Rujukan Talmud untuk Ulangan 13:16: Jerusalem Talmud Sanhedrin & Jerusalem Talmud Demai

MISHNAH: The following are to be burned: one who copulates with a woman and her daughter,¹Lev. 20:14. and the daughter of a Cohen who committed adultery²Lev. 21:9.. In the category of a woman and her daughter are included his daughter, his daughter’s daughter, his son’s daughter, his wife’s daughter, her daughter’s daughter, and her son’s daughter³Lev. 18:17 includes relations with a woman and her granddaughter with the prohibition of a woman and her daughter. The Mishnaiot in the Babli and most independent Mishnah mss. include mention of the mother and the grandmother-in-law. This is logically redundant.. The following are to be beheaded: the murderer,⁴Chapter 7, Note 4. and the inhabitants of a seduced town⁵Deut. 13:16; Halakhot 7:1,10:7,8..

Rebbi Abbahu in the name of Rebbi Yose ben Ḥanina: The rabbis explain that the inhabitants of a seduced city¹⁸A city which by vote of city council and population decides to become pagan. Its inhabitants have to be killed by the sword (Deut. 13:13–19). Individual apostates to paganism have to be stoned (Deut. 17:5). should have been included in the category of idolaters, by stoning. They were treated to a less painful way of execution; that should be by burning¹⁹Just one degree less than stoning.. It is not enough that you decree for them an easier death by burning, but should you have them judged by the easiest way, by strangulation²⁰This is the rabbis’ argument to prove that beheading is worse than strangulation. If the punishment of the inhabitants of the seduced city were the easiest way of execution, the verse simply should have decreed the unspecified death penalty. Since beheading was specified, it must be worse than the unspecified death penalty.
The reason behind the argument is R. Ismael’s tenth hermeneutical principle [Sifra Wayyiqra Pereq 1(2)], that special treatment for a crime already treated in general always expresses a leniency, not greater strictness.? Rebbi Simeon explained: The false prophet²¹Deut. 13:2–6. He is described as a missionary for paganism; his sentence is “death” which means strangulation for the rabbis and beheading for R. Simeon. should have been included in the category of idolaters, by burning²²This makes no sense since it contradicts Deut. 17:5. The first two sentences of the argument attributed to R. Simeon are simply taken from the rabbis’ argument with stoning and burning switched, even though the argument is irrelevant.. He was treated to a less painful way of execution, which should be by stoning. It is not enough that you decree for them an easier death by stoning, but you have him judged by the easiest way, by beheading²³Since the rabbis must agree that the false prophet be executed in the least painful way, they agree that once a punishment is reduced, it may be reduced to the lowest level; the rabbis’ argument in Note 20 is contradicted. The mention of death by the sword in Deut. 13:16 may be an example of the third hermeneutical rule, “a general principle exemplified once”..

MISHNAH: A murderer who attacked someone with a stone or an iron¹⁷These are the cases described in the Torah, Num. 35:16,17., or forced him under water or into fire so he could not escape from there and died, is [criminally] liable. If he pushed him into water or fire and he could have escaped from there by himself but died, he is not [criminally] liable¹⁸This is a case of indirect causation, not covered by biblical law.. If he provoked a dog or a snake against him, he is not [criminally] liable¹⁸This is a case of indirect causation, not covered by biblical law.. If he let a snake bite him¹⁹The murderer held the poisonous snake until it started to bite the victim. For R. Jehudah it is a case of murder, for the Sages one of indirect causation., Rebbi Jehudah declares him [criminally] liable but for the Sages he is not [criminally] liable.