Musar for Sanhedrin 114:23

וסבר רבי מאיר כל ערוה שבית דין של ישראל ממיתין עליה בן נח מוזהר עליה והא תניא גר

hence they are judged by Jewish law. But if their offence was against a fully married woman, are they judged according to their law? Surely it has been taught: 'If a heathen committed adultery with a [Jewish] betrothed maiden, he is stoned; with a fully married woman, he is strangled.' Now if we judged them according to the law pertaining to them, should he not be decapitated? — R. Nahman b. Isaac answered: By a 'married woman' this Baraitha means one whose huppah ceremony20 has been performed, but without the marriage being consummated. Since by their law her violation is not a capital offence, they are judged by ours. For R. Hanina taught: They recognise the inviolability of a woman whose union has been consummated, but not if she merely entered the huppah without the union having been consummated. It has been taught in agreement with R. Johanan: All prohibited [sexual] relationships for which a Jewish Beth din imposes capital punishment are forbidden to heathens, but those for which a Jewish Beth din does not impose death are permitted to heathens; this is R. Meir's view. But the Sages maintain: There are many relationships<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' The Gaon of Wilna deletes 'many': Maimonides likewise does not include it in his text. Actually, the dispute of the Sages and R. Meir is only in reference to a half sister by one's mother. ');">21 for which a Jewish Beth din does not impose death, which are nevertheless forbidden to a Gentile. If a heathen committed incest with a Jewess, he is judged according to Jewish law; if with a heathen woman, he is judged according to heathen law. The only difference that this makes is with respect to a betrothed maiden.22 But should not the Tanna include a woman whose huppah ceremony has been performed without the marriage being consummated? — The teacher of this Baraitha is the Tanna of the college of Manasseh, who maintains that every death penalty decreed for the heathens is by strangulation, and by both codes [Jewish and heathen] this last-mentioned offence is punished by strangulation. Now, is R. Meir of the opinion that all relationships for which a Jewish Beth din imposes capital punishment are forbidden to heathens? Surely it has been taught: A proselyte,

Shenei Luchot HaBerit

The sin of the golden calf involved three distinct kinds of death penalty. Those who had been warned by reliable witnesses were executed by the Levites. Those who worshipped the golden calf but could not be executed judicially because although there were witnesses against them they had not been properly warned, were killed by a dragon; those who were guilty but against whom there were no valid witnesses died by the plague. Something similar happened in the case of the seduction by the serpent. Adam had been warned not to eat, the penalty spelled out. G–d Himself was the witness in his case. Eve was guilty because G–d had stated in Genesis 2,24: "Therefore man leaves the home of his parents and cleaves to his wife." Rashi sees in this the prohibition of the different kinds of incest that apply to all of mankind. However, she had not been warned that the penalty for contravening this law was death. The serpent's sin was committed with neither forewarning nor the testimony of an independent witness against it. We have a halachic rule that one does not use any argument that can serve as an extenuating circumstance on behalf of a seducer (Sanhedrin 29). Adam rehabilitated himself by offering an ox, as explained by our sages (Shabbat 28). When the Jewish people made the golden calf they reversed what Adam had done by exchanging the true G–d for the image of an ox.

Ask RabbiBookmarkShareCopy

Previous Verse Full Chapter Next Verse