Quoting%20commentary for Sanhedrin 100:9

אמרת וכי איזה כח מרובה כח המדיח או כח הנידח הוי אומר כח המדיח ותניא מדיחי עיר הנדחת בסקילה ר"ש אומר בחנק

Whatdoes this shew? — That according to the Rabbis, only a nesu'ah, [if a priest'sdaughter] was excluded from the penalty of an Israelite's daughter by beingburnt [instead of strangled], but not so an arusah — But according to R.Simeon, both an arusah and a nesu'ah, [if a priest's daughter] were thusexcepted, by being burnt [instead of strangled]. Why so? — Because the Rabbisconsider stoning to be severer, but R. Simeon holds burning to be severer;and from this is inferred that if a person incurred two death penalties,he is punished by the moresevere.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Since R. Johanan maintains that the Rabbis rule that a priest's daughter, an arusah, is stoned, because stoning is the severer death, whilst R. Simeon holds that she is burnt, because he regards burning severer, deducing all this from the Scripture, it follows that if one incurs a double death penalty, the severer must be imposed. For here too, a choice of two deaths lies before us, and we chose the severer penalty because of the greater gravity of the offence. ');">⁸</span>

Explore quoting%20commentary for Sanhedrin 100:9. In-depth commentary and analysis from classical Jewish sources.