Talmud su Levitico 20:9

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)...

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: 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..