Levítico 20:27 Referências do Talmudee: Jerusalem Talmud Sanhedrin, Jerusalem Talmud Yoma & Berakhot

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.”.

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..

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..