Commentary for Sanhedrin 99:3

אדרבה סייף חמור שכן ניתן לאנשי עיר הנדחת ומאי חומרא שכן ממונן אבד

Now since [in a case ofa priest's daughter] an arusah is singled out by the Divine Law [and punished]by stoning [instead of burning], we may conclude that stoning is more severethan burning.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' For obviously the offence of an arusah, who is still in her father's house and thereby profanes him, is greater than that of a nesu'ah; and therefore we may assume that her punishment is correspondingly greater. This conclusion is further supported by the fact that a nesu'ah, if an Israelite's daughter, is punished by strangulation, the most lenient of all death penalties, whilst an arusah is punished by stoning, the most severe. Rashi, however, points out that Scripture does not state that a priest's daughter, only if a nesu'ah, is excepted from the punishment of an Israelite's daughter: but not if an arusah. It is only because the Rabbis hold stoning to be more severe than burning that they assume that an arusah, if a priest's daughter, cannot be more leniently treated than if a Israelite's daughter, for her penalty to be commuted from stoning to burning. This vitiates the whole argument. Hence we must fall back upon the first line of reasoning, that stoning is severer, since it is the punishment of an idol worshipper and blasphemer, because their offence, constituting a rejection of the fundamental basis of Judaism is greater than that of the harlot, in spite of the fact that she profanes her father. That being so, the passage 'the Rabbis maintain etc.' will not be part of the proof, but an answer to an unexpressed difficulty. For this difficulty arises: If stoning is severer than burning, how is it that a priest's daughter is punished by the latter instead of the former, which is the punishment of an Israelite's daughter (if an arusah)? To this the answer is given that only a nesu'ah is thus punished by burning, whilst an Israelite's daughter is only strangled — an easier death than burning. But if an arusah, her death is by stoning, just as in the case of an Israelite's daughter. Consequently, the next passage now, since an arusah, etc.' is entirely superfluous, being neither part of the argument nor an answer to the unexpressed difficulty: Rashi therefore deletes it from the text. ');">³</span>

Explore commentary for Sanhedrin 99:3. In-depth commentary and analysis from classical Jewish sources.