Talmud for Sanhedrin 101:13

איצטריך סד"א קרא לאפוקי מדרבא מדגלי רחמנא בבת כהן ולא בבת ישראל קמ"ל

'But perhaps "her father"is stated in order to exclude others?' — How then would you explain theverse? That she committed adulterous incest with her father! If so, why onlya priest's daughter: does not the same apply to an Israelite's daughter?For [did not] Raba say: R. Isaac b. Abudimi said unto me: 'We learn identityof law from the fact that hennah [they] occurs in two related passages, andlikewise zimmah [wickedness] intwo'?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' In Lev. XVIII, 10 it is stated: The nakedness of thy son's daughter, or of thy daughter's daughter, even their nakedness thou shalt not uncover: for they ([H] hennah) are thine own nakedness. Further it is written (ibid. XVIII, 17): Thou shalt not uncover the nakedness of a woman and her daughter, neither shalt thou take her son's daughter, or her daughter's daughter, to uncover her nakedness; for they ([H] hennah) are her near kinswomen: it is wickedness ([H] zimmah). Just as in the latter verse, intercourse with one's wife's daughter is treated as with her granddaughter, so in the former case, incest with one's daughter is the same offence as with one's granddaughter. Though this is not explicitly stated, it is deduced from the fact that hennah occurs in both cases. Further, in Lev. XX, 14 it is stated: And If a man take a wife and her mother, it is wickedness ([H] zimmah): they shall be burnt with fire. The use of zimmah in Lev. XX, 14 and in Lev. XVIII, 17 show that burning by fire is the penalty in both cases; and the use of hennah in Lev. XVIII, 17 and Lev. XVIII, 10 shews that in Lev. XVIII, 10 too the penalty is burning (cf. the Euclidean axiom: the equals of equals are equal). Thus we see that incest between a man, even an Israelite, and his daughter is punished by burning. How then could we assume that the verse under discussion, which decrees burning as a penalty for whoredom by a priest's daughter (implying the exclusion of an Israelite's daughter), refers to incest with one's father, and consequently what need is there for the deduction from she profaneth? ');"><sup>12</sup></span>

Jerusalem Talmud Terumot

What is the reason of Rebbi Meïr? (Lev. 21:9) “If she desecrates her father’s house by whoring⁸⁰“A Cohen man’s daughter, if she desecrates her father’s house by whoring, she desecrates her father; she shall be burned by fire.” The status of an adulterous daughter of a Cohen also determines her status for restitution of heave.,” one who may not return to her father’s house; this excludes one who may return to her father’s house⁸¹The language is difficult. In the Rome ms., “this excludes one who may leave her father’s house.” The commentators switch the places of “may” and “may not”, but the manuscript evidence forbids this emendation. One has to say that the one who may not return is one living (or who lived previously) in a prohibited marriage; the one who may return is the one living in an acceptable marriage who will be able to resume eating heave as a childless widow or divorcee.. If she married acceptably but committed adultery, may she return to her father’s house⁸²The previous argument is patently false; a Cohen’s daughter acceptably married by her adultery becomes a permanently disqualified whore.? How is this? “If she desecrates by whoring;” the one whose desecration is by whoring, not the one whose desecration is by marriage⁸³The woman living in a forbidden marriage is disqualified already before her adultery; the special rules for daughters of Cohanim cannot apply to her. The woman married acceptably falls under the rules for Cohanim and their descendants.. What is the reason of the rabbis? (Lev. 21:9) “A Cohen man’s daughter,” under all circumstances. Then also if her desecration is by her son⁸⁴If the Cohen’s daughter sleeps with her own son, the punishment should be death by stoning which is considered a harsher punishment than death by burning.? Rebbi Ḥinena par Papa stated before Rebbi Zeïra following Rebbi Ismael: (Lev. 21:9) “She desecrates her father.” One whose desecration is caused by herself, not one whose desecration is because of her father. Rebbi Ḥanina said, I learn from the words of Rebbi Ismael, even if her desecration is by her son⁸⁵The Babli, Sanhedrin 51a, disagrees and in all cases requires the harsher punishment..

Ask RabbiBookmarkShareCopy

Previous Verse Full Chapter Next Verse