וְהוֹצֵאתֶ֨ם אֶת־שְׁנֵיהֶ֜ם אֶל־שַׁ֣עַר ׀ הָעִ֣יר הַהִ֗וא וּסְקַלְתֶּ֨ם אֹתָ֥ם בָּאֲבָנִים֮ וָמֵתוּ֒ אֶת־הנער [הַֽנַּעֲרָ֗ה] עַל־דְּבַר֙ אֲשֶׁ֣ר לֹא־צָעֲקָ֣ה בָעִ֔יר וְאֶ֨ת־הָאִ֔ישׁ עַל־דְּבַ֥ר אֲשֶׁר־עִנָּ֖ה אֶת־אֵ֣שֶׁת רֵעֵ֑הוּ וּבִֽעַרְתָּ֥ הָרָ֖ע מִקִּרְבֶּֽךָ׃ (ס)
Entonces los sacaréis a ambos a la puerta de aquella ciudad, <span class="x" onmousemove="Show('perush','Este es el <b>229no Precepto Positivo</b> enumerado por el Rambam en el Prefacio a Mishné Torá, su “Compendio de la Ley Hebrea” para todo el Pueblo de Israel.',event);" onmouseout="Close();">y los apedrearéis</span> con piedras, y morirán; la moza porque no dió voces en la ciudad, y el hombre porque humilló a la mujer de su prójimo: así quitarás el mal de en medio de ti.
Jerusalem Talmud Sanhedrin
For R. Simeon, who holds that burning is more painful than stoning, Lev. 21:9 refers to any adulterous daughter of a Cohen, irrespective of the status of her marriage (Babli 50a). For the rabbis who hold that stoning is more painful than burning, Lev. 21:9 cannot refer to a preliminarily married maiden since then it would treat a Cohen’s daughter more leniently than an Israel’s, which contradicts the entire tenor of Lev. 21:1–9.
The formulation of the rabbis’ position is not quite correct since Deut. 22:24 applies only to a preliminarily married maiden (between the ages of 12 and 12 years 6 months; cf. Yebamot 1:3, Notes 159–160). In the text following, “preliminarily married” means “preliminarily married maiden”; “definitively married” means “definitively married or adult preliminarily married”.. Rebbi Simeon explained: The Torah was stringent with a Cohen’s daughter and ordered that as preliminarily married she be burned, but was lenient with the definitively married one that she be stoned9This statement contradicts the assertion in the previous paragraph that R. Simeon applies Lev. 21:9 to any married daughter of a Cohen; it also contradicts both the principles that (1) penalties must be spelled out in Scripture, cannot be inferred by hermeneutical rules, and (2) in any argument de minore ad majus only the data of the rules which are compared can be used; only identical terms can be transferred. Both objections again lead to the conclusion that R. Simeon cannot differentiate between a preliminarily and a definitively married daughter of a Cohen.. The Torah was lenient with the preliminarily married daughter of an Israel and ordered that she be stoned; it is logical that we be lenient with the definitively married one that she be decapitated10This is no logical argument at all but a clear reference to biblical verses; cf. Note 8. The only inference is that for R. Simeon the standard method of execution must be beheading.. But the rabbis explain, since the Torah was stringent with the preliminarily married daughter of an Israel and ordered that she be stoned, it was lenient with her in her definitively married status to be burned11A clear scribal error; it must be “strangled” (Note 8).. The Torah was lenient with the daughter of a Cohen in her pleliminarily married status and ordered that she be burned; it is logical that we be lenient with her in her definitively married status that she be strangled12This proves that at the end of the preceding sentence one has to read “strangled”..