Sanhedrin 100

Chapter 100

א הוי אומר כח המדיח וקל וחומר ומה חנק שחמור מסייף שריפה חמורה ממנו סייף הקל לא כ"ש

1 Stoning is severer than strangulation, being the penalty of a blasphemerand idol worshipper, the extreme gravity of whose offence has already beenstated. On the contrary, is not strangulation severer, since it is the penaltyof one who smites his father or mother, the gravity of whose offence liesin the fact that their honour is likened etc.? — Since the Divine Law excludedan arusah, the daughter of an Israelite, from the penalty of a nesu'ah, thedaughter of an Israelite, changing it from strangling tostoning,3

ב סקילה חמורה מחנק שכן ניתנה למגדף ולעובד עבודת כוכבים ומאי חומרא כדאמרן

2 it follows that stoning isseverer.

ג אדרבה חנק חמור שכן ניתן למכה אביו ואמו ומאי חומרא שכן הוקש כו'

3 Stoning is severer than slaying, being the penalty of a blasphemer, etc.On the contrary, is not slaying severer than stoning, since it is the penaltyof the inhabitants of a seduced city, the gravity of whose offence is provedby the fact that their property is destroyed? — Now consider, whose offenceis greater: the seducer's or the seduced? Surely that of the seducer! Henceyou may argue from a major to a minor premise. If stoning is severer thanstrangulation, though the latter be severer thanslaying,4

ד מדאפקיה רחמנא לארוסה בת ישראל מכלל נשואה בת ישראל מחנק לסקילה שמע מינה סקילה חמורה

4 surely it is severer thanslaying itself.

ה סקילה חמורה מסייף שכן ניתנה למגדף כו' אדרבה סייף חמור שכן ניתן לאנשי עיר הנדחת ומאי חומרא שכן ממונם אבד

5 Strangulation is severer than slaying, since it is the penalty of one whosmites his father or mother, the gravity of whose offence has already beenstated — On the contrary, is not slaying severer, since it is the penaltyof the inhabitants of a seduced city, the enormity of whose crime is attestedby the fact that their property is destroyed? — Now consider: whose offenceis greater, the seducer's or the seduced? Surely the seducer's! And it hasbeen taught: The seducers of a seduced city are punished by stoning. R. Simeonmaintained: By strangulation.

ו אמרת וכי איזה כח מרובה כח המדיח או כח הנידח הוי אומר כח המדיח וקל וחומר ומה חנק שחמור מסייף סקילה חמורה ממנו סייף הקל לא כ"ש

6 R. Johanan used to teach:5

ז חנק חמור מסייף שכן ניתן למכה אביו ואמו ומאי חומרא כדאמרן

7 If a betrothed[i.e., an arusah] maiden<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' 'The Hebrew [H] denotes a damsel between twelve years and a day and twelve and a half years of age. Before that she is a minor ([H]), after that an adult, 'entering maturity', bogereth ([H]). ');">6

ח אדרבה סייף חמור שכן ניתן לאנשי עיר הנדחת ומאי חומרא שכן ממונם אבד

8 committedadultery, her punishment is stoning. R. Simeon said: It is burning. If shecommitted incestuous adultery with her father, her punishment is stoning.R. Simeon said: It is burning.7

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

9 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

י מרגלא בפומיה דרבי יוחנן נערה המאורסה בת כהן שזינתה בסקילה ר"ש אומר בשריפה זינתה מאביה בסקילה ר"ש אומר בשריפה

10 What statement of R. Simeon [shows that he holds that the priest's daughter,whether an arusah or nesu'ah, is punished by burning]? — It has been taught:R. Simeon said: Two general principles have been stated in respect of a priest'sdaughter.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' One referring to an arusah, and one to a nesu'ah; i.e., when the Torah states, the man that committeth adultery with another man's wife, even he that committeth adultery with his neighbour's wife, the adulterer and the adulteress shall surely be put to death, (Lev. XX, 10) this is a general law regarding a nesu'ah, in which a priest's daughter should be included. Likewise the law in Deut. XXII, 23f: If a damsel that is a virgin be betrothed unto a husband, and a man find her in the city and lie with her, then shall ye bring them both out unto the gate of the city, and ye shall stone them with stones that they die, is a general principle for an adulterous arusah, which should embrace the priest's daughter too. ');">9

יא מאי קמ"ל לרבנן נשואה יצאה לשריפה ולא ארוסה לר' שמעון אחת ארוסה ואחת נשואה יצאה לשריפה וטעמא מאי משום דלרבנן סקילה חמורה לר' שמעון שריפה חמורה

11 Do these principles applyonly to a priest's daughter, and not to an Israelite's daughter [surelynot]?10

יב נפקא מינה למי שנתחייב שתי מיתות ב"ד נידון בחמורה

12 — Say thus: In respect ofa priest's daughter too. But then Scripture excluded a priest's daughter,a nesu'ah, from the penalty of an Israelite's daughter, a nesu'ah,' and anarusah, from the penalty of an Israelite's daughter, anarusah.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' And the daughter of any priest, if she profane herself by playing the whore, she profaneth her father; she shall be burnt with fire. (Lev. XXI, 9). 'The daughter of any priest', being unspecified, must refer both to an arusah and to a nesu'ah,' whilst Lev. XX, 10 (quoted in preceding note) refers to a nesu'ah, and the death penalty mentioned there is interpreted as strangulation. Thus a priest's daughter, whether an arusah or a nesu'ah, is excepted from the penalty of an Israelite's daughter in a like case. ');">11

יג מאי רבי שמעון דתניא רבי שמעון אומר שני כללות נאמרו בבת כהן

13 Now, just as when the scriptureexcluded the priest's daughter, a nesu'ah, from the penalty of an Israelite'sdaughter, a nesu'ah, it was in order to decree a severerpunishment;12

יד בבת כהן ולא בבת ישראל אימא אף בבת כהן

14 so also, when excludingthe priest's daughter, an arusah, from the penalty of an Israelite's daughter,an arusah, it must have been in order to impose a greaterpunishment.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Burning instead of stoning, making Lev. XXI,9 (quoted on p. 335, n. 3) refer both to a nesu'ah and an arusah. This Baraitha then will be the authority for R. Johanan,'s statement that R. Simeon maintained that both an arusah and a nesu'ah, if priests' daughters, were excepted from the penalty of an Israelite's daughter. ');">13

טו והוציא הכתוב נשואה מכלל נשואה וארוסה מכלל ארוסה

15 But false witnessesin respect of a nesu'ah, the daughter of a priest, are treated as thoughthey had testified against an Israelite's daughter; likewise, if in respectof an arusah, who is a priest's daughter, they are punished just as thoughthey had testified against an Israelite'sdaughter.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Deut. XIX, 16-19. If a false witness rise up against any man, to testify against him that which is wrong … then shall ye do unto him as he had thought to do unto his brother. Thus a false witness incurred the penalty he had sought to impose. But if he testified against a priest's daughter, whether an arusah or a nesu'ah, his punishment was that of an Israelite's daughter in like circumstances. ');">14

טז מה כשהוציא הכתוב נשואה מכלל נשואה להחמיר אף כשהוציא הכתוב ארוסה מכלל ארוסה להחמיר

16 Our Rabbis taught: And the daughter of any priest, if she profaneherself:15

יז זוממי נשואה בת כהן בכלל זוממי נשואה בת ישראל וזוממי ארוסה בת כהן בכלל זוממי ארוסה בת ישראל

17 I might think that thisapplies even to the profanation of theSabbath,16

יח ת"ר (ויקרא כא, ט) ובת איש כהן כי תחל יכול אפילו חללה את השבת ת"ל (ויקרא כא, ט) לזנות בחילולין שבזנות הכתוב מדבר

18 — but the Writ statesby playing the whore: thus Scripture speaks only of profanation through whoredom.I might think that this applies even to an unmarried woman. But her fatheris mentioned in this passage,17

יט יכול אפילו פנויה נאמר כאן אביה ונאמר להלן אביה מה להלן זנות עם זיקת הבעל אף כאן זנות עם זיקת הבעל

19 andher father is also mentionedelsewhere:<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' But if this thing be true, and the tokens for virginity be not found for the damsel: Then they … shall stone her with stones that she die: because she hath wrought folly in Israel, to play the whore in her father's house. Deut. XXII, 21f. ');">18

כ או אינו אומר אביה אלא להוציא את כל האדם כשהוא אומר (ויקרא כא, ט) היא מחללת הוי כל אדם אמור

20 just as elsewhere thereference is to whoredom by one who is bound to a husband, so here too. Butperhaps 'her father' is stated in order to excludeothers?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' I.e., only if she committed incest with her father is she punished by burning, but not for playing the harlot with others. The Talmud explains further on why one should wish to interpret the passage thus. ');">19

כא הא מה אני מקיים אביה נאמר כאן אביה ונאמר להלן אביה מה להלן זנות עם זיקת הבעל אף כאן זנות עם זיקת הבעל

21 — When Scripture states,She profaneth her father, it must apply to whoredom withothers.20

כב אי מה להלן נערה והיא ארוסה אף כאן נערה והיא ארוסה נערה והיא נשואה בוגרת והיא ארוסה בוגרת והיא נשואה ואפילו הזקינה מנין

22 Hence, to what purpose doI put the phrase 'her father' [which, strictly speaking, is superfluous]?'Her father' is mentioned in this passage, and 'her father' is also mentionedelsewhere; just as elsewhere the reference is to whoredom by one who is boundto a husband, so here too.21

כג תלמוד לומר (ויקרא כא, ט) ובת כהן מכל מקום

23 If so,just as the reference there is to amaiden22

כד בת כהן

24 who is an arusah, so heretoo the reference is to a maiden who is an arusah: but if she is a maidenand a nesu'ah, or if she is a full-growndamsel23 and an arusah, or a full-growndamsel and a nesu'ah, or even if she is aged, whence do we know [that thesame law applies]? — The Writ states: 'And the daughter of anypriest',24 implying that the law holdsgood in all cases.25 'The daughter of any priest':

Previous Chapter Next Chapter