Talmud su Levitico 20:78

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..

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..

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..

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..

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..

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..

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.

Rebbi Abbahu in the name of Rebbi Yose ben Ḥanina: Anyone who is executed less cruelly than her father’s death is by burning¹³The discussion follows the rabbis, for whom stoning is more severe than burning. The statement is a little more explicit in the Babli, 51a.
A definitively married Israel woman who commits adultery is strangled, except that if she commit incest with her father both are burned (Lev. 20:14). As a preliminarily married maiden she would be stoned. Therefore, it is clear that for the rabbis the daughter of a Cohen is burned only if either she commits incest with her father or adultery when definitively married.. As long as she is with her father, with her father she is burned, with her father-in-law stoned. With her father she is desecrating, in fire she should be burned¹⁴Lev. 21:9, reading אֶת as “with”. The quote with the following two sentences is a baraita, Sifra Emor Pereq 1(19); Tosephta 14:17.. Rebbi Eliezer says, with her father she is burned, with her father-in-law stoned¹⁵Lev. 20:12. From Lev. 20:27: they shall be put to death, by a stone they shall be stoned, their blood be on them, it is inferred that any expression “their blood be on them” means execution by stoning. Babli 54a.. She by burning, her paramour not by burning¹⁶The singular used in Lev. 21:9 implies that only she is executed by burning; her paramour is punished, like any adulterer with a married woman, by strangulation (Babli 51a).. She by burning, her perjured witnesses not by burning. Similarly by burning, she and they by burning. Simnilarly by stoning, she and they by stoning. Similarly by strangulation, they by burning but he by strangulation¹⁷The last three sentences are repeated as last sentences of this Tractate, Halakhah 11:8; Tosephta 14:17. “They” are perjured witnesses who falsely accuse her. If they accuse her of adultery as a definitively married woman, then the perjured witnesses are strangled, the prescribed punishment of the paramour. If they accuse her of incest with her father, they are burned, the prescribed punishment of her father. If they accuse her of adultery as preliminarily married maiden, they are stoned, the prescribed punishment both of her and her paramour.
The last sentence cannot stand as it appears here. In Chapter 11, one reads כְּיוֹצֵא בָהֶן בְּחֶנֶק הִיא וְהֵן בְּחֶנֶק “similarly by strangulation, she and they by strangulation.” In the Tosephta כְּיוֹצֵא בָהֶן בְּחֶנֶק הוּא בִּשְׂרֵיפָה וְהֵן בְּחֶנֶק “similarly by strangulation, he is burned and they by strangulation.” One sees that none of the scribes understood what he was writing. One may read in Chapter 11 “he and they by strangulation,” or in the Tosephta “she is burned and they strangled”. In the text here, one has to read: “she by burning but he (or they) by strangulation.”.

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..

“Did you warn him?” From where warning? Rebbi Samuel bar Naḥman in the name of Rebbi Jonathan: ¹⁸Lev. 20:17. In a slightly different setting, this paragraph also is in Yebamot 11:1, Notes 25–26. Incest with one’s sister is criminal (although by the earthly court only punishable by flogging) while it was permitted to earlier generations. Therefore, it cannot be assumed that everybody knows it to be prohibited. People found engaged in incestuous acts cannot be prosecuted unless before the act informed of its criminality.A man who would take his sister …, it is ḥesed. Rebbi Bun said, Cain 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 to be built on ḥesed¹⁹Ps. 89:3..

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..

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..

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.

HALAKHAH: “A female convert who converted,” etc. Is not⁶⁹The interrogative here does not make much sense; the baraita text is a copy from Sifra Qedošim Parašah 9(9), where the rhetorical question is appropriate. the convert guilty for his mother⁷⁰If he injures or curses his mother (Ex. 21:15,17). R. Yose the Galilean holds that a Gentile cannot claim relationship with his children, whether the mother is Gentile or Jewish. but not for his father following Rebbi Yose the Galilean? Rebbi Aqiba says, “his father and mother he cursed.⁷¹Lev. 20:9: “Any man who would curse his father and (or) his mother shall certainly die; his father and (or) mother he cursed, his blood is on him.” R. Aqiba infers from “curse his father”, “his mother he cursed”, that the rules for father and mother must be identical.” Anybody potentially guilty for his mother is potentially guilty for his father but nobody who cannot be guilty for his mother can be guilty for his father⁷²In fact, the argument goes the other way, anybody who cannot be guilty for his father cannot be guilty for his mother. Therefore, the child who converted with his mother cannot be prosecuted for injuring or cursing his mother.. Rebbi Aqiba agrees that the “silenced⁷³A person of unknown paternity, who is silenced by his mother should he adress any man as his father. If his father were known, he would be a normal Jew.” one is potentially guilty for his mother but not for his father. Rebbi Jacob bar Aḥa, Rebbi Yasa in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: Where do they⁷⁴R. Yose the Galilean and R. Aqiba. disagree? About a convert not conceived in holiness but born in holiness. But about a convert conceived and born in holiness even Rebbi Yose the Galilean agrees⁷⁵There is not much to disagree since the child is born as full Jew (even though he is called a proselyte after his father, Mishna Qiddušin 3:12)...

⁹⁸Babli 7b, Sifra Aḥare Pereq4(1–3).“He shall atone for the Sanctuary from the impurities of the Children of Israel⁹⁹Lev. 16:16., etc. In this aspect I have three impurities. The impurity of foreign worship as it is said, to defile My Sanctuary¹⁰⁰Lev. 20:3.. Sexual offenses as it is said, not to act in the rules of abominations¹⁰¹Lev. 18.30.. Spilling of blood as it is said, do not defile the Land¹⁰²Num. 35:34, a misquote from memory.. I could think that this he-goat atones for all these impurities, the verse says, from the impurities, not all impurities¹⁰³Reading the prefix מ as partitive, cf. Note 75.. We find that the verse treated the impurity of the Sanctuary and its sancta separately; also here we treat only the impurity of the Sanctuary and its sancta separately¹⁰⁴In his opinion, the Day of Atonement is exclusively for repairing any damage to the Sanctuary., the words of Rebbi Jehudah. Rebbi Simeon says, from its place it is decided, as it is said, he shall atone for the Sanctuary from the impurities of the Children of Israel, any impurity in the Sanctuary. I could think that this he-goat atones for these impurities, the verse says, and their crimes⁹⁹Lev. 16:16.. These are the rebellions¹⁰⁵Intentional sins, intended as “breaking the yoke of Heaven”. There is no homily on חַטָּאוֹת “unintentional sins” also mentioned in the verse., for so it says, the king of Moab rebelled against me¹⁰⁶2K. 3:7..

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.

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.

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.

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.

Rebbi Yose said, it was necessary that his aunt be mentioned separately, to exclude his maternal brother’s wife¹⁷⁴From punishment by loss of children (rejected in the Babli, Yebamot 55a).. It is said here his aunt, and it is said there¹⁷⁵Lev. 25:49. Since the subject of the entire Chapter is inheritance, it is understood that only the male line is addressed., either his uncle or his uncle’s son shall free him. Since by his uncle mentioned there, the verse understands his father’s paternal brother, also by his aunt mentioned here, the verse speaks of his father’s paternal sister¹⁷⁶In Sanhedrin: His paternal uncle’s wife. This is more appropriate for the argument here since his father’s or mother’s sisters are forbidden by Lev. 18:12,13 and the prohibition is unproblematic.. Also his brother’s wife¹⁷⁷Who is forbidden in Lev. 18:16. can be inferred from his aunt. Since by his aunt mentioned there, the verse speaks of his father’s paternal brother’s wife, also by his brother’s wife mentioned here, the verse speaks of his paternal brother’s wife. So far following Rebbi Aqiba. Following Rebbi Ismael? As Rebbi Ismael stated: It is said here his brother’s wife and it is said there¹⁷⁸Lev. 20:21, the penalty clause referring to the prohibition formulated in Lev. 18:16., a man who would take his brother’s wife, she is niddah¹⁷⁹In biblical Hebrew, the meaning of the root נדד is the same as Arabic نحاد “to separate, to disperse”. This applies both to the menstruating woman (Lev. 18:19), to whom relations with her husband are forbidden, and to the person excommunicated (מְנֻדֶּה) who is separated from the community. In rabbinic Hebrew, the word נִדָּה is used exclusively for the menstruating woman; this is the reference made here, even though the argument is equally valid for the excommunicated person. (Babli Yebamot 54b.). Since a menstruating woman will be permitted after being forbidden, also his paternal brother’s wife may be permitted after being forbidden.¹⁸⁰The menstruating woman is permitted after her purification; the brother’s wife may be permitted, viz., if the brother dies childless. In the latter case, “brother” means paternal brother (Yebamot 1:1, Note 45). This excludes his maternal brother’s wife, who cannot be permitted after being forbidden¹⁸¹But for whom no punishment is spelled out..

Rebbi Ḥuna understood all of them from this verse¹⁰⁴Lev. 18:17. “The genitals of a woman and her daughter you should not uncover; her son’s daughter or her daughter’s daughter you should not take to uncover her genitals, they are relatives, this is taboo.” Take means “to marry”.: “The genitals of a woman and her daughter you should not uncover; her son’s daughter or her daughter’s daughter.” Taboo - taboo, for an equal cut¹⁰⁵In v. 20:14 one reads: “If a man take a woman and her mother, it is taboo, in fire they should burn him and them, so that there be no taboo amongst you.” In contrast to v. 18:17 which speaks “downwards” of future generations, that verse speaks “upwards” of preceding generations. They are connected by the word taboo {Accadic zamū “to exclude from something, to refuse something to somebody”} which must “cut” the same way in both cases. The argument is refuted in Babli Sanhedrin 75a/b since it contradicts verses dealing with earlier generations which seem to insist that the kinds of sin and their punishments are not comparable.. Since there are three generations downwards, so there are three generations upwards¹⁰⁶Wife, her mother, and grandmothers as well as himself, his mother and grandmothers.. Since there is a prohibition downwards, so there is a prohibition upwards. Since upwards one requires marriage, so downwards one requires marriage¹⁰⁷To make it a capital crime.. Since upwards they are burned, so downwards they are burned. Since downwards, He¹⁰⁸The Lawgiver. gave the male’s daughter the same status as the female’s daughter¹⁰⁴Lev. 18:17. “The genitals of a woman and her daughter you should not uncover; her son’s daughter or her daughter’s daughter you should not take to uncover her genitals, they are relatives, this is taboo.” Take means “to marry”., so upwards He gave the male’s mother the same status as the female’s mother. What is this about? His father-in-law’s mother and his mother-in-law’s mother. Should not his father’s mother be like his father-in-law’s mother¹⁰⁹His mother-in-law’s mother is under a biblical prohibition since his wife is her granddaughter. Since the verse puts the daughter’s daughter on the same level as the son’s daughter, the paternal grandmother also must be forbidden.? Should not his mother’s mother be like his mother-in-law’s mother¹¹⁰So there is only one fence, not two. The same argument holds for all the rhetorical questions; all the prohibitions are reduced to single fences.? They forbade his father’s father’s wife because of his father’s mother. They forbade his mother’s father’s wife because of his mother’s mother. Should not his son’s son’s wife be like his wife’s son’s daughter? Should not his daughter’s son’s wife be like his wife’s daughter’s daughter?

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..

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..

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..

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..

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..

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..

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..

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.

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.

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.

Rebbi Yose said, it was necessary that his aunt be mentioned separately, to exclude his mother’s brother’s wife⁸⁷From punishment by loss of children (rejected in the Babli, Yebamot 55a).. What is the reason? It is said here his aunt, and it is said there⁸⁸Lev. 25:49. Since the subject of the entire Chapter is inheritance, it is understood that only the male line is addressed., either his uncle or his uncle’s son shall freehim. Since by his uncle mentioned there, the verse understands his father’s paternal brother, also by his aunt mentioned here, the verse speaks of his father’s paternal brother’s wife. Also his brother’s wife⁸⁹Who is forbidden in Lev. 18:16. can be inferred⁹⁰The reading of G and Šabbat, לְמֵידָה, seems preferable. from his aunt. Since by his aunt mentioned there, the verse speaks of his father’s paternal brother’s wife, also by his brother’s wife mentioned here, the verse speaks of his paternal brother’s wife. So far following Rebbi Aqiba. Following Rebbi Ismael? Rebbi Ismael stated: It is said here his brother’s wife and it is said there⁹¹Lev. 20:21, the penalty clause referring to the prohibition formulated in Lev. 18:16., a man who would take his brother’s wife, she is niddah⁹²In biblical Hebrew, the meaning of the root נדד is the same as Arabic نحاد “to separate, to disperse”. This applies both to the menstruating woman (Lev. 18:19), who is forbidden relations with her husband, and to the person excommunicated (מְנֻדֶּה) who is separated from the community. In rabbinic Hebrew, the word נִדָּה is used exclusively for the menstruating woman; this is the reference made here, even though the argument is equally valid for the excommunicated person. (Babli Yebamot54b.). Since a menstruating woman will be permitted after being forbidden, also his [paternal] brother’s wife may be permitted [after being forbidden.⁹³The words in brackets are added from G and Šabbat. The menstruating woman is permitted after her purification; the brother’s wife may be permitted, viz., if the brother dies childless. In the latter case, “brother” means paternal brother (Yebamot 1:1, Note 45).] This excludes his maternal brother’s wife, who cannot be permitted after being forbidden⁹⁴But for whom no punishment is spelled out..

HALAKHAH: “A person having sexual relations with the mother,” etc. Halakhah 7:“A person having sexual relations with the father’s wife,” etc. From where the warning¹²⁹A prohibition the penalty for which is not spelled out carries a penalty of flogging (Deut. 25:21). For any more serious infraction the pentateuchal style requires that separate verses must spell out (1) the prohibition, (2) the penalty to be imposed by the court, (3) the penalty imposed by Heaven in case the crime was not observed by two blameless adult male witnesses and, therefore, no court case was possible. In case of sexual crimes this would mean that the witnesses have to see the sex act. For a civil case, such as a husband wishing to divorce his wife because of her adultery, without paying her ketubah, it is enough for witnesses to testify to her going to a room with another man, locking the door, and extinguishing the lights. But this is not enough for a criminal conviction. for a person having sexual relations with the mother? Your mother’s nakedness you shall not uncover.¹³⁰Lev. 18:7. From where extirpation? For anybody who would commit any of these abominations, the guilty persons will be extirpated from their people¹³¹Lev. 18:29.. From where the warning for a person having sexual relations with the father’s wife? Your father’s wife’s nakedness you shall not uncover.¹³²Lev. 18:8 From where extirpation? For anybody who would commit,¹³¹Lev. 18:29. etc. Punishment from where? A man who would sleep with his father’s wife, his father’s nakedness he uncovered; they shall be put to death,¹³³Lev. 20:11. Even R. Jehudah will agree that this verse also refers to the mother. The verse ends: their blood be on them. In the next Halakhah it will be determined that this expression implies stoning; cf. Babli 54a. etc.

HALAKHAH: “Five kinds of blood are impure from a woman,” etc. Rav and Rebbi Joḥanan both say that there are four kinds of blood. The red one oxydizes and becomes black⁸⁷In the Babli, 19a, 20a, this is a statement of R. Ḥanina supported by a Tannaїtic statement. Samuel’s statement is ascribed there to Rami bar Abba, a student of Rav Huna.. Samuel said, black comes from all of them. From where that there are five kinds of blood impure by the Torah? Rebbi Joshua ben Levi said, “she uncovered the source of her bloods⁸⁸Lev. 20:18.,” “she shall be purified from the source of her bloods,⁸⁹Lev. 12:7.” “blood will be the excretion of her genitals.⁹⁰Lev. 15:19.This verse is not quoted in the Babli, 19a, since only four kinds of blood have to be established. Also, that verse is needed to establish the fact that a menstruating woman is impure; in the hermeneutics of the Babli it cannot be used to establish details of the rule. The other two verses mention the blood as a kind of side remark; they can be used to establish the details. The argument is that in both verses the plural is used; an indefinite plural always means 2 (cf. H. Guggenheimer, Logical Problems in Jewish Tradition; cf. Chapter 1, Note 83), and 2+2 = 4.” But “a woman whose excretion of blood flows”⁹¹Lev. 15:25. is also there! That only comes to her in the days of her excessive flow to turn her into a zavah⁹²The verse deals with a different subject, with blood that is not menstrual.. From where that there is impure and pure blood? Rebbi Ḥama ben Joseph in the name of Rebbi Hoshaiah⁹³Quoted in the Babli, 19a, in the names of the same authors.: It is written: “If something in the law is too difficult for you;” then it is not written “whether blood and blood” but “between blood and blood”⁹⁴Deut. 17:8., that shows that there is impure and pure blood⁹⁵That there are cases of impurity of blood which need a judicial determination..

From where the warning¹²⁹A prohibition the penalty for which is not spelled out carries a penalty of flogging (Deut. 25:21). For any more serious infraction the pentateuchal style requires that separate verses must spell out (1) the prohibition, (2) the penalty to be imposed by the court, (3) the penalty imposed by Heaven in case the crime was not observed by two blameless adult male witnesses and, therefore, no court case was possible. In case of sexual crimes this would mean that the witnesses have to see the sex act. For a civil case, such as a husband wishing to divorce his wife because of her adultery, without paying her ketubah, it is enough for witnesses to testify to her going to a room with another man, locking the door, and extinguishing the lights. But this is not enough for a criminal conviction. for a person having sexual relations with his daughter-in-law? Your daughter-in-law’s nakedness you shall not uncover.¹³⁴Lev. 18:15. From where extirpation? For any man who would commit any of these abominations will be extirpated,^131,Lev. 18:29.¹³⁵The verse is slightly misquoted. etc. Punishment from where? A man who would sleep with his daughter-in-law¹³⁶Lev. 20:12. etc.

It was stated¹³⁷A short version of the discussion started here is in the Babli 95a; the very succinct source is in Sifra Qedošim Pereq 9(15)-(18).: Rebbi Jehudah said, the House of Shammai and the House of Hillel agree that one who copulates with his mother-in-law disables his wife. Where did they disagree? If he copulates with his wife’s sister; where the House of Shammai say, he disabled her¹³⁸Treating the man’s transgression as equal in consequence to the woman’s. In their opinion, the husband is forced to divorce his wife and pay her all that is due in a divorce which is his fault., but the House of Hillel say, he did not disable her. The colleagues in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: The reason of Rebbi Jehudah: “In fire they should burn him and them¹³⁹Lev. 20:14..” Where do we hold? If it is about burning, only one of them is burned¹⁴⁰As explained in Sifra, the prohibition (Lev. 18:17) is that of incestuous intercourse; the prescription of the punishment (Lev. 20:14) deals only with the case that a man marries a woman and her mother. The problem is that if one of them is married to him, he cannot possibly marry the other since any act of incestuous betrothal or final marriage is invalid and legally nonexistent. Therefore, while intercourse with mother and daughter is incestuous and forbidden, it is a capital crime only if the man is married to one of them at the time he sleeps with the other. The innocent wife did not commit any crime and, therefore, cannot be punished. Cf. Chapter 11, Note 46.. So if it cannot be relevant for burning, let it be relevant for prohibition¹⁴¹In Sifra, as in the Yerushalmi, this is R. Aqiba’s position. In the Babli, 95a, this is an amoraic interpretation of R. Simeon ben Laqish reported by R. Ammi.. So far following Rebbi Aqiba; following Rebbi Ismael? Rebbi Ismael stated: “In fire they should burn him and them,” him and the second one¹⁴²In Sifra, “one of them.” He reads the unusual word אתהן (substituting for אותן) as abbreviation of את אחת מהן.. And the House of Shammai was arguing: Since in a case where a slightly prohibited person copulated with a slightly prohibited person the cause of the prohibition became forbidden, if a strongly prohibited person copulated with a strongly prohibited person, it is only logical that the cause of the prohibition is forbidden¹⁴³This difficult argument is quoted anonymously in Sifry Num. 7 as argument that her husband’s adulterous relationship with her mother does not prohibit the wife, and explained in detail in Num. Rabba Naśo 9(35) (most probably a Provençal text): “Since in a case where a slightly prohibited person copulated with a slightly prohibited person, this refers to adultery since her prohibition is not permanent (her husband could divorce her), the cause of the prohibition (the husband) became forbidden (he has to divorce his wife), if a strongly prohibited person copulated with a strongly prohibited person, this refers to a man sleeping with his mother-in-law whose prohibition is permanent, it is only logical that the cause of the prohibition (the wife) should forbidden”, the verse says “with her” (cf. Note 134).
A simple and short version is in Sifre Zuṭa, Midrash Haggadol Num. 12, ed. Rabbinowitz p. 51.. Which rule is slight? Rebbi Joḥanan said, the beginning of the chapter¹⁴⁴Mishnah 1, the case of careless adultery.. But this is very strong¹⁴⁵There is no stronger sexual prohibition than that of adultery, the only one mentioned in the Ten Commandments.! There is a difference since she was permitted to be married to him¹⁴⁶If the woman remarried on the testimony of one witness, while she took all the risk, the marriage was permitted under our rules. But the sister of the living wife and the mother-in-law are permanently forbidden..

MISHNAH: A man who had sexual relations with a male or an animal, or a woman who brings an animal [upon herself]¹⁷¹These are to be stoned, Mishnah 5.. If a human sinned, what did the animal sin¹⁷²Lev. 20:15 decrees that a male who had relations with an animal shall be killed together with the animal, while v. 16 decrees that a woman who had relations with an animal shall be stoned together with the animal. The two verses are considered a unit, so that killing in v. 15 is read as stoning.? But because it caused a mishap to a human, therefore the verse decreed that it should be stoned. Another explanation: Lest the animal be seen in public and people say, this is the one because of which X was stoned.

HALAKHAH: “A man who had sexual relations with a male.” From where the warning¹²⁹A prohibition the penalty for which is not spelled out carries a penalty of flogging (Deut. 25:21). For any more serious infraction the pentateuchal style requires that separate verses must spell out (1) the prohibition, (2) the penalty to be imposed by the court, (3) the penalty imposed by Heaven in case the crime was not observed by two blameless adult male witnesses and, therefore, no court case was possible. In case of sexual crimes this would mean that the witnesses have to see the sex act. For a civil case, such as a husband wishing to divorce his wife because of her adultery, without paying her ketubah, it is enough for witnesses to testify to her going to a room with another man, locking the door, and extinguishing the lights. But this is not enough for a criminal conviction. for a person having sexual relations with a male¹⁷³The form זְכוּר denotes, if not the penis, then the male as appendix to his sex organ.? With a male you shall not sleep in women’s ways¹⁷⁴Lev. 18:22. A general parallel to this paragraph is in the Babli, 54b.. From where extirpation? For anybody who would commit any of these abominations will be extirpated^131,Lev. 18:29.¹³⁵The verse is slightly misquoted., etc. Punishment from where? A man who would sleep with a male in women’s ways, an abomination did both of them commit; they shall be put to death; their blood be on them¹⁷⁵Lev. 20:13.. You learn their blood be on them from their blood be on them¹⁵Lev. 20:12. From Lev. 20:27: they shall be put to death, by a stone they shall be stoned, their blood be on them, it is inferred that any expression “their blood be on them” means execution by stoning. Babli 54a.. That is for the active one. For the passive one from where? With a male you shall not sleep in women’s ways, read: to be slept with¹⁷⁶The unvocalized text תשכב can be read either with the masoretes as active תִּשְׁכַּב “you shall sleep” or as passive תִּשָּׁכֵב “you shall be slept with”. The nonstandard vocalization in the text is from the ms. (Babli 54b).. So far following Rebbi Aqiba. Following Rebbi Ismael? There shall be no qadeš among the sons of Israel¹⁷⁷Deut. 23:18. The identification of the qadeš as the male prostitute follows later from the verse in Kings.. From where extirpation for the passive homosexual following Rebbi Ismael? Rebbi Jeremiah in the name of Rebbi Abbahu. It says here qadeš and it says there, also a qadeš was in the land¹⁷⁸1K. 14:24.. You learn qadeš from qadeš and qadeš from abomination¹⁷⁹It is assumed that qadeš means the same in both verses. Also, qadeš must refer to the male since the feminine form qedešah is explicitly mentioned in Deut. 23:18. 1K. 14 continues: They did all the abominations of the peoples whom the Eternal had uprooted from before the Children of Israel. These abominations are referred to in Lev. 18:29 and the only abominations unique to a male are homosexuality and active bestiality. In the Babli, 54b, both R. Ismael’s and R. Aqiba’s statements are quoted as baraitot; partially also in Sifra Qedošim Pereq 9(12).. Rebbi Ḥiyya bar Ada in the name of Rebbi Ḥanina: Abomination from abomination¹⁸⁰In Lev.20, the expression abomination is only used for the homosexual. This implies that the qadeš in 1K. 14:24, and therefore in Deut. 23:18 is engaged in homosexual acts.. Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Abun said, a baraita¹⁸¹Not recorded elsewhere. states this: Both committed an abomination¹⁷⁴Lev. 18:22. A general parallel to this paragraph is in the Babli, 54b.. Both are stoned, both are subject to warning, both by extirpation.

HALAKHAH: “A man who had sexual relations with a male.” From where the warning¹²⁹A prohibition the penalty for which is not spelled out carries a penalty of flogging (Deut. 25:21). For any more serious infraction the pentateuchal style requires that separate verses must spell out (1) the prohibition, (2) the penalty to be imposed by the court, (3) the penalty imposed by Heaven in case the crime was not observed by two blameless adult male witnesses and, therefore, no court case was possible. In case of sexual crimes this would mean that the witnesses have to see the sex act. For a civil case, such as a husband wishing to divorce his wife because of her adultery, without paying her ketubah, it is enough for witnesses to testify to her going to a room with another man, locking the door, and extinguishing the lights. But this is not enough for a criminal conviction. for a person having sexual relations with a male¹⁷³The form זְכוּר denotes, if not the penis, then the male as appendix to his sex organ.? With a male you shall not sleep in women’s ways¹⁷⁴Lev. 18:22. A general parallel to this paragraph is in the Babli, 54b.. From where extirpation? For anybody who would commit any of these abominations will be extirpated^131,Lev. 18:29.¹³⁵The verse is slightly misquoted., etc. Punishment from where? A man who would sleep with a male in women’s ways, an abomination did both of them commit; they shall be put to death; their blood be on them¹⁷⁵Lev. 20:13.. You learn their blood be on them from their blood be on them¹⁵Lev. 20:12. From Lev. 20:27: they shall be put to death, by a stone they shall be stoned, their blood be on them, it is inferred that any expression “their blood be on them” means execution by stoning. Babli 54a.. That is for the active one. For the passive one from where? With a male you shall not sleep in women’s ways, read: to be slept with¹⁷⁶The unvocalized text תשכב can be read either with the masoretes as active תִּשְׁכַּב “you shall sleep” or as passive תִּשָּׁכֵב “you shall be slept with”. The nonstandard vocalization in the text is from the ms. (Babli 54b).. So far following Rebbi Aqiba. Following Rebbi Ismael? There shall be no qadeš among the sons of Israel¹⁷⁷Deut. 23:18. The identification of the qadeš as the male prostitute follows later from the verse in Kings.. From where extirpation for the passive homosexual following Rebbi Ismael? Rebbi Jeremiah in the name of Rebbi Abbahu. It says here qadeš and it says there, also a qadeš was in the land¹⁷⁸1K. 14:24.. You learn qadeš from qadeš and qadeš from abomination¹⁷⁹It is assumed that qadeš means the same in both verses. Also, qadeš must refer to the male since the feminine form qedešah is explicitly mentioned in Deut. 23:18. 1K. 14 continues: They did all the abominations of the peoples whom the Eternal had uprooted from before the Children of Israel. These abominations are referred to in Lev. 18:29 and the only abominations unique to a male are homosexuality and active bestiality. In the Babli, 54b, both R. Ismael’s and R. Aqiba’s statements are quoted as baraitot; partially also in Sifra Qedošim Pereq 9(12).. Rebbi Ḥiyya bar Ada in the name of Rebbi Ḥanina: Abomination from abomination¹⁸⁰In Lev.20, the expression abomination is only used for the homosexual. This implies that the qadeš in 1K. 14:24, and therefore in Deut. 23:18 is engaged in homosexual acts.. Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Abun said, a baraita¹⁸¹Not recorded elsewhere. states this: Both committed an abomination¹⁷⁴Lev. 18:22. A general parallel to this paragraph is in the Babli, 54b.. Both are stoned, both are subject to warning, both by extirpation.

From where the warning¹²⁹A prohibition the penalty for which is not spelled out carries a penalty of flogging (Deut. 25:21). For any more serious infraction the pentateuchal style requires that separate verses must spell out (1) the prohibition, (2) the penalty to be imposed by the court, (3) the penalty imposed by Heaven in case the crime was not observed by two blameless adult male witnesses and, therefore, no court case was possible. In case of sexual crimes this would mean that the witnesses have to see the sex act. For a civil case, such as a husband wishing to divorce his wife because of her adultery, without paying her ketubah, it is enough for witnesses to testify to her going to a room with another man, locking the door, and extinguishing the lights. But this is not enough for a criminal conviction. for a person having sexual relations with an animal? Do not give your emission into an animal to defile yourself by it¹⁸²Lev. 18:23. The entire paragraph has a parallel in the Babli, 54b.. From where extirpation? For anybody who would commit any of these abominations will be extirpated^131,Lev. 18:29.¹³⁵The verse is slightly misquoted., etc. Punishment from where? A man who would sleep with a animal shall be put to death¹⁸³Lev.20:15. The corresponding verse for a woman is 20:16.. You infer their blood be on them from their blood be on them^15,Lev. 20:12. From Lev. 20:27: they shall be put to death, by a stone they shall be stoned, their blood be on them, it is inferred that any expression “their blood be on them” means execution by stoning. Babli 54a.¹⁸⁴The expression is used only in v. 16. It is implied that the punishment for male bestiality cannot be less than that of female bestiality.. So far following Rebbi Aqiba. Following Rebbi Ismael? Rebbi Ismael from his source¹⁷⁹It is assumed that qadeš means the same in both verses. Also, qadeš must refer to the male since the feminine form qedešah is explicitly mentioned in Deut. 23:18. 1K. 14 continues: They did all the abominations of the peoples whom the Eternal had uprooted from before the Children of Israel. These abominations are referred to in Lev. 18:29 and the only abominations unique to a male are homosexuality and active bestiality. In the Babli, 54b, both R. Ismael’s and R. Aqiba’s statements are quoted as baraitot; partially also in Sifra Qedošim Pereq 9(12). and Rebbi Aqiba from his source¹⁸⁵R. Ismael includes bestiality in the actions of a qadeš. R. Aqiba always refers to Lev. 18:29.. Extirpation for a male passive partner is not found for Rebbi Ismael¹⁸⁶The Babli disagrees and finds the passive participant in bestiality in Ex. 22:18.. Punishment for a male passive partner is not found for Rebbi Ismael or Rebbi Aqiba¹⁸⁷In Lev. 20., but it is written: One who sacrifices to the forces of nature shall be banned. Since this one is in for stoning and extirpation, also that one is in for stoning and extirpation¹⁸⁸The worshipper of the forces of nature is banned Ex. 22:19, but as adherent of foreign worship he is stoned. It is implied that the death penalty decreed in the preceding verse, anybody lying with an animal shall be put to death, for the passive participant in bestiality also must be executed by stoning.. What is the difference between them? If one had active homosexual relations followed by passive ones, in Rebbi Ismael’s opinion he is liable only once; in Rebbi Aqiba’s opinion he is liable twice¹⁸⁹In the Babli, 54b, the attributions are switched. One has to follow the classical commentaries in correcting the Yerushalmi following the Babli since, as explained in Notes 175–178, R. Aqiba finds the prohibition of active and passive homosexuality in the same verse whereas R. Ismael defines the passive homosexual as qadeš. Therefore, combined active and passive homosexual activity violates one verse for R. Aqiba, two for R. Ismael.. If one had active relations with an animal followed by passive ones. Both in Rebbi Aqiba’s as in Rebbi Ismael’s opinions he is liable twice¹⁹⁰For both R. Aqiba and R. Ismael both Lev. 18:22 (or 23) and Ex. 22:18 are violated. The Babli disagrees, 54b.. If he had active homosexual relations with both a male and an animal he is liable twice. If he had passive homosexual relations with both a male and an animal he is liable twice. If he had simultaneous active sexual relations with two males, since both of them became guilty because of him, he is liable twice. If he had simultaneous passive sexual relations with two males, since both of them became guilty because of him, he is liable twice. It was stated: For males, an underage boy does not have the status of an adult¹⁹¹Sexual relations with males under the age of nine years and one day, and females under three years and one day, are not considered as sexual activities; cf. Ketubot1:3 Notes 147,152.; a young animal has the status of a fully grown one. Rebbi Eleazar said, he cannot become liable because of it unless it be three years and one day of age¹⁹²This does not refer to bestiality but to homosexuality. Homosexual relations of a male with an underage boy are not punishable unless the boy is at least three years and one day of age, i. e., that a valid sex act would have been performed if the child had been a girl. In the Babli, 54b/55a, Samuel derives this from Lev. 18:22 where homosexual acts are called lyings in woman’s way..

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!

MISHNAH: How much is he flogged? Forty minus one, as it is said: in number: forty⁵¹Deut. 25:2–3. Since “40” is the only number in the text, it is read as standard punishment subject to medical evaluation. (Also in 2Cor. 11:24 it is not clear whether 40–1 is the real number or simply is the standard expression for flogging.), a number close to forty. Rebbi Jehudah says, he is flogged a full forty. Where is he flogged the extra one²Lev. 20:17. The list starts with sexual transgressions punishable by Heaven.? Between his shoulders.

MISHNAH: One who gives any of his descendants to the Moloch is only guilty if he delivers him to the Moloch and makes him pass through fire. If he delivered him to the Moloch but did not make him pass through fire, or made him pass though fire but did not deliver him to the Moloch, is only guilty if he delivers him to the Moloch and makes him pass through fire. The necromancer is the Πύθων²⁸⁵Πύθων, -ωνος, ὁ, “the serpent Python”, a spirit of divination. The plural πύθωνες “ventriloquists”. and one who²⁸⁶In the Babli and the independent Mishnah mss: the Πύθων who speaks from his armpit. speaks from his armpit. 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. speaks through his mouth. These are stoned but one who consults them is forewarned.²⁸⁷While turning to necromancers and fortune-tellers is repeatedly forbidden (Lev. 19:31, Deut. 18:10–11), no punishment is spelled out in the biblical text.

HALAKHAH: “One who gives any of his descendants to the Moloch.” From where a warning not to give any of his descendants to the Moloch? Do not give any of your descendants to the Moloch²⁸⁸Lev. 18:21.. Extirpation from where? For he gave one of his descendants to the Moloch²⁸⁹Lev. 20:3and shall be extirpated²⁹⁰A wrong quote from Lev. 20:5. It should read: I shall extirpate him.. Punishment from where? Each one of the Children of Israel, or of the sojourner in Israel, who would give any of his descendants to the Moloch shall be made to die; the people of the Land shall smash him with stones²⁹¹Lev. 20:2.. Do not give any of your descendants, I could think that he was guilty if he handed over but did not make him pass²⁹²In the interpretation of the Talmudim, the child was handed over to the Moloch priests and then made to pass or be carried between two fires. It is not assumed that the child was burned since that would be murder which in itself is a capital crime and would obviate the discussion of the exact conditions which make Moloch worship a capital crime. In the Babli, 64b, it is assumed that there is one fire in a ditch and the Moloch worship requires to jump, not to walk, over the fire. This interpretation also is possible for the Yerushalmi.
The paragraphs have a parallel in the Babli, 64b, partially with different attributions.; the verse says: Do not give any of your descendants to pass through. I could think that he was guilty if he handed over and made him pass through but not for the Moloch; the verse says: Do not give any of your descendants to pass through for the Moloch²⁹³Since passing through (or jumping over) fire is characteristic for Moloch worship and not part of worship of Heaven, doing this for any other deity is forbidden foreign worship, subject to divine extirpation, but not a prosecutable capital crime.. I could think that he was guilty if he handed over and made him pass through for the Moloch but without fire; the verse says: among you, nobody should be found to make his son or his daughter pass through fire²⁹⁴Deut. 18:10. In the Moloch paragraphs in Lev., the nature of “passing through” is never spelled out; by the doctrine of invariability of lexemes it is only made definite in this quote. Sifra Qedošim Parašah 10(3).. Passing through, passing through as an equal cut²⁹⁵Cf. 3:10, Note 158.. Since “passing through” mentioned there is through fire, so “passing through” mentioned here also is through fire. You have to say that he is not guilty unless he handed over and made him pass through fire for the Moloch. Rebbi Nasa in the name of Rebbi Eleazar: He is guilty only if he hand him over to the priests, takes him, and makes him pass. What if he lets him walk normally? It was stated: one was drawing him and made him pass through. It was stated: if he made him walk through on his feet he is not prosecutable²⁹⁶Babli 64b. In neither Talmud is it totally clear whether father or priests make the child pass through or over the fire.. Rebbi Eleazar ben Rebbi Simeon declares him guilty. Whether for the Moloch or for any other foreign worship; Rebbi Eleazar ben Rebbi Simeon says, he is guilty only for the Moloch²⁹⁷Bablt 64a., he is guilty only for his descendants. Rebbi Joḥanan said, Rebbi Eleazar ben Rebbi Simeon’s reason is from here: It shall not be found in you²⁹⁸The word בְּךָ in Deut. 18:10 is read as in you; this is interpreted to describe one’s bodily issue, the children., from your body you should not be found making pass through. I shall extirpate him … from among his people²⁹⁹A not quite correct quote from Lev. 20:5.. To include all other foreign worship for extirpation³⁰⁰In the Moloch paragraph Lev. 20:1–5 extirpation is mentioned twice, in vv. 3 and 5. One refers to Moloch worship; the other then must refer to any other worship using fire. Sifra Qedošim Parašah 10(15).. From where punishment? Of his descendants he gave to the Moloch²⁸⁹Lev. 20:3, death he shall be made to die²⁹¹Lev. 20:2., if he made him pass through himself. Does he not pass through on his feet? Because he made him pass through himself, but if he was drawing him and made him pass through, he is guilty. What does Rebbi Eleazar ben Rebbi Simeon mean, if he made him walk through on his feet he is not prosecutable? He has to make him pass through jumping.

HALAKHAH: “One who gives any of his descendants to the Moloch.” From where a warning not to give any of his descendants to the Moloch? Do not give any of your descendants to the Moloch²⁸⁸Lev. 18:21.. Extirpation from where? For he gave one of his descendants to the Moloch²⁸⁹Lev. 20:3and shall be extirpated²⁹⁰A wrong quote from Lev. 20:5. It should read: I shall extirpate him.. Punishment from where? Each one of the Children of Israel, or of the sojourner in Israel, who would give any of his descendants to the Moloch shall be made to die; the people of the Land shall smash him with stones²⁹¹Lev. 20:2.. Do not give any of your descendants, I could think that he was guilty if he handed over but did not make him pass²⁹²In the interpretation of the Talmudim, the child was handed over to the Moloch priests and then made to pass or be carried between two fires. It is not assumed that the child was burned since that would be murder which in itself is a capital crime and would obviate the discussion of the exact conditions which make Moloch worship a capital crime. In the Babli, 64b, it is assumed that there is one fire in a ditch and the Moloch worship requires to jump, not to walk, over the fire. This interpretation also is possible for the Yerushalmi.
The paragraphs have a parallel in the Babli, 64b, partially with different attributions.; the verse says: Do not give any of your descendants to pass through. I could think that he was guilty if he handed over and made him pass through but not for the Moloch; the verse says: Do not give any of your descendants to pass through for the Moloch²⁹³Since passing through (or jumping over) fire is characteristic for Moloch worship and not part of worship of Heaven, doing this for any other deity is forbidden foreign worship, subject to divine extirpation, but not a prosecutable capital crime.. I could think that he was guilty if he handed over and made him pass through for the Moloch but without fire; the verse says: among you, nobody should be found to make his son or his daughter pass through fire²⁹⁴Deut. 18:10. In the Moloch paragraphs in Lev., the nature of “passing through” is never spelled out; by the doctrine of invariability of lexemes it is only made definite in this quote. Sifra Qedošim Parašah 10(3).. Passing through, passing through as an equal cut²⁹⁵Cf. 3:10, Note 158.. Since “passing through” mentioned there is through fire, so “passing through” mentioned here also is through fire. You have to say that he is not guilty unless he handed over and made him pass through fire for the Moloch. Rebbi Nasa in the name of Rebbi Eleazar: He is guilty only if he hand him over to the priests, takes him, and makes him pass. What if he lets him walk normally? It was stated: one was drawing him and made him pass through. It was stated: if he made him walk through on his feet he is not prosecutable²⁹⁶Babli 64b. In neither Talmud is it totally clear whether father or priests make the child pass through or over the fire.. Rebbi Eleazar ben Rebbi Simeon declares him guilty. Whether for the Moloch or for any other foreign worship; Rebbi Eleazar ben Rebbi Simeon says, he is guilty only for the Moloch²⁹⁷Bablt 64a., he is guilty only for his descendants. Rebbi Joḥanan said, Rebbi Eleazar ben Rebbi Simeon’s reason is from here: It shall not be found in you²⁹⁸The word בְּךָ in Deut. 18:10 is read as in you; this is interpreted to describe one’s bodily issue, the children., from your body you should not be found making pass through. I shall extirpate him … from among his people²⁹⁹A not quite correct quote from Lev. 20:5.. To include all other foreign worship for extirpation³⁰⁰In the Moloch paragraph Lev. 20:1–5 extirpation is mentioned twice, in vv. 3 and 5. One refers to Moloch worship; the other then must refer to any other worship using fire. Sifra Qedošim Parašah 10(15).. From where punishment? Of his descendants he gave to the Moloch²⁸⁹Lev. 20:3, death he shall be made to die²⁹¹Lev. 20:2., if he made him pass through himself. Does he not pass through on his feet? Because he made him pass through himself, but if he was drawing him and made him pass through, he is guilty. What does Rebbi Eleazar ben Rebbi Simeon mean, if he made him walk through on his feet he is not prosecutable? He has to make him pass through jumping.

From where the warning about the necromancer? Do not turn to the necromancers³²⁶Lev. 19:31. Here starts the discussion of the second part of the Mishnah.. From where extirpation? A person who would turn to necromancers and mediums³²⁷Lev. 20:6., etc. Punishment from where? A man or woman, impersonating a necromancer or a medium, shall be put to death³²⁸Lev. 20:27.. Why is the medium not mentioned in Keritut³²⁹Mishnah Keritut 1:1 mentions only the necromancer, not the medium.? Rebbi Ḥizqiah in the name of Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish: Because they are taken together in one prohibition, do not turn to the necromancers³³⁰In all pentateuchal verses mentioning אוֹב it is paired with יִדְּעוֹנִי (the verses quoted plus Deut. 18:11). Babli 65b., etc. Rebbi Yasa in the name of Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish: Because it is a prohibition implied by a positive commandment³³¹Cf. 5:3, Note 73. This formulation does not make any sense, as indicated by R. Zeˋira’s question. It should have been formulated: Because the medium is treated as an appendix to the necromancer. The medium never creates an obligation for a purification offering if one for necromancy already was established; he cannot be mentioned in Keritut_1:1 separately from the necromancer.. Rebbi Zeˋira said before Rebbi Yasa: No person except you thought of stating the medium in this way in Keritut. He told him, because as the verse formulated it so the Mishnah formulates it, a necromancer or a medium³³⁰In all pentateuchal verses mentioning אוֹב it is paired with יִדְּעוֹנִי (the verses quoted plus Deut. 18:11). Babli 65b..

From where the warning about the necromancer? Do not turn to the necromancers³²⁶Lev. 19:31. Here starts the discussion of the second part of the Mishnah.. From where extirpation? A person who would turn to necromancers and mediums³²⁷Lev. 20:6., etc. Punishment from where? A man or woman, impersonating a necromancer or a medium, shall be put to death³²⁸Lev. 20:27.. Why is the medium not mentioned in Keritut³²⁹Mishnah Keritut 1:1 mentions only the necromancer, not the medium.? Rebbi Ḥizqiah in the name of Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish: Because they are taken together in one prohibition, do not turn to the necromancers³³⁰In all pentateuchal verses mentioning אוֹב it is paired with יִדְּעוֹנִי (the verses quoted plus Deut. 18:11). Babli 65b., etc. Rebbi Yasa in the name of Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish: Because it is a prohibition implied by a positive commandment³³¹Cf. 5:3, Note 73. This formulation does not make any sense, as indicated by R. Zeˋira’s question. It should have been formulated: Because the medium is treated as an appendix to the necromancer. The medium never creates an obligation for a purification offering if one for necromancy already was established; he cannot be mentioned in Keritut_1:1 separately from the necromancer.. Rebbi Zeˋira said before Rebbi Yasa: No person except you thought of stating the medium in this way in Keritut. He told him, because as the verse formulated it so the Mishnah formulates it, a necromancer or a medium³³⁰In all pentateuchal verses mentioning אוֹב it is paired with יִדְּעוֹנִי (the verses quoted plus Deut. 18:11). Babli 65b..

“The necromancer is the πύθων²⁸⁵Πύθων, -ωνος, ὁ, “the serpent Python”, a spirit of divination. The plural πύθωνες “ventriloquists”. and one who²⁸⁶In the Babli and the independent Mishnah mss: the Πύθων who speaks from his armpit. speaks from his armpit. 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. speaks through his mouth. These are stoned but one who consults them is forewarned²⁸⁷While turning to necromancers and fortune-tellers is repeatedly forbidden (Lev. 19:31, Deut. 18:10–11), no punishment is spelled out in the biblical text.. And one who asks the dead³³²Deut. 18:11. No criminal sanction is spelled out for this.. ³³³Tosephta 10:7, explaining the term “interrogating the dead”. In the Babli, 65b, the same baraita explains the term “necromancer”. Some Tannaïm state: this is one who interrogates a skull. Some Tannaïm state: this is one who interrogates his^334,The dead.¹⁷³The form זְכוּר denotes, if not the penis, then the male as appendix to his sex organ. masculinity. What is the difference between one interrogated by his skull or one raised by his masculinity? The one interrogated by his skull rises normally, rises on the Sabbath, and a commoner can raise a king. But one raised by his masculinity does not rise normally³³⁵The dead appears feet up, head down., does not rise on the Sabbath, and a commoner cannot raise a king.

MISHNAH: One who desecrates the Sabbath^59,Num. 15:36.³⁴¹If duly warned by two witnesses about the criminality of his intent, he can be prosecuted if in the absence of witnesses he would be subject to Divine extirpation. But if he violates any of the positive commandments for the Sabbath he cannot be prosecuted by biblical standards; for violating a simple prohibition he at most could be sentenced to 39 lashes. by something which if performed intentionally makes him liable to extirpation, or to a purification sacrifice if in error. But he who curses father or mother⁶⁰Lev. 20:9. is guilty only of he cursed them by the Name²⁰⁷The Tetragrammaton in its original pronunciation, now lost.. If he cursed them by a substitute name, Rebbi Meïr declares him guilty but the Sages free him from prosecution.
One who has sexual relations with a preliminarily married adolescent⁷It is not mentioned anywhere in biblical literature as a recognized form of execution. The Babli’s discussion, 52b, is inconclusive. is only liable if she was an adolescent, a virgin, and preliminarily married, in her father’s house. If two [men] had relations with her, the first one is stoned, the second is subject to strangling³⁴²As a common adulterer..

In earlier times they required payment only from a person alone. But now they require payment from him and his family¹⁹⁵In the Tosephta, 15:7, this is combined with the verse Lev. 20:5, alluded to later. A court punishes only the criminal but God’s justice is against “that man (who sacrifices his children to the Moloch) and his family.” This proves that if the courts can no longer enforce biblical law, the Heavenly Court will enforce it in a much harsher way.. Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Abun said in the name of Rav Ḥuna: In earlier times, for every trouble that came over the community they have a joyous occasion to make up for it¹⁹⁶The delivery from trouble was a festive occasion documented in Megillat Ta‘anit, the catalogue of days when fasting was forbidden. But now, in the words of the Tosephta (15:6): Rabban Simeon ben Gamliel says, for every trouble that comes over the community, the court disestablishes another joyous occasion.. But after the Synhedrion was abolished, song disappeared from wedding feasts. After both disappeared, ¹⁹⁷Thr. 5:15.“our heart’s joy stopped, our dance turned into mourning.” But what was the high court good for¹⁹⁸What is the connection between the disestablishment of Jewish criminal jurisdiction and the disappearance of the epithalamium from Jewish weddings? The rest of the paragraph has a close parallel in Tosephta 15:7.? But because it was said¹⁹⁹Lev. 20:4. It is implied that the real reason is the following v. 5. “if the people of the Land consistently turn away their eyes from that man when he is giving of his seed to the Moloch, not to kill him,” in any death they would choose²⁰⁰This gives the high court emergency powers to act as a secret, Vehmic, court in case the criminal is too powerful.. They gave a parable, to what can this be compared? To one who was a criminal in a town. They delivered him to the one wielding reeds, who jailed him, but he turned out to be stronger than the one wielding reeds. They delivered him to the one wielding sticks who hit him, but he turned out to be stronger than the one wielding sticks²⁰¹He might be the Roman lictor since the ruler mentioned is a Roman proconsul.. They delivered him to the wielder of leather straps who whipped him, but he turned out to be stronger than the wielder of leather straps. They delivered him to the ruler who hung him in the kiln²⁰²Greek κάμινος, ἡ, “oven, furnace, kiln.”. So the later troubles cause the earlier ones to be forgotten.

HALAKHAH: “What is a bastard,” etc; “Rebbi Simeon ben Azai said,” etc. Rebbi Yose ben Ḥanina said, all of them learned from the father’s wife. “A man shall not take his father’s wife and not uncover his father’s garment’s wing.²¹¹Deut. 23:1. This is only half the basis of the arguments. The other is verse 3: No bastard shall come into the community of the Eternal. Since v. 2 speaks of men who cannot have children, v. 3 is taken to refer to v. 1, that the child of a man and his stepmother is a bastard. This is spelled out in detail in the Babli, 49a.” Rebbi Aqiba explains: Just as his father’s wife is special in that she is a forbidden relation from which the child is a bastard, so in any case there is a forbidden relation, the child is a bastard. They objected, is there not a widow for the High Priest²¹²Lev. 21:14. Everybody agrees that the child is not a bastard from any of the priestly prohibitions since it is spelled out in v. 15 that the children would be desecrated, barred from the priesthood. This case is not discussed in the Babli.? There is a difference, since desecration is spelled out. Simeon from Timna explained: Just as his father’s wife is special in that one is subject to extirpation for her²¹³In case there are no eye witnesses for the forbidden sex act, when there can be no criminal prosecution., the child is a bastard, so in any case that one is subject to extirpation for her, the child is a bastard. They objected, is there not the menstruating woman²¹⁴Lev. 20:18. In the Babli, this refers to an amoraic statement.? There is a difference, since “blood-relation” is not written in reference to her. Rebbi Joshua explained: Just as his father’s wife is special in that one is subject to the death penalty for her, the child is a bastard, so in any case that one is subject to the death penalty for her, the child is a bastard.

The Evil Urge. How so? They say that for the first thirteen years [of a person’s life] the Evil Urge is greater than the Good Urge. There in his mother’s womb, a person’s Evil Urge grows with him. [After he emerges into the world,] he starts breaking the Sabbath, and nothing is there to stop him; [killing people, and nothing is there to stop him; going out to sin, and nothing is there to stop him.]
After thirteen years, the Good Urge is born. Then when he breaks the Sabbath, it says to him: Empty one! Isn’t it written (Exodus 31:14), “One who breaks it will surely die”? When he kills, it says to him: Empty one! Isn’t it written (Genesis 9:6), “One who spills the blood of a person, his own blood will be spilled”? When he goes out to sin, it says to him: Empty one! Isn’t it written (Leviticus 20:16), “Both the adulterer and the adulteress shall be put to death”?
When a person heats himself up, and then goes to commit some act of lewdness, all of his limbs will obey him, because the Evil Urge rules over all 248 limbs. When he goes to perform a mitzvah, his limbs begin to grow lazy, because the Evil Urge in his stomach rules over all 248 of a person’s limbs. The Good Urge, meanwhile, is like someone trapped in a prison, as it says (Ecclesiastes 4:14), “From the prison, he comes forth to rule” – that is the Good Urge.
Some say, that verse refers to Joseph the Righteous, when that wicked woman came and tortured him with words. She said to him: I will lock you up in prison! He said to her: But God releases the bound. She said to him: I will poke out your eyes! He said: God gives sight to the blind. She said to him: I will bend you down! He said to her: God straightens the bent. (She said to him: I will make you into a wicked man! He said to her: God loves the righteous. She said to him: I will make you an Aramean! He said to her: God protects the strangers. Until finally he said [Genesis 39:9], “How can I do this evil thing?”)
And do not be surprised at Joseph the Righteous. For behold, Rabbi Tzadok was the greatest of his generation when he was captured. And a matron took him and presented before him a beautiful maidservant. When he saw her, he turned his eyes to the wall so he would not see her. And he sat and recited his learning the whole night. In the morning, the maidservant left and complained to her mistress: I would rather die than be given to that man! The matron sent for him and said to him: Why didn’t you do with this woman as all people do? He said to her: What can I do? I come from the lineage of the high priest, from a great family! I said to myself, Perhaps I will sleep with her and increase mamzerim in Israel! When she heard this, she commanded he be released with great honor. (And they say:) Do not be surprised at Rabbi Tzadok. For behold, Rabbi Akiva was greater than him! When he went to Rome, informers slandered him to a local prefect, who then presented before him two beautiful women. [The prefect] bathed and anointed them dressed them up like brides, and they fell upon [Rabbi Akiva] the whole night. This one said: Come to me! And that one said: Come to me! But he sat between them and spat, and would not turn to them. They went before the prefect and said to him: We would rather die than be given to that man! He sent for [Rabbi Akiva] and said to him: Why didn’t you do with those women as all people do with women? Weren’t they beautiful? And weren’t they human beings just like you? Didn’t the One who created you create them as well? [Rabbi Akiva] said: What could I do? Their scent was worse to me than carcasses and vermin! And do not be surprised at Rabbi Akiva. For behold, Rabbi Eliezer the Great was greater than him. For he raised his sister’s daughter until she was thirteen, and she slept in bed with him until she began puberty. Then he said to her: Go, and marry a man. She said to him: Am I not your woman? Should I be given as a maidservant to wash the legs of your students? He said to her: My daughter, I am already an old man. Go and marry a young man like yourself. She said to him: Didn’t I already say to you, Am I not your woman? Should I be given as a maidservant to wash the legs of your students? When he heard her words, he got permission from her to marry her, and then had sexual relations with her.

The Evil Urge. How so? They say that for the first thirteen years [of a person’s life] the Evil Urge is greater than the Good Urge. There in his mother’s womb, a person’s Evil Urge grows with him. [After he emerges into the world,] he starts breaking the Sabbath, and nothing is there to stop him; [killing people, and nothing is there to stop him; going out to sin, and nothing is there to stop him.]
After thirteen years, the Good Urge is born. Then when he breaks the Sabbath, it says to him: Empty one! Isn’t it written (Exodus 31:14), “One who breaks it will surely die”? When he kills, it says to him: Empty one! Isn’t it written (Genesis 9:6), “One who spills the blood of a person, his own blood will be spilled”? When he goes out to sin, it says to him: Empty one! Isn’t it written (Leviticus 20:16), “Both the adulterer and the adulteress shall be put to death”?
When a person heats himself up, and then goes to commit some act of lewdness, all of his limbs will obey him, because the Evil Urge rules over all 248 limbs. When he goes to perform a mitzvah, his limbs begin to grow lazy, because the Evil Urge in his stomach rules over all 248 of a person’s limbs. The Good Urge, meanwhile, is like someone trapped in a prison, as it says (Ecclesiastes 4:14), “From the prison, he comes forth to rule” – that is the Good Urge.
Some say, that verse refers to Joseph the Righteous, when that wicked woman came and tortured him with words. She said to him: I will lock you up in prison! He said to her: But God releases the bound. She said to him: I will poke out your eyes! He said: God gives sight to the blind. She said to him: I will bend you down! He said to her: God straightens the bent. (She said to him: I will make you into a wicked man! He said to her: God loves the righteous. She said to him: I will make you an Aramean! He said to her: God protects the strangers. Until finally he said [Genesis 39:9], “How can I do this evil thing?”)
And do not be surprised at Joseph the Righteous. For behold, Rabbi Tzadok was the greatest of his generation when he was captured. And a matron took him and presented before him a beautiful maidservant. When he saw her, he turned his eyes to the wall so he would not see her. And he sat and recited his learning the whole night. In the morning, the maidservant left and complained to her mistress: I would rather die than be given to that man! The matron sent for him and said to him: Why didn’t you do with this woman as all people do? He said to her: What can I do? I come from the lineage of the high priest, from a great family! I said to myself, Perhaps I will sleep with her and increase mamzerim in Israel! When she heard this, she commanded he be released with great honor. (And they say:) Do not be surprised at Rabbi Tzadok. For behold, Rabbi Akiva was greater than him! When he went to Rome, informers slandered him to a local prefect, who then presented before him two beautiful women. [The prefect] bathed and anointed them dressed them up like brides, and they fell upon [Rabbi Akiva] the whole night. This one said: Come to me! And that one said: Come to me! But he sat between them and spat, and would not turn to them. They went before the prefect and said to him: We would rather die than be given to that man! He sent for [Rabbi Akiva] and said to him: Why didn’t you do with those women as all people do with women? Weren’t they beautiful? And weren’t they human beings just like you? Didn’t the One who created you create them as well? [Rabbi Akiva] said: What could I do? Their scent was worse to me than carcasses and vermin! And do not be surprised at Rabbi Akiva. For behold, Rabbi Eliezer the Great was greater than him. For he raised his sister’s daughter until she was thirteen, and she slept in bed with him until she began puberty. Then he said to her: Go, and marry a man. She said to him: Am I not your woman? Should I be given as a maidservant to wash the legs of your students? He said to her: My daughter, I am already an old man. Go and marry a young man like yourself. She said to him: Didn’t I already say to you, Am I not your woman? Should I be given as a maidservant to wash the legs of your students? When he heard her words, he got permission from her to marry her, and then had sexual relations with her.

Ten words in the Torah are marked with dots. They are as follows: 1. “The Eternal will judge between me and you” (Genesis 16:5). There is a dot above the letter yod in the term, “and you.” This teaches that Sarah did not say this to Abraham, but to Hagar. Some say that it means she was speaking about those who caused the fighting “between me and you.” 2. “They said to him, Where is Sarah?” (Genesis 18:9). There are dots above the letters aleph, yod, and vav in the term, “to him,” to indicate that they already knew where she was, but they nevertheless inquired about her. 3. (There is a dot on the verse,) “When she lay down and when she arose” (Genesis 19:33). There is a dot above the letter vav in the term, “When she arose” the first time it is used [with regard to Lot’s older daughter]. This teaches that he was not aware of what happened until the (younger daughter) arose. 4. “And Esau ran to greet him, and he hugged him, fell on his neck, and kissed him” (Genesis 33:4). The term for, “and kissed him,” has dots above every letter, to teach that he did not kiss him sincerely. Rabbi Shimon ben Elazar would say: It means that this kiss was sincere, but every other one he gave Jacob was not. 5. “His brothers went to shepherd their father’s flocks in Shechem” (Genesis 37:12). There are dots on the word just before “flocks.” This teaches that they did not actually go to shepherd the flocks, but to eat and drink (and indulge their temptations). 6. “All the Levites who were recorded, whom Moses and Aaron recorded” (Numbers 3:39). There are dots above Aaron’s name. Why? To teach that Aaron himself was not counted in this record. 7. “On a long journey” (Numbers 9:10). There is a dot above the letter hei in the word “long.” This teaches that this does not really mean a long journey, but any exiting the boundaries of the outer court of the Temple. 8. “We caused destruction all the way up to Nophach, which reaches into Medeba” (Numbers 21:30). There is a dot above the letter reish in the word “which.” Why? To teach that they destroyed the idolaters but not the countries themselves (whereas the practice of idolaters was to destroy entire countries). 9. “A tenth, a tenth for each” (Numbers 29:15). [This verse delineates the meal offering that accompanies the burnt offering] on the first day of the Sukkot festival. There is a dot above the letter vav in the [first occurrence of the] word “tenth.” Why? To teach that there is only one-tenth [measure] for each. 10. “The hidden things are for the Eternal our God, and the revealed things are for us and our children forever” (Deuteronomy 29:30). There are dots above the words “for us and our children,” and above the letter ayin in the word “forever.” Why? For this is what Ezra said: If Elijah comes and says to me: Why did you write it this way? I will say to him: I have already put dots above these words [to indicate I was not certain it was correct]. But if he says to me: You wrote it correctly, then I will remove the dots.
There are eleven instances in the Torah where the Hebrew word for “she,” היא, is written as הוא (which means “he” or “it”) but vocalized to mean “she.” The first is: “The King of Bela, he is [i.e., “she is”] Tzur” (Genesis 14:1). The second: “He himself said to me, ‘She is my sister,’ and SHE also said, ‘He is my brother’” (Genesis 20:5). The third: “As she was being brought out, SHE sent a message to her father-in-law, saying” (Genesis 38:25). The fourth: “If one of your animals of which it is [i.e., “she is”] used for food dies” (Leviticus 11:39). The fifth: “And it [i.e., “and she”] has turned the hair white” (Leviticus 13:10). The sixth: “If the priest sees it…and it [i.e., “and she”] has faded” (Leviticus 13:21). [The seventh: “It (i.e., “she”) shall be a Sabbath of complete rest for you” (Leviticus 16:31). The eighth: “And SHE sees his nakedness” (Leviticus 20:17). The ninth: “SHE has disgraced her father” (Leviticus 21:9). The tenth: “And SHE has kept secret, and defiled herself (and she was not caught)” (Numbers 5:13). The eleventh: “A spirit of jealousy has passed over him, and he is jealous of his wife…but SHE has not defiled herself” (Numbers 5:14).