Talmud su Levitico 20:16

If a man cohabits with any woman forbidden him as incest, he does not thereby disqualify her from marrying a kohen.⁴²Cf. Yeb. 61b (Sonc. ed., p. 409) where R. ‘Aḳiba maintains that the term harlot forbidden to a kohen applies only to one who is in fact a prostitute. GRA omits ‘not’. Higger quotes the suggestion of Prof. L. Ginzberg that there is a scribal error through dittography and the text should read: ‘Not only is the child a bastard but he even disqualifies her from marrying a kohen’. [If a kohen cohabits with his wife when she is] niddah, although he is liable to a penalty for the intercourse,⁴³Cf. Lev. 18, 19. the child [who is conceived] is qualified to stand and offer sacrifices upon the altar.⁴⁴The offspring of a forbidden but valid marriage cannot be considered a ḥalal. Cf. Yeb. 60a (Sonc. ed., p. 399).
A woman who had intercourse with that which is not a human being,⁴⁵i.e. an animal; ibid. 59b (Sonc. ed., p. 397). although she is in consequence subject to the penalty of kareth,⁴⁶If the offence was committed in the presence of witnesses after due warning, the penalty is stoning (Lev. 20, 16); in the absence of witnesses and warning, she is under the penalty of kareth. she is not disqualified from marrying a kohen. R. Jose said: It once happened at Haitali⁴⁷The Babylonian form of Aitalu, the modern Aiterun, N.W. of Ḳadesh; cf. S. Klein, Beiträge, p. 47. that while a young woman was cleaning the floor⁴⁸lit. ‘house’; she must have been kneeling. a gorilla⁴⁹In Yeb. loc. cit., ‘a wild dog’. came and covered her from the rear. When the case came before the Sages, they did not disqualify her from marrying a kohen.

MISHNAH: The following are stoned: A male having sexual relations with the mother, or the father’s wife⁵³Even if she is not his mother, Lev. 20:11. One infers from Lev. 20:27 that their blood be on them means that the punishment is stoning (Halakhah 9)., or the daughter-in-law, or a male, or an animal; or a female bringing an animal onto herself⁵⁴Lev. 20:12,13,15,16.. Also the blasphemer⁵⁵Lev. 24:23. It is a capital crime only if the Divine Name (which today is unknown) was used in the blasphemy., the worshipper of idols⁵⁶Deut. 17:5., he who gives one of his descendants to the Moloch⁵⁷Lev. 20:2., and the necromancer, and the medium⁵⁸Lev. 20:27. The necromancer is the person who raises the spirits of the dead; cf. 1S. 28. The medium is one who incorporates a spirit which predicts the future, speaking from the medium’s body, not his mouth.. Also one who desecrates the Sabbath⁵⁹Num. 15:36., or who curses father or mother⁶⁰Lev. 20:9., or who has sexual relations with a preliminarily married maiden⁸Adultery by a preliminarily married virgin is punishable by stoning (Deut. 22:24), by a definitively married woman by “death” (Lev. 20:10), which by the preceding argument means the least painful of the four kinds of execution. Lev. 21:9 prescribes death by burning for the whoring daughter of a Cohen. The status (unmarried, preliminarily or definitively married) of the Cohen’s daughter is not spelled out. Since sexual activity of an unmarried woman is nowhere in the Bible classified as a capital crime [Sifra Emor Pereq 1(15)], it is assumed that the Cohen’s daughter mentioned in the verse cannot be unmarried (virgin or widowed). The problem remains whether Lev. 21:9 refers to a preliminarily or definitively married woman.
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”., or who leads astray⁶¹The missionary for another faith who addresses individuals in private; Deut. 13:11, cf. Mishnah 16., or who seduces⁶²He acts in public; Halakhah 16., or the sorcerer⁶³Halakhah 19., or the deviant and rebellious son⁶⁴Deut. 21:21..

The allegorical interpreters⁸⁸lit. ‘expounders of jewels’, i.e. precious ethical principles. These interpreters stressed the idea behind the law and not its fulfilment. This type of interpretation was a product of Alexandria and was strongly opposed by the Talmudical Rabbis. Cf. Lauterbach, Jewish Quarterly Review (new series), I, pp. 503ff. of Scripture said: And ye shall break down their altars:⁸⁹Deut. 12, 3. wherein have the trees and the stones sinned?⁹⁰Cf. Sanh. 55a (Sonc. ed., p. 374). Because they were a stumbling-block to man Scripture decreed, And ye shall break down. This is an argument from minor to major: if with trees and stones, which are capable neither of merit nor guilt, neither of good nor evil, because they were a stumbling-block to man the Torah declared, And ye shall break down, how much more [will a man be punished] who causes his neighbour to sin and turns him away from the way of life to the path of death! Similarly, And if a woman approach unto any beast, and lie down thereto, thou shalt kill the woman, and the beast.⁹¹Lev. 20, 16. If a human being sinned, how has the animal offended?⁹²Sanh. 54a (Sonc. ed., p. 367). Because evil came to a human being through it, and so that the animal shall not pass through the street and people say, ‘This is the animal on account of which So-and-so was stoned’. This is an argument from minor to major: if with an animal, which is capable neither of merit nor guilt, neither of good nor evil, because it was a stumbling-block to a human being the Torah declared, It shall be stoned, how much more [will a man be punished] who causes his neighbour to sin and turns him from the way of life to the path of death!
Similarly Scripture declares of the stones of the altar, Thou shalt lift up no iron tool upon them,⁹³Deut. 27, 5. and elsewhere it states, For if thou lift up thy tool upon it, thou hast profaned it.⁹⁴Ex. 20, 22. Wherein is iron different from all other metals to be unfit for [the building of] the altar? Because the sword is a symbol of curse and the altar an agent of atonement; so we remove the symbol of curse on account of the agent of atonement. This is an argument from minor to major: if with the stones of the altar which do not see and speak, eat or drink, because they make peace between Israel and their Father in heaven the Torah declared, Thou shalt lift no iron tool upon them, the children of the Torah,⁹⁵The people of Israel. who are an atonement for the world, how much more [should they not lift an iron tool against each other!] Similarly Scripture declares, Thou shalt build the altar of the Lord thy God of unhewn stones⁹⁶Deut. 27, 6.—stones that bring peace to the world. This is an argument from minor to major: if with stones which do not see or hear, speak or eat or drink, because they make peace between Israel and their Father in heaven they must be ‘whole’ [48a] before [the Holy One, blessed be He], how much more the children of the Torah, who are an atonement for the world, must be ‘whole’ before the Holy One, blessed be He!