Sanhedrin 52

האי אביה היא מחללת מאי דריש ביה

what does he derive from this verse: “She profanes her father” (Leviticus 21:9), if he does not employ the term “her father” for a verbal analogy concerning a young betrothed woman who committed adultery, as Rabbi Akiva does?

מבעי ליה לכדתניא היה רבי מאיר אומר מה תלמוד לומר ׳את אביה היא מחללת׳ שאם היו נוהגין בו קודש נוהגין בו חול כבוד נוהגין בו בזיון אומרין ארור שזו ילד ארור שזו גידל ארור שיצא זו מחלציו

The Gemara answers: He requires it for that which is taught in a baraita: Rabbi Meir would say: Why must the verse state: “She profanes her father”? To teach that if initially they would treat her father in a sacred manner, now they treat him in a profane manner. If previously they would treat him with honor, they now treat him with degradation. They say: Cursed is the one who bore this daughter, cursed is the one who raised this daughter, cursed is the one from whose loins this daughter emerged.

אמר רב אשי כמאן קרינן רשיעא בר רשיעא ואפילו לרשיעא בר צדיקא כמאן כהאי תנא

Rav Ashi says: In accordance with whose opinion do we call even a wicked person who is the son of a righteous person: A wicked person, the son of a wicked person? In accordance with whose opinion is it? It is in accordance with the opinion of this tanna, Rabbi Meir, who says that a sinful daughter profanes her father, and he too is treated with disgrace.

זו מצות הנסקלין מאי תנא דקתני זו מצות הנסקלין

§ The mishna teaches: This describes the mitzva of those who are stoned, i.e., the process of execution by stoning. The Gemara asks: What was taught in the mishna with regard to which it teaches now: This describes the mitzva of those who are stoned?

משום דתנא נגמר הדין מוציאין אותו לסקלו בית הסקילה היה גבוה שתי קומות ואיידי דקא בעי למיתנא מצות הנשרפין תנא נמי זו מצות הנסקלין

The Gemara answers: The Mishna states this because it teaches in the previous chapter (42b): When the trial has ended in a guilty verdict and the condemned man has been sentenced to stoning, he is taken out to be stoned. And it continues (45a): The place of stoning from which the condemned party is pushed to his death is a platform twice the height of an ordinary person. And since the Mishna wants to teach in the next mishna: The mitzva of those who are burned, and it will then proceed to describe the processes involved in carrying out the other forms of execution, it also teaches in this mishna: This describes the mitzva of those who are stoned, in order to summarize what was taught up to this point.

מתני׳ מצות הנשרפין היו משקעין אותו בזבל עד ארכובותיו ונותנין סודר קשה לתוך הרכה וכורך על צוארו זה מושך אצלו וזה מושך אצלו עד שפותח את פיו ומדליק את הפתילה וזורקה לתוך פיו ויורדת לתוך מעיו וחומרת את בני מעיו

MISHNA: The mitzva of those who are burned, i.e., the process of execution by burning, is carried out in the following manner: The executioners submerge the condemned one in dung up to his knees so he cannot move, and they place a rough scarf within a soft one, so his throat will not be wounded, and wrap these scarves around his neck. This one, i.e., one of the witnesses, pulls the scarf toward himself, and that one, the other witness, pulls it toward himself, until the condemned one is forced to open his mouth, as he is choking. And another person then lights the wick and throws it into his mouth, and it goes down into his intestines and burns his intestines and he dies.

רבי יהודה אומר אף הוא אם מת בידם לא היו מקיימין בו מצות שריפה אלא פותח את פיו בצבת שלא בטובתו ומדליק את הפתילה וזורקה לתוך פיו ויורדת לתוך מעיו וחומרת את בני מעיו

Rabbi Yehuda says: But if this one who is condemned to death by burning accidentally died at their hands by strangulation, they have not fulfilled the mitzva of execution by burning for this person. Rather, the process is carried out in the following manner: One opens the mouth of the condemned person with prongs, against his will, and one lights the wick and throws it into his mouth, and it goes down into his intestines and burns his intestines and he dies.

אמר רבי אלעזר בן צדוק מעשה בבת כהן אחת שזינתה והקיפוה חבילי זמורות ושרפוה אמרו לו מפני שלא היה בית דין של אותה שעה בקי

Rabbi Elazar ben Tzadok said: An incident occurred with regard to a certain priest’s daughter who committed adultery, and they wrapped her in bundles of branches and burned her, contrary to the process described in the mishna. The Sages said to him: That court did not act properly; they did so because the court at that time was not proficient in halakha.

גמ׳ מאי פתילה אמר רב מתנה פתילה של אבר

GEMARA: What kind of wick is the mishna referring to? Rav Mattana says: A wick of lead, i.e., a long, thin piece of lead in the shape of a wick, which is melted and poured down into the intestines.

מנא לן אתיא שריפה שריפה מעדת קרח מה להלן שריפת נשמה וגוף קיים אף כאן שריפת נשמה וגוף קיים

From where do we derive that burning means this kind of death? It is derived from a verbal analogy between the burning that is described in the context of capital punishment (see Leviticus 21:9) and the burning described with regard to the assembly of Korah, when they were burned by God (see Numbers 17:4). Just as there, with regard to the assembly of Korah, they were killed by the burning of the soul within the body, but the body itself remained intact, so too here, the condemned one is executed by the burning of the soul, but the body remains intact. He is not executed by means of the burning of the body with wood, as in that case the body would be consumed.

רבי אלעזר אמר אתיא שריפה שריפה מבני אהרן מה להלן שריפת נשמה וגוף קיים אף כאן שריפת נשמה וגוף קיים

Rabbi Elazar says that there is a different source for this method of burning: It is derived from a verbal analogy between the burning that is described in this context and the burning that is described with regard to the deaths of Nadav and Avihu, the sons of Aaron (see Leviticus 10:6). Just as there, Nadav and Avihu were killed by the burning of the soul, but the body remained intact, so too here, the execution is carried out by the burning of the soul, but the body remains intact.

מאן דיליף מעדת קרח מנא ליה דכתיב ואת מחתות החטאים האלה בנפשתם שנשמתן נשרפת וגוף קיים

The Gemara asks: From where does the one who derives that burning means this kind of death from the assembly of Korah derive that their bodies were not burned? The Gemara answers: He derives it from that which is written: “And the firepans of these men who have sinned with their souls” (Numbers 17:3), which indicates that only their souls were burned, but their bodies were intact.

ואידך ההיא שריפה ממש היא ומאי בנפשתם שנתחייבו שריפה על עסקי נפשותם

The Gemara asks: And how does the other Sage, who does not derive that burning means this kind of death from here, interpret the deaths of the assembly of Korah? The Gemara answers: That burning was actual burning of their bodies. And what is the meaning of the term: “With their souls”? It means that they were deemed liable to be killed by burning due to matters of sustaining their souls, i.e., they sinned because Korah helped them fulfill their bodily desires, and consequently they followed him.

כדריש לקיש דאמר ריש לקיש מאי דכתיב בחנפי לעגי מעוג חרק עלי שנימו בשביל חנופה שהחניפו לקרח על עסקי לגימה חרק עליהן שר של גיהנם שניו

This latter explanation is in accordance with the statement of Reish Lakish. As Reish Lakish says: What is the meaning of that which is written: “With the flattering mockeries of spitefulness [maog] they gnash at me with their teeth” (Psalms 35:16)? It means that because of the flattery of those people who flattered Korah over matters of eating, i.e., because of the food and drink that he would give them, the minister of Gehenna gnashed his teeth over them, as they eventually sinned and fell into his hands. The word maog is interpreted homiletically here as alluding to uga, cake.

ומאן דיליף מבני אהרן מנא ליה דכתיב וימתו לפני ה׳ כעין מיתה

The Gemara asks: And from where does the one who derives that burning means this kind of death from the sons of Aaron derive that their bodies were not burned? The Gemara answers: He derives it from that which is written: “And fire came out from before the Lord, and devoured them, and they died before the Lord” (Leviticus 10:2). The term “and they died” indicates that it was similar to a natural death, in which the body remains intact.

ואידך ההוא שריפה ממש הואי ומאי דכתיב וימתו דאתחיל בהו מגואי כעין מיתה דתניא אבא יוסי בן דוסתאי אומר שני חוטין של אש יצאו מבית קודש הקדשים ונחלקו לארבע ונכנסו שנים בחוטמו של זה ושנים בחוטמו של זה ושרפום

The Gemara asks: And how does the other Sage, who does not derive that burning means this kind of death from here, interpret the death of the sons of Aaron? The Gemara answers: That burning was actual burning. And in that case, what is the meaning of that which is written: “And they died”? It means that the fire started from within them, and therefore it was similar to a natural death, which occurs within the person. As it is taught in a baraita: Abba Yosei ben Dostai says: Two threads of fire came out of the Holy of Holies and split into four, and two entered the nostrils of this one, and the other two entered the nostrils of that one, and the threads of fire burned them.

והכתיב ותאכל אותם אותם ולא בגדיהם

The Gemara asks: But isn’t it written: “And devoured them [vatokhal otam]”? The usage of the expanded term “vatokhal otam,” instead of the terser vatokhlem, indicates a limitation, i.e., only they were consumed, to the exclusion of their bodies. The Gemara answers: The verse means that the fire devoured “them,” but not their clothes.

ונילף מפרים הנשרפים מה להלן שריפה ממש אף כאן שריפה ממש

The Gemara asks: And let us derive the correct method of execution by burning from the halakha of the bull offerings that are burned. Just as there, the reference is to actual burning, so too here, perhaps there should be actual burning.

מסתברא מאדם הוה ליה למילף שכן אדם חוטא נשמה פיגול

The Gemara answers: It stands to reason that one should derive the halakha with regard to capital punishment from the death of a person, i.e., either from the assembly of Korah or the sons of Aaron, as they share common elements: They deal with a person, a sinner, and a soul that is taken through burning, i.e., the person dies as a result of the burning. Furthermore, the halakha of an offering that was sacrificed with the intent to consume it after its designated time [piggul], is not relevant in either case, whereas it is relevant to bull offerings that are burned.

אדרבה מפרים הנשרפים הוה ליה למילף שכן מכשיר לדורות

The Gemara asks: On the contrary, one should derive the halakha with regard to capital punishment from the bull offerings that are burned, as both enable the fulfillment of a mitzva, whereas the deaths of the assembly of Korah and the sons of Aaron were not mitzvot. Furthermore, both of these are fixed halakhot for all future generations, whereas the deaths of the assembly of Korah and the sons of Aaron were onetime incidents.

הנך נפישין

The Gemara answers: Those elements that are shared by capital punishment and the deaths of the assembly of Korah and the sons of Aaron are more numerous than the elements that are shared by capital punishment and the bulls that are burned. Therefore, the halakha is derived from the assembly of Korah and the sons of Aaron.

מאן דיליף מעדת קרח מאי טעמא לא יליף מבני אהרן ההוא שריפה ממש הואי ונילף מינה

The Gemara asks: With regard to the one who derives this halakha from the assembly of Korah, what is the reason he does not derive it from the sons of Aaron? Because in his opinion that was actual burning. But if this is the case, let us derive from the death of the sons of Aaron that execution by burning should be performed with actual burning; why does he derive from the assembly of Korah that hot lead should be used?

אמר רב נחמן אמר רבה בר אבוה אמר קרא ואהבת לרעך כמוך ברור לו מיתה יפה

Rav Naḥman says that Rabba bar Avuh says: The verse states: “And you shall love your neighbor as yourself” (Leviticus 19:18), which teaches that even with regard to a condemned prisoner one should select a good, i.e., a compassionate, death for him. The method of burning described in the mishna is certainly faster and less painful than the burning of the entire body.

וכי מאחר דאיכא דרב נחמן גזירה שוה למה לי

The Gemara asks: And since there is the halakha of Rav Naḥman, why do I need the verbal analogy? Even without this proof execution by burning would have been performed with hot lead, as it is a less painful form of death.

אי לאו גזירה שוה הוה אמינא שריפת נשמה וגוף קיים לאו שריפה היא כלל ואי משום ואהבת לרעך כמוך לפיש ליה חבילי זמורות כי היכי דלישרוף לעגל קא משמע לן

The Gemara answers: Were it not for the verbal analogy, I would say that a death that includes the burning of the soul, but the body itself remains intact, is not burning at all, and that it does not fulfill the mitzva of execution by burning. And if it is necessary to alleviate the condemned one’s pain due to the halakha of “And you shall love your neighbor as yourself” (Leviticus 19:18), let the court increase for him the bundles of branches, so that he will burn quicker. Therefore, the verbal analogy teaches us that even internal burning is regarded as burning, and once this has been established it is taken into consideration that he must be executed in the least painful way.

וכבר היו משה ואהרן מהלכין בדרך ונדב ואביהוא מהלכין אחריהן וכל ישראל אחריהן אמר לו נדב לאביהוא אימתי ימותו שני זקנים הללו ואני ואתה ננהיג את הדור אמר להן הקדוש ברוך הוא הנראה מי קובר את מי אמר רב פפא היינו דאמרי אינשי נפישי גמלי סבי דטעיני משכי דהוגני

Apropos the deaths of Nadav and Avihu, an aggadic midrash on this subject is quoted: And it had already happened that Moses and Aaron were walking on their way, and Nadav and Avihu were walking behind them, and the entire Jewish people were walking behind them. Nadav said to Avihu: When will it happen that these two old men will die and you and I will lead the generation, as we are their heirs? The Holy One, Blessed be He, said to them: We shall see who buries whom. Rav Pappa says: This explains the adage that people say: Many are the old camels that are loaded with the skins of young camels.

אמר רבי אליעזר

Rabbi Eliezer says:

למה תלמיד חכם דומה לפני עם הארץ בתחלה דומה לקיתון של זהב סיפר הימנו דומה לקיתון של כסף נהנה ממנו דומה לקיתון של חרש כיון שנשבר שוב אין לו תקנה

To what is a Torah scholar compared when he is standing before an ignoramus? At first, when he does not know him, the ignoramus considers him to be like a goblet [lekiton] of gold. Once he has conversed with him concerning mundane matters, he considers him to be like a goblet of silver, i.e., the stature of the Torah scholar is downgraded in the eyes of the ignoramus. Once the scholar has received benefit from the ignoramus, he considers him to be like an earthenware goblet, which once broken cannot be fixed.

אימרתא בת טלי בת כהן שזינתה הואי אקפה רב חמא בר טוביה חבילי זמורות ושרפה

The Gemara relates: Imrata bat Talei was a priest’s daughter who committed adultery. Rav Ḥama bar Toviyya surrounded her with bundles of branches and burned her.

אמר רב יוסף טעה בתרתי טעה בדרב מתנה וטעה בדתניא ובאת אל הכהנים הלוים ואל השפט אשר יהיה בימים ההם בזמן שיש כהן יש משפט בזמן שאין כהן אין משפט

Rav Yosef says: Rav Ḥama bar Toviyya erred with regard to two halakhot. He erred with regard to the ruling of Rav Mattana, i.e., that burning is performed using a wick of lead, and he erred with regard to that which is taught in a baraita: It is derived from the verse: “And you shall come to the priests, the Levites, and to the judge that will be in those days” (Deuteronomy 17:9), that at a time when there is a priest serving in the Temple, i.e., when the Temple is built, there is judgment of capital cases. By inference, at a time when there is no priest, there is no judgment of capital cases.

אמר רבי אלעזר ברבי צדוק מעשה בבת כהן שזינתה וכו׳ אמר רב יוסף בית דין של צדוקים הוה

§ The mishna teaches that Rabbi Elazar, son of Rabbi Tzadok, said: An incident occurred with regard to a priest’s daughter who committed adultery, and she was executed by actual burn-ing, and the Sages said to him that the court at that time was not proficient in halakha. Rav Yosef says: It was a court of the Sadducees, who interpreted the verse according to its straightforward meaning.

הכי אמר להו והכי אהדרו ליה והתניא אמר רבי אלעזר ברבי צדוק זכורני כשהייתי תינוק ומורכב על כתיפו של אבא והביאו בת כהן שזינתה והקיפוה חבילי זמורות ושרפוה אמרו לו קטן היית ואין מביאין ראיה מן הקטן שני מעשים הוו

The Gemara asks: Did Rabbi Elazar ben Tzadok say that to the Sages, and did the Sages answer him in that manner? But isn’t a different version of the exchange taught in a baraita: Rabbi Elazar, son of Rabbi Tzadok, says: I remember when I was a child, and was riding on my father’s shoulders. And they brought a priest’s daughter who had committed adultery, and surrounded her with bundles of branches and burned her. The Sages said to him: You were a minor at that time and one cannot bring proof from the testimony of a minor, as perhaps you did not understand the proceedings properly. The two versions of this exchange do not accord with each other. The Gemara answers: There were two separate incidents, and Rabbi Elazar ben Tzadok testified with regard to both.

הי אמר להו ברישא אילימא הא קמייתא אמר להו ברישא אמר ליה כשהוא גדול ולא אשגחו ביה אמר להו כשהוא קטן ואשגחו ביה

The Gemara asks: Which incident did he tell the Sages about first? If we say that first he told them about this first incident, i.e., the one that is recounted in the mishna, this is unreasonable; if he first told them about the incident that occurred when he was an adult, and they paid no attention to him, but rejected his statement by responding that the court was not proficient in halakha, would he tell them afterward about the incident that occurred when he was a small child and think that they would pay attention to him?

אלא הא אמר להו ברישא ואמרו ליה קטן היית ואמר להו כשהוא גדול ואמרו ליה מפני שלא היה בית דין של אותה שעה בקי

Rather, it is clear that he first told them about that incident, i.e., the one recounted in the baraita, and they said to him: You were a minor, and one cannot bring proof from the testimony of a minor. And then he told them about the incident that occurred when he was an adult, and they said to him: The court did so because the court at that time was not proficient in halakha.

מתני׳ מצות הנהרגין היו מתיזין את ראשו בסייף כדרך שהמלכות עושה רבי יהודה אומר ניוול הוא לו אלא מניחין את ראשו על הסדן וקוצץ בקופיץ אמרו לו אין מיתה מנוולת מזו

MISHNA: The mitzva of those who are killed, i.e., the process of execution by decapitation, is carried out in the following manner: The executioners cut off his head with a sword, the way that the monarchy does when a king sentences a person to death. Rabbi Yehuda says: This manner of execution is improper, as it degrades him. Rather, they place the head of the condemned on the block, and chop it off with a cleaver [bekofitz]. The Rabbis said to him: If you are concerned about his degradation, there is no death penalty more degrading than that. It is better for him to be executed in the manner described first.

גמ׳ תניא אמר להן רבי יהודה לחכמים אף אני יודע שמיתה מנוולת היא אבל מה אעשה שהרי אמרה תורה ׳ובחקתיהם לא תלכו׳

GEMARA: It is taught in a baraita (Tosefta 9:3): Rabbi Yehuda said to the Rabbis: I too, know that it is a degrading death, but what shall I do, as the Torah states: “And you shall not follow their statutes” (Leviticus 18:3), i.e., it is prohibited to adopt the practices of the gentiles.

ורבנן כיון דכתיב סייף באורייתא לא מינייהו קא גמרינן

The Gemara asks: And how do the Rabbis respond to this claim? The Gemara answers: Since decapitation by the sword is written in the Torah, it is not from the gentiles that we learn it. This is Torah law, and the custom of the gentiles is not taken into consideration. It is of no import that they have a corresponding type of execution.

דאי לא תימא הכי הא דתניא שורפין על המלכים ולא מדרכי האמורי היכי שרפינן והכתיב ובחקתיהם לא תלכו אלא כיון דכתיב שריפה באורייתא דכתיב ובמשרפות אבותיך וגו׳ לאו מינייהו קא גמרינן והכא נמי כיון דכתיב סייף באורייתא לאו מינייהו קא גמרינן

As, if you do not say so, that a Jewish custom is not forbidden even if the gentiles have the same custom, then that which is taught in a baraita poses a difficulty. The baraita teaches: One burns vessels and clothes over the deaths of kings as an expression of grief, and this is not forbidden for being of the ways of the Amorites. How can we perform this burning? But isn’t it written: “And you shall not follow their statutes”? Rather, since burning items over the death of a king is written in the Torah, as it is written: “And with the burnings of your fathers, the first kings who came before you, so shall they make a burning for you” (Jeremiah 34:5), it is not from the gentiles that we learn it. And here too, since decapitation by the sword is written in the Torah, it is not from them that we learn it.

והא דתנן באידך פירקין אלו הן הנהרגין הרוצח ואנשי עיר הנדחת בשלמא עיר הנדחת כתיב בהו לפי חרב אלא רוצח מנלן

§ The Gemara asks: And with regard to that which we learned in a mishna in another chapter of this tractate (76b): These transgressors are those who are killed by decapitation: The murderer and the people of an idolatrous city, there is a difficulty. Granted, the people of an idolatrous city are executed in this manner, as it is written concerning them: “You shall smite the inhabitants of that city with the edge of the sword” (Deuteronomy 13:16). But with regard to a murderer, from where do we derive that he is executed by decapitation?

דתניא ׳נקם ינקם׳ ׳נקימה׳ זו איני יודע מה הוא כשהוא אומר ׳והבאתי עליכם חרב נקמת נקם ברית׳ הוי אומר נקימה זו סייף

The Gemara answers that it is derived as it is taught in a baraita: It is stated in the verse: “And if a man smites his slave or his maidservant by the staff and he dies under his hand, he shall be avenged” (Exodus 21:20). Prima facie, I do not know what this vengeance is referring to. When it says: “And I will bring upon you the sword avenging the vengeance of the covenant” (Leviticus 26:25), you must say that vengeance is decapitation by the sword.

ואימא דבריז ליה מיברז לפי חרב כתיב

The Gemara asks: But why not say that the executioner should stab him with a sword, rather than decapitate him? The Gemara answers: It is written with regard to the people of an idolatrous city: “With the edge of the sword,” indicating that the execution should be administered with the edge of the sword and not its point.

ואימא דעביד ליה גיסטרא אמר רב נחמן אמר רבה בר אבוה אמר קרא ואהבת לרעך כמוך ברור לו מיתה יפה

The Gemara asks: But say that the executioner should cut him in half [gistera], down the middle of his body. The Gemara answers that Rav Naḥman says that Rabba bar Avuh says: The verse states: “And you shall love your neighbor as yourself” (Leviticus 19:18), which teaches that even with regard to a condemned prisoner, one should select a good, i.e., a compassionate, death for him. Cutting his body in half is not a compassionate manner of execution.

אשכחן דקטל עבדא בר חורין מנא לן

The Gemara asks: We have found proof that one who killed a Canaanite slave is executed by decapitation. But from where do we derive that one who kills a freeman is executed in the same manner?

ולאו קל וחומר הוא קטל עבדא בסייף בר חורין בחנק

The Gemara answers: But is it not inferred a fortiori? If one who killed a Canaanite slave is executed by the sword, should one who killed a freeman be executed merely by strangulation?

הניחא למאן דאמר חנק קל אלא למאן דאמר חנק חמור מאי איכא למימר

This Gemara rejects this answer: This works out well according to the one who says that strangulation is a more lenient type of capital punishment than decapitation. But according to the one who says that strangulation is more severe than decapitation, what can be said? It is possible that one who murdered a freeman is in fact executed by strangulation.

נפקא ליה מדתניא ׳ואתה תבער הדם הנקי מקרבך׳ הוקשו כל שופכי דמים לעגלה ערופה מה להלן בסייף ומן הצואר אף כאן בסייף ומן הצואר

The Gemara answers: The mishna derives it from that which is taught in a baraita: It is derived from the verse: “And so shall you put away the innocent blood from your midst” (Deuteronomy 21:9), that all spillers of blood are compared to the heifer whose neck is broken as atonement for an unresolved murder. Just as there, the heifer is killed by the sword and at the neck, so too here, murderers are executed by the sword and at the neck.

אי מה להלן בקופיץ וממול עורף אף כאן בקופיץ וממול עורף אמר רב נחמן אמר רבה בר אבוה אמר קרא ואהבת לרעך כמוך ברור לו מיתה יפה

The Gemara challenges: If so, perhaps it should be derived that just as there, the heifer is decapitated with a cleaver and at the nape of the neck, so too here, murderers should be decapitated with a cleaver and at the nape of the neck. The Gemara answers that Rav Naḥman says that Rabba bar Avuh says: The verse states: “And you shall love your neighbor as yourself” (Leviticus 19:18), which teaches that even with regard to a condemned prisoner, one should select a good, i.e., a compassionate, death for him. Although the type of capital punishment is derived from the heifer whose neck is broken, the most compassionate method of decapitation is selected.

מתני׳ מצות הנחנקין היו משקעין אותו בזבל עד ארכובותיו ונותן סודר קשה לתוך הרכה וכורך על צוארו זה מושך אצלו וזה מושך אצלו עד שנפשו יוצאת

MISHNA: The mitzva of those who are strangled is carried out in the following manner: The agents of the court submerge the condemned one in dung up to his knees so he cannot move, and one of them places a rough scarf within a soft one, and wraps it around his neck. This one, i.e., one of the witnesses, pulls the scarf toward him, and that one, the other witness, pulls it toward him, until the soul of the condemned one departs.

גמ׳ תנו רבנן ׳איש׳ פרט לקטן ׳אשר ינאף את אשת איש׳ פרט לאשת קטן ׳אשת רעהו׳ פרט לאשת אחרים

GEMARA: The Sages taught: The verse states: “And a man who commits adultery with another man’s wife, even he who commits adultery with his neighbor’s wife, both the adulterer and the adulteress shall be put to death” (Leviticus 20:10). The term: “A man,” is interpreted as excluding a minor boy who committed adultery before he came of age. The phrase: “Who commits adultery with another man’s wife,” is interpreted as excluding the wife of a minor boy; marriage to a minor is not considered halakhic marriage. “His neighbor’s wife” excludes the wife of another, i.e., a gentile, who is not referred to as “his neighbor.”

׳מות יומת׳ בחנק אתה אומר בחנק או אינו אלא באחת מכל מיתות האמורות בתורה אמרת כל מקום שנאמר מיתה בתורה סתם אין אתה רשאי למושכה להחמיר עליה אלא להקל עליה דברי רבי יאשיה

“Shall be put to death” means death by strangulation. Do you say that his execution is by strangulation, or is it rather by one of all the other types of death penalty stated in the Torah? You must say that it is by strangulation, as everywhere that the death penalty is stated in the Torah without specification you may not take it to be more stringent with regard to it, i.e., to mean that the sinner should be sentenced to a severe type of execution; rather, you must take it to be more lenient with regard to it, i.e., that a lenient type of execution should be applied. Consequently, the sinner is sentenced to be executed by strangulation, which is the least severe type of capital punishment. This is the statement of Rabbi Yoshiya.

רבי יונתן אומר לא מפני שהיא קלה אלא כל מיתה האמורה בתורה סתם אינה אלא חנק

The baraita continues: Rabbi Yonatan says: It is not because strangulation is the most lenient type of capital punishment; rather, there is a principle that every death penalty stated in the Torah without specification is nothing other than strangulation, whereas the other types of capital punishment must be stated explicitly in the verse.

רבי אומר נאמר מיתה בידי שמים ונאמר מיתה בידי אדם מה מיתה האמורה בידי שמים מיתה שאין בה רושם אף מיתה האמורה בידי אדם מיתה שאין בה רושם

Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi says, in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yonatan: Death at the hand of Heaven is stated in the Torah, and death at the hands of a person, i.e., court-imposed capital punishment, is stated in the Torah. Just as the death at the hand of Heaven that is stated in the Torah is a death that leaves no external mark, so too, the death at the hands of a person that is stated in the Torah is a death that leaves no external mark, i.e., strangulation.

ואימא שריפה מדאמר רחמנא בת כהן בשריפה מכלל דהא לאו בת שריפה היא

The Gemara asks: But why not say that perhaps it is referring to execution by burning, which also leaves no external mark? The Gemara answers: From the fact that the Merciful One states explicitly that a priest’s daughter who committed adultery is executed by burning one can learn by inference that this other woman who committed adultery is not liable to be executed by burning, but rather by a different type of execution that does not leave a mark, i.e., strangulation.