™a] 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 oneโ€™s 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.

ื›ืœ ืฉื”ื™ื ืœืžืขืœื” ืžืžื™ืชืช ืื‘ื™ื” ื•ืžืื™ ื ื™ื”ื• ืืจื•ืกื” ื‘ืช ื™ืฉืจืืœ ื“ืื™ืœื• ืืจื•ืกื” ื‘ืช ื™ืฉืจืืœ ื‘ืขืœืžื ื‘ืกืงื™ืœื” ื”ื›ื ื‘ืžื™ืชืช ื—ืžื™ื” ื‘ืกืงื™ืœื”

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.

ืžืชืงื™ืฃ ืœื” ืจื‘ื™ ื™ืจืžื™ื” ืžื™ื“ื™ ืœืžืขืœื” ืœืžื˜ื” ืงืชื ื™ ืืœื ืืžืจ ืจื‘ื™ ื™ืจืžื™ื”

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:

ืœืขื•ืœื ื›ืจื‘ื™ ื™ืฉืžืขืืœ ื•ื”ื›ื™ ืงืืžืจ ืืช ืื‘ื™ื” ื‘ืจืฉื•ืช ืื‘ื™ื” ื‘ืฉืจื™ืคื” ื•ืืช ื—ืžื™ื” ืžื—ืžื™ื” ื‘ืกืงื™ืœื” ื•ื›ืœ ืื“ื ื‘ื—ื ืง

Actually, Rabbi Eliezerโ€™s 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 fatherโ€™s 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.

ืืžืจ ืจื‘ื ืžืื™ ืฉื ื ืื• ืื™ื“ื™ ื•ืื™ื“ื™ ืžืžืฉ ืื• ืื™ื“ื™ ื•ืื™ื“ื™ ืจืฉื•ืช

Rava says: What is different between the wording of the two clauses of Rabbi Eliezerโ€™s 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.

ืืœื ืืžืจ ืจื‘ื ืœืขื•ืœื ื›ืจื‘ื™ ืฉืžืขื•ืŸ ื•ืงืกื‘ืจ ืจื‘ื™ ืืœื™ืขื–ืจ ื ืฉื•ืื” ื›ืืจื•ืกื” ืžื” ืืจื•ืกื” ื—ื“ ื“ืจื’ื ืžืกืงื™ื ืŸ ืœื” ืžืกืงื™ืœื” ืœืฉืจื™ืคื” ืืฃ ื ืฉื•ืื” ื—ื“ ื“ืจื’ื ืžืกืงื™ื ืŸ ืœื” ืžื—ื ืง ืœืกืงื™ืœื”

Rather, Rava says: Actually, Rabbi Eliezerโ€™s 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-ร -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-ร -vis the married daughter of a non-priest, from strangulation to stoning.

ืžืชืงื™ืฃ ืœื” ืจื‘ื™ ื—ื ื™ื ื ื”ื ืื™ื“ื™ ื•ืื™ื“ื™ ืจื‘ื™ ืฉืžืขื•ืŸ ื‘ืฉืจื™ืคื” ืงืืžืจ

Rav แธคanina objects to this explanation: Doesnโ€™t 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.

ืืœื ืืžืจ ืจื‘ื™ื ื ืœืขื•ืœื ื›ืจื‘ื ืŸ ื•ืื™ืคื•ืš ืืช ืื‘ื™ื” ื‘ืกืงื™ืœื” ื•ืืช ื—ืžื™ื” ื‘ืฉืจื™ืคื” ื•ื”ืื™ ื“ืงืืžืจ ืืช ืื‘ื™ื” ืกื™ืจื›ื ื‘ืขืœืžื ื ืงื˜

Rather, Ravina says: Actually, Rabbi Eliezerโ€™s 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 Eliezerโ€™s 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.

ืืžืจ ืจื‘ ื ื—ืžืŸ ืืžืจ ืจื‘ื” ื‘ืจ ืื‘ื•ื” ืืžืจ ืจื‘ ื”ืœื›ื” ื›ื“ืฉืœื— ืจื‘ื™ืŸ ืžืฉืžื™ื” ื“ืจื‘ื™ ื™ื•ืกื™ ื‘ืจื‘ื™ ื—ื ื™ื ื ืืžืจ ืจื‘ ื™ื•ืกืฃ ื”ืœื›ืชื ืœืžืฉื™ื—ื

Rav Naแธฅman 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 แธคanina. 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?

ืืžืจ ืœื™ื” ืื‘ื™ื™ ืืœื ืžืขืชื” ืฉื—ื™ื˜ืช ืงื“ืฉื™ื ืœื ืœื™ืชื ื™ ื”ืœื›ืชื ืœืžืฉื™ื—ื ืืœื ื“ืจื•ืฉ ื•ืงื‘ืœ ืฉื›ืจ ื”ื›ื ื ืžื™ ื“ืจื•ืฉ ื•ืงื‘ืœ ืฉื›ืจ

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 Zevaแธฅim, 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.

ื”ื›ื™ ืงืืžืจื™ ื”ืœื›ืชื ืœืžื” ืœื™ ืกื•ื’ื™ื ื“ืฉืžืขืชื ื”ืœื›ื” ืงืืžืจ

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 Eliezerโ€™s statement? The statements of the amoraโ€™im are merely explanations of how to understand the wording of Rabbi Eliezerโ€™s statement, but there is no difference between them with regard to the halakha.

ืžืื™ ืจื‘ื™ ื™ืฉืžืขืืœ ื“ืชื ื™ื ืณื•ื‘ืช [ืื™ืฉ] ื›ื”ืŸ ื›ื™ ืชื—ืœ ืœื–ื ื•ืชืณ ื‘ื ืขืจื” ื•ื”ื™ื ืืจื•ืกื” ื”ื›ืชื•ื‘ ืžื“ื‘ืจ

ยง 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: โ€œAnd the daughter of a priest, when she profanes herself by playing the harlotโ€ (Leviticus 21:9), the verse is speaking of a young woman who is betrothed.

ืืชื” ืื•ืžืจ ื‘ื ืขืจื” ื•ื”ื™ื ืืจื•ืกื” ืื• ืื™ื ื• ืืœื ืืคื™ืœื• ื ืฉื•ืื” ืชืœืžื•ื“ ืœื•ืžืจ ืณืื™ืฉ ืืฉืจ ื™ื ืืฃ ืืช ืืฉืช ืจืขื”ื• ืžื•ืช ื™ื•ืžืช ื”ื ืืฃ ื•ื”ื ืืคืชืณ ื”ื›ืœ ื”ื™ื• ื‘ื›ืœืœ ื”ื ื•ืืฃ ื•ื”ื ื•ืืคืช ื”ื•ืฆื™ื ื”ื›ืชื•ื‘ ื‘ืช ื™ืฉืจืืœ ื‘ืกืงื™ืœื” ื•ื‘ืช ื›ื”ืŸ ื‘ืฉืจื™ืคื” ืžื” ื›ืฉื”ื•ืฆื™ื ื”ื›ืชื•ื‘ ืืช ื‘ืช ื™ืฉืจืืœ ืœืกืงื™ืœื” ืืจื•ืกื” ื•ืœื ื ืฉื•ืื” ืืฃ ื›ืฉื”ื•ืฆื™ื ื”ื›ืชื•ื‘ ื‘ืช ื›ื”ืŸ ืœืฉืจื™ืคื” ืืจื•ืกื” ื•ืœื ื ืฉื•ืื”

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: โ€œAnd a man who commits adultery with another manโ€™s wife, he who commits adultery with his neighborโ€™s wife, both the adulterer and the adulteress shall be put to deathโ€ (Leviticus 20:10). All adulterers were included in the category of: โ€œThe adulterer and the adulteress,โ€ 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.

ื–ื•ืžืžื™ื” ื•ื‘ื•ืขืœื” ื‘ื›ืœืœ ืณื•ืขืฉื™ืชื ืœื• ื›ืืฉืจ ื–ืžืืณ ื•ื’ื•ืณ

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: โ€œAnd you shall do to him as he conspired to do to his brotherโ€ (Deuteronomy 19:19).

ื‘ื•ืขืœื” ืžืื™ ื›ืืฉืจ ื–ืžื ืื™ื›ื ืืœื ื–ื•ืžืžื™ื” ื‘ื›ืœืœ ืžื™ืชืช ื‘ื•ืขืœื”

The Gemara interjects and asks: What reason is there for the punishment of โ€œas he conspiredโ€ 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.

ืžืฉื•ื ืฉื ืืžืจ ืณื•ืขืฉื™ืชื ืœื• ื›ืืฉืจ ื–ืžื ืœืขืฉื•ืช ืœืื—ื™ื•ืณ ื•ืœื ืœืื—ื•ืชื• ื“ื‘ืจื™ ืจื‘ื™ ื™ืฉืžืขืืœ

This is because it is stated: โ€œAnd you shall do to him as he conspired to do to his brother,โ€ which is interpreted to mean: โ€œTo his brother,โ€ but not to his sister. This is the statement of Rabbi Yishmael.

ืจื‘ื™ ืขืงื™ื‘ื ืื•ืžืจ ืื—ืช ืืจื•ืกื” ื•ืื—ืช ื ืฉื•ืื” ื™ืฆืืช ืœืฉืจื™ืคื” ื™ื›ื•ืœ ืืคื™ืœื• ืคื ื•ื™ื” ื ืืžืจ ื›ืืŸ ืณืื‘ื™ื”ืณ ื•ื ืืžืจ ืœื”ืœืŸ ืณืื‘ื™ื”ืณ ืžื” ืœื”ืœืŸ ื–ื ื•ืช ืขื ื–ื™ืงืช ื”ื‘ืขืœ ืืฃ ื›ืืŸ ื–ื ื•ืช ืขื ื–ื™ืงืช ื”ื‘ืขืœ

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: โ€œHer father,โ€ and there it is stated, with regard to a betrothed woman who committed adultery: โ€œHer fatherโ€ (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.

ืืžืจ ืœื• ืจื‘ื™ ื™ืฉืžืขืืœ ืื™ ืžื” ืœื”ืœืŸ ื ืขืจื” ื•ื”ื™ื ืืจื•ืกื” ืืฃ ื›ืืŸ ื ืขืจื” ื•ื”ื™ื ืืจื•ืกื”

Rabbi Yishmael said to him: If the halakha of a priestโ€™s 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.

ืืžืจ ืœื• ืจื‘ื™ ืขืงื™ื‘ื ื™ืฉืžืขืืœ ืื—ื™ ืณื‘ืชืณ ืณื•ื‘ืชืณ ืื ื™ ื“ื•ืจืฉ

Rabbi Akiva said to him: Yishmael, my brother, I derive it from the fact that the verse could have stated: โ€œThe daughter of a priest,โ€ but instead states: โ€œAnd the daughter of a priest,โ€ with the conjunction โ€œand,โ€ that married daughters of priests are also included in this punishment.

ืืžืจ ืœื• ื•ื›ื™ ืžืคื ื™ ืฉืืชื” ื“ื•ืจืฉ ืณื‘ืชืณ ืณื•ื‘ืชืณ ื ื•ืฆื™ื ื–ื• ืœืฉืจื™ืคื” ืื ืžืฉืžืข ืœื”ื‘ื™ื ืืช ื”ื ืฉื•ืื” ื”ื‘ื™ื ืืช ื”ืคื ื•ื™ื” ื•ืื ืžืฉืžืข ืœื”ื•ืฆื™ื ืืช ื”ืคื ื•ื™ื” ื”ื•ืฆื™ื ืืช ื”ื ืฉื•ืื”

Rabbi Yishmael said to him: And because you derive this from the difference between the term โ€œthe daughterโ€ and the term โ€œand the daughter,โ€ 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 โ€œandโ€ 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.

ื•ืจื‘ื™ ืขืงื™ื‘ื ืื”ื ื™ ื’ื–ื™ืจื” ืฉื•ื” ืœืžืขื•ื˜ื™ ืคื ื•ื™ื” ื•ืื”ื ื™ ื‘ืช ื•ื‘ืช ืœืจื‘ื•ืช ืืช ื”ื ืฉื•ืื”

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 โ€œthe daughterโ€ and โ€œand the daughterโ€ serves to include the case of a married woman.

ื•ืจื‘ื™ ื™ืฉืžืขืืœ ืกื‘ืจ ืžื“ืงืืžืจ ืœื™ื” ื‘ืช ื•ื‘ืช ืฉืžืข ืžื™ื ื” ื”ื“ืจ ื‘ื™ื” ืžื’ื–ื™ืจื” ืฉื•ื”

And Rabbi Yishmael challenged Rabbi Akivaโ€™s opinion because he thought that since Rabbi Akiva had said to him that a married woman is included due to the distinction between โ€œthe daughterโ€ and โ€œand the daughter,โ€ 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 โ€œandโ€ in the term โ€œand the daughter.โ€ But in fact, Rabbi Akiva combined this derivation with the verbal analogy.

ื•ืจื‘ื™ ื™ืฉืžืขืืœ ื”ืื™ ื‘ืช ื•ื‘ืช ืžืื™ ื“ืจื™ืฉ ื‘ื™ื” ืžื™ื‘ืขื™ ืœื™ื” ืœื›ื“ืชื ื™ ืื‘ื•ื”ื™ ื“ืฉืžื•ืืœ ื‘ืจ ืื‘ื™ืŸ ืœืคื™ ืฉืžืฆื™ื ื• ืฉื—ืœืง ื”ื›ืชื•ื‘ ื‘ื–ื›ืจื™ื ื‘ื™ืŸ ืชืžื™ืžื™ื ืœื‘ืขืœื™ ืžื•ืžื™ืŸ ื™ื›ื•ืœ ื ื—ืœื•ืง ื‘ื‘ื ื•ืชื™ื”ืŸ ืชืœืžื•ื“ ืœื•ืžืจ ื‘ืช ื•ื‘ืช

The Gemara asks: And as for Rabbi Yishmael, what does he derive from this distinction between โ€œthe daughterโ€ and โ€œand the daughterโ€? 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: โ€œThe daughter,โ€ the verse states: โ€œAnd the daughter,โ€ to include the daughter of a blemished priest.

ื•ืจื‘ื™ ืขืงื™ื‘ื ืžื•ื”ื ืžืงืจื™ื‘ื ื•ื”ื™ื• ืงื“ืฉ ื ืคืงื

The Gemara asks: And from where does Rabbi Akiva derive this? The Gemara answers: He derives it from the verse: โ€œThey 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 holyโ€ (Leviticus 21:6). From the phrase โ€œAnd they shall be holyโ€ 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.

ื•ืจื‘ื™ ื™ืฉืžืขืืœ ืื™ ืžื”ื”ื™ื ื”ื•ื” ืืžื™ื ื ื”ื ื™ ืžื™ืœื™ ืื™ื ื”ื• ืื‘ืœ ื‘ื ื•ืชื™ื”ืŸ ืœื ืงื ืžืฉืžืข ืœืŸ

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 โ€œand the daughterโ€ 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.

ื•ืจื‘ื™ ื™ืฉืžืขืืœ

The Gemara asks: And as for Rabbi Yishmael,

Scroll To Top