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

Today's Daf Yomi

September 20, 2017 | ื›ืดื˜ ื‘ืืœื•ืœ ืชืฉืขืดื–

  • This month's learning is sponsored by Joanna Rom and Steven Goldberg in loving memory of Steve's mother Shirley "Nana" Goldberg (Sura Tema bat Chaim v'Hanka)

Sanhedrin 66

The standard halacha is that one who violates Shabbat gets stoned. ย However, there are two possible exceptions to this rule. In what cases is one who curses his mother or father stoned? ย Details regarding one who incites others to worship idols is brought, including two important laws that an inciter can get killed even without being warned by witnesses and that if the inciter tried to incite an individual, he is allowed to hide witnesses and encourage him to incite again so as to be able to convict him.

ืณืืœ ืชืชื—ื™ืœ ื‘ื™ืณ ืณืฉื—ืจื™ืช ื”ื•ืืณ ืณืจืืฉ ื—ื•ื“ืฉ ื”ื•ืืณ ืณืžื•ืฆืื™ ืฉื‘ืช ื”ื•ืืณ

The term is also referring to one who says to a collector of charity: Do not collect from me first, as that is a bad sign for me; or: Do not collect from me now because it is morning, and it is a bad sign to begin the day with a loss; or: Do not collect from me now because it is the New Moon, and it is a bad sign to begin the month with a loss; or: It is the conclusion of Shabbat and I do not want to begin the week with a loss.

ืชื ื• ืจื‘ื ืŸ ืณืœื ืชื ื—ืฉื• ื•ืœื ืชืขื•ื ื ื•ืณ ื›ื’ื•ืŸ ืืœื• ื”ืžื ื—ืฉื™ื ื‘ื—ื•ืœื“ื” ื‘ืขื•ืคื•ืช ื•ื‘ื“ื’ื™ื

The Sages taught that the verse: โ€œNor shall you practice divination nor soothsayingโ€ (Leviticus 19:26), is referring, for example, to those who divine and receive guidance according to what happens to a weasel, to birds, or to fish.

ืžืชื ื™ืณ ื”ืžื—ืœืœ ืืช ื”ืฉื‘ืช ื‘ื“ื‘ืจ ืฉื—ื™ื™ื‘ื™ืŸ ืขืœ ื–ื“ื•ื ื• ื›ืจืช ื•ืขืœ ืฉื’ื’ืชื• ื—ื˜ืืช

MISHNA: Also liable to be executed by stoning is one who desecrates Shabbat by performing a matter that for its intentional performance one is liable to receive karet and for its unwitting performance one is obligated to bring a sin-offering.

ื’ืžืณ ืžื›ืœืœ ื“ืื™ื›ื ืžื™ื“ื™ ื“ื—ื™ืœื•ืœ ืฉื‘ืช ื”ื•ื™ ื•ืื™ืŸ ื—ื™ื™ื‘ื™ืŸ ืœื ืขืœ ืฉื’ื’ืชื• ื—ื˜ืืช ื•ืœื ืขืœ ื–ื“ื•ื ื• ื›ืจืช

GEMARA: By inference, there is another matter that is a desecration of Shabbat, and it is prohibited by the Torah, but for its unwitting performance one is not obligated to bring a sin-offering, nor does one receive karet for its intentional performance. Otherwise, the statement in the mishna that one is liable for desecrating Shabbat for performing an act for which one receives karet or is obligated to bring a sin-offering would have been superfluous.

ืžืื™ ื”ื™ื ืชื—ื•ืžื™ืŸ ื•ืืœื™ื‘ื ื“ืจื‘ื™ ืขืงื™ื‘ื ื”ื‘ืขืจื” ื•ืืœื™ื‘ื ื“ืจื‘ื™ ื™ื•ืกื™

The Gemara asks: What is the labor activity that desecrates Shabbat but whose punishment is not so severe? The Gemara answers: It is the prohibition against going outside the Shabbat boundaries, which are two thousand cubits beyond a personโ€™s location at the beginning of Shabbat, and it is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Akiva, who holds that although it is a Torah prohibition one is neither obligated to bring a sin-offering for violating it unwittingly nor liable to be executed for violating it intentionally. Alternatively, it may be referring to the prohibition against kindling a fire on Shabbat in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yosei, who holds that contrary to other labors prohibited on Shabbat, this act is not punishable by stoning but by lashes.

ืžืชื ื™ืณ ื”ืžืงืœืœ ืื‘ื™ื• ื•ืืžื• ืื™ื ื• ื—ื™ื™ื‘ ืขื“ ืฉื™ืงืœืœื ื‘ืฉื ืงืœืœื ื‘ื›ื ื•ื™ ืจื‘ื™ ืžืื™ืจ ืžื—ื™ื™ื‘ ื•ื—ื›ืžื™ื ืคื•ื˜ืจื™ืŸ

MISHNA: One who curses his father or his mother is not liable to be executed by stoning unless he curses them with the name of God. If he cursed them with an appellation of the name of God, Rabbi Meir deems him liable, and the Rabbis deem him exempt.

ื’ืžืณ ืžืืŸ ื—ื›ืžื™ื ืจื‘ื™ ืžื ื—ื ื‘ืจื‘ื™ ื™ื•ืกื™ ื”ื•ื ื“ืชื ื™ื ืจื‘ื™ ืžื ื—ื ื‘ืจื‘ื™ ื™ื•ืกื™ ืื•ืžืจ ืณื‘ื ืงื‘ื• ืฉื ื™ื•ืžืชืณ ืžื” ืชืœืžื•ื“ ืœื•ืžืจ ืฉื ืœื™ืžื“ ืขืœ ืžืงืœืœ ืื‘ื™ื• ื•ืืžื• ืฉืื™ื ื• ื—ื™ื™ื‘ ืขื“ ืฉื™ืงืœืœื ื‘ืฉื

GEMARA: Who are the Rabbis mentioned here? It is Rabbi Menaแธฅem, son of Rabbi Yosei. As it is taught in a baraita that Rabbi Menaแธฅem, son of Rabbi Yosei, says: The verse states: โ€œAnd he who blasphemes the name of the Lord shall be put to death; all the congregation shall stone him; the convert as well as the homeborn, when he blasphemes the name he shall be put to deathโ€ (Leviticus 24:16). Why must the verse state โ€œthe nameโ€ a second time, which appears to be a superfluous repetition? This term taught concerning one who transgresses other prohibitions of cursing, e.g., one who curses his father or his mother, that he is not liable to be executed by stoning unless he curses them with the name of God. If he merely uses an appellation, he is exempt.

ืชื ื• ืจื‘ื ืŸ ืณืื™ืฉืณ ืžื” ืชืœืžื•ื“ ืœื•ืžืจ ืณืื™ืฉ ืื™ืฉืณ ืœืจื‘ื•ืช ื‘ืช ื˜ื•ืžื˜ื•ื ื•ืื ื“ืจื•ื’ื™ื ื•ืก

The Sages taught: The verse (Leviticus 20:9) could have stated merely: For a man [ish] that curses his father and his mother shall be put to death; he has cursed his father and his mother; his blood shall be upon him. Why must the verse state: โ€œFor any man [ish ish],โ€ repeating the term ish? It is to include not only a son, but also a daughter, one whose sexual organs are indeterminate [tumtum], and a hermaphrodite [veโ€™androginos].

ืณืืฉืจ ื™ืงืœืœ ืืช ืื‘ื™ื• ื•ืืช ืืžื•ืณ ืื™ืŸ ืœื™ ืืœื ืื‘ื™ื• ื•ืืžื• ืื‘ื™ื• ืฉืœื ืืžื• ืืžื• ืฉืœื ืื‘ื™ื• ืžื ื™ื™ืŸ ืชืœืžื•ื“ ืœื•ืžืจ ืณืื‘ื™ื• ื•ืืžื• ืงืœืœ ื“ืžื™ื• ื‘ื•ืณ ืื‘ื™ื• ืงื™ืœืœ ืืžื• ืงื™ืœืœ ื“ื‘ืจื™ ืจื‘ื™ ื™ืืฉื™ื”

When the verse states: โ€œThat curses his father and his mother,โ€ I have derived only his liability for cursing both his father and his mother. From where do I derive that if one curses his father but not his mother, or his mother but not his father, that he is liable? The continuation of the verse states: โ€œHis father and his mother he has cursed; his blood is upon him.โ€ In the first part of the verse, the word โ€œcursesโ€ is in proximity to โ€œhis father,โ€ and in the last part of the verse, it is in proximity to โ€œhis mother.โ€ This teaches that the verse is referring both to a case where he cursed only his father and to a case where he cursed only his mother; this is the statement of Rabbi Yoshiya.

ืจื‘ื™ ื™ื•ื ืชืŸ ืื•ืžืจ ืžืฉืžืข ืฉื ื™ื”ืŸ ื›ืื—ื“ ื•ืžืฉืžืข ืื—ื“ ื‘ืคื ื™ ืขืฆืžื• ืขื“ ืฉื™ืคืจื•ื˜ ืœืš ื”ื›ืชื•ื‘ ืณื™ื—ื“ื•ืณ

Rabbi Yonatan says: There is no need for this derivation, because the phrase โ€œhis father and his motherโ€ teaches that one is liable if he curses both of them together, and it also teaches that he is liable if he curses either one of them on their own, unless the verse specifies that one is liable only when he curses both together, which it does not do in this case.

ืณืžื•ืช ื™ื•ืžืชืณ ื‘ืกืงื™ืœื” ืืชื” ืื•ืžืจ ื‘ืกืงื™ืœื” ืื• ืื™ื ื• ืืœื ื‘ืื—ืช ืžื›ืœ ืžื™ืชื•ืช ื”ืืžื•ืจื•ืช ื‘ืชื•ืจื” ื ืืžืจ ื›ืืŸ ืณื“ืžื™ื• ื‘ื•ืณ ื•ื ืืžืจ ืœื”ืœืŸ ืณื“ืžื™ื”ื ื‘ืืณ ืžื” ืœื”ืœืŸ ื‘ืกืงื™ืœื” ืืฃ ื›ืืŸ ื‘ืกืงื™ืœื”

From the phrase โ€œshall be put to deathโ€ it is derived that his punishment is execution by stoning. The baraita asks: Do you say that that they are executed by stoning, or is it rather by one of all the other types of death penalty stated in the Torah? The baraita answers: It is stated here: โ€œHis blood shall be upon him,โ€ and it is stated below, with regard to a necromancer and a sorcerer: โ€œThey shall be put to death; they shall stone them with stones; their blood shall be upon themโ€ (Leviticus 20:27). Just as there the verse states that a necromancer and a sorcerer are executed by stoning, so too here, with regard to one who curses his father or mother, he is executed by stoning.

ืขื•ื ืฉ ืฉืžืขื ื• ืื–ื”ืจื” ืžื ื™ื™ืŸ ืชืœืžื•ื“ ืœื•ืžืจ ืณืืœื”ื™ื ืœื ืชืงืœืœืณ ื•ื’ื•ืณ ืื ื”ื™ื” ืื‘ื™ื• ื“ื™ื™ืŸ ื”ืจื™ ื”ื•ื ื‘ื›ืœืœ ืณืืœื”ื™ื ืœื ืชืงืœืœืณ ื•ืื ื”ื™ื” ืื‘ื™ื• ื ืฉื™ื ื”ืจื™ ื”ื•ื ื‘ื›ืœืœ ืณื•ื ืฉื™ื ื‘ืขืžืš ืœื ืชืืจืณ

The baraita asks: We have learned the punishment of one who curses his parent; from where is the prohibition against doing so derived? The verse states: โ€œYou shall not blaspheme judges [elohim], nor curse a king of your peopleโ€ (Exodus 22:27). If his father was a judge, cursing him is included in the prohibition of: โ€œYou shall not blaspheme judges,โ€ as it is prohibited for all people to curse a judge. And if his father was a king, cursing him is included in the prohibition of: โ€œNor curse a king of your people.โ€

ืื™ื ื• ืœื ื“ื™ื™ืŸ ื•ืœื ื ืฉื™ื ืžื ื™ื™ืŸ ืืžืจืช ื”ืจื™ ืืชื” ื“ืŸ ื‘ื ื™ืŸ ืื‘ ืžืฉื ื™ื”ืŸ ืœื ืจืื™ ื ืฉื™ื ื›ืจืื™ ื“ื™ื™ืŸ ื•ืœื ืจืื™ ื“ื™ื™ืŸ ื›ืจืื™ ื ืฉื™ื

If he is neither a judge nor a king, from where is it derived that it is prohibited to curse him? One can say: You derive it through a paradigm arrived at from both of them as follows: The defining characteristic of a king is not like the defining characteristic of a judge, and the defining characteristic of a judge is not like the defining characteristic of a king. The two cases are dissimilar.

ืœื ืจืื™ ื“ื™ื™ืŸ ื›ืจืื™ ื ืฉื™ื ืฉื”ืจื™ ื“ื™ื™ืŸ ืืชื” ืžืฆื•ื•ื” ืขืœ ื”ื•ืจืืชื• ื›ืจืื™ ื ืฉื™ื ืฉืื™ ืืชื” ืžืฆื•ื•ื” ืขืœ ื”ื•ืจืืชื• ื•ืœื ืจืื™ ื ืฉื™ื ื›ืจืื™ ื“ื™ื™ืŸ ืฉื”ื ืฉื™ื ืืชื” ืžืฆื•ื•ื” ืขืœ ื”ืžืจืืชื• ื›ืจืื™ ื“ื™ื™ืŸ ืฉืื™ ืืชื” ืžืฆื•ื•ื” ืขืœ ื”ืžืจืืชื•

The baraita elaborates: The defining characteristic of a judge is not like the defining characteristic of a king, as with regard to a judge, you are commanded with regard to obeying his halakhic ruling. This is not like the defining characteristic of a king, with regard to whose halakhic ruling you are not commanded to obey. And the defining characteristic of a king is not like the defining characteristic of a judge, as with regard to the king, you are commanded with regard to rebelling against him, i.e., refusing to obey his order. This is not like the defining characteristic of a judge, as you are not commanded with regard to rebelling against him.

ื”ืฆื“ ื”ืฉื•ื” ืฉื‘ื”ื ืฉื”ืŸ ื‘ืขืžืš ื•ืืชื” ืžื•ื–ื”ืจ ืขืœ ืงืœืœืชืŸ ืืฃ ืื ื™ ืื‘ื™ื ืื‘ื™ืš ืฉื‘ืขืžืš ื•ืืชื” ืžื•ื–ื”ืจ ืขืœ ืงืœืœืชื•

Their common denominator is that they are โ€œof your people,โ€ i.e., they are members of the Jewish people, and you are prohibited from cursing them. I too will include the case of your father, as he is โ€œof your people,โ€ and therefore you are prohibited from cursing him.

ืžื” ืœื”ืฆื“ ื”ืฉื•ื” ืฉื‘ื”ืŸ ืฉื›ืŸ ื’ื“ื•ืœืชืŸ ื’ืจืžื” ืœื”ืŸ

This derivation is insufficient, as what is notable about their common denominator, i.e., another element that they share in common? It is notable in that their prominence has caused them to be entitled to an exceptional degree of respect; they are not merely โ€œof your people.โ€ Therefore, perhaps the prohibition against cursing applies only to such prominent figures.

ืชืœืžื•ื“ ืœื•ืžืจ ืณืœื ืชืงืœืœ ื—ืจืฉืณ ื‘ืื•ืžืœืœื™ื ืฉื‘ืขืžืš ื”ื›ืชื•ื‘ ืžื“ื‘ืจ

The baraita continues: Consequently, a third case is necessary to arrive at the required paradigm. The verse states: โ€œYou shall not curse the deaf, nor put a stumbling block before the blindโ€ (Leviticus 19:14). The verse speaks of the wretched of your people. From the fact that it is prohibited to curse even those people, it can be derived that it is prohibited to curse anyone.

ืžื” ืœื—ืจืฉ ืฉื›ืŸ ื—ืจื™ืฉืชื• ื’ืจืžื” ืœื•

Deriving this halakha from the case of a deaf person is also insufficient, as what is notable about the case of a deaf person? It is notable in that his deafness has caused cursing him to be prohibited. Perhaps the only reason it is prohibited to curse him is that he is deaf, just as it is prohibited to mislead the blind.

ื ืฉื™ื ื•ื“ื™ื™ืŸ ื™ื•ื›ื™ื—ื• ืžื” ืœื ืฉื™ื ื•ื“ื™ื™ืŸ ืฉื›ืŸ ื’ื“ื•ืœืชืŸ ื’ืจืžื” ืœื”ืŸ ื—ืจืฉ ื™ื•ื›ื™ื—

One can respond: The prohibition against cursing a king and a judge can prove that it is prohibited to curse anyone, as it is prohibited to curse them even though they are not wretched. And if the proof from these cases is rejected, as one can claim that what is notable about a king and a judge is that their prominence has caused them to be entitled to this respect, then the prohibition against cursing the deaf can prove that prominence is not a determining factor.

ื•ื—ื–ืจ ื”ื“ื™ืŸ ืœื ืจืื™ ื–ื” ื›ืจืื™ ื–ื” ื•ืœื ืจืื™ ื–ื” ื›ืจืื™ ื–ื” ื”ืฆื“ ื”ืฉื•ื” ืฉื‘ื”ืŸ ืฉื”ืŸ ื‘ืขืžืš ื•ืืชื” ืžื•ื–ื”ืจ ืขืœ ืงืœืœืชืŸ ืืฃ ืื ื™ ืื‘ื™ื ืื‘ื™ืš ืฉื‘ืขืžืš ื•ืืชื” ืžื•ื–ื”ืจ ืขืœ ืงืœืœืชื•

And the inference has reverted to its starting point. At this point the halakha is derived from a combination of the three cases: The defining characteristic of this case, i.e., that of a ruler and a judge, is not like the defining characteristic of that case, i.e., that of a deaf person, and the defining characteristic of that case is not like the defining characteristic of this case; their common denominator is that they are โ€œof your people,โ€ and you are prohibited from cursing them. I too will include the case of your father, who is โ€œof your people,โ€ and therefore you are prohibited from cursing him.

ืžื” ืœืฆื“ ื”ืฉื•ื” ืฉื‘ื”ืŸ ืฉื›ืŸ ืžืฉื•ื ื™ืŸ

The baraita refutes this derivation: What is notable about their common dominator? It is notable in that they are unusual, i.e., they are not common people, but they are in some way different from others. Perhaps there is no prohibition against cursing an ordinary person.

ืืœื ืื ื›ืŸ ื ื›ืชื•ื‘ ืงืจื ืื• ืืœื”ื™ื ื•ื—ืจืฉ ืื• ื ืฉื™ื ื•ื—ืจืฉ ืืœื”ื™ื ืœืžื” ืœื™ ืื ืื™ื ื• ืขื ื™ืŸ ืœื’ื•ืคื• ืชื ื”ื• ืขื ื™ืŸ ืœืื‘ื™ื•

Rather, this proof is insufficient, and the baraita states a different explanation: If it is so that it is prohibited to curse only unusual people, let the verse write either that it is prohibited to curse judges and the deaf, or that it is prohibited to curse a king and the deaf, and it would have been derived from these two cases that the prohibition applies to all unusual people. Why do I need the verse to state a special prohibition with regard to judges? It is superfluous, as judges are also extraordinary people. Rather, if the verse is not needed for its own matter, i.e., the prohibition against cursing judges, apply it to the matter of cursing oneโ€™s father.

ื”ื ื™ื—ื ืœืžืืŸ ื“ืืžืจ ืืœื”ื™ื ื—ื•ืœ ืืœื ืœืžืืŸ ื“ืืžืจ ืงื•ื“ืฉ ืžืื™ ืื™ื›ื ืœืžื™ืžืจ

The Gemara asks: This works out well according to the one who says that in the verse: โ€œYou shall not blaspheme elohimโ€ (Exodus 22:27), the word โ€œelohimโ€ is non-sacred, as it is referring to judges. But according to the one who says that the word is sacred, as it is referring to God, what can be said? If the verse is not superfluous, as it is needed to state a special prohibition with regard to God, how is the prohibition against cursing oneโ€™s parents derived from it?

ื“ืชื ื™ื ืณืืœื”ื™ืืณ ื—ื•ืœ ื“ื‘ืจื™ ืจื‘ื™ ื™ืฉืžืขืืœ ืจื‘ื™ ืขืงื™ื‘ื ืื•ืžืจ ืณืืœื”ื™ืืณ ืงื•ื“ืฉ ื•ืชื ื™ื ืจื‘ื™ ืืœื™ืขื–ืจ ื‘ืŸ ื™ืขืงื‘ ืื•ืžืจ ืื–ื”ืจื” ืœืžื‘ืจืš ืืช ื”ืฉื ืžื ื™ื™ืŸ ืชืœืžื•ื“ ืœื•ืžืจ ืณืืœื”ื™ื ืœื ืชืงืœืœืณ

As it is taught in a baraita: The word โ€œelohimโ€ in this verse is non-sacred; this is the statement of Rabbi Yishmael. Rabbi Akiva says: The word โ€œElohimโ€ is sacred. And it is taught in a different baraita that Rabbi Eliezer ben Yaโ€™akov says: From where is the prohibition against one who blesses, i.e., curses, the name of God, derived? The verse states: โ€œYou shall not blaspheme God [Elohim].โ€

ืœืžืืŸ ื“ืืžืจ ืืœื”ื™ื ื—ื•ืœ ื’ืžืจ ืงื•ื“ืฉ ืžื—ื•ืœ ืœืžืืŸ ื“ืืžืจ ืืœื”ื™ื ืงื•ื“ืฉ ื’ืžืจื™ื ืŸ ื—ื•ืœ ืžืงื•ื“ืฉ

The Gemara answers: According to the one who says that โ€œelohimโ€ is non-sacred, he derives the prohibition according to the sacred meaning of the word from the non-sacred meaning, i.e., he derives the prohibition against cursing God from the prohibition against cursing judges. According to the one who says that โ€œElohimโ€ is sacred, we derive the prohibition according to the non-sacred meaning of the word from the sacred meaning, i.e., he derives the prohibition against cursing judges from the prohibition against cursing God.

ื‘ืฉืœืžื ืœืžืืŸ ื“ืืžืจ ืืœื”ื™ื ื—ื•ืœ ื’ืžืจ ืงื•ื“ืฉ ืžื—ื•ืœ ืืœื ืœืžืืŸ ื“ืืžืจ ืืœื”ื™ื ืงื•ื“ืฉ ื’ืžืจ ื—ื•ืœ ืžืงื•ื“ืฉ ื“ื™ืœืžื ืืงื•ื“ืฉ ืื–ื”ืจ ืื—ื•ืœ ืœื ืื–ื”ืจ

The Gemara asks: Granted, according to the one who says that โ€œelohimโ€ is non-sacred, he can derive the prohibition according to the sacred meaning of the word from the non-sacred meaning through an a fortiori inference. But according to the one who says that โ€œElohimโ€ is sacred, can he derive the prohibition according to the non-sacred meaning from the sacred meaning? Perhaps the Torah renders it prohibited to curse God, in accordance with the sacred meaning of the word, but it does not render it prohibited to curse elohim, judges, in accordance with the non-sacred meaning.

ืื ื›ืŸ ืœื›ืชื•ื‘ ืงืจื ืœื ืชืงืœ

The Gemara answers: If so, if it is prohibited to curse God but not judges, let the verse write: You shall not treat lightly [takel], instead of: โ€œYou shall not blaspheme [tekallel]โ€; it would have been derived from this wording that is prohibited to demean or curse God.

ืžืื™ ืœื ืชืงืœืœ ืฉืžืข ืžื™ื ื” ืชืจืชื™

What halakha can be derived from the seemingly superfluous second letter lamed, which renders the expression: โ€œYou shall not curse [tekallel]โ€? Conclude from it that this expression includes two prohibitions: A prohibition against cursing God and a prohibition against cursing a judge.

ืžืชื ื™ืณ ื”ื‘ื ืขืœ ื ืขืจื” ื”ืžืื•ืจืกื” ืื™ื ื• ื—ื™ื™ื‘ ืขื“ ืฉืชื”ื ื ืขืจื” ื‘ืชื•ืœื” ืžืื•ืจืกื” ื•ื”ื™ื ื‘ื‘ื™ืช ืื‘ื™ื” ื‘ืื• ืขืœื™ื” ืฉื ื™ื ื”ืจืืฉื•ืŸ ื‘ืกืงื™ืœื” ื•ื”ืฉื ื™ ื‘ื—ื ืง

MISHNA: One who engages in intercourse with a betrothed young woman is not liable to be executed by stoning unless she is a young woman, i.e., neither a minor nor an adult; a virgin; betrothed but not yet married; and she lives in her fatherโ€™s home, having yet to move in with her husband. If two men engaged in intercourse with her, the first is liable to be executed by stoning, and the second is liable to be executed by strangulation. The second man is executed in this manner in accordance with the halakha of one who engages in intercourse with a married or non-virgin betrothed woman, as she was no longer a virgin when he engaged in intercourse with her.

ื’ืžืณ ืชื ื• ืจื‘ื ืŸ ืณื ืขืจื”ืณ ื•ืœื ื‘ื•ื’ืจืช ืณื‘ืชื•ืœื”ืณ ื•ืœื ื‘ืขื•ืœื” ืณืžืื•ืจืกื”ืณ ื•ืœื ื ืฉื•ืื” ืณื‘ื‘ื™ืช ืื‘ื™ื”ืณ ืคืจื˜ ืœืฉืžืกืจ ื”ืื‘ ืœืฉืœื•ื—ื™ ื”ื‘ืขืœ

GEMARA: The Sages taught with regard to the conditions stated in the mishna: The punishment of stoning applies only if the woman is a young woman, a category that applies until she is approximately twelve-and-a-half years of age, but not a grown woman. She must be a virgin but not a non-virgin. She must be betrothed but not married. She must be living in her fatherโ€™s home, excluding a case where the father transferred his daughter to the husbandโ€™s agents to bring her to her husbandโ€™s home for the purpose of marriage; in such a case, even though she has not arrived there yet, she is already considered a married woman according to halakha.

ืืžืจ ืจื‘ ื™ื”ื•ื“ื” ืืžืจ ืจื‘ ื–ื• ื“ื‘ืจื™ ืจื‘ื™ ืžืื™ืจ ืื‘ืœ ื—ื›ืžื™ื ืื•ืžืจื™ื ื ืขืจื” ื”ืžืื•ืจืกื” ืืคื™ืœื• ืงื˜ื ื” ื‘ืžืฉืžืข

Rav Yehuda says that Rav says: This mishna is the statement of Rabbi Meir, who holds that the halakha of a betrothed young woman applies to a young woman of the intermediate age between minority and adulthood. But the Rabbis say: Even a minor is included in the term: A betrothed young woman; only a grown woman is excluded.

ืืžืจ ืœื™ื” ืจื‘ ืื—ื ืžื“ืคืชื™ ืœืจื‘ื™ื ื ืžืžืื™ ื“ืžืชื ื™ืชื™ืŸ ืจื‘ื™ ืžืื™ืจ ื”ื™ื ื•ืœืžืขื•ื˜ื™ ืงื˜ื ื” ื ืžื™ ื“ื™ืœืžื ืจื‘ื ืŸ ื”ื™ื ื•ืœืžืขื•ื˜ื™ ื‘ื•ื’ืจืช ื•ืชื• ืœื

Rav Aแธฅa of Difti said to Ravina: From where is it indicated that the mishna is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Meir, and the specification that she must be a young woman is not only to the exclusion of a grown woman but also to the exclusion of a minor girl? Perhaps the mishna is in accordance with the opinion of the Rabbis, and the condition that she must be a young woman is to the exclusion of a grown woman and nothing more. Accordingly, one who engages in intercourse with an engaged minor girl is liable to be executed by stoning.

ืืžืจ ืœื™ื” ื”ืื™ ืื™ื ื• ื—ื™ื™ื‘ ืขื“ ืฉืชื”ื ื ืขืจื” ื‘ืชื•ืœื” ืžืื•ืจืกื” ืื™ื ื• ื—ื™ื™ื‘ ืืœื ืขืœ ื ืขืจื” ื‘ืชื•ืœื” ืžืื•ืจืกื” ืžื™ื‘ืขื™ ืœื™ื” ื•ืชื• ืœื ืžื™ื“ื™

Ravina said to him: This expression in the mishna: Is not liable unless she is [ad shetehe] a young woman, a virgin, betrothed, does not suit your suggested explanation. If the mishna is merely excluding a grown woman, it should have stated: Is liable only for engaging in intercourse with a young woman who is a virgin and betrothed. The expression ad shetehe indicates: Until she becomes, i.e., this halakha does not apply until she reaches the age of a young woman. And there is nothing more to be said on the matter, as this is clearly the intention of the mishna.

ื‘ืขื ืžื™ื ื™ื” ืจื‘ื™ ื™ืขืงื‘ ื‘ืจ ืื“ื ืžืจื‘ ื‘ื ืขืœ ื”ืงื˜ื ื” ืžืื•ืจืกื” ืœืจื‘ื™ ืžืื™ืจ ืžื”ื• ืœื’ืžืจื™ ืžืžืขื™ื˜ ืœื™ื” ืื• ืžืกืงื™ืœื” ืžืžืขื™ื˜ ืœื™ื” ืืžืจ ืœื™ื” ืžืกืชื‘ืจื ืžืกืงื™ืœื” ืžืžืขื˜ ืœื™ื”

Rabbi Yaโ€™akov bar Adda asked Rav: In the case of a man who engaged in intercourse with a betrothed minor girl, what is the halakha according to the opinion of Rabbi Meir? Does Rabbi Meir exclude him from punishment entirely, or does he exclude him merely from stoning but he is executed by strangulation, like one who engages in intercourse with any other married woman? Rav said to him: It stands to reason that Rabbi Meir excludes him from stoning alone, but he is liable to be executed by strangulation.

ื•ื”ื›ืชื™ื‘ ื•ืžืชื• ื’ื ืฉื ื™ื”ื ืขื“ ืฉื™ื”ื• ืฉื ื™ื”ืŸ ืฉื•ื™ืŸ ืฉืชื™ืง ืจื‘

Rabbi Yaโ€™akov bar Adda raised an objection to this answer: But isnโ€™t it written: โ€œIf a man is found lying with a woman married to a husband, then they shall both die, the man who lies with the woman, and the womanโ€ (Deuteronomy 22:22), indicating that this punishment does not apply unless they are both equally subject to punishment? If so, one who engages in intercourse with a betrothed minor girl is exempt, as she is not halakhically competent. Rav remained silent and did not answer him.

ืืžืจ ืฉืžื•ืืœ ืžืื™ ื˜ืขืžื ืฉืชื™ืง ืจื‘ ื•ื ื™ืžื ืœื™ื” ื•ืžืช ื”ืื™ืฉ ืืฉืจ ืฉื›ื‘ ืขืžื” ืœื‘ื“ื•

Shmuel says: What is the reason that Rav remained silent? Why not say to Rabbi Yaโ€™akov that his premise is repudiated by the verse: โ€œBut if the man finds the betrothed young woman in the field, and the man takes hold of her, and lies with her, then the man who lay with her alone shall dieโ€ (Deuteronomy 22:25)? This verse proves that the punishment of stoning applies to the man even if the woman is exempt. The halakha of a man who engages in intercourse with a betrothed minor should be the same.

ื›ืชื ืื™ ืณื•ืžืชื• ื’ื ืฉื ื™ื”ืืณ ืขื“ ืฉื™ื”ื• ืฉื ื™ื”ืŸ ืฉื•ื™ืŸ ื“ื‘ืจื™ ืจื‘ื™ ื™ืืฉื™ื” ืจื‘ื™ ื™ื•ื ืชืŸ ืื•ืžืจ ืณื•ืžืช ื”ืื™ืฉ ืืฉืจ ืฉื›ื‘ ืขืžื” ืœื‘ื“ื•ืณ

The Gemara answers that this matter is subject to a dispute between tannaโ€™im, as is taught in a baraita: The verse states: โ€œThen they shall both dieโ€ (Deuteronomy 22:22), indicating that this halakha does not apply unless they are both equally subject to punishment. If one of them cannot be punished, e.g., because he or she is a minor, the other is not executed either. This is the statement of Rabbi Yoshiya. Rabbi Yonatan says that the phrase from the verse โ€œthen the man who lay with her alone shall dieโ€ indicates that in some cases only one of them is liable to receive the death penalty.

ื•ืื™ื“ืš ื”ื”ื™ื ื•ืžืชื• ื’ื ืฉื ื™ื”ื ืžืื™ ื“ืจื™ืฉ ื‘ื™ื” ืืžืจ ืจื‘ื ืœืžืขื•ื˜ื™ ืžืขืฉื” ื—ื™ื“ื•ื“ื™ื ื•ืื™ื“ืš ืžืขืฉื” ื—ื™ื“ื•ื“ื™ื ืœืื• ื›ืœื•ื ื”ื™ื

The Gemara asks: And what does the other tanna, Rabbi Yonatan, who holds that this punishment applies even if only one party is subject to punishment, derive from the verse: โ€œThen they shall both dieโ€? Rava says: That verse is stated to exclude an act of sharpening, i.e., engaging in sexual contact with a woman without penetration. Since the man and woman do not equally receive pleasure from such an act, it is not considered sexual intercourse, and they are exempt. And the other tanna, Rabbi Yoshiya, holds that an act of sharpening is nothing; there is clearly no liability for such an act, and it is unnecessary to derive this halakha from the verse.

ื•ืื™ื“ืš ื”ืื™ ืœื‘ื“ื• ืžืื™ ื“ืจื™ืฉ ื‘ื™ื”

The Gemara asks: And what does the other tanna, Rabbi Yoshiya, who holds that they must be equally subject to punishment, derive from the verse โ€œThen the man who lay with her alone shall dieโ€?

ื›ื“ืชื ื™ื ื‘ืื• ืขืœื™ื” ืขืฉืจื” ื‘ื ื™ ืื“ื ื•ืขื“ื™ื™ืŸ ื”ื™ื ื‘ืชื•ืœื” ื›ื•ืœื ื‘ืกืงื™ืœื” ืจื‘ื™ ืื•ืžืจ ื”ืจืืฉื•ืŸ ื‘ืกืงื™ืœื” ื•ื›ื•ืœืŸ ื‘ื—ื ืง

The Gemara answers: He derives another halakha, as it is taught in a baraita: If ten men engaged in intercourse with a betrothed young woman, and she is still a virgin, as they engaged in anal intercourse with her, they are all liable to be executed by stoning. Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi says: The first of them is executed by stoning, and all the rest of them are executed by strangulation. Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi derives from the phrase in the verse โ€œThen the man who lay with her alone shall dieโ€ that although the woman is still a virgin, only one man can be executed by stoning for engaging in intercourse with her. The others are executed by strangulation, in accordance with the halakha of one who engages in intercourse with a married woman or a betrothed non-virgin.

ืชื ื• ืจื‘ื ืŸ ืณื•ื‘ืช ืื™ืฉ ื›ื”ืŸ ื›ื™ ืชื—ืœ ืœื–ื ื•ืชืณ ืจื‘ื™ ืื•ืžืจ ืชื—ื™ืœื” ื•ื›ืŸ ื”ื•ื ืื•ืžืจ ืณื•ืžืช ื”ืื™ืฉ ืืฉืจ ืฉื›ื‘ ืขืžื” ืœื‘ื“ื•ืณ

ยง The Sages taught: The verse states: โ€œAnd the daughter of any priest, if she profanes [teแธฅel] herself by playing the harlot, she profanes her father; she shall be burned with fireโ€ (Leviticus 21:9). Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi says: The word teแธฅel means first [teแธฅila]; and likewise it says: โ€œThen the man who lay with her alone shall dieโ€ (Deuteronomy 22:25).

ืžืื™ ืงืืžืจ ืืžืจ ืจื‘ ื”ื•ื ื ื‘ืจื™ื” ื“ืจื‘ ื™ื”ื•ืฉืข ืจื‘ื™ ื›ืจื‘ื™ ื™ืฉืžืขืืœ ืกื‘ื™ืจื ืœื™ื” ื“ืืžืจ ืืจื•ืกื” ื™ืฆืื” ืœืฉืจื™ืคื” ื•ืœื ื ืฉื•ืื” ื•ื”ื›ื™ ืงืืžืจ ืื ืชื—ื™ืœืช ื‘ื™ืื” ื‘ื–ื ื•ืช ื‘ืฉืจื™ืคื” ืื™ื“ืš ื‘ื—ื ืง

The Gemara asks: What is Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi saying? Rav Huna, son of Rav Yehoshua, says: Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi holds in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yishmael, who says that only the betrothed daughter of a priest is singled out for execution by burning, but not one who is married; a married daughter of a priest who commits adultery is executed in the same manner as other women who commit adultery. And this is what Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi is saying: If a womanโ€™s first act of sexual intercourse occurs when she commits adultery, as she is still betrothed, she is executed by burning; in another case, i.e., if she is already married and this is not the first time she engages in sexual intercourse, she is executed by strangulation.

ืžืื™ ื•ื›ืŸ ื›ื™ ื”ืชื ืžื” ื”ืชื ื‘ืชื—ื™ืœืช ื‘ื™ืื” ืงืžืฉืชืขื™ ืงืจื ื”ื›ื ื ืžื™ ื‘ืชื—ื™ืœืช ื‘ื™ืื” ืงืžืฉืชืขื™ ืงืจื

The Gemara asks: What is the meaning of the end of Rabbi Yehuda HaNasiโ€™s statement: And likewise it says: โ€œThen the man who lay with her alone shall dieโ€? What is the relevance of that verse to this issue? The Gemara answers: Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi means to say that the halakha here, in the case of a betrothed young woman who is the daughter of a priest, is like there. Just as there, with regard to a betrothed young woman who is not the daughter of a priest, the verse speaks of her first intercourse, here too, the verse speaks of her first intercourse.

ืืžืจ ืœื™ื” ืจื‘ ื‘ื™ื‘ื™ ื‘ืจ ืื‘ื™ื™ ืžืจ ืœื ื”ื›ื™ ืืžืจ ื•ืžื ื• ืจื‘ ื™ื•ืกืฃ

Rav Beivai bar Abaye said to Rav Huna, son of Rav Yehoshua: My Master does not say, i.e., does not explain the statement of Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi, like that. The Gemara comments: And who is his Master? Rav Yosef.

ืจื‘ื™ ื›ืจื‘ื™ ืžืื™ืจ ืกื‘ื™ืจื ืœื™ื” ื“ืืžืจ ื ืฉืืช ืœืื—ื“ ืžืŸ ื”ืคืกื•ืœื™ืŸ ืžื™ืชืชื” ื‘ื—ื ืง

Rather, he explains the statement of Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi as follows: Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi holds in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Meir, who says: In the case of the daughter of a priest who married one of the men unfit for her, e.g., a mamzer, and committed adultery while married to him, her death sentence is administered by strangulation and not by burning.

ื•ื”ื›ื™ ืงืืžืจ ืื ืชื—ื™ืœืช ืื—ืœืชื” ื‘ื–ื ื•ืช ื‘ืฉืจื™ืคื” ื•ืื™ื“ืš ื‘ื—ื ืง ื•ืžืื™ ื•ื›ืŸ

And this is what Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi is saying: If she first profanes herself, i.e., disqualifies herself from the priesthood, by committing adultery, she is executed by burning, but in another case, where she was already disqualified from the priesthood by marrying a man unfit for her, she is executed by strangulation. And what is the meaning of the end of Rabbi Yehuda HaNasiโ€™s statement: And likewise it says: โ€œThen the man who lied with her alone shall dieโ€?

  • This month's learning is sponsored by Joanna Rom and Steven Goldberg in loving memory of Steve's mother Shirley "Nana" Goldberg (Sura Tema bat Chaim v'Hanka)

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 66

The William Davidson Talmud | Powered by Sefaria

Sanhedrin 66

ืณืืœ ืชืชื—ื™ืœ ื‘ื™ืณ ืณืฉื—ืจื™ืช ื”ื•ืืณ ืณืจืืฉ ื—ื•ื“ืฉ ื”ื•ืืณ ืณืžื•ืฆืื™ ืฉื‘ืช ื”ื•ืืณ

The term is also referring to one who says to a collector of charity: Do not collect from me first, as that is a bad sign for me; or: Do not collect from me now because it is morning, and it is a bad sign to begin the day with a loss; or: Do not collect from me now because it is the New Moon, and it is a bad sign to begin the month with a loss; or: It is the conclusion of Shabbat and I do not want to begin the week with a loss.

ืชื ื• ืจื‘ื ืŸ ืณืœื ืชื ื—ืฉื• ื•ืœื ืชืขื•ื ื ื•ืณ ื›ื’ื•ืŸ ืืœื• ื”ืžื ื—ืฉื™ื ื‘ื—ื•ืœื“ื” ื‘ืขื•ืคื•ืช ื•ื‘ื“ื’ื™ื

The Sages taught that the verse: โ€œNor shall you practice divination nor soothsayingโ€ (Leviticus 19:26), is referring, for example, to those who divine and receive guidance according to what happens to a weasel, to birds, or to fish.

ืžืชื ื™ืณ ื”ืžื—ืœืœ ืืช ื”ืฉื‘ืช ื‘ื“ื‘ืจ ืฉื—ื™ื™ื‘ื™ืŸ ืขืœ ื–ื“ื•ื ื• ื›ืจืช ื•ืขืœ ืฉื’ื’ืชื• ื—ื˜ืืช

MISHNA: Also liable to be executed by stoning is one who desecrates Shabbat by performing a matter that for its intentional performance one is liable to receive karet and for its unwitting performance one is obligated to bring a sin-offering.

ื’ืžืณ ืžื›ืœืœ ื“ืื™ื›ื ืžื™ื“ื™ ื“ื—ื™ืœื•ืœ ืฉื‘ืช ื”ื•ื™ ื•ืื™ืŸ ื—ื™ื™ื‘ื™ืŸ ืœื ืขืœ ืฉื’ื’ืชื• ื—ื˜ืืช ื•ืœื ืขืœ ื–ื“ื•ื ื• ื›ืจืช

GEMARA: By inference, there is another matter that is a desecration of Shabbat, and it is prohibited by the Torah, but for its unwitting performance one is not obligated to bring a sin-offering, nor does one receive karet for its intentional performance. Otherwise, the statement in the mishna that one is liable for desecrating Shabbat for performing an act for which one receives karet or is obligated to bring a sin-offering would have been superfluous.

ืžืื™ ื”ื™ื ืชื—ื•ืžื™ืŸ ื•ืืœื™ื‘ื ื“ืจื‘ื™ ืขืงื™ื‘ื ื”ื‘ืขืจื” ื•ืืœื™ื‘ื ื“ืจื‘ื™ ื™ื•ืกื™

The Gemara asks: What is the labor activity that desecrates Shabbat but whose punishment is not so severe? The Gemara answers: It is the prohibition against going outside the Shabbat boundaries, which are two thousand cubits beyond a personโ€™s location at the beginning of Shabbat, and it is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Akiva, who holds that although it is a Torah prohibition one is neither obligated to bring a sin-offering for violating it unwittingly nor liable to be executed for violating it intentionally. Alternatively, it may be referring to the prohibition against kindling a fire on Shabbat in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yosei, who holds that contrary to other labors prohibited on Shabbat, this act is not punishable by stoning but by lashes.

ืžืชื ื™ืณ ื”ืžืงืœืœ ืื‘ื™ื• ื•ืืžื• ืื™ื ื• ื—ื™ื™ื‘ ืขื“ ืฉื™ืงืœืœื ื‘ืฉื ืงืœืœื ื‘ื›ื ื•ื™ ืจื‘ื™ ืžืื™ืจ ืžื—ื™ื™ื‘ ื•ื—ื›ืžื™ื ืคื•ื˜ืจื™ืŸ

MISHNA: One who curses his father or his mother is not liable to be executed by stoning unless he curses them with the name of God. If he cursed them with an appellation of the name of God, Rabbi Meir deems him liable, and the Rabbis deem him exempt.

ื’ืžืณ ืžืืŸ ื—ื›ืžื™ื ืจื‘ื™ ืžื ื—ื ื‘ืจื‘ื™ ื™ื•ืกื™ ื”ื•ื ื“ืชื ื™ื ืจื‘ื™ ืžื ื—ื ื‘ืจื‘ื™ ื™ื•ืกื™ ืื•ืžืจ ืณื‘ื ืงื‘ื• ืฉื ื™ื•ืžืชืณ ืžื” ืชืœืžื•ื“ ืœื•ืžืจ ืฉื ืœื™ืžื“ ืขืœ ืžืงืœืœ ืื‘ื™ื• ื•ืืžื• ืฉืื™ื ื• ื—ื™ื™ื‘ ืขื“ ืฉื™ืงืœืœื ื‘ืฉื

GEMARA: Who are the Rabbis mentioned here? It is Rabbi Menaแธฅem, son of Rabbi Yosei. As it is taught in a baraita that Rabbi Menaแธฅem, son of Rabbi Yosei, says: The verse states: โ€œAnd he who blasphemes the name of the Lord shall be put to death; all the congregation shall stone him; the convert as well as the homeborn, when he blasphemes the name he shall be put to deathโ€ (Leviticus 24:16). Why must the verse state โ€œthe nameโ€ a second time, which appears to be a superfluous repetition? This term taught concerning one who transgresses other prohibitions of cursing, e.g., one who curses his father or his mother, that he is not liable to be executed by stoning unless he curses them with the name of God. If he merely uses an appellation, he is exempt.

ืชื ื• ืจื‘ื ืŸ ืณืื™ืฉืณ ืžื” ืชืœืžื•ื“ ืœื•ืžืจ ืณืื™ืฉ ืื™ืฉืณ ืœืจื‘ื•ืช ื‘ืช ื˜ื•ืžื˜ื•ื ื•ืื ื“ืจื•ื’ื™ื ื•ืก

The Sages taught: The verse (Leviticus 20:9) could have stated merely: For a man [ish] that curses his father and his mother shall be put to death; he has cursed his father and his mother; his blood shall be upon him. Why must the verse state: โ€œFor any man [ish ish],โ€ repeating the term ish? It is to include not only a son, but also a daughter, one whose sexual organs are indeterminate [tumtum], and a hermaphrodite [veโ€™androginos].

ืณืืฉืจ ื™ืงืœืœ ืืช ืื‘ื™ื• ื•ืืช ืืžื•ืณ ืื™ืŸ ืœื™ ืืœื ืื‘ื™ื• ื•ืืžื• ืื‘ื™ื• ืฉืœื ืืžื• ืืžื• ืฉืœื ืื‘ื™ื• ืžื ื™ื™ืŸ ืชืœืžื•ื“ ืœื•ืžืจ ืณืื‘ื™ื• ื•ืืžื• ืงืœืœ ื“ืžื™ื• ื‘ื•ืณ ืื‘ื™ื• ืงื™ืœืœ ืืžื• ืงื™ืœืœ ื“ื‘ืจื™ ืจื‘ื™ ื™ืืฉื™ื”

When the verse states: โ€œThat curses his father and his mother,โ€ I have derived only his liability for cursing both his father and his mother. From where do I derive that if one curses his father but not his mother, or his mother but not his father, that he is liable? The continuation of the verse states: โ€œHis father and his mother he has cursed; his blood is upon him.โ€ In the first part of the verse, the word โ€œcursesโ€ is in proximity to โ€œhis father,โ€ and in the last part of the verse, it is in proximity to โ€œhis mother.โ€ This teaches that the verse is referring both to a case where he cursed only his father and to a case where he cursed only his mother; this is the statement of Rabbi Yoshiya.

ืจื‘ื™ ื™ื•ื ืชืŸ ืื•ืžืจ ืžืฉืžืข ืฉื ื™ื”ืŸ ื›ืื—ื“ ื•ืžืฉืžืข ืื—ื“ ื‘ืคื ื™ ืขืฆืžื• ืขื“ ืฉื™ืคืจื•ื˜ ืœืš ื”ื›ืชื•ื‘ ืณื™ื—ื“ื•ืณ

Rabbi Yonatan says: There is no need for this derivation, because the phrase โ€œhis father and his motherโ€ teaches that one is liable if he curses both of them together, and it also teaches that he is liable if he curses either one of them on their own, unless the verse specifies that one is liable only when he curses both together, which it does not do in this case.

ืณืžื•ืช ื™ื•ืžืชืณ ื‘ืกืงื™ืœื” ืืชื” ืื•ืžืจ ื‘ืกืงื™ืœื” ืื• ืื™ื ื• ืืœื ื‘ืื—ืช ืžื›ืœ ืžื™ืชื•ืช ื”ืืžื•ืจื•ืช ื‘ืชื•ืจื” ื ืืžืจ ื›ืืŸ ืณื“ืžื™ื• ื‘ื•ืณ ื•ื ืืžืจ ืœื”ืœืŸ ืณื“ืžื™ื”ื ื‘ืืณ ืžื” ืœื”ืœืŸ ื‘ืกืงื™ืœื” ืืฃ ื›ืืŸ ื‘ืกืงื™ืœื”

From the phrase โ€œshall be put to deathโ€ it is derived that his punishment is execution by stoning. The baraita asks: Do you say that that they are executed by stoning, or is it rather by one of all the other types of death penalty stated in the Torah? The baraita answers: It is stated here: โ€œHis blood shall be upon him,โ€ and it is stated below, with regard to a necromancer and a sorcerer: โ€œThey shall be put to death; they shall stone them with stones; their blood shall be upon themโ€ (Leviticus 20:27). Just as there the verse states that a necromancer and a sorcerer are executed by stoning, so too here, with regard to one who curses his father or mother, he is executed by stoning.

ืขื•ื ืฉ ืฉืžืขื ื• ืื–ื”ืจื” ืžื ื™ื™ืŸ ืชืœืžื•ื“ ืœื•ืžืจ ืณืืœื”ื™ื ืœื ืชืงืœืœืณ ื•ื’ื•ืณ ืื ื”ื™ื” ืื‘ื™ื• ื“ื™ื™ืŸ ื”ืจื™ ื”ื•ื ื‘ื›ืœืœ ืณืืœื”ื™ื ืœื ืชืงืœืœืณ ื•ืื ื”ื™ื” ืื‘ื™ื• ื ืฉื™ื ื”ืจื™ ื”ื•ื ื‘ื›ืœืœ ืณื•ื ืฉื™ื ื‘ืขืžืš ืœื ืชืืจืณ

The baraita asks: We have learned the punishment of one who curses his parent; from where is the prohibition against doing so derived? The verse states: โ€œYou shall not blaspheme judges [elohim], nor curse a king of your peopleโ€ (Exodus 22:27). If his father was a judge, cursing him is included in the prohibition of: โ€œYou shall not blaspheme judges,โ€ as it is prohibited for all people to curse a judge. And if his father was a king, cursing him is included in the prohibition of: โ€œNor curse a king of your people.โ€

ืื™ื ื• ืœื ื“ื™ื™ืŸ ื•ืœื ื ืฉื™ื ืžื ื™ื™ืŸ ืืžืจืช ื”ืจื™ ืืชื” ื“ืŸ ื‘ื ื™ืŸ ืื‘ ืžืฉื ื™ื”ืŸ ืœื ืจืื™ ื ืฉื™ื ื›ืจืื™ ื“ื™ื™ืŸ ื•ืœื ืจืื™ ื“ื™ื™ืŸ ื›ืจืื™ ื ืฉื™ื

If he is neither a judge nor a king, from where is it derived that it is prohibited to curse him? One can say: You derive it through a paradigm arrived at from both of them as follows: The defining characteristic of a king is not like the defining characteristic of a judge, and the defining characteristic of a judge is not like the defining characteristic of a king. The two cases are dissimilar.

ืœื ืจืื™ ื“ื™ื™ืŸ ื›ืจืื™ ื ืฉื™ื ืฉื”ืจื™ ื“ื™ื™ืŸ ืืชื” ืžืฆื•ื•ื” ืขืœ ื”ื•ืจืืชื• ื›ืจืื™ ื ืฉื™ื ืฉืื™ ืืชื” ืžืฆื•ื•ื” ืขืœ ื”ื•ืจืืชื• ื•ืœื ืจืื™ ื ืฉื™ื ื›ืจืื™ ื“ื™ื™ืŸ ืฉื”ื ืฉื™ื ืืชื” ืžืฆื•ื•ื” ืขืœ ื”ืžืจืืชื• ื›ืจืื™ ื“ื™ื™ืŸ ืฉืื™ ืืชื” ืžืฆื•ื•ื” ืขืœ ื”ืžืจืืชื•

The baraita elaborates: The defining characteristic of a judge is not like the defining characteristic of a king, as with regard to a judge, you are commanded with regard to obeying his halakhic ruling. This is not like the defining characteristic of a king, with regard to whose halakhic ruling you are not commanded to obey. And the defining characteristic of a king is not like the defining characteristic of a judge, as with regard to the king, you are commanded with regard to rebelling against him, i.e., refusing to obey his order. This is not like the defining characteristic of a judge, as you are not commanded with regard to rebelling against him.

ื”ืฆื“ ื”ืฉื•ื” ืฉื‘ื”ื ืฉื”ืŸ ื‘ืขืžืš ื•ืืชื” ืžื•ื–ื”ืจ ืขืœ ืงืœืœืชืŸ ืืฃ ืื ื™ ืื‘ื™ื ืื‘ื™ืš ืฉื‘ืขืžืš ื•ืืชื” ืžื•ื–ื”ืจ ืขืœ ืงืœืœืชื•

Their common denominator is that they are โ€œof your people,โ€ i.e., they are members of the Jewish people, and you are prohibited from cursing them. I too will include the case of your father, as he is โ€œof your people,โ€ and therefore you are prohibited from cursing him.

ืžื” ืœื”ืฆื“ ื”ืฉื•ื” ืฉื‘ื”ืŸ ืฉื›ืŸ ื’ื“ื•ืœืชืŸ ื’ืจืžื” ืœื”ืŸ

This derivation is insufficient, as what is notable about their common denominator, i.e., another element that they share in common? It is notable in that their prominence has caused them to be entitled to an exceptional degree of respect; they are not merely โ€œof your people.โ€ Therefore, perhaps the prohibition against cursing applies only to such prominent figures.

ืชืœืžื•ื“ ืœื•ืžืจ ืณืœื ืชืงืœืœ ื—ืจืฉืณ ื‘ืื•ืžืœืœื™ื ืฉื‘ืขืžืš ื”ื›ืชื•ื‘ ืžื“ื‘ืจ

The baraita continues: Consequently, a third case is necessary to arrive at the required paradigm. The verse states: โ€œYou shall not curse the deaf, nor put a stumbling block before the blindโ€ (Leviticus 19:14). The verse speaks of the wretched of your people. From the fact that it is prohibited to curse even those people, it can be derived that it is prohibited to curse anyone.

ืžื” ืœื—ืจืฉ ืฉื›ืŸ ื—ืจื™ืฉืชื• ื’ืจืžื” ืœื•

Deriving this halakha from the case of a deaf person is also insufficient, as what is notable about the case of a deaf person? It is notable in that his deafness has caused cursing him to be prohibited. Perhaps the only reason it is prohibited to curse him is that he is deaf, just as it is prohibited to mislead the blind.

ื ืฉื™ื ื•ื“ื™ื™ืŸ ื™ื•ื›ื™ื—ื• ืžื” ืœื ืฉื™ื ื•ื“ื™ื™ืŸ ืฉื›ืŸ ื’ื“ื•ืœืชืŸ ื’ืจืžื” ืœื”ืŸ ื—ืจืฉ ื™ื•ื›ื™ื—

One can respond: The prohibition against cursing a king and a judge can prove that it is prohibited to curse anyone, as it is prohibited to curse them even though they are not wretched. And if the proof from these cases is rejected, as one can claim that what is notable about a king and a judge is that their prominence has caused them to be entitled to this respect, then the prohibition against cursing the deaf can prove that prominence is not a determining factor.

ื•ื—ื–ืจ ื”ื“ื™ืŸ ืœื ืจืื™ ื–ื” ื›ืจืื™ ื–ื” ื•ืœื ืจืื™ ื–ื” ื›ืจืื™ ื–ื” ื”ืฆื“ ื”ืฉื•ื” ืฉื‘ื”ืŸ ืฉื”ืŸ ื‘ืขืžืš ื•ืืชื” ืžื•ื–ื”ืจ ืขืœ ืงืœืœืชืŸ ืืฃ ืื ื™ ืื‘ื™ื ืื‘ื™ืš ืฉื‘ืขืžืš ื•ืืชื” ืžื•ื–ื”ืจ ืขืœ ืงืœืœืชื•

And the inference has reverted to its starting point. At this point the halakha is derived from a combination of the three cases: The defining characteristic of this case, i.e., that of a ruler and a judge, is not like the defining characteristic of that case, i.e., that of a deaf person, and the defining characteristic of that case is not like the defining characteristic of this case; their common denominator is that they are โ€œof your people,โ€ and you are prohibited from cursing them. I too will include the case of your father, who is โ€œof your people,โ€ and therefore you are prohibited from cursing him.

ืžื” ืœืฆื“ ื”ืฉื•ื” ืฉื‘ื”ืŸ ืฉื›ืŸ ืžืฉื•ื ื™ืŸ

The baraita refutes this derivation: What is notable about their common dominator? It is notable in that they are unusual, i.e., they are not common people, but they are in some way different from others. Perhaps there is no prohibition against cursing an ordinary person.

ืืœื ืื ื›ืŸ ื ื›ืชื•ื‘ ืงืจื ืื• ืืœื”ื™ื ื•ื—ืจืฉ ืื• ื ืฉื™ื ื•ื—ืจืฉ ืืœื”ื™ื ืœืžื” ืœื™ ืื ืื™ื ื• ืขื ื™ืŸ ืœื’ื•ืคื• ืชื ื”ื• ืขื ื™ืŸ ืœืื‘ื™ื•

Rather, this proof is insufficient, and the baraita states a different explanation: If it is so that it is prohibited to curse only unusual people, let the verse write either that it is prohibited to curse judges and the deaf, or that it is prohibited to curse a king and the deaf, and it would have been derived from these two cases that the prohibition applies to all unusual people. Why do I need the verse to state a special prohibition with regard to judges? It is superfluous, as judges are also extraordinary people. Rather, if the verse is not needed for its own matter, i.e., the prohibition against cursing judges, apply it to the matter of cursing oneโ€™s father.

ื”ื ื™ื—ื ืœืžืืŸ ื“ืืžืจ ืืœื”ื™ื ื—ื•ืœ ืืœื ืœืžืืŸ ื“ืืžืจ ืงื•ื“ืฉ ืžืื™ ืื™ื›ื ืœืžื™ืžืจ

The Gemara asks: This works out well according to the one who says that in the verse: โ€œYou shall not blaspheme elohimโ€ (Exodus 22:27), the word โ€œelohimโ€ is non-sacred, as it is referring to judges. But according to the one who says that the word is sacred, as it is referring to God, what can be said? If the verse is not superfluous, as it is needed to state a special prohibition with regard to God, how is the prohibition against cursing oneโ€™s parents derived from it?

ื“ืชื ื™ื ืณืืœื”ื™ืืณ ื—ื•ืœ ื“ื‘ืจื™ ืจื‘ื™ ื™ืฉืžืขืืœ ืจื‘ื™ ืขืงื™ื‘ื ืื•ืžืจ ืณืืœื”ื™ืืณ ืงื•ื“ืฉ ื•ืชื ื™ื ืจื‘ื™ ืืœื™ืขื–ืจ ื‘ืŸ ื™ืขืงื‘ ืื•ืžืจ ืื–ื”ืจื” ืœืžื‘ืจืš ืืช ื”ืฉื ืžื ื™ื™ืŸ ืชืœืžื•ื“ ืœื•ืžืจ ืณืืœื”ื™ื ืœื ืชืงืœืœืณ

As it is taught in a baraita: The word โ€œelohimโ€ in this verse is non-sacred; this is the statement of Rabbi Yishmael. Rabbi Akiva says: The word โ€œElohimโ€ is sacred. And it is taught in a different baraita that Rabbi Eliezer ben Yaโ€™akov says: From where is the prohibition against one who blesses, i.e., curses, the name of God, derived? The verse states: โ€œYou shall not blaspheme God [Elohim].โ€

ืœืžืืŸ ื“ืืžืจ ืืœื”ื™ื ื—ื•ืœ ื’ืžืจ ืงื•ื“ืฉ ืžื—ื•ืœ ืœืžืืŸ ื“ืืžืจ ืืœื”ื™ื ืงื•ื“ืฉ ื’ืžืจื™ื ืŸ ื—ื•ืœ ืžืงื•ื“ืฉ

The Gemara answers: According to the one who says that โ€œelohimโ€ is non-sacred, he derives the prohibition according to the sacred meaning of the word from the non-sacred meaning, i.e., he derives the prohibition against cursing God from the prohibition against cursing judges. According to the one who says that โ€œElohimโ€ is sacred, we derive the prohibition according to the non-sacred meaning of the word from the sacred meaning, i.e., he derives the prohibition against cursing judges from the prohibition against cursing God.

ื‘ืฉืœืžื ืœืžืืŸ ื“ืืžืจ ืืœื”ื™ื ื—ื•ืœ ื’ืžืจ ืงื•ื“ืฉ ืžื—ื•ืœ ืืœื ืœืžืืŸ ื“ืืžืจ ืืœื”ื™ื ืงื•ื“ืฉ ื’ืžืจ ื—ื•ืœ ืžืงื•ื“ืฉ ื“ื™ืœืžื ืืงื•ื“ืฉ ืื–ื”ืจ ืื—ื•ืœ ืœื ืื–ื”ืจ

The Gemara asks: Granted, according to the one who says that โ€œelohimโ€ is non-sacred, he can derive the prohibition according to the sacred meaning of the word from the non-sacred meaning through an a fortiori inference. But according to the one who says that โ€œElohimโ€ is sacred, can he derive the prohibition according to the non-sacred meaning from the sacred meaning? Perhaps the Torah renders it prohibited to curse God, in accordance with the sacred meaning of the word, but it does not render it prohibited to curse elohim, judges, in accordance with the non-sacred meaning.

ืื ื›ืŸ ืœื›ืชื•ื‘ ืงืจื ืœื ืชืงืœ

The Gemara answers: If so, if it is prohibited to curse God but not judges, let the verse write: You shall not treat lightly [takel], instead of: โ€œYou shall not blaspheme [tekallel]โ€; it would have been derived from this wording that is prohibited to demean or curse God.

ืžืื™ ืœื ืชืงืœืœ ืฉืžืข ืžื™ื ื” ืชืจืชื™

What halakha can be derived from the seemingly superfluous second letter lamed, which renders the expression: โ€œYou shall not curse [tekallel]โ€? Conclude from it that this expression includes two prohibitions: A prohibition against cursing God and a prohibition against cursing a judge.

ืžืชื ื™ืณ ื”ื‘ื ืขืœ ื ืขืจื” ื”ืžืื•ืจืกื” ืื™ื ื• ื—ื™ื™ื‘ ืขื“ ืฉืชื”ื ื ืขืจื” ื‘ืชื•ืœื” ืžืื•ืจืกื” ื•ื”ื™ื ื‘ื‘ื™ืช ืื‘ื™ื” ื‘ืื• ืขืœื™ื” ืฉื ื™ื ื”ืจืืฉื•ืŸ ื‘ืกืงื™ืœื” ื•ื”ืฉื ื™ ื‘ื—ื ืง

MISHNA: One who engages in intercourse with a betrothed young woman is not liable to be executed by stoning unless she is a young woman, i.e., neither a minor nor an adult; a virgin; betrothed but not yet married; and she lives in her fatherโ€™s home, having yet to move in with her husband. If two men engaged in intercourse with her, the first is liable to be executed by stoning, and the second is liable to be executed by strangulation. The second man is executed in this manner in accordance with the halakha of one who engages in intercourse with a married or non-virgin betrothed woman, as she was no longer a virgin when he engaged in intercourse with her.

ื’ืžืณ ืชื ื• ืจื‘ื ืŸ ืณื ืขืจื”ืณ ื•ืœื ื‘ื•ื’ืจืช ืณื‘ืชื•ืœื”ืณ ื•ืœื ื‘ืขื•ืœื” ืณืžืื•ืจืกื”ืณ ื•ืœื ื ืฉื•ืื” ืณื‘ื‘ื™ืช ืื‘ื™ื”ืณ ืคืจื˜ ืœืฉืžืกืจ ื”ืื‘ ืœืฉืœื•ื—ื™ ื”ื‘ืขืœ

GEMARA: The Sages taught with regard to the conditions stated in the mishna: The punishment of stoning applies only if the woman is a young woman, a category that applies until she is approximately twelve-and-a-half years of age, but not a grown woman. She must be a virgin but not a non-virgin. She must be betrothed but not married. She must be living in her fatherโ€™s home, excluding a case where the father transferred his daughter to the husbandโ€™s agents to bring her to her husbandโ€™s home for the purpose of marriage; in such a case, even though she has not arrived there yet, she is already considered a married woman according to halakha.

ืืžืจ ืจื‘ ื™ื”ื•ื“ื” ืืžืจ ืจื‘ ื–ื• ื“ื‘ืจื™ ืจื‘ื™ ืžืื™ืจ ืื‘ืœ ื—ื›ืžื™ื ืื•ืžืจื™ื ื ืขืจื” ื”ืžืื•ืจืกื” ืืคื™ืœื• ืงื˜ื ื” ื‘ืžืฉืžืข

Rav Yehuda says that Rav says: This mishna is the statement of Rabbi Meir, who holds that the halakha of a betrothed young woman applies to a young woman of the intermediate age between minority and adulthood. But the Rabbis say: Even a minor is included in the term: A betrothed young woman; only a grown woman is excluded.

ืืžืจ ืœื™ื” ืจื‘ ืื—ื ืžื“ืคืชื™ ืœืจื‘ื™ื ื ืžืžืื™ ื“ืžืชื ื™ืชื™ืŸ ืจื‘ื™ ืžืื™ืจ ื”ื™ื ื•ืœืžืขื•ื˜ื™ ืงื˜ื ื” ื ืžื™ ื“ื™ืœืžื ืจื‘ื ืŸ ื”ื™ื ื•ืœืžืขื•ื˜ื™ ื‘ื•ื’ืจืช ื•ืชื• ืœื

Rav Aแธฅa of Difti said to Ravina: From where is it indicated that the mishna is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Meir, and the specification that she must be a young woman is not only to the exclusion of a grown woman but also to the exclusion of a minor girl? Perhaps the mishna is in accordance with the opinion of the Rabbis, and the condition that she must be a young woman is to the exclusion of a grown woman and nothing more. Accordingly, one who engages in intercourse with an engaged minor girl is liable to be executed by stoning.

ืืžืจ ืœื™ื” ื”ืื™ ืื™ื ื• ื—ื™ื™ื‘ ืขื“ ืฉืชื”ื ื ืขืจื” ื‘ืชื•ืœื” ืžืื•ืจืกื” ืื™ื ื• ื—ื™ื™ื‘ ืืœื ืขืœ ื ืขืจื” ื‘ืชื•ืœื” ืžืื•ืจืกื” ืžื™ื‘ืขื™ ืœื™ื” ื•ืชื• ืœื ืžื™ื“ื™

Ravina said to him: This expression in the mishna: Is not liable unless she is [ad shetehe] a young woman, a virgin, betrothed, does not suit your suggested explanation. If the mishna is merely excluding a grown woman, it should have stated: Is liable only for engaging in intercourse with a young woman who is a virgin and betrothed. The expression ad shetehe indicates: Until she becomes, i.e., this halakha does not apply until she reaches the age of a young woman. And there is nothing more to be said on the matter, as this is clearly the intention of the mishna.

ื‘ืขื ืžื™ื ื™ื” ืจื‘ื™ ื™ืขืงื‘ ื‘ืจ ืื“ื ืžืจื‘ ื‘ื ืขืœ ื”ืงื˜ื ื” ืžืื•ืจืกื” ืœืจื‘ื™ ืžืื™ืจ ืžื”ื• ืœื’ืžืจื™ ืžืžืขื™ื˜ ืœื™ื” ืื• ืžืกืงื™ืœื” ืžืžืขื™ื˜ ืœื™ื” ืืžืจ ืœื™ื” ืžืกืชื‘ืจื ืžืกืงื™ืœื” ืžืžืขื˜ ืœื™ื”

Rabbi Yaโ€™akov bar Adda asked Rav: In the case of a man who engaged in intercourse with a betrothed minor girl, what is the halakha according to the opinion of Rabbi Meir? Does Rabbi Meir exclude him from punishment entirely, or does he exclude him merely from stoning but he is executed by strangulation, like one who engages in intercourse with any other married woman? Rav said to him: It stands to reason that Rabbi Meir excludes him from stoning alone, but he is liable to be executed by strangulation.

ื•ื”ื›ืชื™ื‘ ื•ืžืชื• ื’ื ืฉื ื™ื”ื ืขื“ ืฉื™ื”ื• ืฉื ื™ื”ืŸ ืฉื•ื™ืŸ ืฉืชื™ืง ืจื‘

Rabbi Yaโ€™akov bar Adda raised an objection to this answer: But isnโ€™t it written: โ€œIf a man is found lying with a woman married to a husband, then they shall both die, the man who lies with the woman, and the womanโ€ (Deuteronomy 22:22), indicating that this punishment does not apply unless they are both equally subject to punishment? If so, one who engages in intercourse with a betrothed minor girl is exempt, as she is not halakhically competent. Rav remained silent and did not answer him.

ืืžืจ ืฉืžื•ืืœ ืžืื™ ื˜ืขืžื ืฉืชื™ืง ืจื‘ ื•ื ื™ืžื ืœื™ื” ื•ืžืช ื”ืื™ืฉ ืืฉืจ ืฉื›ื‘ ืขืžื” ืœื‘ื“ื•

Shmuel says: What is the reason that Rav remained silent? Why not say to Rabbi Yaโ€™akov that his premise is repudiated by the verse: โ€œBut if the man finds the betrothed young woman in the field, and the man takes hold of her, and lies with her, then the man who lay with her alone shall dieโ€ (Deuteronomy 22:25)? This verse proves that the punishment of stoning applies to the man even if the woman is exempt. The halakha of a man who engages in intercourse with a betrothed minor should be the same.

ื›ืชื ืื™ ืณื•ืžืชื• ื’ื ืฉื ื™ื”ืืณ ืขื“ ืฉื™ื”ื• ืฉื ื™ื”ืŸ ืฉื•ื™ืŸ ื“ื‘ืจื™ ืจื‘ื™ ื™ืืฉื™ื” ืจื‘ื™ ื™ื•ื ืชืŸ ืื•ืžืจ ืณื•ืžืช ื”ืื™ืฉ ืืฉืจ ืฉื›ื‘ ืขืžื” ืœื‘ื“ื•ืณ

The Gemara answers that this matter is subject to a dispute between tannaโ€™im, as is taught in a baraita: The verse states: โ€œThen they shall both dieโ€ (Deuteronomy 22:22), indicating that this halakha does not apply unless they are both equally subject to punishment. If one of them cannot be punished, e.g., because he or she is a minor, the other is not executed either. This is the statement of Rabbi Yoshiya. Rabbi Yonatan says that the phrase from the verse โ€œthen the man who lay with her alone shall dieโ€ indicates that in some cases only one of them is liable to receive the death penalty.

ื•ืื™ื“ืš ื”ื”ื™ื ื•ืžืชื• ื’ื ืฉื ื™ื”ื ืžืื™ ื“ืจื™ืฉ ื‘ื™ื” ืืžืจ ืจื‘ื ืœืžืขื•ื˜ื™ ืžืขืฉื” ื—ื™ื“ื•ื“ื™ื ื•ืื™ื“ืš ืžืขืฉื” ื—ื™ื“ื•ื“ื™ื ืœืื• ื›ืœื•ื ื”ื™ื

The Gemara asks: And what does the other tanna, Rabbi Yonatan, who holds that this punishment applies even if only one party is subject to punishment, derive from the verse: โ€œThen they shall both dieโ€? Rava says: That verse is stated to exclude an act of sharpening, i.e., engaging in sexual contact with a woman without penetration. Since the man and woman do not equally receive pleasure from such an act, it is not considered sexual intercourse, and they are exempt. And the other tanna, Rabbi Yoshiya, holds that an act of sharpening is nothing; there is clearly no liability for such an act, and it is unnecessary to derive this halakha from the verse.

ื•ืื™ื“ืš ื”ืื™ ืœื‘ื“ื• ืžืื™ ื“ืจื™ืฉ ื‘ื™ื”

The Gemara asks: And what does the other tanna, Rabbi Yoshiya, who holds that they must be equally subject to punishment, derive from the verse โ€œThen the man who lay with her alone shall dieโ€?

ื›ื“ืชื ื™ื ื‘ืื• ืขืœื™ื” ืขืฉืจื” ื‘ื ื™ ืื“ื ื•ืขื“ื™ื™ืŸ ื”ื™ื ื‘ืชื•ืœื” ื›ื•ืœื ื‘ืกืงื™ืœื” ืจื‘ื™ ืื•ืžืจ ื”ืจืืฉื•ืŸ ื‘ืกืงื™ืœื” ื•ื›ื•ืœืŸ ื‘ื—ื ืง

The Gemara answers: He derives another halakha, as it is taught in a baraita: If ten men engaged in intercourse with a betrothed young woman, and she is still a virgin, as they engaged in anal intercourse with her, they are all liable to be executed by stoning. Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi says: The first of them is executed by stoning, and all the rest of them are executed by strangulation. Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi derives from the phrase in the verse โ€œThen the man who lay with her alone shall dieโ€ that although the woman is still a virgin, only one man can be executed by stoning for engaging in intercourse with her. The others are executed by strangulation, in accordance with the halakha of one who engages in intercourse with a married woman or a betrothed non-virgin.

ืชื ื• ืจื‘ื ืŸ ืณื•ื‘ืช ืื™ืฉ ื›ื”ืŸ ื›ื™ ืชื—ืœ ืœื–ื ื•ืชืณ ืจื‘ื™ ืื•ืžืจ ืชื—ื™ืœื” ื•ื›ืŸ ื”ื•ื ืื•ืžืจ ืณื•ืžืช ื”ืื™ืฉ ืืฉืจ ืฉื›ื‘ ืขืžื” ืœื‘ื“ื•ืณ

ยง The Sages taught: The verse states: โ€œAnd the daughter of any priest, if she profanes [teแธฅel] herself by playing the harlot, she profanes her father; she shall be burned with fireโ€ (Leviticus 21:9). Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi says: The word teแธฅel means first [teแธฅila]; and likewise it says: โ€œThen the man who lay with her alone shall dieโ€ (Deuteronomy 22:25).

ืžืื™ ืงืืžืจ ืืžืจ ืจื‘ ื”ื•ื ื ื‘ืจื™ื” ื“ืจื‘ ื™ื”ื•ืฉืข ืจื‘ื™ ื›ืจื‘ื™ ื™ืฉืžืขืืœ ืกื‘ื™ืจื ืœื™ื” ื“ืืžืจ ืืจื•ืกื” ื™ืฆืื” ืœืฉืจื™ืคื” ื•ืœื ื ืฉื•ืื” ื•ื”ื›ื™ ืงืืžืจ ืื ืชื—ื™ืœืช ื‘ื™ืื” ื‘ื–ื ื•ืช ื‘ืฉืจื™ืคื” ืื™ื“ืš ื‘ื—ื ืง

The Gemara asks: What is Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi saying? Rav Huna, son of Rav Yehoshua, says: Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi holds in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yishmael, who says that only the betrothed daughter of a priest is singled out for execution by burning, but not one who is married; a married daughter of a priest who commits adultery is executed in the same manner as other women who commit adultery. And this is what Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi is saying: If a womanโ€™s first act of sexual intercourse occurs when she commits adultery, as she is still betrothed, she is executed by burning; in another case, i.e., if she is already married and this is not the first time she engages in sexual intercourse, she is executed by strangulation.

ืžืื™ ื•ื›ืŸ ื›ื™ ื”ืชื ืžื” ื”ืชื ื‘ืชื—ื™ืœืช ื‘ื™ืื” ืงืžืฉืชืขื™ ืงืจื ื”ื›ื ื ืžื™ ื‘ืชื—ื™ืœืช ื‘ื™ืื” ืงืžืฉืชืขื™ ืงืจื

The Gemara asks: What is the meaning of the end of Rabbi Yehuda HaNasiโ€™s statement: And likewise it says: โ€œThen the man who lay with her alone shall dieโ€? What is the relevance of that verse to this issue? The Gemara answers: Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi means to say that the halakha here, in the case of a betrothed young woman who is the daughter of a priest, is like there. Just as there, with regard to a betrothed young woman who is not the daughter of a priest, the verse speaks of her first intercourse, here too, the verse speaks of her first intercourse.

ืืžืจ ืœื™ื” ืจื‘ ื‘ื™ื‘ื™ ื‘ืจ ืื‘ื™ื™ ืžืจ ืœื ื”ื›ื™ ืืžืจ ื•ืžื ื• ืจื‘ ื™ื•ืกืฃ

Rav Beivai bar Abaye said to Rav Huna, son of Rav Yehoshua: My Master does not say, i.e., does not explain the statement of Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi, like that. The Gemara comments: And who is his Master? Rav Yosef.

ืจื‘ื™ ื›ืจื‘ื™ ืžืื™ืจ ืกื‘ื™ืจื ืœื™ื” ื“ืืžืจ ื ืฉืืช ืœืื—ื“ ืžืŸ ื”ืคืกื•ืœื™ืŸ ืžื™ืชืชื” ื‘ื—ื ืง

Rather, he explains the statement of Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi as follows: Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi holds in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Meir, who says: In the case of the daughter of a priest who married one of the men unfit for her, e.g., a mamzer, and committed adultery while married to him, her death sentence is administered by strangulation and not by burning.

ื•ื”ื›ื™ ืงืืžืจ ืื ืชื—ื™ืœืช ืื—ืœืชื” ื‘ื–ื ื•ืช ื‘ืฉืจื™ืคื” ื•ืื™ื“ืš ื‘ื—ื ืง ื•ืžืื™ ื•ื›ืŸ

And this is what Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi is saying: If she first profanes herself, i.e., disqualifies herself from the priesthood, by committing adultery, she is executed by burning, but in another case, where she was already disqualified from the priesthood by marrying a man unfit for her, she is executed by strangulation. And what is the meaning of the end of Rabbi Yehuda HaNasiโ€™s statement: And likewise it says: โ€œThen the man who lied with her alone shall dieโ€?

Scroll To Top