Talmud su Levitico 20:14

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..

HALAKHAH: “Four kinds of execution was the court empowered to impose,” etc. But to the government²The Roman Imperial government. When Caracalla extended Roman citizenship to all free inhabitants of the empire, he thereby abolished crucifixion (except for slaves). only decapitation was given. From where stoning? You shall stone them with stones that they die³Deut. 17:5.. Burning, for it is written, in fire you shall burn him and them⁴Lev. 20:14.. Avenging is written here⁵Ex. 21:20. The slave slain by his master shall be avenged. Babli 52b; the Babli text in Mekhilta dR. Ismael p. 273, dR. Simeon bar Iohai p. 175., and there it is written: I shall bring over you a sword which avenges the vengeance of the Covenant⁶Lev. 26:25.. Since avenging mentioned there is by the sword, also avenging mentioned here is by the sword. Strangling? You do not find it⁷It is not mentioned anywhere in biblical literature as a recognized form of execution. The Babli’s discussion, 52b, is inconclusive.. You say that for any death penalty mentioned in the Torah with no particular indication, you are not empowered to make it more stringent, but only to make it less so; they assigned this to strangling.

It is written¹⁶Lev. 20:14: “If a man takes a woman and her mother, it is taboo.” Everywhere is written “lying with”¹⁷In the punishment list of Chap. 20. In the prohibition of Chap. 18, the expression used is mostly “uncovering genitals”. but here is written “taking”, to teach you that he cannot be guilty for the second [woman] unless the first one is prepared¹⁸Available to him at least by betrothal or obligation of levirate. The criminal sanction cannot be applied if one of the parties was married to him but died. for him. Or maybe only by marriage¹⁹That he had to marry both women. This is impossible since an incestuous marriage has no existence in law.? We already said that there is no incestuous marriage. But is it not written²⁰Deut. 23:1; neither the term “lying with” nor the term “uncovering genitals” is used. Does this mean that only the marriage with a stepmother is forbidden?
This and the following questions challenge the assertion that the incest prohibition of a man with mother and daughter is the only one where “taking” is mentioned.: “Nobody may marry his father’s wife, and he should not uncover his father’s garment’s corner”? This comes to tell you that she was permitted to him before his father married her²¹The statement that he may not marry her makes sense only if without the father’s marriage the son could have married her. This supports the Mishnah.. But is it not written²²Lev. 20:21. This is a relevant question since the verse is also from Chapter 20.: “If a man take his brother’s wife, it is despicable”? This comes to tell you that she was permitted to him before his brother married her. This is confirmed by levirate²³She again becomes permitted to the levir.. But is it not written²⁴Lev. 18:18. The argument following is parallel to that of the verse quoted before this one.: “You should not take a woman in addition to her sister to make her a co-wife”? This comes to tell you that she was permitted to him before he married her sister. This is confirmed after her sister’s death. But is it not written²⁵Lev. 20:17. The argument identifies חסד I “to be well behaved” and חסד II “to act shamefully”. A similar argument in Babli Sanhedrin 58b.: “A man who would take his sister, his father’s daughter or his mother’s daughter; he sees her genitals and she sees his genitals, it is ḥesed.” Rebbi Avin said, that you should not say that Kain married his sister, Abel married his sister, “it is charitable”, I was charitable with the first generations so the world could be inhabited; “I said, the world was built on ḥesed²⁶Ps. 89:3..” But is it not written²⁷Lev. 21:7.: “Widow, divorcee, and desecrated, these he shall not take”? This comes to tell you that if he became betrothed to her that the betrothal is valid²⁸The marriages forbidden only to priests, “prohibitions of holiness”, are not incestuous; they are sinful but valid, cf. Halakhah 2:3..