וְאִ֗ישׁ אֲשֶׁ֤ר יִנְאַף֙ אֶת־אֵ֣שֶׁת אִ֔ישׁ אֲשֶׁ֥ר יִנְאַ֖ף אֶת־אֵ֣שֶׁת רֵעֵ֑הוּ מֽוֹת־יוּמַ֥ת הַנֹּאֵ֖ף וְהַנֹּאָֽפֶת׃
At ang taong makikiapid sa asawa ng ibang lalaki, na makikiapid sa asawa ng kanyang kapwa, ay tiyak na papatayin, ang lalaking nakikiapid at ang babaeng nakikiapid.
Jerusalem Talmud Sanhedrin
Rebbi Simeon says, burning is worse than stoning, but the rabbis teach that stoning is worse than burning. Rebbi Simeon says, strangulation is worse than decapitation; but the rabbis teach that decapitation is worse than strangulation1They differ in the evaluation of which type of execution inflicts more pain on the condemned, starting with the worst and ending with the easiest.. Rebbi Simeon explained that any reference to “Cohen’s daughter” implies burning, but the rabbis teach that any reference to “preliminarily married” implies stoning8Adultery 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”.. Rebbi Simeon explained: The Torah was stringent with a Cohen’s daughter and ordered that as preliminarily married she be burned, but was lenient with the definitively married one that she be stoned9This statement contradicts the assertion in the previous paragraph that R. Simeon applies Lev. 21:9 to any married daughter of a Cohen; it also contradicts both the principles that (1) penalties must be spelled out in Scripture, cannot be inferred by hermeneutical rules, and (2) in any argument de minore ad majus only the data of the rules which are compared can be used; only identical terms can be transferred. Both objections again lead to the conclusion that R. Simeon cannot differentiate between a preliminarily and a definitively married daughter of a Cohen.. The Torah was lenient with the preliminarily married daughter of an Israel and ordered that she be stoned; it is logical that we be lenient with the definitively married one that she be decapitated10This is no logical argument at all but a clear reference to biblical verses; cf. Note 8. The only inference is that for R. Simeon the standard method of execution must be beheading.. But the rabbis explain, since the Torah was stringent with the preliminarily married daughter of an Israel and ordered that she be stoned, it was lenient with her in her definitively married status to be burned11A clear scribal error; it must be “strangled” (Note 8).. The Torah was lenient with the daughter of a Cohen in her pleliminarily married status and ordered that she be burned; it is logical that we be lenient with her in her definitively married status that she be strangled12This proves that at the end of the preceding sentence one has to read “strangled”..
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”.. Rebbi Simeon explained: The Torah was stringent with a Cohen’s daughter and ordered that as preliminarily married she be burned, but was lenient with the definitively married one that she be stoned9This statement contradicts the assertion in the previous paragraph that R. Simeon applies Lev. 21:9 to any married daughter of a Cohen; it also contradicts both the principles that (1) penalties must be spelled out in Scripture, cannot be inferred by hermeneutical rules, and (2) in any argument de minore ad majus only the data of the rules which are compared can be used; only identical terms can be transferred. Both objections again lead to the conclusion that R. Simeon cannot differentiate between a preliminarily and a definitively married daughter of a Cohen.. The Torah was lenient with the preliminarily married daughter of an Israel and ordered that she be stoned; it is logical that we be lenient with the definitively married one that she be decapitated10This is no logical argument at all but a clear reference to biblical verses; cf. Note 8. The only inference is that for R. Simeon the standard method of execution must be beheading.. But the rabbis explain, since the Torah was stringent with the preliminarily married daughter of an Israel and ordered that she be stoned, it was lenient with her in her definitively married status to be burned11A clear scribal error; it must be “strangled” (Note 8).. The Torah was lenient with the daughter of a Cohen in her pleliminarily married status and ordered that she be burned; it is logical that we be lenient with her in her definitively married status that she be strangled12This proves that at the end of the preceding sentence one has to read “strangled”..
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..
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..
Jerusalem Talmud Sanhedrin
Rebbi Jeremiah asked: Is a person having sexual relations with his mother guilty [of adultery] with her as a married woman162This is a question only for R. Jehudah; for the majority it already was answered positively, Note 128.? Come and see: if a third person had sexual relations with her, would he not be guilty [of adultery] with her as a married woman? Her son not so much more? Rebbi Yose objected: is not her stepson guilty [of adultery] with her as a married woman, but her son is not guilty [of adultery] with her as a married woman163To make sense of this objection, one has to read אֵשֶׁת אָב “the father’s wife” instead of אֵשֶׁת אִישׁ “a married woman”. R. Jehudah in the Mishnah explicitly declares the prohibition of the father’s wife inapplicable to the mother.? As we have stated:164A similar text is in Tosephta 10:2. Also with all other cases of incest and adultery the situation is the same. His mother-in-law as a married woman, you catch him because of his mother-in-law165The mother-in-law is forbidden as the wife’s mother (Lev. 18:17); the penalty for the willful crime is burning (20:14), more serious than strangling, the penalty for adultery (20:10).. His daughter-in-law as a married woman, you catch him because of his daughter-in-law166The penalty is stoning (20:10). Even though the question here is about the number of sacrifices due for an unintended crime, the more serious crime is the only one counted. But, naturally, if in case of intentional crime the warning was given only about adultery, not about any incestuous aspect, the perpetrator is tried for adultery. This baraita contradicts the Mishnah.. His sister as a married woman, do you catch him because of his sister? You smuggle him away from the serious crime and strike him for the easier one167Adultery is a capital crime; sleeping with one’s sister is punishable only by Heaven, not the human court.
The verb קנתר used here is Greek κεντρόω “to strike with a stick” (to goad an animal.); this you cannot do as we have stated: A person having sexual relations with his sister is liable because of her as his sister and as a daughter of his father’s wife168The sister is always characterized as your father’s daughter or your mother’s daughter (18:9,20:17), describing the full sister or the maternal half-sister, or your father’s wife’s daughter from your father(18:11), describing the paternal half-sister. It seems that there is no biblical penalty attached to relations with the paternal extramarital half-sister. Babli Yebamot 22b.. Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Jehudah says, a person having sexual relations with his sister169The unmarried sister. is only liable because of her as his sister; the same is true for his daughter-in-law. Rebbi Jeremiah, Rebbi Abbahu in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Jehudah follows the argument of his father Rebbi Jehudah. Just as Rebbi Jehudah accepts the description mentioned first, so Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Jehudah accepts the description mentioned first. Rebbi Jeremiah, Rebbi Abbahu in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan turned around: Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Jehudah does not follow the argument of his father Rebbi Jehudah. There he is liable because of his mother, who is not his father’s wife; he is liable because of his father’s wife who is not his mother. But here we find that he is permitted his father’s wife’s daughter, who is not his sister170Children from previous marriages who are not related to one another are encouraged to marry. Rav was the son of R. Hiyya’s unrelated half-brother and half-sister from previous marriages of his parents..
The verb קנתר used here is Greek κεντρόω “to strike with a stick” (to goad an animal.); this you cannot do as we have stated: A person having sexual relations with his sister is liable because of her as his sister and as a daughter of his father’s wife168The sister is always characterized as your father’s daughter or your mother’s daughter (18:9,20:17), describing the full sister or the maternal half-sister, or your father’s wife’s daughter from your father(18:11), describing the paternal half-sister. It seems that there is no biblical penalty attached to relations with the paternal extramarital half-sister. Babli Yebamot 22b.. Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Jehudah says, a person having sexual relations with his sister169The unmarried sister. is only liable because of her as his sister; the same is true for his daughter-in-law. Rebbi Jeremiah, Rebbi Abbahu in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Jehudah follows the argument of his father Rebbi Jehudah. Just as Rebbi Jehudah accepts the description mentioned first, so Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Jehudah accepts the description mentioned first. Rebbi Jeremiah, Rebbi Abbahu in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan turned around: Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Jehudah does not follow the argument of his father Rebbi Jehudah. There he is liable because of his mother, who is not his father’s wife; he is liable because of his father’s wife who is not his mother. But here we find that he is permitted his father’s wife’s daughter, who is not his sister170Children from previous marriages who are not related to one another are encouraged to marry. Rav was the son of R. Hiyya’s unrelated half-brother and half-sister from previous marriages of his parents..