Reference for Sanhedrin 98:18

אדרבה שריפה חמורה שכן ניתנה לבת כהן שזינתה ומאי חומרא שכן מחללת את אביה

[fromthe need of a particular order in its procedure], for we have learnt: theprecept of <i>halizah</i> is thus carried out: — He [the deceased man's brother]and his sister-in-law come before <i>Beth din</i>, who counsel him in a manner fittingfor him,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' If, e.g., he is an old man, whilst his widowed sister-in-law is a young woman, or vice versa, they advise him to repudiate the marriage. ');">¹⁸</span> as it is written. Thenthe elders of his city shall call him, and speak untohim.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Deut. XXV, 8. 'Speak unto him' is interpreted as meaning to advise him. ');">¹⁹</span> Then she declares: My husband'sbrother refuseth etc.,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Ibid. 7. ');">²⁰</span> whilst hestates: I like not to take her.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Ibid. 8. ');">²¹</span> The members of <i>Beth din</i> thereupon announce inHebrew:<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Lit., 'The Holy Language'. By this is meant the actual Biblical text; v. M. H. Segal, Mishnaic Hebrew Grammar, p. 2. ');">²²</span> Then shall his brother'swife come unto him in the presence of the elders, and remove his shoe fromoff his foot, and spit in hissight<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Ibid. 9. ');">²³</span> — the spittle was to be visibleto the judges — Then shall she answer and say, So shall it be done untothat man etc.&nbsp;… And his name shall be called in Israel etc. Now Rab Judahsaid: The precept of <i>halizah</i> is carried out thus: [First] she declares [Myhusband's brother refuseth etc.]; then he declares [I like not to take her];then she removes his shoe and spits in his presence, and then she again declares[So shall it be done etc.]. But we pondered thereon: What does Rab Judahteach us? Is this not stated in the Mishnah? — Rab Judah teaches us this:The precept is best carried out thus; but if the order was changed, it doesnot matter. It has been taught likewise: Whether the <i>halizah</i> was performedbefore the spitting or the reverse, the ceremony is efficacious. Raba's statement above is also intended to exclude that which we learnt:The High Priest officiates [in the Temple] wearing eight garments, but theordinary priest wears only four, viz., tunic, breeches, mitre and girdle;to which the High Priest adds the breast plate, ephod,robe<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Worn over the tunic. ');">²⁴</span> and head plate. Now it hasbeen taught: Whence do we know that nothing must be donned before the breeches?From the verse: [He shall put on the holy linen tunic,] and the linen breechesshall [already] be upon hisflesh.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Lev. XVI, the inserted 'already' is implied in the use of the verb 'to be', [H]. ');">²⁵</span> But why does the Tanna giveprecedence [in this enumeration] to the tunic? — Because it is given precedencein Scripture;<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Ibid. ');">²⁶</span> and why does Scripturedo this? — Because it prefers to state first that which covers the wholebody.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Thus we see that the enumeration of the Tanna is not according to the order in which the garments are donned. ');">²⁷</span> STONING, BURNING, etc. Stoning is severer than burning, since thus theblasphemer<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Lev. XXIV. 14-16. ');">²⁸</span> and the idol-worshipperare executed.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Deut. XVII, 2-5, i.e., a Jew who committed idol worship. In this discussion on the relative severity of the different modes of execution the painfulness of the deaths is not taken into account, but merely the gravity of the offences for which they are imposed. ');">²⁹</span> Wherein lies theparticular enormity of these offences? — Because they constitute an attackupon the fundamental belief ofJudaism.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Since both are virtually a denial of the existence of the true God. This is undoubtedly an assertion that the confession of God is the cardinal tenet of Judaism — a dogma, in fact. Notwithstanding the controversies that have arisen on the questions whether Judaism contains any dogmas, there can be no doubt that the rejection of idolatry is a sine qua non of Judaism. V. Schechter, Studies in Judaism: The Dogmas of Judaism. Cf. also Y. D. 268, 2, on the admission of proselytes, of whom is demanded the profession of belief in God and the rejection of idolatry. ');">³⁰</span> On the contrary, is notburning more severe, since that is the punishment of a priest's adulterousdaughter; and wherein lies the greater enormity of her offence: in that sheprofanes her father?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' V. infra 52b. This discussion, though refuted at a later stage, is interesting as shewing the eminently practical character of Judaism. Though adultery does not undermine the essential basis of Judaism, it is nevertheless suggested that it is to be regarded as a greater offence than idolatry, particularly where its results extend beyond the person of the offender. ');">³¹</span>

Jastrow