Sanhedrin 101

אין לי אלא שניסת לכהן ניסת ללוי ולישראל לעובד כוכבים לחלל לממזר ולנתין מניין ת"ל (ויקרא כא, ט) ובת איש כהן אע"פ שאינה כהנת

from, this phrase I know the law only if she was married to apriest;<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' The Talmud explains further on why such an assumption should be made. ');">¹</span>

(ויקרא כא, ט) היא בשריפה ואין בועלה בשריפה היא בשריפה ואין זוממיה בשריפה

but if she was married toa Levite, Israelite, heathen,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' (Read with MSS 'Cuthean', v. Yad Ramah]. ');">²</span>

רבי אליעזר אומר את אביה בשריפה ואת חמיה בסקילה

a profanedperson,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' The issue of a marriage forbidden by priestly law'; cf. Lev. XXI, 7, 14. ');">³</span>

אמר מר יכול אפילו חיללה שבת חיללה שבת בת סקילה היא

bastard,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' The issue of adultery or incest forbidden on pain of death or Kareth: e.g., the offspring of a father and his daughter, cp. Yeb. 49a. ');">⁴</span>

אמר רבא הא מני ר"ש היא דאמר שריפה חמורה סד"א הואיל ואחמיר בהו רחמנא בכהני דרבי בהו מצות יתירות תידון בשריפה קא משמע לן

or aNathin,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' The Nethinim (Nathin, pl. Nethinim) are regarded in the Talmud as descendants of the Gibeonites, who, having obtained immunity during the Conquest of Canaan by a ruse, were degraded by Joshua to the position of 'hewers of wood and drawers of water' (Yeb. 78b; Josh. IX, 19-23). Actually they are first heard of as returning to Palestine after the Babylonian Exile (Ezra II, 58, VII, 20; Nehem. III, 26, 31). They served under the Levites in the Temple (Ezra VII, 24). Though first mentioned only after the return from the exile, it is stated that they were appointed by David to serve the Levites; hence they must have been well known in Israel long before the Babylonian Exile, in spite of their late mention. In Talmudic times they were placed on a very low level, being forbidden to intermarry with freeborn Israelites. ');">⁵</span>

מאי שנא מיניה דידיה

whence do we know that thesame applies? From the verse: And the daughter of a man who is a priest,which teaches that even if she is married to one who is not a priest thesame applies.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Because 'man' (E.V. 'any') is superfluous; hence it teaches that only her father need be a priest for this law to apply. ');">⁶</span>

סלקא דעתך אמינא איהו דאשתריא ליה שבת לגבי עבודה היא כיון דלא אשתריא שבת לגבה אימא תידון בשריפה קא משמע לן

Further: she [profanethher father; she shall be burnt in fire] teaches that only she is punishedby fire, but not her paramour, nor those who testify falsely against her.R. Eliezer said: If with her father, she is burnt; if with her father-in-law,she is stoned.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' This is explained further on. ');">⁷</span>

יכול אפילו פנויה הא לזנות כתיב

The Master said: 'I might think that this applies even to the Profanationof the Sabbath.' But if she profaned the Sabbath, must she not bestoned?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Stoning is the penalty for desecrating the Sabbath, and it is surely not commuted to burning for a priest's daughter. ');">⁸</span>

כדר"א דאמר פנוי הבא על הפנויה שלא לשום אישות עשאה זונה

— Raba replied: This is taughtaccording to R. Simeon, who regards burning a severer penalty.I might thinkthat since the Divine Law has in general been stricter with the priests [thanwith the Israelites], giving them an additional number of precepts, thereforethe priest's daughter [if she profaned the Sabbath] should be burnt; hencewe are taught that this verse applies only to profanation by whoredom. Butwhy should she differ from a priesthimself?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' If this be taught according to R. Simeon, why should I think that though a priest is stoned for desecrating the Sabbath — since nowhere does the Scripture differentiate between a priest and an Israelite in this respect, — his daughter is punished more severely by being burnt? ');">⁹</span>

או אינו אומר אביה אלא להוציא את כל אדם אלא מאי ניהו שזינתה מאביה מאי איריא בת כהן אפילו בת ישראל נמי

— I would think that a priestis punished more leniently, because he is permitted to work on the Sabbathin the sacrificial service;<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' All Sabbath laws were suspended in favour of the Temple service, for which male priests only were eligible. ');">¹⁰</span>

דאמר רבא אמר לי רב יצחק בר אבודימי אתיא הנה הנה

butsince a priest's daughter is not so permitted, her punishment should be stoning.We are therefore taught otherwise.

אתיא זמה זמה

'I might think that this applies even to an unmarried woman. But does notthe Writ state: 'by playing the whore'? — This is taught on the view ofR. Eliezer, who maintained: If an unmarried man cohabits with an unmarriedwoman without conjugal intent, he renders her aharlot.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Whom a priest may not marry (Lev. XXI, 7); hence in his view whoredom includes pre-marriage unchastity. ');">¹¹</span>

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? ');">¹²</span>

בת כהן אין לי אלא שניסת לכהן ניסת ללוי לישראל ולעובד כוכבים ולחלל לנתין ולממזר מניין תלמוד לומר בת איש כהן אף על פי שאינה כהנת

— The verse [she profaneth]is necessary. For I would think that this whole passage treats of incestwith one's father, and the penalty of burning is prescribed here intentionallyto obviate Raba's deduction.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' I.e., to shew that only a priest's daughter committing incest is burnt, but not an Israelite's daughter, who is differently punished. In that case, the identical phrasing of the verses cited by Raba would have to be otherwise interpreted. ');">¹³</span>

משום דאינסבא להו להני לאו בת כהן היא ותו מידי כהנת לכהן כתיב

Hencethe deduction [from she profaneth].

סד"א (ויקרא כא, ט) כי תחל לזנות אמר רחמנא הני מילי היכא דקא מתחלא השתא אבל הא כיון דקא מתחלא וקיימא מעיקרא

'The daughter of any priest: from this phrase I know the law only if shewas married to a priest; if she was married to a Levite, Israelite, heathen,a profaned person, bastard, or a Nathin, whence do I know that the same applies?From the verse: And the daughter of a man who is a priest, which teachesthat even if she is married to one who is not a priest the same applies.'But because she is married to one of these, is she no longer considered apriest's daughter? Moreover, does Scripture state&nbsp;… a priest's daughtermarried to a priest?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' I.e., on what grounds could we assume at all that the law is applicable only if she married a priest? ');">¹⁴</span>

דאמר מר (ויקרא כב, יב) ובת כהן כי תהיה לאיש זר כיון שנבעלה לפסול לה פסלה

— I mightthink that since Scripture states, if she profane herself by playing thewhore, the law deals only with one who now profanes herself for the firsttime;<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' I.e., through her whoredom. ');">¹⁵</span>

ללוי וישראל נמי (ויקרא כב, יג) ושבה אל בית אביה כנעוריה מכלל דכי איתיה גביה לא אכלה

but in these other cases whereshe was already profaned before [this law should not apply]. For, a Masterstated: [The verse,] If the priest's daughter also be married unto a stranger,[she may not eat of an offering of the holy things]<a rel="footnote" href="#56a_16">¹⁶</a>

אימא לא תידון בשריפה קמ"ל

teaches that if shecohabits with one who is unfit forher,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' E.g., a Nathin or bastard; that is the meaning attached to a stranger. ');">¹⁷</span>

ודלא כר"מ דתניא בת כהן שניסת לישראל ואכלה תרומה משלמת את הקרן ואינה משלמת את החומש ומיתתה בשריפה

he disqualifies her [to eatof the holy food] — And [similarly] if she was married to a Levite or anIsraelite, since Scripture also states, [But if a priest's daughter be awidow or divorced, and have no child] and is returned unto her father's herhouse, as in her youth, [she shall eat of father's meat, i.e., of the holyfood],<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Ibid. 13. ');">¹⁸</span>

ניסת לאחד מן הפסולין משלמת קרן וחומש ומיתתה בחנק דברי ר' מאיר

it shows that as long asher husband [a Levite or Israelite] is alive, she must not eat of the holyfood.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' This too is regarded as a measure of profanation. ');">¹⁹</span>

וחכמים אומרים זו וזו משלמות קרן ולא חומש ומיתתן בשריפה

Hence I would think that sheshould not be burnt; therefore the verse teaches otherwise.

ר"א אומר את אביה בשריפה ואת חמיה בסקילה מאי את אביה ואת חמיה

Now this ruling [that even if married to a bastard, etc., she is burnt] doesnot agree with R. Meir's view. For it has been taught: If a priest's daughter,married to an Israelite, ate ofterumah,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Lit., 'that which is separated': the portion of the corn produce due to the priest. ');">²⁰</span>

אילימא את אביה מאביה ואת חמיה מחמיה מאי איריא בת כהן אפילו בת ישראל נמי בתו בשריפה וכלתו בסקילה

she must repay the principalsbut not the additional fifth.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Which a non-priest had to pay for eating terumah, ibid. 14. ');">²¹</span>

אלא את אביה ברשות אביה ואת חמיה ברשות חמיה

[Ifshe committed adultery] her penalty is burning. But if she was married toone unfit for her [e.g., a bastard, etc.] she must repay the principal andthe added fifth, and her penalty is strangulation: this is the ruling ofR. Meir. But the Sages hold that in both cases she must pay the principalbut not the fifth, and her penalty is burning.

כמאן אי כרבנן האמרי נשואה יצאת לשריפה ולא ארוסה אי כרבי שמעון האמר אחת ארוסה ואחת נשואה בשריפה

'R. Eliezer said: If with her father, she is burnt; if with her father-in-law,she is stoned.' What is meant by 'her father' and 'her father-in-law'? Ifwe say 'her father' means [that she committed whoredom] with her father,and 'her father-in-law' [that she did so] with her father-in-law: why speakparticularly of a priest's daughter; an Israelite's daughter too is thuspunished — a daughter [for incest with her father] by burning, and adaughter-in-law by stoning? — But 'her father' means 'under her father'sauthority',<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' I.e., when one is under the parental roof, viz., an arusah, v. p. 333, n. 3. ');">²²</span>

ואי כרבי ישמעאל האמר ארוסה יצאת לשריפה ולא נשואה את חמיה חנק הוא

and 'her father-in-law'indicates 'under her father-in-law'sauthority'.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' I.e., when she is to longer under the parental roof, viz., a nesu'ah. ');">²³</span>

שלח רבין משמיה דרבי יוסי ברבי חנינא כך היא הצעה של משנה לעולם כרבנן והכי קאמר כל שהוא למטה ממיתת אביה ומאי ניהו נשוא' בת ישראל דאילו נשוא' בת ישראל בחנק הכא במיתת אביה בשריפה

Whose view is this?If the Rabbis? Do they not maintain that a nesu'ah is excluded [fromstrangulation and punished] by burning, but not so an arusah [who is stoned]?If R. Simeon's? Does he not maintain that both an arusah and a nesu'ah areburnt? And if R. Ishmael's?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' His view is explained later. ');">²⁴</span>

כל שהיא למעלה ממיתת אביה ומאי ניהו ארוסה בת ישראל דאילו ארוסה בת ישראל בעלמא בסקילה הכא במיתת חמיה בסקילה

Doeshe not maintain that only an arusah is burnt, but not a nesu'ah, and accordingly,[when under the authority of] her father-in-law, she isstrangled?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Not stoned; for since he maintains that a nesu'ah, if a priest's daughter, does not differ from an Israelite's daughter, her penalty is strangulation, as in the case of the latter. ');">²⁵</span>

מתקיף לה ר' ירמיה מידי למעלה למטה קתני אלא אמר רבי ירמיה

— Rabin sent a messagein the name of R. Jose son of R.Hanina:<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Here we have an example of a Talmudic responsum. Rabin migrated from Babylonia to Palestine, and wrote many letters from Babylonia to Palestine with the results of his researches. Cf. Keth. 49b; B.M. 114a; B.B. 139a. 'Rabin sent' then will mean from Palestine to Babylonia. ');">²⁶</span> This is the explanationof the teaching.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' I.e., the Baraitha containing the statement of R. Eliezer. ');">²⁷</span> Indeed it is inaccordance with the Rabbis' views and this is its meaning: Where an adulterouswoman's death is more lenient than that of her father for incest [with hisdaughter], that is in the case of an Israelite's daughter, who is a arusah,her punishment beingstrangulation;<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Whilst her father's penalty is death by burning. ');">²⁸</span> then in the caseof a priest's daughter, her punishment is the same as her father's, viz., burning;but where an adulterous woman's penalty is greater than her father's, thatis in the case of an Israelite's daughter, who is an arusah, her punishmentbeing stoning,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Which, according to the Rabbis, in severer than burning, the father's punishment. ');">²⁹</span> then in the caseof a priest's daughter, her punishment is as that of her father-in-law forincest with her, viz., bystoning.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Rashi points out that it is unnecessary to liken her punishment to her father-in-law's, since the penalty of every arusah is stoning. But in any case the Talmud refutes this explanation. ');">³⁰</span> R. Jeremiah objected tothis explanation: Does then the Baraitha state 'greater' or 'lesser'? ButR. Jeremiah explained it thus: