Search

Sanhedrin 50

Want to dedicate learning? Get started here:

podcast placeholder

0:00
0:00




Summary

The rabbis and Rabbi Shimon present conflicting views on how to rank the four death penalties by severity. The Gemara examines both positions in detail, exploring the textual and logical proofs each side uses to support their ordering. For the rabbis’ position, the Gemara investigates the basis for claiming that stoning is the most severe, followed by burning, then execution by sword, and finally strangulation as the least severe. It similarly examines Rabbi Shimon’s reasoning for ranking burning as more severe than both death by the sword and strangulation, stoning as more severe than the sword and strangulation, and finally, strangulation as more severe than the sword.

This fundamental disagreement about the death penalties’ relative severity is based on other disputes between the rabbis and Rabbi Shimon regarding capital punishment. One such case involves a betrothed daughter of a kohen (priest) who commits adultery. The rabbis maintain she should be stoned, following the law for any betrothed woman who commits adultery. Rabbi Shimon, however, rules she should be burned, treating her case like a married kohen’s daughter. They also differ on the punishment for someone who leads a city into idol worship – the rabbis prescribe stoning, and Rabbi Shimon strangulation.

Today’s daily daf tools:

Sanhedrin 50

קָסָבְרִי רַבָּנַן: נְשׂוּאָה יוֹצְאָה לִשְׂרֵיפָה, וְלֹא אֲרוּסָה. וּמִדְּאַפְּקַהּ רַחֲמָנָא לַאֲרוּסָה בִּסְקִילָה, שְׁמַע מִינַּהּ: סְקִילָה חֲמוּרָה.

The Gemara answers: The Rabbis hold that only the married daughter of a priest who committed adultery is singled out from all those who commit adultery, for burning, but not one who is betrothed, as a betrothed woman who committed adultery, whether or not she is the daughter of a priest, is executed by stoning. And since the Merciful One singles out a betrothed woman who is not married from all married women who commit adultery, to be executed by stoning, conclude from it that stoning is more severe than burning.

סְקִילָה חֲמוּרָה מִסַּיִיף, שֶׁכֵּן נִיתְּנָה לִמְגַדֵּף וּלְעוֹבֵד עֲבוֹדָה זָרָה. וּמַאי חוּמְרָא? כְּדַאֲמַרַן.

Stoning is considered more severe than decapitation by the sword, as it is meted out to one who blasphemes and to one who worships idols. And for what reason is the severity of these transgressions considered greater than others? As we said, it is because the transgressors undermine the fundamental tenets of Judaism.

אַדְּרַבָּה: סַיִיף חָמוּר, שֶׁכֵּן נִיתַּן לְאַנְשֵׁי עִיר הַנִּדַּחַת. וּמַאי חוּמְרָא? שֶׁכֵּן מָמוֹנָן אָבֵד.

The Gemara raises an objection: On the contrary; decapitation by the sword would appear to be more severe than stoning, as it is meted out to the people of an idolatrous city, who also undermine the fundamental tenets of Judaism. And for what reason is the severity of this case of an idolatrous city considered greater than others? Because the transgressors are not only executed, their property is destroyed as well.

אָמַרְתָּ: אֵיזֶה כֹּחַ מְרוּבֶּה, כֹּחַ הַמַּדִּיחַ אוֹ כֹּחַ הַנִּידָּח? הֱוֵי אוֹמֵר: כֹּחַ הַמַּדִּיחַ. וְתַנְיָא: מַדִּיחֵי עִיר הַנִּדַּחַת – בִּסְקִילָה.

The Gemara answers: In response to this objection, you should say: The severity of which transgression is greater: The severity of the transgression of the one who subverts the city, inciting them to sin, or the severity of the transgression of the subverted? You must say that the severity of the transgression of the subverter is greater. And it is taught in a baraita: The subverters of an idolatrous city are executed by stoning. Evidently, stoning is a more severe type of execution than decapitation.

סְקִילָה חֲמוּרָה מֵחֶנֶק, שֶׁכֵּן נִיתַּן לִמְגַדֵּף וּלְעוֹבֵד עֲבוֹדָה זָרָה. וּמַאי חוּמְרָא? כְּדַאֲמַרַן.

Stoning is considered more severe than strangulation, as it is meted out to one who blasphemes and to one who worships idols. And for what reason is the severity of these transgressions considered greater? As we said, it is because the transgressors undermine the fundamental tenets of Judaism.

אַדְּרַבָּה: חֶנֶק חָמוּר – שֶׁכֵּן נִיתַּן לְמַכֵּה אָבִיו וְאִמּוֹ. וּמַאי חוּמְרָא? שֶׁכֵּן הוּקַּשׁ כְּבוֹדָן לִכְבוֹד הַמָּקוֹם.

The Gemara raises an objection: On the contrary; strangulation is more severe, as it is meted out to one who wounds his father or his mother. And for what reason is the severity of this transgression considered greater? Because the honor of one’s parents is compared to the honor of the Omnipresent (see Kiddushin 30b).

מִדְּאַפְּקֵיהּ רַחֲמָנָא לַאֲרוּסָה בַּת יִשְׂרָאֵל מִכְּלַל נְשׂוּאָה בַּת יִשְׂרָאֵל מֵחֶנֶק לִסְקִילָה, שְׁמַע מִינַּהּ: סְקִילָה חֲמוּרָה.

The Gemara answers: Since the Merciful One singles out the case of a betrothed Jewish woman from the category of a married Jewish woman, changing the punishment of a betrothed Jewish woman who committed adultery from strangulation to stoning, conclude from it that stoning is more severe.

שְׂרֵיפָה חֲמוּרָה מִסַּיִיף, שֶׁכֵּן נִיתְּנָה לְבַת כֹּהֵן שֶׁזִּינְּתָה. וּמַאי חוּמְרָא? שֶׁכֵּן מְחַלֶּלֶת אֶת אָבִיהָ.

Burning is considered more severe than decapitation by the sword, as it is meted out to a priest’s daughter who committed adultery. And for what reason is the severity of this transgression considered greater than others? Because she profanes both herself and her father.

אַדְּרַבָּה: סַיִיף חָמוּר, שֶׁכֵּן נִיתַּן לְאַנְשֵׁי עִיר הַנִּדַּחַת. וּמַאי חוּמְרָא? שֶׁכֵּן מָמוֹנָן אָבֵד.

The Gemara raises an objection: On the contrary; decapitation by the sword is more severe, as it is meted out to the people of an idolatrous city. And for what reason is the severity of this case considered greater? Because the transgressors are not only executed, their property is destroyed as well.

נֶאֱמַר ״אָבִיהָ״ בִּסְקִילָה, וְנֶאֱמַר ״אָבִיהָ״ בִּשְׂרֵיפָה. מָה ״אָבִיהָ״ הָאָמוּר בִּסְקִילָה – סְקִילָה חֲמוּרָה מִסַּיִיף, אַף ״אָבִיהָ״ הָאָמוּר בִּשְׂרֵיפָה – שְׂרֵיפָה חֲמוּרָה מִסַּיִיף.

The Gemara answers: The severity of burning is derived by means of a verbal analogy. The term “her father” is stated with regard to stoning, in the verse: “And the men of her city shall stone her with stones and she shall die, because she has done a depraved thing in Israel, to play the harlot in the house of her father” (Deuteronomy 22:21), and the term “her father” is stated with regard to burning, in the verse: “And the daughter of a priest, when she profanes herself by playing the harlot, she profanes her father; she shall be burned with fire” (Leviticus 21:9). Therefore, just as concerning the term “her father” that is stated with regard to stoning it is established that stoning is more severe than decapitation by the sword, so too, concerning the term “her father” that is stated with regard to burning, it may be established that burning is more severe than decapitation by the sword.

שְׂרֵיפָה חֲמוּרָה מֵחֶנֶק, שֶׁכֵּן נִיתְּנָה לְבַת כֹּהֵן שֶׁזִּינְּתָה. וּמַאי חוּמְרָא? כְּדַאֲמַרַן.

Burning is considered more severe than strangulation, as it is meted out to a priest’s daughter who committed adultery. And for what reason is the severity of this transgression considered greater? As we said, because she profanes both herself and her father.

אַדְּרַבָּה: חֶנֶק חָמוּר, שֶׁכֵּן נִיתַּן לְמַכֵּה אָבִיו וְאִמּוֹ. וּמַאי חוּמְרָא? שֶׁכֵּן הוּקַּשׁ כְּבוֹדָן לִכְבוֹד הַמָּקוֹם.

The Gemara raises an objection: On the contrary; strangulation is more severe, as it is meted out to one who wounds his father or his mother. And for what reason is the severity of this transgression considered greater? Because the honor of one’s parents is compared to the honor of the Omnipresent.

מִדְּאַפְּקֵיהּ רַחֲמָנָא לִנְשׂוּאָה בַּת כֹּהֵן מִכְּלַל נְשׂוּאָה בַּת יִשְׂרָאֵל מֵחֶנֶק לִשְׂרֵיפָה, שְׁמַע מִינַּהּ: שְׂרֵיפָה חֲמוּרָה.

The Gemara answers: Since the Merciful One singles out the case of the married daughter of a priest from the category of a married Jewish woman, changing the punishment of the married daughter of a priest who committed adultery from strangulation to burning, conclude from it that burning is more severe than strangulation.

סַיִיף חָמוּר מֵחֶנֶק, שֶׁכֵּן נִיתַּן לְאַנְשֵׁי עִיר הַנִּדַּחַת. וּמַאי חוּמְרָא? שֶׁכֵּן מָמוֹנָם אָבֵד.

Decapitation by the sword is considered more severe than strangulation, as it is meted out to the people of an idolatrous city. And for what reason is the severity of this case considered greater? Because their property is destroyed as well.

אַדְּרַבָּה: חֶנֶק חָמוּר שֶׁכֵּן נִיתַּן לְמַכֵּה אָבִיו וְאִמּוֹ. וּמַאי חוּמְרָא? שֶׁכֵּן הוּקַּשׁ כּוּ׳.

The Gemara raises an objection: On the contrary; strangulation is more severe, as it is meted out to one who wounds his father or his mother. And for what reason is the severity of this transgression considered greater? Because the honor of one’s parents is compared to the honor of the Omnipresent.

אֲפִילּוּ הָכִי, פּוֹשֵׁט יָדוֹ בָּעִיקָּר עָדִיף.

The Gemara answers: Nevertheless, the transgression of one who undermines the fundamental tenets of Judaism is more severe, as he defiles the honor of the Omnipresent Himself, so his punishment must certainly be the most severe.

רַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן אוֹמֵר כּוּ׳. שְׂרֵיפָה חֲמוּרָה מִסְּקִילָה, שֶׁכֵּן נִיתְּנָה לְבַת כֹּהֵן שֶׁזִּינְּתָה. וּמַאי חוּמְרָא? שֶׁכֵּן מְחַלֶּלֶת אֶת אָבִיהָ.

§ The mishna teaches that Rabbi Shimon says that the order of severity is burning, stoning, strangulation, and killing. The Gemara explains the basis for his opinion. Burning is considered more severe than stoning, as burning is meted out to a priest’s daughter who committed adultery. And for what reason is the severity of this transgression considered greater than the others? Because she profanes both herself and her father.

אַדְּרַבָּה: סְקִילָה חֲמוּרָה, שֶׁכֵּן נִיתְּנָה לִמְגַדֵּף וּלְעוֹבֵד עֲבוֹדָה זָרָה. וּמַאי חוּמְרָא? שֶׁכֵּן פּוֹשֵׁט יָדוֹ בָּעִיקָּר.

The Gemara raises an objection: On the contrary; stoning is more severe, as it is meted out to one who blasphemes and to one who worships idols. And for what reason is the severity of these transgressions greater? Because the transgressor undermines the fundamental tenets of Judaism.

רַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן לְטַעְמֵיהּ, דְּאָמַר: אַחַת אֲרוּסָה וְאַחַת נְשׂוּאָה יָצְאָה לִשְׂרֵיפָה. וּמִדְּאַפְּקֵיהּ רַחֲמָנָא לַאֲרוּסָה בַּת כֹּהֵן מִכְּלַל אֲרוּסָה בַּת יִשְׂרָאֵל מִסְּקִילָה לִשְׂרֵיפָה, שְׁמַע מִינַּהּ: שְׂרֵיפָה חֲמוּרָה.

The Gemara answers: Rabbi Shimon conforms to his line of reasoning, as he says that the daughter of a priest, whether she is betrothed or married, is singled out for burning. And since the Merciful One singles out the case of the betrothed daughter of a priest from the category of a betrothed Jewish woman, changing her punishment from execution by stoning to execution by burning, conclude from it that burning is more severe than stoning, as the punishment for a priest’s daughter who committed adultery must certainly be more severe than that of the daughter of a non-priest.

שְׂרֵיפָה חֲמוּרָה מֵחֶנֶק, שֶׁכֵּן נִיתְּנָה לְבַת כֹּהֵן שֶׁזִּינְּתָה. וּמַאי חוּמְרָא? כְּדַאֲמַרַן.

The Gemara continues to explain the order of severity according to Rabbi Shimon. Burning is considered more severe than strangulation, as it is meted out to a priest’s daughter who committed adultery. And for what reason is the severity of this transgression considered greater? As we said, it is because she profanes both herself and her father.

אַדְּרַבָּה: חֶנֶק חָמוּר, שֶׁכֵּן נִיתַּן לְמַכֵּה אָבִיו וְאִמּוֹ. וּמַאי חוּמְרָא? שֶׁכֵּן הוּקַּשׁ כְּבוֹדָם לִכְבוֹד הַמָּקוֹם.

The Gemara raises an objection: On the contrary; strangulation is more severe, as it is meted out to one who wounds his father or his mother. And for what reason is the severity of this transgression considered greater? Because the honor of one’s parents is compared to the honor of the Omnipresent.

מִדְּאַפְּקֵיהּ רַחֲמָנָא לִנְשׂוּאָה בַּת כֹּהֵן מִכְּלַל נְשׂוּאָה בַּת יִשְׂרָאֵל, מֵחֶנֶק לִשְׂרֵיפָה, שְׁמַע מִינַּהּ: שְׂרֵיפָה חֲמוּרָה.

The Gemara answers: Since the Merciful One singles out the case of the married daughter of a priest who committed adultery from the category of a married Jewish woman who committed adultery, changing her punishment from execution by strangulation to execution by burning, conclude from it that burning is more severe than strangulation.

שְׂרֵיפָה חֲמוּרָה מִסַּיִיף, שֶׁכֵּן נִיתְּנָה לְבַת כֹּהֵן שֶׁזִּינְּתָה. וּמַאי חוּמְרָא? כְּדַאֲמַרַן.

Burning is considered more severe than decapitation by the sword, as it is meted out to a priest’s daughter who committed adultery. And for what reason is the severity of this transgression considered greater? As we said, it is because she profanes both herself and her father.

אַדְּרַבָּה: סַיִיף חָמוּר, שֶׁכֵּן נִיתַּן לְאַנְשֵׁי עִיר הַנִּדַּחַת. וּמַאי חוּמְרָא? שֶׁכֵּן מָמוֹנָם אָבֵד.

The Gemara raises an objection: On the contrary; decapitation by the sword is more severe, as it is meted out to the people of an idolatrous city. And for what reason is the severity of this case considered greater? Because their property is destroyed as well.

אָמַרְתָּ: וְכִי אֵיזֶה כֹּחַ מְרוּבֶּה, כֹּחַ הַמַּדִּיחַ אוֹ כֹּחַ הַנִּידָּח?

The Gemara answers: In response to this objection, you should say: But the severity of which transgression is greater: The severity of the transgression of the subverter, or the severity of the transgression of the subverted?

הֱוֵי אוֹמֵר: כֹּחַ הַמַּדִּיחַ. וְקַל וָחוֹמֶר: וּמָה חֶנֶק, שֶׁחָמוּר מִסַּיִיף – שְׂרֵיפָה חֲמוּרָה מִמֶּנּוּ; סַיִיף הַקַּל – לֹא כׇּל שֶׁכֵּן?

You must say that the severity of the transgression of the subverter is greater. Since those who subverted the people of an idolatrous city are executed by stoning, this is evidently a more severe type of capital punishment than decapitation. And it is inferred a fortiori that if it is so that concerning strangulation, which is more severe than decapitation by the sword, nevertheless burning is more severe than it, is it not all the more so obvious that burning is more severe than decapitation by the sword, which is a more lenient type of execution compared to strangulation?

סְקִילָה חֲמוּרָה מֵחֶנֶק, שֶׁכֵּן נִיתְּנָה לִמְגַדֵּף וּלְעוֹבֵד עֲבוֹדָה זָרָה. וּמַאי חוּמְרָא? כְּדַאֲמַרַן.

Stoning is considered more severe than strangulation, as it is meted out to one who blasphemes and to one who worships idols. And for what reason is the severity of these transgressions considered greater? As we said, it is because the transgressors undermine the fundamental tenets of Judaism.

אַדְּרַבָּה: חֶנֶק חָמוּר, שֶׁכֵּן נִיתַּן לְמַכֵּה אָבִיו וְאִמּוֹ. וּמַאי חוּמְרָא? שֶׁכֵּן הוּקַּשׁ כּוּ׳.

The Gemara raises an objection: On the contrary; strangulation is more severe, as it is meted out to one who wounds his father or his mother. And for what reason is the severity of this transgression considered greater? Because the honor of one’s parents is compared to the honor of the Omnipresent.

מִדְּאַפְּקֵיהּ רַחֲמָנָא לַאֲרוּסָה בַּת יִשְׂרָאֵל מִכְּלַל נְשׂוּאָה בַּת יִשְׂרָאֵל מֵחֶנֶק לִסְקִילָה, שְׁמַע מִינַּהּ: סְקִילָה חֲמוּרָה.

The Gemara answers: Since the Merciful One singles out the case of the betrothed daughter of a non-priest who committed adultery from the category of a married Jewish woman who committed adultery, changing her punishment from execution by strangulation to execution by stoning, conclude from it that stoning is more severe.

סְקִילָה חֲמוּרָה מִסַּיִיף, שֶׁכֵּן נִיתְּנָה לַמְגַדֵּף כּוּ׳. אַדְּרַבָּה: סַיִיף חָמוּר שֶׁכֵּן נִיתַּן לְאַנְשֵׁי עִיר הַנִּדַּחַת. וּמַאי חוּמְרָא? שֶׁכֵּן מָמוֹנָם אָבֵד.

Stoning is considered more severe than decapitation by the sword, as it is meted out to one who blasphemes and to one who worships idols. The Gemara raises an objection: On the contrary; decapitation by the sword is more severe, as it is meted out to the people of an idolatrous city. And for what reason is the severity of this case considered greater? Because their property is destroyed as well.

אָמַרְתָּ: וְכִי אֵיזֶה כֹּחַ מְרוּבֶּה, כֹּחַ הַמַּדִּיחַ אוֹ כֹּחַ הַנִּידָּח? הֱוֵי אוֹמֵר כֹּחַ הַמַּדִּיחַ. וְקַל וָחוֹמֶר: וּמָה חֶנֶק שֶׁחָמוּר מִסַּיִיף, סְקִילָה חֲמוּרָה מִמֶּנּוּ; סַיִיף הַקַּל – לֹא כׇּל שֶׁכֵּן?

The Gemara answers that in response to this objection you should say: But the severity of which transgression is greater: The severity of the transgression of the subverter, or the severity of the transgression of the subverted? You must say that the severity of the transgression of the subverter is greater. Since those who subverted the people of an idolatrous city are executed by stoning, this punishment is evidently more severe than decapitation. And it is inferred a fortiori that if it is so that concerning strangulation, which is more severe than decapitation by the sword, nevertheless stoning is more severe than it, is it not all the more so obvious that stoning is more severe than decapitation by the sword, which is a more lenient type of execution compared to strangulation?

חֶנֶק חָמוּר מִסַּיִיף, שֶׁכֵּן נִיתַּן לְמַכֵּה אָבִיו וְאִמּוֹ. וּמַאי חוּמְרָא? כְּדַאֲמַרַן.

Strangulation is more severe than decapitation by the sword, as it is meted out to one who wounds his father or his mother. And for what reason is the severity of this transgression considered greater? As we said, because the honor of one’s parents is compared to the honor of the Omnipresent.

אַדְּרַבָּה: סַיִיף חָמוּר שֶׁכֵּן נִיתַּן לְאַנְשֵׁי עִיר הַנִּדַּחַת. וּמַאי חוּמְרָא? שֶׁכֵּן מָמוֹנָם אָבֵד.

The Gemara raises an objection: On the contrary; decapitation by the sword is more severe, as it is meted out to the people of an idolatrous city. And for what reason is the severity of this transgression considered greater? Because their property is destroyed as well.

אָמַרְתָּ: וְכִי אֵיזֶה כֹּחַ מְרוּבֶּה, כֹּחַ הַמַּדִּיחַ אוֹ כֹּחַ הַנִּידָּח? הֱוֵי אוֹמֵר: כֹּחַ הַמַּדִּיחַ. וְתַנְיָא: מַדִּיחֵי עִיר הַנִּדַּחַת בִּסְקִילָה. רַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן אוֹמֵר: בְּחֶנֶק.

The Gemara answers that you should say in response to this objection: But the severity of which transgression is greater: The severity of the transgression of the subverter, or the severity of the transgression of the subverted? You must say that the severity of the transgression of the subverter is greater, and it is taught in a baraita: The subverters of an idolatrous city are executed by stoning. Rabbi Shimon says: By strangulation. Therefore, according to the opinion of Rabbi Shimon, it is clear that strangulation is a more severe type of capital punishment than decapitation.

מַרְגְּלָא בְּפוּמֵּיהּ דְּרַבִּי יוֹחָנָן: נַעֲרָה הַמְאוֹרָסָה בַּת כֹּהֵן שֶׁזִּינְּתָה – בִּסְקִילָה. רַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן אוֹמֵר: בִּשְׂרֵיפָה. זִינְּתָה מֵאָבִיהָ – בִּסְקִילָה. רַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן אוֹמֵר: בִּשְׂרֵיפָה.

§ Rabbi Yoḥanan was wont to say the following baraita: A betrothed young woman who is the daughter of a priest and who committed adultery is executed by stoning. Rabbi Shimon says: She is executed by burning. A betrothed young woman who is the daughter of a non-priest and who engaged in intercourse with her father is executed by stoning. Rabbi Shimon says: By burning.

מַאי קָא מַשְׁמַע לַן? לְרַבָּנַן – נְשׂוּאָה יָצְאָה לִשְׂרֵיפָה, וְלֹא אֲרוּסָה. לְרַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן – אַחַת אֲרוּסָה וְאַחַת נְשׂוּאָה יָצְאָה לִשְׂרֵיפָה. וְטַעְמָא מַאי? מִשּׁוּם דִּלְרַבָּנַן סְקִילָה חֲמוּרָה, לְרַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן שְׂרֵיפָה חֲמוּרָה.

The Gemara asks: What does this baraita teach us? The Gemara answers: It teaches us that according to the opinion of the Rabbis, the married daughter of a priest is singled out for burning, and not a betrothed one, who is executed by stoning. According to the opinion of Rabbi Shimon, the daughter of a priest, whether she is betrothed or married, is singled out for burning. And what is the reason for their respective opinions with regard to the punishment of the daughter of a priest? It is because according to the Rabbis stoning is more severe than burning, whereas according to Rabbi Shimon burning is more severe.

נָפְקָא מִינַּהּ לְמִי שֶׁנִּתְחַיֵּיב שְׁתֵּי מִיתוֹת בֵּית דִּין, נִידּוֹן בַּחֲמוּרָה.

In addition to the case of the priest’s daughter who committed adultery, there is a practical difference between these two opinions, which is that one who was sentenced to two different court-imposed death penalties for two sins he committed is punished with the more severe of the two, and these tanna’im disagree as to which type of death penalty is more severe.

מַאי רַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן? דְּתַנְיָא: רַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן אוֹמֵר, שְׁנֵי כְּלָלוֹת נֶאֶמְרוּ בְּבַת כֹּהֵן.

What is the source of the opinion of Rabbi Shimon that a priest’s betrothed daughter who committed adultery is executed by stoning? As it is taught in a baraita: Rabbi Shimon says: Two general halakhot are stated in the Torah with regard to the daughter of a priest, one rendering the betrothed daughter of a priest who committed adultery liable to be executed by stoning, and the other rendering the married daughter of a priest who committed adultery liable to be executed by strangulation.

בְּבַת כֹּהֵן, וְלֹא בְּבַת יִשְׂרָאֵל?! אֵימָא: אַף בְּבַת כֹּהֵן.

The Gemara interrupts the baraita and asks: Are they stated only with regard to the daughter of a priest, and not with regard to the daughter of a non-priest? Aren’t these halakhot stated with regard to the daughter of a non-priest as well? Rather, emend the text and say: These two halakhot are stated with regard to the daughter of a priest as well.

וְהוֹצִיא הַכָּתוּב נְשׂוּאָה מִכְּלַל נְשׂוּאָה, וַאֲרוּסָה מִכְּלַל אֲרוּסָה.

The baraita continues: The verse: “And the daughter of a priest, when she profanes herself by playing the harlot, she profanes her father; she shall be burned with fire” (Leviticus 21:9), is stated with regard to both a betrothed woman and a married woman. And the verse thereby singles out the married daughter of a priest from the category of an ordinary married woman, whose punishment is execution by strangulation, and it singles out the betrothed daughter of a priest from the category of an ordinary betrothed woman, who is executed by stoning.

מָה כְּשֶׁהוֹצִיא הַכָּתוּב נְשׂוּאָה מִכְּלַל נְשׂוּאָה לְהַחְמִיר, אַף כְּשֶׁהוֹצִיא הַכָּתוּב אֲרוּסָה מִכְּלַל אֲרוּסָה לְהַחֲמִיר.

Therefore, just as when the verse singles out the married daughter of a priest from the category of a married woman it is to render her punishment more severe, so too, when the verse singles out the betrothed daughter of a priest from the category of a betrothed woman it is to render her punishment more severe. This indicates that burning is a more severe type of capital punishment than stoning.

זוֹמְמֵי נְשׂוּאָה בַּת כֹּהֵן, בִּכְלַל זוֹמְמֵי נְשׂוּאָה בַּת יִשְׂרָאֵל; וְזוֹמְמֵי אֲרוּסָה בַּת כֹּהֵן, בִּכְלַל זוֹמְמֵי אֲרוּסָה בַּת יִשְׂרָאֵל.

The punishment for the conspiring witnesses concerning the married daughter of a priest, who testified falsely that she committed adultery, is included in the punishment for the conspiring witnesses concerning the married daughter of a non-priest, and the punishment for the conspiring witnesses concerning the betrothed daughter of a priest is included in the punishment for the conspiring witnesses concerning the betrothed daughter of a non-priest. The Torah is not more severe with them; the conspiring witnesses in the case of any married woman accused of committing adultery are strangled, and the conspiring witnesses in the case of any betrothed woman accused of committing adultery are stoned.

תָּנוּ רַבָּנַן: ״וּבַת אִישׁ כֹּהֵן כִּי תֵחֵל״ – יָכוֹל אֲפִילּוּ חִלְּלָה אֶת הַשַּׁבָּת? תַּלְמוּד לוֹמַר ״לִזְנוֹת״ – בְּחִילּוּלִין שֶׁבִּזְנוּת הַכָּתוּב מְדַבֵּר.

The Sages taught: The verse states: “And the daughter of a priest [ish kohen], when she profanes herself by playing the harlot, she profanes her father; she shall be burned with fire” (Leviticus 21:9). One might have thought that the expression “when she profanes [ki teḥel]” is referring even to one who desecrated [ḥillela] Shabbat; she too should be executed by burning. To counter this, the verse states: “By playing the harlot”; the verse is speaking of profanation through promiscuity.

יָכוֹל אֲפִילּוּ פְּנוּיָה? נֶאֱמַר כָּאן ״אָבִיהָ״, וְנֶאֱמַר לְהַלָּן ״אָבִיהָ״. מָה לְהַלָּן זְנוּת עִם זִיקַת הַבַּעַל, אַף כָּאן זְנוּת עִם זִיקַת הַבַּעַל.

One might have thought even if she is unmarried and she engaged in promiscuous intercourse she should be executed by burning. This is incorrect, as here it is stated: “Her father,” and there it is stated with regard to a betrothed woman who committed adultery: “Because she has done a depraved thing in Israel, to play the harlot in the house of her father” (Deuteronomy 22:21). Just as there, 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.

אוֹ אֵינוֹ אוֹמֵר ״אָבִיהָ״ אֶלָּא לְהוֹצִיא אֶת כׇּל הָאָדָם? כְּשֶׁהוּא אוֹמֵר ״הִיא מְחַלֶּלֶת״, הֱוֵי כָּל אָדָם אָמוּר.

Or perhaps one might have thought that the verse states “her father” only in order to exclude all men except her father, i.e., she is liable to be executed by burning only if she engaged in intercourse with her father. To counter this, when it states “she profanes,” indicating that it is she who profanes her father and not her father who profanes himself and her, all men are stated, i.e., included.

הָא מָה אֲנִי מְקַיֵּים ״אָבִיהָ״? נֶאֱמַר כָּאן ״אָבִיהָ״, וְנֶאֱמַר לְהַלָּן ״אָבִיהָ״. מָה לְהַלָּן זְנוּת עִם זִיקַת הַבַּעַל, אַף כָּאן זְנוּת עִם זִיקַת הַבַּעַל.

Therefore, how do I realize the meaning of the expression “she profanes her father”? What halakha does it teach? The baraita answers: Here it is stated: “Her father,” and there it is stated: “Her father.” Just as there, 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.

אִי מָה לְהַלָּן נַעֲרָה וְהִיא אֲרוּסָה, אַף כָּאן נַעֲרָה וְהִיא אֲרוּסָה? נַעֲרָה וְהִיא נְשׂוּאָה, בּוֹגֶרֶת וְהִיא אֲרוּסָה, בּוֹגֶרֶת וְהִיא נְשׂוּאָה, וַאֲפִילּוּ הִזְקִינָה – מִנַּיִן?

The baraita asks: If the halakha of the priest’s daughter who committed adultery is compared, by means of a verbal analogy, to the halakha of a betrothed woman who committed adultery, then perhaps one should say that just as there the reference is specifically to a young woman, i.e., to one whose first signs of maturity appeared within the past half year, who is betrothed, so too here, in the case of the daughter of a priest, the reference is to a young woman who is betrothed. But if she is a young woman who is married, or a grown woman who is betrothed, or a grown woman who is married, or even if she grew old, and is not normally referred to as a daughter, from where is it derived that her punishment is execution by burning?

תַּלְמוּד לוֹמַר ״וּבַת כֹּהֵן״ – מִכׇּל מָקוֹם.

The verse states: “And the daughter of a priest,” in any case. It is derived from the conjunction “and,” represented by the letter vav, that this punishment applies to any woman who is the daughter of a priest.

״בַּת כֹּהֵן״,

The verse states: “The daughter of a priest.”

Today’s daily daf tools:

Delve Deeper

Broaden your understanding of the topics on this daf with classes and podcasts from top women Talmud scholars.

For the Beyond the Daf shiurim offered in Hebrew, see here.

New to Talmud?

Check out our resources designed to help you navigate a page of Talmud – and study at the pace, level and style that fits you. 

The Hadran Women’s Tapestry

Meet the diverse women learning Gemara at Hadran and hear their stories. 

The first month I learned Daf Yomi by myself in secret, because I wasn’t sure how my husband would react, but after the siyyum on Masechet Brachot I discovered Hadran and now sometimes my husband listens to the daf with me. He and I also learn mishnayot together and are constantly finding connections between the different masechtot.

Laura Warshawsky
Laura Warshawsky

Silver Spring, Maryland, United States

I was exposed to Talmud in high school, but I was truly inspired after my daughter and I decided to attend the Women’s Siyum Shas in 2020. We knew that this was a historic moment. We were blown away, overcome with emotion at the euphoria of the revolution. Right then, I knew I would continue. My commitment deepened with the every-morning Virtual Beit Midrash on Zoom with R. Michelle.

Adina Hagege
Adina Hagege

Zichron Yaakov, Israel

I had never heard of Daf Yomi and after reading the book, The Weight of Ink, I explored more about it. I discovered that it was only 6 months before a whole new cycle started and I was determined to give it a try. I tried to get a friend to join me on the journey but after the first few weeks they all dropped it. I haven’t missed a day of reading and of listening to the podcast.

Anne Rubin
Anne Rubin

Elkins Park, United States

I began my journey with Rabbanit Michelle more than five years ago. My friend came up with a great idea for about 15 of us to learn the daf and one of us would summarize weekly what we learned.
It was fun but after 2-3 months people began to leave. I have continued. Since the cycle began Again I have joined the Teaneck women.. I find it most rewarding in so many ways. Thank you

Dena Heller
Dena Heller

New Jersey, United States

About a year into learning more about Judaism on a path to potential conversion, I saw an article about the upcoming Siyum HaShas in January of 2020. My curiosity was piqued and I immediately started investigating what learning the Daf actually meant. Daily learning? Just what I wanted. Seven and a half years? I love a challenge! So I dove in head first and I’ve enjoyed every moment!!
Nickie Matthews
Nickie Matthews

Blacksburg, United States

In January 2020, my chevruta suggested that we “up our game. Let’s do Daf Yomi” – and she sent me the Hadran link. I lost my job (and went freelance), there was a pandemic, and I am still opening the podcast with my breakfast coffee, or after Shabbat with popcorn. My Aramaic is improving. I will need a new bookcase, though.

Rhondda May
Rhondda May

Atlanta, Georgia, United States

Last cycle, I listened to parts of various מסכתות. When the הדרן סיום was advertised, I listened to Michelle on נידה. I knew that בע”ה with the next cycle I was in (ב”נ). As I entered the סיום (early), I saw the signs and was overcome with emotion. I was randomly seated in the front row, and I cried many times that night. My choice to learn דף יומי was affirmed. It is one of the best I have made!

Miriam Tannenbaum
Miriam Tannenbaum

אפרת, Israel

Hearing and reading about the siyumim at the completion of the 13 th cycle Daf Yomi asked our shul rabbi about starting the Daf – he directed me to another shiur in town he thought would allow a woman to join, and so I did! Love seeing the sources for the Divrei Torah I’ve been hearing for the past decades of living an observant life and raising 5 children .

Jill Felder
Jill Felder

Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania, United States

I began learning the daf in January 2022. I initially “flew under the radar,” sharing my journey with my husband and a few close friends. I was apprehensive – who, me? Gemara? Now, 2 years in, I feel changed. The rigor of a daily commitment frames my days. The intellectual engagement enhances my knowledge. And the virtual community of learners has become a new family, weaving a glorious tapestry.

Gitta Jaroslawicz-Neufeld
Gitta Jaroslawicz-Neufeld

Far Rockaway, United States

I learned daf more off than on 40 years ago. At the beginning of the current cycle, I decided to commit to learning daf regularly. Having Rabanit Michelle available as a learning partner has been amazing. Sometimes I learn with Hadran, sometimes with my husband, and sometimes on my own. It’s been fun to be part of an extended learning community.

Miriam Pollack
Miriam Pollack

Honolulu, Hawaii, United States

I tried Daf Yomi in the middle of the last cycle after realizing I could listen to Michelle’s shiurim online. It lasted all of 2 days! Then the new cycle started just days before my father’s first yahrzeit and my youngest daughter’s bat mitzvah. It seemed the right time for a new beginning. My family, friends, colleagues are immensely supportive!

Catriella-Freedman-jpeg
Catriella Freedman

Zichron Yaakov, Israel

I began my Daf Yomi journey on January 5, 2020. I had never learned Talmud before. Initially it struck me as a bunch of inane and arcane details with mind bending logic. I am now smitten. Rabbanit Farber brings the page to life and I am eager to learn with her every day!

Lori Stark
Lori Stark

Highland Park, United States

Having never learned Talmud before, I started Daf Yomi in hopes of connecting to the Rabbinic tradition, sharing a daily idea on Instagram (@dafyomiadventures). With Hadran and Sefaria, I slowly gained confidence in my skills and understanding. Now, part of the Pardes Jewish Educators Program, I can’t wait to bring this love of learning with me as I continue to pass it on to my future students.

Hannah-G-pic
Hannah Greenberg

Pennsylvania, United States

תמיד רציתי. למדתי גמרא בבית ספר בטורונטו קנדה. עליתי ארצה ולמדתי שזה לא מקובל. הופתעתי.
יצאתי לגימלאות לפני שנתיים וזה מאפשר את המחוייבות לדף יומי.
עבורי ההתמדה בלימוד מעגן אותי בקשר שלי ליהדות. אני תמיד מחפשת ותמיד. מוצאת מקור לקשר. ללימוד חדש ומחדש. קשר עם נשים לומדות מעמיק את החוויה ומשמעותית מאוד.

Vitti Kones
Vitti Kones

מיתר, ישראל

My family recently made Aliyah, because we believe the next chapter in the story of the Jewish people is being written here, and we want to be a part of it. Daf Yomi, on the other hand, connects me BACK, to those who wrote earlier chapters thousands of years ago. So, I feel like I’m living in the middle of this epic story. I’m learning how it all began, and looking ahead to see where it goes!
Tina Lamm
Tina Lamm

Jerusalem, Israel

I started learning at the beginning of the cycle after a friend persuaded me that it would be right up my alley. I was lucky enough to learn at Rabbanit Michelle’s house before it started on zoom and it was quickly part of my daily routine. I find it so important to see for myself where halachot were derived, where stories were told and to get more insight into how the Rabbis interacted.

Deborah Dickson
Deborah Dickson

Ra’anana, Israel

I had tried to start after being inspired by the hadran siyum, but did not manage to stick to it. However, just before masechet taanit, our rav wrote a message to the shul WhatsApp encouraging people to start with masechet taanit, so I did! And this time, I’m hooked! I listen to the shiur every day , and am also trying to improve my skills.

Laura Major
Laura Major

Yad Binyamin, Israel

It has been a pleasure keeping pace with this wonderful and scholarly group of women.

Janice Block
Janice Block

Beit Shemesh, Israel

In early 2020, I began the process of a stem cell transplant. The required extreme isolation forced me to leave work and normal life but gave me time to delve into Jewish text study. I did not feel isolated. I began Daf Yomi at the start of this cycle, with family members joining me online from my hospital room. I’ve used my newly granted time to to engage, grow and connect through this learning.

Reena Slovin
Reena Slovin

Worcester, United States

I am grateful for the structure of the Daf Yomi. When I am freer to learn to my heart’s content, I learn other passages in addition. But even in times of difficulty, I always know that I can rely on the structure and social support of Daf Yomi learners all over the world.

I am also grateful for this forum. It is very helpful to learn with a group of enthusiastic and committed women.

Janice Block-2
Janice Block

Beit Shemesh, Israel

Sanhedrin 50

קָסָבְרִי רַבָּנַן: נְשׂוּאָה יוֹצְאָה לִשְׂרֵיפָה, וְלֹא אֲרוּסָה. וּמִדְּאַפְּקַהּ רַחֲמָנָא לַאֲרוּסָה בִּסְקִילָה, שְׁמַע מִינַּהּ: סְקִילָה חֲמוּרָה.

The Gemara answers: The Rabbis hold that only the married daughter of a priest who committed adultery is singled out from all those who commit adultery, for burning, but not one who is betrothed, as a betrothed woman who committed adultery, whether or not she is the daughter of a priest, is executed by stoning. And since the Merciful One singles out a betrothed woman who is not married from all married women who commit adultery, to be executed by stoning, conclude from it that stoning is more severe than burning.

סְקִילָה חֲמוּרָה מִסַּיִיף, שֶׁכֵּן נִיתְּנָה לִמְגַדֵּף וּלְעוֹבֵד עֲבוֹדָה זָרָה. וּמַאי חוּמְרָא? כְּדַאֲמַרַן.

Stoning is considered more severe than decapitation by the sword, as it is meted out to one who blasphemes and to one who worships idols. And for what reason is the severity of these transgressions considered greater than others? As we said, it is because the transgressors undermine the fundamental tenets of Judaism.

אַדְּרַבָּה: סַיִיף חָמוּר, שֶׁכֵּן נִיתַּן לְאַנְשֵׁי עִיר הַנִּדַּחַת. וּמַאי חוּמְרָא? שֶׁכֵּן מָמוֹנָן אָבֵד.

The Gemara raises an objection: On the contrary; decapitation by the sword would appear to be more severe than stoning, as it is meted out to the people of an idolatrous city, who also undermine the fundamental tenets of Judaism. And for what reason is the severity of this case of an idolatrous city considered greater than others? Because the transgressors are not only executed, their property is destroyed as well.

אָמַרְתָּ: אֵיזֶה כֹּחַ מְרוּבֶּה, כֹּחַ הַמַּדִּיחַ אוֹ כֹּחַ הַנִּידָּח? הֱוֵי אוֹמֵר: כֹּחַ הַמַּדִּיחַ. וְתַנְיָא: מַדִּיחֵי עִיר הַנִּדַּחַת – בִּסְקִילָה.

The Gemara answers: In response to this objection, you should say: The severity of which transgression is greater: The severity of the transgression of the one who subverts the city, inciting them to sin, or the severity of the transgression of the subverted? You must say that the severity of the transgression of the subverter is greater. And it is taught in a baraita: The subverters of an idolatrous city are executed by stoning. Evidently, stoning is a more severe type of execution than decapitation.

סְקִילָה חֲמוּרָה מֵחֶנֶק, שֶׁכֵּן נִיתַּן לִמְגַדֵּף וּלְעוֹבֵד עֲבוֹדָה זָרָה. וּמַאי חוּמְרָא? כְּדַאֲמַרַן.

Stoning is considered more severe than strangulation, as it is meted out to one who blasphemes and to one who worships idols. And for what reason is the severity of these transgressions considered greater? As we said, it is because the transgressors undermine the fundamental tenets of Judaism.

אַדְּרַבָּה: חֶנֶק חָמוּר – שֶׁכֵּן נִיתַּן לְמַכֵּה אָבִיו וְאִמּוֹ. וּמַאי חוּמְרָא? שֶׁכֵּן הוּקַּשׁ כְּבוֹדָן לִכְבוֹד הַמָּקוֹם.

The Gemara raises an objection: On the contrary; strangulation is more severe, as it is meted out to one who wounds his father or his mother. And for what reason is the severity of this transgression considered greater? Because the honor of one’s parents is compared to the honor of the Omnipresent (see Kiddushin 30b).

מִדְּאַפְּקֵיהּ רַחֲמָנָא לַאֲרוּסָה בַּת יִשְׂרָאֵל מִכְּלַל נְשׂוּאָה בַּת יִשְׂרָאֵל מֵחֶנֶק לִסְקִילָה, שְׁמַע מִינַּהּ: סְקִילָה חֲמוּרָה.

The Gemara answers: Since the Merciful One singles out the case of a betrothed Jewish woman from the category of a married Jewish woman, changing the punishment of a betrothed Jewish woman who committed adultery from strangulation to stoning, conclude from it that stoning is more severe.

שְׂרֵיפָה חֲמוּרָה מִסַּיִיף, שֶׁכֵּן נִיתְּנָה לְבַת כֹּהֵן שֶׁזִּינְּתָה. וּמַאי חוּמְרָא? שֶׁכֵּן מְחַלֶּלֶת אֶת אָבִיהָ.

Burning is considered more severe than decapitation by the sword, as it is meted out to a priest’s daughter who committed adultery. And for what reason is the severity of this transgression considered greater than others? Because she profanes both herself and her father.

אַדְּרַבָּה: סַיִיף חָמוּר, שֶׁכֵּן נִיתַּן לְאַנְשֵׁי עִיר הַנִּדַּחַת. וּמַאי חוּמְרָא? שֶׁכֵּן מָמוֹנָן אָבֵד.

The Gemara raises an objection: On the contrary; decapitation by the sword is more severe, as it is meted out to the people of an idolatrous city. And for what reason is the severity of this case considered greater? Because the transgressors are not only executed, their property is destroyed as well.

נֶאֱמַר ״אָבִיהָ״ בִּסְקִילָה, וְנֶאֱמַר ״אָבִיהָ״ בִּשְׂרֵיפָה. מָה ״אָבִיהָ״ הָאָמוּר בִּסְקִילָה – סְקִילָה חֲמוּרָה מִסַּיִיף, אַף ״אָבִיהָ״ הָאָמוּר בִּשְׂרֵיפָה – שְׂרֵיפָה חֲמוּרָה מִסַּיִיף.

The Gemara answers: The severity of burning is derived by means of a verbal analogy. The term “her father” is stated with regard to stoning, in the verse: “And the men of her city shall stone her with stones and she shall die, because she has done a depraved thing in Israel, to play the harlot in the house of her father” (Deuteronomy 22:21), and the term “her father” is stated with regard to burning, in the verse: “And the daughter of a priest, when she profanes herself by playing the harlot, she profanes her father; she shall be burned with fire” (Leviticus 21:9). Therefore, just as concerning the term “her father” that is stated with regard to stoning it is established that stoning is more severe than decapitation by the sword, so too, concerning the term “her father” that is stated with regard to burning, it may be established that burning is more severe than decapitation by the sword.

שְׂרֵיפָה חֲמוּרָה מֵחֶנֶק, שֶׁכֵּן נִיתְּנָה לְבַת כֹּהֵן שֶׁזִּינְּתָה. וּמַאי חוּמְרָא? כְּדַאֲמַרַן.

Burning is considered more severe than strangulation, as it is meted out to a priest’s daughter who committed adultery. And for what reason is the severity of this transgression considered greater? As we said, because she profanes both herself and her father.

אַדְּרַבָּה: חֶנֶק חָמוּר, שֶׁכֵּן נִיתַּן לְמַכֵּה אָבִיו וְאִמּוֹ. וּמַאי חוּמְרָא? שֶׁכֵּן הוּקַּשׁ כְּבוֹדָן לִכְבוֹד הַמָּקוֹם.

The Gemara raises an objection: On the contrary; strangulation is more severe, as it is meted out to one who wounds his father or his mother. And for what reason is the severity of this transgression considered greater? Because the honor of one’s parents is compared to the honor of the Omnipresent.

מִדְּאַפְּקֵיהּ רַחֲמָנָא לִנְשׂוּאָה בַּת כֹּהֵן מִכְּלַל נְשׂוּאָה בַּת יִשְׂרָאֵל מֵחֶנֶק לִשְׂרֵיפָה, שְׁמַע מִינַּהּ: שְׂרֵיפָה חֲמוּרָה.

The Gemara answers: Since the Merciful One singles out the case of the married daughter of a priest from the category of a married Jewish woman, changing the punishment of the married daughter of a priest who committed adultery from strangulation to burning, conclude from it that burning is more severe than strangulation.

סַיִיף חָמוּר מֵחֶנֶק, שֶׁכֵּן נִיתַּן לְאַנְשֵׁי עִיר הַנִּדַּחַת. וּמַאי חוּמְרָא? שֶׁכֵּן מָמוֹנָם אָבֵד.

Decapitation by the sword is considered more severe than strangulation, as it is meted out to the people of an idolatrous city. And for what reason is the severity of this case considered greater? Because their property is destroyed as well.

אַדְּרַבָּה: חֶנֶק חָמוּר שֶׁכֵּן נִיתַּן לְמַכֵּה אָבִיו וְאִמּוֹ. וּמַאי חוּמְרָא? שֶׁכֵּן הוּקַּשׁ כּוּ׳.

The Gemara raises an objection: On the contrary; strangulation is more severe, as it is meted out to one who wounds his father or his mother. And for what reason is the severity of this transgression considered greater? Because the honor of one’s parents is compared to the honor of the Omnipresent.

אֲפִילּוּ הָכִי, פּוֹשֵׁט יָדוֹ בָּעִיקָּר עָדִיף.

The Gemara answers: Nevertheless, the transgression of one who undermines the fundamental tenets of Judaism is more severe, as he defiles the honor of the Omnipresent Himself, so his punishment must certainly be the most severe.

רַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן אוֹמֵר כּוּ׳. שְׂרֵיפָה חֲמוּרָה מִסְּקִילָה, שֶׁכֵּן נִיתְּנָה לְבַת כֹּהֵן שֶׁזִּינְּתָה. וּמַאי חוּמְרָא? שֶׁכֵּן מְחַלֶּלֶת אֶת אָבִיהָ.

§ The mishna teaches that Rabbi Shimon says that the order of severity is burning, stoning, strangulation, and killing. The Gemara explains the basis for his opinion. Burning is considered more severe than stoning, as burning is meted out to a priest’s daughter who committed adultery. And for what reason is the severity of this transgression considered greater than the others? Because she profanes both herself and her father.

אַדְּרַבָּה: סְקִילָה חֲמוּרָה, שֶׁכֵּן נִיתְּנָה לִמְגַדֵּף וּלְעוֹבֵד עֲבוֹדָה זָרָה. וּמַאי חוּמְרָא? שֶׁכֵּן פּוֹשֵׁט יָדוֹ בָּעִיקָּר.

The Gemara raises an objection: On the contrary; stoning is more severe, as it is meted out to one who blasphemes and to one who worships idols. And for what reason is the severity of these transgressions greater? Because the transgressor undermines the fundamental tenets of Judaism.

רַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן לְטַעְמֵיהּ, דְּאָמַר: אַחַת אֲרוּסָה וְאַחַת נְשׂוּאָה יָצְאָה לִשְׂרֵיפָה. וּמִדְּאַפְּקֵיהּ רַחֲמָנָא לַאֲרוּסָה בַּת כֹּהֵן מִכְּלַל אֲרוּסָה בַּת יִשְׂרָאֵל מִסְּקִילָה לִשְׂרֵיפָה, שְׁמַע מִינַּהּ: שְׂרֵיפָה חֲמוּרָה.

The Gemara answers: Rabbi Shimon conforms to his line of reasoning, as he says that the daughter of a priest, whether she is betrothed or married, is singled out for burning. And since the Merciful One singles out the case of the betrothed daughter of a priest from the category of a betrothed Jewish woman, changing her punishment from execution by stoning to execution by burning, conclude from it that burning is more severe than stoning, as the punishment for a priest’s daughter who committed adultery must certainly be more severe than that of the daughter of a non-priest.

שְׂרֵיפָה חֲמוּרָה מֵחֶנֶק, שֶׁכֵּן נִיתְּנָה לְבַת כֹּהֵן שֶׁזִּינְּתָה. וּמַאי חוּמְרָא? כְּדַאֲמַרַן.

The Gemara continues to explain the order of severity according to Rabbi Shimon. Burning is considered more severe than strangulation, as it is meted out to a priest’s daughter who committed adultery. And for what reason is the severity of this transgression considered greater? As we said, it is because she profanes both herself and her father.

אַדְּרַבָּה: חֶנֶק חָמוּר, שֶׁכֵּן נִיתַּן לְמַכֵּה אָבִיו וְאִמּוֹ. וּמַאי חוּמְרָא? שֶׁכֵּן הוּקַּשׁ כְּבוֹדָם לִכְבוֹד הַמָּקוֹם.

The Gemara raises an objection: On the contrary; strangulation is more severe, as it is meted out to one who wounds his father or his mother. And for what reason is the severity of this transgression considered greater? Because the honor of one’s parents is compared to the honor of the Omnipresent.

מִדְּאַפְּקֵיהּ רַחֲמָנָא לִנְשׂוּאָה בַּת כֹּהֵן מִכְּלַל נְשׂוּאָה בַּת יִשְׂרָאֵל, מֵחֶנֶק לִשְׂרֵיפָה, שְׁמַע מִינַּהּ: שְׂרֵיפָה חֲמוּרָה.

The Gemara answers: Since the Merciful One singles out the case of the married daughter of a priest who committed adultery from the category of a married Jewish woman who committed adultery, changing her punishment from execution by strangulation to execution by burning, conclude from it that burning is more severe than strangulation.

שְׂרֵיפָה חֲמוּרָה מִסַּיִיף, שֶׁכֵּן נִיתְּנָה לְבַת כֹּהֵן שֶׁזִּינְּתָה. וּמַאי חוּמְרָא? כְּדַאֲמַרַן.

Burning is considered more severe than decapitation by the sword, as it is meted out to a priest’s daughter who committed adultery. And for what reason is the severity of this transgression considered greater? As we said, it is because she profanes both herself and her father.

אַדְּרַבָּה: סַיִיף חָמוּר, שֶׁכֵּן נִיתַּן לְאַנְשֵׁי עִיר הַנִּדַּחַת. וּמַאי חוּמְרָא? שֶׁכֵּן מָמוֹנָם אָבֵד.

The Gemara raises an objection: On the contrary; decapitation by the sword is more severe, as it is meted out to the people of an idolatrous city. And for what reason is the severity of this case considered greater? Because their property is destroyed as well.

אָמַרְתָּ: וְכִי אֵיזֶה כֹּחַ מְרוּבֶּה, כֹּחַ הַמַּדִּיחַ אוֹ כֹּחַ הַנִּידָּח?

The Gemara answers: In response to this objection, you should say: But the severity of which transgression is greater: The severity of the transgression of the subverter, or the severity of the transgression of the subverted?

הֱוֵי אוֹמֵר: כֹּחַ הַמַּדִּיחַ. וְקַל וָחוֹמֶר: וּמָה חֶנֶק, שֶׁחָמוּר מִסַּיִיף – שְׂרֵיפָה חֲמוּרָה מִמֶּנּוּ; סַיִיף הַקַּל – לֹא כׇּל שֶׁכֵּן?

You must say that the severity of the transgression of the subverter is greater. Since those who subverted the people of an idolatrous city are executed by stoning, this is evidently a more severe type of capital punishment than decapitation. And it is inferred a fortiori that if it is so that concerning strangulation, which is more severe than decapitation by the sword, nevertheless burning is more severe than it, is it not all the more so obvious that burning is more severe than decapitation by the sword, which is a more lenient type of execution compared to strangulation?

סְקִילָה חֲמוּרָה מֵחֶנֶק, שֶׁכֵּן נִיתְּנָה לִמְגַדֵּף וּלְעוֹבֵד עֲבוֹדָה זָרָה. וּמַאי חוּמְרָא? כְּדַאֲמַרַן.

Stoning is considered more severe than strangulation, as it is meted out to one who blasphemes and to one who worships idols. And for what reason is the severity of these transgressions considered greater? As we said, it is because the transgressors undermine the fundamental tenets of Judaism.

אַדְּרַבָּה: חֶנֶק חָמוּר, שֶׁכֵּן נִיתַּן לְמַכֵּה אָבִיו וְאִמּוֹ. וּמַאי חוּמְרָא? שֶׁכֵּן הוּקַּשׁ כּוּ׳.

The Gemara raises an objection: On the contrary; strangulation is more severe, as it is meted out to one who wounds his father or his mother. And for what reason is the severity of this transgression considered greater? Because the honor of one’s parents is compared to the honor of the Omnipresent.

מִדְּאַפְּקֵיהּ רַחֲמָנָא לַאֲרוּסָה בַּת יִשְׂרָאֵל מִכְּלַל נְשׂוּאָה בַּת יִשְׂרָאֵל מֵחֶנֶק לִסְקִילָה, שְׁמַע מִינַּהּ: סְקִילָה חֲמוּרָה.

The Gemara answers: Since the Merciful One singles out the case of the betrothed daughter of a non-priest who committed adultery from the category of a married Jewish woman who committed adultery, changing her punishment from execution by strangulation to execution by stoning, conclude from it that stoning is more severe.

סְקִילָה חֲמוּרָה מִסַּיִיף, שֶׁכֵּן נִיתְּנָה לַמְגַדֵּף כּוּ׳. אַדְּרַבָּה: סַיִיף חָמוּר שֶׁכֵּן נִיתַּן לְאַנְשֵׁי עִיר הַנִּדַּחַת. וּמַאי חוּמְרָא? שֶׁכֵּן מָמוֹנָם אָבֵד.

Stoning is considered more severe than decapitation by the sword, as it is meted out to one who blasphemes and to one who worships idols. The Gemara raises an objection: On the contrary; decapitation by the sword is more severe, as it is meted out to the people of an idolatrous city. And for what reason is the severity of this case considered greater? Because their property is destroyed as well.

אָמַרְתָּ: וְכִי אֵיזֶה כֹּחַ מְרוּבֶּה, כֹּחַ הַמַּדִּיחַ אוֹ כֹּחַ הַנִּידָּח? הֱוֵי אוֹמֵר כֹּחַ הַמַּדִּיחַ. וְקַל וָחוֹמֶר: וּמָה חֶנֶק שֶׁחָמוּר מִסַּיִיף, סְקִילָה חֲמוּרָה מִמֶּנּוּ; סַיִיף הַקַּל – לֹא כׇּל שֶׁכֵּן?

The Gemara answers that in response to this objection you should say: But the severity of which transgression is greater: The severity of the transgression of the subverter, or the severity of the transgression of the subverted? You must say that the severity of the transgression of the subverter is greater. Since those who subverted the people of an idolatrous city are executed by stoning, this punishment is evidently more severe than decapitation. And it is inferred a fortiori that if it is so that concerning strangulation, which is more severe than decapitation by the sword, nevertheless stoning is more severe than it, is it not all the more so obvious that stoning is more severe than decapitation by the sword, which is a more lenient type of execution compared to strangulation?

חֶנֶק חָמוּר מִסַּיִיף, שֶׁכֵּן נִיתַּן לְמַכֵּה אָבִיו וְאִמּוֹ. וּמַאי חוּמְרָא? כְּדַאֲמַרַן.

Strangulation is more severe than decapitation by the sword, as it is meted out to one who wounds his father or his mother. And for what reason is the severity of this transgression considered greater? As we said, because the honor of one’s parents is compared to the honor of the Omnipresent.

אַדְּרַבָּה: סַיִיף חָמוּר שֶׁכֵּן נִיתַּן לְאַנְשֵׁי עִיר הַנִּדַּחַת. וּמַאי חוּמְרָא? שֶׁכֵּן מָמוֹנָם אָבֵד.

The Gemara raises an objection: On the contrary; decapitation by the sword is more severe, as it is meted out to the people of an idolatrous city. And for what reason is the severity of this transgression considered greater? Because their property is destroyed as well.

אָמַרְתָּ: וְכִי אֵיזֶה כֹּחַ מְרוּבֶּה, כֹּחַ הַמַּדִּיחַ אוֹ כֹּחַ הַנִּידָּח? הֱוֵי אוֹמֵר: כֹּחַ הַמַּדִּיחַ. וְתַנְיָא: מַדִּיחֵי עִיר הַנִּדַּחַת בִּסְקִילָה. רַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן אוֹמֵר: בְּחֶנֶק.

The Gemara answers that you should say in response to this objection: But the severity of which transgression is greater: The severity of the transgression of the subverter, or the severity of the transgression of the subverted? You must say that the severity of the transgression of the subverter is greater, and it is taught in a baraita: The subverters of an idolatrous city are executed by stoning. Rabbi Shimon says: By strangulation. Therefore, according to the opinion of Rabbi Shimon, it is clear that strangulation is a more severe type of capital punishment than decapitation.

מַרְגְּלָא בְּפוּמֵּיהּ דְּרַבִּי יוֹחָנָן: נַעֲרָה הַמְאוֹרָסָה בַּת כֹּהֵן שֶׁזִּינְּתָה – בִּסְקִילָה. רַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן אוֹמֵר: בִּשְׂרֵיפָה. זִינְּתָה מֵאָבִיהָ – בִּסְקִילָה. רַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן אוֹמֵר: בִּשְׂרֵיפָה.

§ Rabbi Yoḥanan was wont to say the following baraita: A betrothed young woman who is the daughter of a priest and who committed adultery is executed by stoning. Rabbi Shimon says: She is executed by burning. A betrothed young woman who is the daughter of a non-priest and who engaged in intercourse with her father is executed by stoning. Rabbi Shimon says: By burning.

מַאי קָא מַשְׁמַע לַן? לְרַבָּנַן – נְשׂוּאָה יָצְאָה לִשְׂרֵיפָה, וְלֹא אֲרוּסָה. לְרַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן – אַחַת אֲרוּסָה וְאַחַת נְשׂוּאָה יָצְאָה לִשְׂרֵיפָה. וְטַעְמָא מַאי? מִשּׁוּם דִּלְרַבָּנַן סְקִילָה חֲמוּרָה, לְרַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן שְׂרֵיפָה חֲמוּרָה.

The Gemara asks: What does this baraita teach us? The Gemara answers: It teaches us that according to the opinion of the Rabbis, the married daughter of a priest is singled out for burning, and not a betrothed one, who is executed by stoning. According to the opinion of Rabbi Shimon, the daughter of a priest, whether she is betrothed or married, is singled out for burning. And what is the reason for their respective opinions with regard to the punishment of the daughter of a priest? It is because according to the Rabbis stoning is more severe than burning, whereas according to Rabbi Shimon burning is more severe.

נָפְקָא מִינַּהּ לְמִי שֶׁנִּתְחַיֵּיב שְׁתֵּי מִיתוֹת בֵּית דִּין, נִידּוֹן בַּחֲמוּרָה.

In addition to the case of the priest’s daughter who committed adultery, there is a practical difference between these two opinions, which is that one who was sentenced to two different court-imposed death penalties for two sins he committed is punished with the more severe of the two, and these tanna’im disagree as to which type of death penalty is more severe.

מַאי רַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן? דְּתַנְיָא: רַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן אוֹמֵר, שְׁנֵי כְּלָלוֹת נֶאֶמְרוּ בְּבַת כֹּהֵן.

What is the source of the opinion of Rabbi Shimon that a priest’s betrothed daughter who committed adultery is executed by stoning? As it is taught in a baraita: Rabbi Shimon says: Two general halakhot are stated in the Torah with regard to the daughter of a priest, one rendering the betrothed daughter of a priest who committed adultery liable to be executed by stoning, and the other rendering the married daughter of a priest who committed adultery liable to be executed by strangulation.

בְּבַת כֹּהֵן, וְלֹא בְּבַת יִשְׂרָאֵל?! אֵימָא: אַף בְּבַת כֹּהֵן.

The Gemara interrupts the baraita and asks: Are they stated only with regard to the daughter of a priest, and not with regard to the daughter of a non-priest? Aren’t these halakhot stated with regard to the daughter of a non-priest as well? Rather, emend the text and say: These two halakhot are stated with regard to the daughter of a priest as well.

וְהוֹצִיא הַכָּתוּב נְשׂוּאָה מִכְּלַל נְשׂוּאָה, וַאֲרוּסָה מִכְּלַל אֲרוּסָה.

The baraita continues: The verse: “And the daughter of a priest, when she profanes herself by playing the harlot, she profanes her father; she shall be burned with fire” (Leviticus 21:9), is stated with regard to both a betrothed woman and a married woman. And the verse thereby singles out the married daughter of a priest from the category of an ordinary married woman, whose punishment is execution by strangulation, and it singles out the betrothed daughter of a priest from the category of an ordinary betrothed woman, who is executed by stoning.

מָה כְּשֶׁהוֹצִיא הַכָּתוּב נְשׂוּאָה מִכְּלַל נְשׂוּאָה לְהַחְמִיר, אַף כְּשֶׁהוֹצִיא הַכָּתוּב אֲרוּסָה מִכְּלַל אֲרוּסָה לְהַחֲמִיר.

Therefore, just as when the verse singles out the married daughter of a priest from the category of a married woman it is to render her punishment more severe, so too, when the verse singles out the betrothed daughter of a priest from the category of a betrothed woman it is to render her punishment more severe. This indicates that burning is a more severe type of capital punishment than stoning.

זוֹמְמֵי נְשׂוּאָה בַּת כֹּהֵן, בִּכְלַל זוֹמְמֵי נְשׂוּאָה בַּת יִשְׂרָאֵל; וְזוֹמְמֵי אֲרוּסָה בַּת כֹּהֵן, בִּכְלַל זוֹמְמֵי אֲרוּסָה בַּת יִשְׂרָאֵל.

The punishment for the conspiring witnesses concerning the married daughter of a priest, who testified falsely that she committed adultery, is included in the punishment for the conspiring witnesses concerning the married daughter of a non-priest, and the punishment for the conspiring witnesses concerning the betrothed daughter of a priest is included in the punishment for the conspiring witnesses concerning the betrothed daughter of a non-priest. The Torah is not more severe with them; the conspiring witnesses in the case of any married woman accused of committing adultery are strangled, and the conspiring witnesses in the case of any betrothed woman accused of committing adultery are stoned.

תָּנוּ רַבָּנַן: ״וּבַת אִישׁ כֹּהֵן כִּי תֵחֵל״ – יָכוֹל אֲפִילּוּ חִלְּלָה אֶת הַשַּׁבָּת? תַּלְמוּד לוֹמַר ״לִזְנוֹת״ – בְּחִילּוּלִין שֶׁבִּזְנוּת הַכָּתוּב מְדַבֵּר.

The Sages taught: The verse states: “And the daughter of a priest [ish kohen], when she profanes herself by playing the harlot, she profanes her father; she shall be burned with fire” (Leviticus 21:9). One might have thought that the expression “when she profanes [ki teḥel]” is referring even to one who desecrated [ḥillela] Shabbat; she too should be executed by burning. To counter this, the verse states: “By playing the harlot”; the verse is speaking of profanation through promiscuity.

יָכוֹל אֲפִילּוּ פְּנוּיָה? נֶאֱמַר כָּאן ״אָבִיהָ״, וְנֶאֱמַר לְהַלָּן ״אָבִיהָ״. מָה לְהַלָּן זְנוּת עִם זִיקַת הַבַּעַל, אַף כָּאן זְנוּת עִם זִיקַת הַבַּעַל.

One might have thought even if she is unmarried and she engaged in promiscuous intercourse she should be executed by burning. This is incorrect, as here it is stated: “Her father,” and there it is stated with regard to a betrothed woman who committed adultery: “Because she has done a depraved thing in Israel, to play the harlot in the house of her father” (Deuteronomy 22:21). Just as there, 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.

אוֹ אֵינוֹ אוֹמֵר ״אָבִיהָ״ אֶלָּא לְהוֹצִיא אֶת כׇּל הָאָדָם? כְּשֶׁהוּא אוֹמֵר ״הִיא מְחַלֶּלֶת״, הֱוֵי כָּל אָדָם אָמוּר.

Or perhaps one might have thought that the verse states “her father” only in order to exclude all men except her father, i.e., she is liable to be executed by burning only if she engaged in intercourse with her father. To counter this, when it states “she profanes,” indicating that it is she who profanes her father and not her father who profanes himself and her, all men are stated, i.e., included.

הָא מָה אֲנִי מְקַיֵּים ״אָבִיהָ״? נֶאֱמַר כָּאן ״אָבִיהָ״, וְנֶאֱמַר לְהַלָּן ״אָבִיהָ״. מָה לְהַלָּן זְנוּת עִם זִיקַת הַבַּעַל, אַף כָּאן זְנוּת עִם זִיקַת הַבַּעַל.

Therefore, how do I realize the meaning of the expression “she profanes her father”? What halakha does it teach? The baraita answers: Here it is stated: “Her father,” and there it is stated: “Her father.” Just as there, 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.

אִי מָה לְהַלָּן נַעֲרָה וְהִיא אֲרוּסָה, אַף כָּאן נַעֲרָה וְהִיא אֲרוּסָה? נַעֲרָה וְהִיא נְשׂוּאָה, בּוֹגֶרֶת וְהִיא אֲרוּסָה, בּוֹגֶרֶת וְהִיא נְשׂוּאָה, וַאֲפִילּוּ הִזְקִינָה – מִנַּיִן?

The baraita asks: If the halakha of the priest’s daughter who committed adultery is compared, by means of a verbal analogy, to the halakha of a betrothed woman who committed adultery, then perhaps one should say that just as there the reference is specifically to a young woman, i.e., to one whose first signs of maturity appeared within the past half year, who is betrothed, so too here, in the case of the daughter of a priest, the reference is to a young woman who is betrothed. But if she is a young woman who is married, or a grown woman who is betrothed, or a grown woman who is married, or even if she grew old, and is not normally referred to as a daughter, from where is it derived that her punishment is execution by burning?

תַּלְמוּד לוֹמַר ״וּבַת כֹּהֵן״ – מִכׇּל מָקוֹם.

The verse states: “And the daughter of a priest,” in any case. It is derived from the conjunction “and,” represented by the letter vav, that this punishment applies to any woman who is the daughter of a priest.

״בַּת כֹּהֵן״,

The verse states: “The daughter of a priest.”

Want to follow content and continue where you left off?

Create an account today to track your progress, mark what you’ve learned, and follow the shiurim that speak to you.

Clear all items from this list?

This will remove ALL the items in this section. You will lose any progress or history connected to them. This is irreversible.

Cancel
Yes, clear all

Are you sure you want to delete this item?

You will lose any progress or history connected to this item.

Cancel
Yes, delete