Talmud su Levitico 20:18

MISHNAH: The following are flogged¹As a matter of principle, all transgressions of biblical prohibitions are punishable by flogging unless specifically exempted. The rules are spelled out by Maimonides in his Commentary to this Mishnah. It is under stood that a sentence of flogging can be passed only after a trial based on the testimony of two witnesses both to the fact of the crime and the necessary warning given to the perpetrator.
A crime punishable by the death penalty can never lead to a sentence of flogging, even if the death penalty cannot be imposed because of a material or technical obstacle. Crimes punishable by extirpation or Death by the Hand of Heaven are subject to flogging, since in this case the earthly punishment guarantees the sinner his part in the World to Come (Mishnah 17).
A crime punishable by a fine cannot lead to punishment by flogging. Crimes done by speech without accompanying action are not punishable by flogging, except swearing falsely, substituting sacrifices (Lev. 27:10), and cursing using the Name which is a potential capital crime.
A crime connected to a positive commandment cannot lead to punishment by flogging as long as the positive commandment still can be executed (Mishnah 4).
The infraction of a positive commandment cannot be punished. For example, the High Priest is commanded to marry a virgin. He is prohibited of marrying a widow, divorcee, or desecrated woman (Lev. 21:13–14). If he marries a woman who is not forbidden but not a virgin, he cannot be punished.
A prohibition understood by inference, not written explicitly, cannot be punished.: He who copulates with his sister²Lev. 20:17. The list starts with sexual transgressions punishable by Heaven., or his father’s sister, or his mother’s sister³Lev. 20:19., or his wife’s sister⁴Lev. 18:18. This is a simple prohibition., or his brother’s wife⁵Lev. 20:21., or his father’s brother’s wife⁶Lev. 20:20., or a menstruating woman⁷Lev. 20:18.. A widow for the High Priest⁸Lev. 21:14, a simple prohibition., or a divorcee⁹Lev. 21:7. The clause about halîṣah, the freeing of the widow of a childless man from levirate marriage, is in dispute; the majority holds that the prohibition of the widow after halîsah is rabbinic. or one having received ḥalîṣah for a common priest. For a widow and divorcee one is liable because of two categories¹⁰If the High Priest marries a widow who had been a divorcee.. For a divorcee having received ḥalîṣah one is only liable for one category¹¹Since halîṣah is forbidden only as a kind of divorce..

In general by extirpation, the separate case by extirpation²In error.; the word of Rebbi Joḥanan implies that it is “general case and detail¹⁶²Hermeneutical principle #5 on R. Ismael’s list states that a general expression followed by particulars only refers to the particulars. If both general expression and details declare the same., one has to find a reason why the details have to be mentioned separately.”, as Rebbi Abbahu said in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan, since anybody who would perform any of these abomination s, they will be extirpated¹⁶³Lev. 18:29. This verse decrees a general verdict of extirpation on any violation of sexual taboos spelled out in Lev.18, whether or not they are criminally punishable.. Was not his sister included in the general class¹⁶⁴The sister is forbidden in Lev. 18:9 but in the chapter about penalties, Lev. 20:17, the punishment is reserved for Heaven. and was mentioned separately of the general class to divide from the general class. Rebbi Eleazar objected, is it not written¹⁶⁵Lev. 20:19. The wording might be slightly misleading., the nakedness of your mother’s sister and your father’s sister you shall not uncover, for he would touch his relative? He told him, this was mentioned separately for a reason, to judge by “touching”¹⁶⁶Lev. 20:19 makes two statements: The punishment is reserved for Heaven and the sin is committed the moment the genitals of the parties touch, without any penetration. Mishnah Yebamot 6:2 extends the equivalence of touching and penetration to all sexual offenses.. He said to him, is it not written¹⁶⁷Lev. 20:18. The implications are the same as for v. 19., a man who would lie with an unwell woman, uncover her nakedness and touch her source? He told him, this was mentioned separately for a reason, to judge the one “touching” as finishing. That you should not say, since he is liable for her [already]¹⁶⁸The word was deleted by the corrector but it is necessary for the understanding of the text. Since in Lev. 15 it is stated that simple touching (not sexual “touching”) a niddah causes impurity and is forbidden to the male, her prohibition differs materially from the other sexual taboos. for impurity we should not consider for him “touching” as finishing. Therefore it was necessary to mention (that he is liable for each single one.)¹⁶⁹This seems to be extraneous to the discussion. However, since the statement is also found in the Genizah text of Sanhedrin, it seems to be original and explains that Lev. 18:29 decrees separate extirpation and, therefore, separate sacrifices for unintentional sin, for each separate category of incest. He said to him, is it not written¹⁷⁰Lev. 20:20., a man who would sleep with his aunt, his uncle’s nakedness he uncovered? He told him, this was mentioned separately to judge by childlessness. But is it not written¹⁷¹Lev. 20:21., a man who would marry his brother’s wife, she is separated? He told him, this was mentioned separately to judge by childlessness, as Rebbi Yudan¹⁷²The Amora. His counterpart in the Babli is the third generation Amora Rabba (Rav Abba bar Naḥmani). The Babli (Yebamot 55a) applies both statements to both verses. said, where it is written childless they shall be¹⁷¹Lev. 20:21., they will be without children, childless they shall die¹⁷⁰Lev. 20:20., they bury their children.

⁷²This paragraph and the following almost to the end of the Halakhah have a slightly more complete parallel in Šabbat 7:2 (9c l.62–9d l.59). Rebbi Abun bar Ḥiyya said^73,In Šabbat, there is here a sentence connecting the text to the preceding discussion, not applicable here. This shows that the text here is not a mechanical copy of the text in Šabbat.⁷⁴One of R. Ismael’s hermeneutical principles is that “a detail which was singled out from a general class was singled out not for itself but as an example for the entire class.” In Šabbat, R. Abun bar Hiyya is reported here to have stated that according to R. Ismael this holds only for a single detail, not for two or more. (As a statement of R. Johanan see below, Notes 95 ff.).: Rebbi Ismael stated so: You shall not divine nor cast spells⁷⁵Lev. 19:26. Divination is an attempt to predict the future by magical means; spellbinding is practical witchcraft. Both are particular examples of the prohibition of witchcraft (Ex. 22:17), but no penalty is indicated.. Were not divination and spellbinding included in the general class but were mentioned separately to be treated differently from the general case? In general by extirpation, the separate cases for extirpation⁷⁶To use witchcraft is a capital crime as indicated in the Mishnah; in the absence of witnesses there is an automatic Divine verdict of extirpation. But the special cases of divination and spellbinding only trigger a verdict of extirpation; they are not cases for the human court. This illustrates R. Ismael’s principle. In Sifra Qedošim Pereq 6(2), R. Ismael and R. Aqiba identify divination and spellbinding as examples of make-believe witchcraft which according to Mishnah 19 is not punishable by the human court. Automatically, these are separate examples of sins which require a purification sacrifice if done without criminal intent. A person who unintentionally acts as sorcerer, divinator, and spellbinder has to bring three sacrifices.. A statement of Rebbi Joḥanan says, it is a case of general case and detail⁷⁷The wording might be slightly misleading. There is a hermeneutical principle (#5 on R. Ismael’s list) which states that a general expression followed by particulars only refers to the particulars. This presupposes that both general expression and details are in the same paragraph. For example, Lev. 1:2 describes sacrificial animals as animals, cattle, sheep, or goats. In the context, “animals” means “cattle, sheep, and goats”. In the discussion here, the details are mentioned in paragraphs other than the one describing the general category. Then one has to find a reason why the details have to be mentioned separately., as Rebbi Abbahu said in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan, for anybody who would perform any of these abominations will be extirpated⁷⁸Lev. 18:29. This verse decrees a general verdict of extirpation on any violation of sexual taboos spelled out in Lev. 18, whether or not they are criminally punishable., etc. Was not his sister included in the general class⁷⁹The sister is forbidden in Lev. 18:9 but in the chapter about penalties, Lev. 20:17, the punishment is reserved for Heaven.? Rebbi Eleazar objected: Was it not written, the nakedness of your mother’s sister and your father’s sister you shall not uncover⁸⁰A misquote from Lev. 18:7,8. It seems that in G the verses were quoted correctly. It is incorrect also in Šabbat. It seems from the context that the text in G is a learned scribe’s correction of the original which, however, did not refer to Lev. 18:7,8 but to Lev. 20:19: The nakedness of your mother’s sister and your father’s sister you shall not uncover, for his close relative he touched, their sin they have to carry. Cf. Babli Yebamot 54a.? He told him, it was stated separately for a reason, to judge it by touching⁸¹Lev. 20:19 makes two statements: The punishment is reserved for Heaven and the sin is committed the moment the genitals of the parties touch, without any penetration. Mishnah Yebamot 6:2 extends the equivalence of touching and penetration to all sexual offenses.. But is it not written⁸²Lev. 20:18. The implications are the same as for v. 19.: A man who would lie with an unwellwoman, who uncovered her nakedness, he touched her source, and she uncovered the source of her blood? He told him, it was stated separately for a reason, to judge it by touching. That you should not say, since one is guilty about her already by the impurity of touching, we should not treat the one who touched equal to the one who had full intercourse. Therefore, it was necessary to say it⁸³In G and Šabbat: “Therefore, it was necessary to say that he is liable for each one,” cf. Note 71. It is possible to justify the addition by noting that Lev. 18:29 decrees separate extirpation and, therefore, separate sacrifices for unintentional sin, for each separate category of incest.. But is it not written⁸⁴Lev. 20:20.: A man who would sleep with his aunt uncovered his uncle’s nakedness? He told him, it was stated separately for a reason, to judge it by destruction⁸⁵In Šabbat there is a reference here to Lev. 20:21. This also is missing in G, showing that the text here is secondary to that in Šabbat, since Lev. 20:20 says they shall die destroyed whereas v. 21 notes they shall be destroyed. The difference is explained in the following statement by R. Yudan. The Babli (Yebamot 55a) applies both statements to both verses., as Rebbi Yudan said, at all places where they will be destroyed is mentioned, they will be childless; where they shall die destroyed is mentioned, they shall bury their children.