Вайикра 20:11 Ссылки в Талмуде: Jerusalem Talmud Sanhedrin

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..

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.

¹⁴²These two paragraphs are partially corrupt. In a few places, the required corrections are obvious; other passages are not so simple. The text was treated at length by M. Assis לפירושה של סוגיא אחת בירושלמי סנהדרין Sinai 99(1986) pp. 110–127. The parallel in the Babli is 53a–54a. There, we have stated¹⁴³In the Yerushalmi תַּמָּן תַּנִּינָן always introduces a Mishnah quote. Already J. N. Epstein in מבוא לנוסח המשנה p. 150 has noted that one should read תַּמָּן תְּנַיִין “there (in Babylonia) one states.” The Babylonian baraita is quoted in the Babli, 53a.: Rebbi Jehudah says, if his mother was not fit for his father, he is liable only for one [sacrifice]. Therefore, if his mother was fit for his father, he is liable for two. Rebbi Abbahu in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: There is no difference. Whether his mother was fit for his father or unfit for his father, he is liable only once. The reason of Rebbi Joḥanan¹⁴⁴It seems that one has to read “R. Jehudah” since R. Johanan opposes the conclusion of the argument.: Your mother is she, you find him guilty because of his mother; this directs the entire chapter towards his mother¹⁴⁵This is only the end of an argument which can be reconstructed from Sifra Qedošim Pereq 9(12). Lev. 18:7 reads: Your father’s nakedness and your mother’s nakedness you shall not uncover; she is your mother, do not uncover her nakedness. The unusual wordiness of the verse has to be explained. Later in the paragraph there is disagreement whether your father’s nakedness refers to homosexual relations or describes a woman other than the mother who had sexual relations with the father. R. Jehudah opts for the first alternative. The mother then is singled out; she is equally forbidden whether she is or ever was his father’s wife or not, just as the father is forbidden whether he ever was married to his mother or not. This excludes any possibility to charge relations with her as father’s wife as a separate crime.. Rebbi Abun bar Ḥiyya asked before Rebbi Zeˋira: What caused Rebbi Joḥanan¹⁴⁴It seems that one has to read “R. Jehudah” since R. Johanan opposes the conclusion of the argument. to concentrate on the mother and to leave the father’s wife aside? He told him, for he argues with Rebbi Ismael, as Rebbi Ismael explained: Your father’s wife’s nakedness¹⁴⁶Obviously one has to read your father’s nakedness (v. 7) instead of a quote from v.8.; the verse refers to the male. Is not his father included in the category of the male¹⁴⁷Since homosexual intercourse also is a capital crime.? Only to make him liable twice, as we have stated: A person having sexual relations with his father is doubly liable about him¹⁴⁸Babli 54a; Tosaphot s. v. הבא.. Then should we not state “thirty-seven extirpations in the Torah”¹⁴⁹Mishnah Keritut 1:1 lists 36 separate cases of extirpation; homosexual acts with the father are not listed.? Rebbi Mana said, all denotations of males are one. ¹⁵⁰This text is repeated later as R. Aqiba’s opinion. Since R. Ismael was quoted as opposing this interpretation, it is not his opinion. The text is dittography from the following.Your father’s wife’s nakedness; the verse refers to the father’s wife. Your mother’s nakedness, that is his mother who is his father’s wife. From where his mother who is not his father’s wife? Your mother is she; do not uncover her nakedness. How does Rebbi Ismael treat this? He explains it to apply after [the father’s] death¹⁵¹Why is the mother mentioned twice, once in parallel with the father and once separately?. Does Rebbi Aqiba not explain she is your father’s nakedness¹⁵²Lev. 18:8, referring to the stepmother.? There is no difference whether during lifetime or after death. Rebbi Aqiba explains: Your father’s wife’s nakedness¹⁴⁶Obviously one has to read your father’s nakedness (v. 7) instead of a quote from v.8., the verse refers to the father’s wife. Your mother’s nakedness, that is his mother who is his father’s wife. From where his mother who is not his father’s wife? Your mother is she; do not uncover her nakedness. How does Rebbi Ismael treat this? He explains it to apply after [the father’s] death¹⁵³Dittography from above.. Does not Rebbi Aqiba treat your father’s nakedness, your mother’s nakedness¹⁵⁴M. Assis here sees a lacuna referring to the earlier statement that the mother remains equally forbidden whether or not the father is alive. This is not a necessary inference.? Since your father refers to your father in any capacity¹⁵⁵Whether married, seducer, rapist or paying for sexual services. both for punishment¹⁵⁶Punishment is spelled out in Lev. 20:11, warning in 18:7. and warning, so also your mother refers to one’s mother in any capacity both for punishment and warning. Is it not reasonable to explain that verse except following Rebbi Jehudah who because he does not accept “his mother who is his father’s wife”¹⁵⁷He rejects the interpretation that the first mention of your mother in v. 7 refers to the father’s wife, the second mention to a mother not married to his father. must explain that your father’s nakedness, your mother’s nakedness refers to your father in any capacity both for punishment and warning, so also your mother refers to your mother in any capacity both for punishment and warning. Rebbi Zeˋira said, this implies that one infers from parallel language¹⁵⁸גְּזֵירָה שָׁוָה “equal cut” is the transfer of rules from one law to another if identical language was used. The majority opinion accepts inferences from “equal cut” only if (a) there exists a tradition that the words in question were written for this purpose and (b) no other inferences are drawn from the expressions in question (Babli Niddah 22b). Property (b) is meant if an expression is called “free”. The equal cut here is the use of your father’s nakedness both in v.7 and v.8. As we have seen, in v.7 the expression clearly is not “free”. even if it is free only from one side¹⁵⁹M. Assis rightly points out that it is not free even in v.8 since the expression is used to forbid the stepmother after the father’s death.. Rebbi Yudan said to him¹⁶⁰As M. Assis points out, the statement also is quoted in Yoma 8:3 (45a l. 48) where R. Yudan’s statement is an independent remark. Since R. Yudan lived a generation after R. Zeˋira, the Yoma version has to be accepted., this is obvious for Rebbi Aqiba since Rebbi Aqiba infers from parallel language even if it is not free¹⁶¹This statement is unknown to Babylonian sources; the statement of the Babylonian R. Zeˋira is found in the Babli, Šabbat 64a, Niddah 22b..