Commentary for Sanhedrin 102:14

ר"ע אומר אחת ארוסה ואחת נשואה יצאת לשריפה יכול אפילו פנויה נאמר כאן אביה ונאמר להלן אביה מה להלן זנות עם זיקת הבעל אף כאן זנות עם זיקת הבעל

just as elsewhere thereference is to whoredom by one who is bound to a husband, so here too. ThereuponR. Ishmael said unto him: If so, just as the second passage refers to a maiden[na'arah] who is an arusah, so this verse [treating of a priest's daughter]should be taken to refer to a maiden who is an arusah; [but if a nesu'ah,her punishment should be different]. R. Akiba replied: My brother, I interpretthe and the daughter etc., when it would have been sufficient to say thedaughter etc., as teaching the inclusion of anesu'ah.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' I.e., the deduction from the verbal identity (Gezerah Shawah, v. Glos.) of 'her father' does in fact apply only to an arusah: but the superfluous copulative wow (u) extends the law to embrace a nesu'ah too. ');">¹⁹</span>

Explore commentary for Sanhedrin 102:14. In-depth commentary and analysis from classical Jewish sources.