Sanhedrin 102

לעולם כרבי ישמעאל והכי קאמר את אביה ברשות אביה בשריפה ואת חמיה מחמיה בסקילה וכל אדם בחנק

R. Nahman said in the name of Rabbah b. Abbuha in the name of Rab: The <i>halachah</i>is in accordance with the message sent by Rabin in the name of R. Jose b.Hanina. R. Joseph queried: [Do we need] to fix a <i>halachah</i> for [the days of]the Messiah?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Since the Sanhedrin no longer had jurisdiction in capital offences, there is no practical utility in this ruling, which can become effective only in the days of the Messiah. ');">⁶</span>

אמר רבא מאי שנא או אידי ואידי ממש או אידי ואידי רשות

— Abaye answered: Ifso, we should not study the laws of sacrifices, as they are also only forthe Messianic era. But we say: Study and receivereward;<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' [Learning has its own merit, quite apart from any practical utility that may be derived therefrom]. ');">⁷</span>

אלא אמר רבא לעולם כר"ש וקסבר ר"א נשואה כארוסה מה ארוסה חד דרגא מסקינן לה מסקילה לשריפה אף נשואה חד דרגא מסקינן לה מחנק לסקילה

so in this case too, studyand receive reward: [He replied:] This is what I mean: Why state a <i>halachah</i>?In the course of the discussion, was there given a ruling atall?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Surely not! Since Rabin and Rabina agree on the point of law, and differ only on the interpretation of R. Eliezer's statement. ');">⁸</span>

מתקיף לה ר' חנינא הא אידי ואידי ר"ש בשריפה קאמר

Now, what statement of R. Ishmael was referredto?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' This reverts to the former discussion, when it was said, this is according to R. Ishmael. ');">⁹</span>

אלא אמר רבינא לעולם כרבנן ואיפוך את אביה בסקילה ואת חמיה בשריפה והאי דקאמר את אביה סירכא בעלמא נקט:

— It has been taught: And thedaughter of any priest, If she profanes herself by playing thewhore:<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Ibid. ');">¹⁰</span>

אמר רב נחמן אמר רבה בר אבוה אמר רב הלכה כדשלח רבין משמיה דרבי יוסי ברבי חנינא אמר רב יוסף הלכתא למשיחא

Scripture here speaks ofa maiden [na'arah] who is an arusah. You say so, but perhaps it also refersto a nesu'ah? — The Writ sayeth: And the man that committeth adultery withanother man's wife, even he that committeth adultery with his neighbour'swife, the adulterer and the adulteress shall be put todeath.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Ibid. XX, 10. Wherever the manner of death is unspecified, strangulation is meant. ');">¹¹</span>

א"ל אביי אלא מעתה שחיטת קדשים לא ליתני הלכתא למשיחא אלא דרוש וקבל שכר הכא נמי דרוש וקבל שכר

Now all are included in theterms 'adulterer' and 'adulteress', but the Writ excluded the daughter ofan Israelite, teaching that she isstoned,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Deut. XXII, 23f. referring to adultery by an arusah. ');">¹²</span>

הכי קאמרי הלכתא למה לי סוגיא דשמעתא הלכה קאמר

and the daughter of a priest,teaching that she is burnt. Just as the exception made for an Israelite'sdaughter refers to an arusah, but not anesu'ah;<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Ibid. This explicitly treats of an arusah: if it be applied to a nesu'ah too, there is none to which Lev. XX, 10 can refer. ');">¹³</span>

מאי רבי ישמעאל דתניא (ויקרא כא, ט) ובת [איש] כהן כי תחל לזנות בנערה והיא ארוסה הכתוב מדבר

so also, when a priest'sdaughter was excepted, an arusah was so excepted, but not a nesu'ah. Further,false witnesses [in respect of the charge of adultery] and the paramour [ofan adulterous woman] were [originally] included in the verse: [If a falsewitness rise up against any man to testify against him that which is wrong&nbsp;…] then ye shall do unto him, as he had thought to hove done unto hisbrother.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Deut. XIX, 16, 19. ');">¹⁴</span>

אתה אומר בנער' והיא ארוסה או אינו אלא אפי' נשואה ת"ל (ויקרא כא, יח) איש אשר ינאף את אשת רעהו מות יומת הנואף והנואפת הכל היו בכלל הנואף והנואפת הוציא הכתוב בת ישראל בסקילה ובת כהן בשריפה מה כשהוציא הכתוב את בת ישראל לסקילה ארוסה ולא נשואה אף כשהוציא הכתוב בת כהן לשריפה ארוסה ולא נשואה

— Now, how can the words,as he had thought apply to aParamour!<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' This is an interjection. ');">¹⁵</span>

זוממיה ובועלה בכלל (דברים יט, יט) ועשיתם לו כאשר זמם וגו'

— But say thus: Thepunishment of her false witnesses Is included in the text referring to thedeath of her paramour,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' That is, they are punished by the same death which they intended to have brought about on the paramour. ');">¹⁶</span>

בועלה מאי כאשר זמם איכא אלא זוממיה בכלל מיתת בועלה

because Scripturestates: then ye shall do unto him, as he had thought to have done unto hisbrother; implying, but not unto hissister.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Where the penalties differ; e.g.. when a priest's daughter commits adultery, she is burned, but her paramour is stoned; hence, if witnesses testified falsely on such a charge, they are to be stoned, not burned. ');">¹⁷</span>

משום שנאמר ועשיתם לו כאשר זמם לעשות לאחיו ולא לאחותו דברי רבי ישמעאל

This is R. Ishmael's opinion.R. Akiba said: [A priest's daughter], whether an arusah or a nesu'ah, is excepted[from the punishment of strangulation,] but is punished with fire. I mightthink that this applies even to an unmarried woman: but her father is mentionedin this passage, and her father is also mentionedelsewhere:<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Ibid. XXII, 21f. ');">¹⁸</span>

ר"ע אומר אחת ארוסה ואחת נשואה יצאת לשריפה יכול אפילו פנויה נאמר כאן אביה ונאמר להלן אביה מה להלן זנות עם זיקת הבעל אף כאן זנות עם זיקת הבעל

just as elsewhere thereference is to whoredom by one who is bound to a husband, so here too. ThereuponR. Ishmael said unto him: If so, just as the second passage refers to a maiden[na'arah] who is an arusah, so this verse [treating of a priest's daughter]should be taken to refer to a maiden who is an arusah; [but if a nesu'ah,her punishment should be different]. R. Akiba replied: My brother, I interpretthe and the daughter etc., when it would have been sufficient to say thedaughter etc., as teaching the inclusion of anesu'ah.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' I.e., the deduction from the verbal identity (Gezerah Shawah, v. Glos.) of 'her father' does in fact apply only to an arusah: but the superfluous copulative wow (u) extends the law to embrace a nesu'ah too. ');">¹⁹</span>

א"ל ר' ישמעאל אי מה להלן נערה והיא ארוסה אף כאן נערה והיא ארוסה

R. Ishmael said to him:Shall we except this woman [i.e., a nesu'ah from the punishment of strangulation]and impose [the severer penalty of] death by fire, because you interpretthe superfluous '<i>waw</i>' ['and']; if this superfluous wow indicates the inclusionof a nesu'ah, then include an unmarried womantoo;<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' So the commentary of Hananel; Rashi interprets: if the gezerah shawah (identical use of 'her father' in both passages) indicates the inclusion of a nesu'ah, etc. This interpretation is rather difficult, as R. Akiba did not include nesu'ah through the gezerah shawah. ');">²⁰</span>

א"ל ר"ע ישמעאל אחי (ויקרא כא, ט) בת ובת אני דורש

whilst if it implies the exclusionof an unmarried woman [since the Deuteronomic passage explicitly relatesto a married woman], then exclude a nesu'ah too. And R.Akiba?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' How would he meet this objection? ');">²¹</span>

א"ל וכי מפני שאתה דורש בת ובת נוציא זו לשריפה אם משמע להביא את הנשואה הביא את הפנויה ואם משמע להוציא את הפנויה הוציא את הנשואה

— [He holds that] the gezerahshawah serves the purpose to exclude an unmarried woman, whilst the superfluous'<i>waw</i>' serves to indicate the inclusion of a nesu'ah. And R. Ishmael? — Inraising the foregoing [objection] he thought that since R. Akiba had replied.'I interpret the superfluous waw', it proved that he had withdrawn his deductionfront the <i>gezerah shawah</i>.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' For mere identity of phraseology is insufficient to deduce similarity of law. There must be a tradition from one's teacher, and supposedly handed down from scholar to scholar, going right back to Moses. (Pes. 66a: so Rashi's interpretation of the rule: No one may draw conclusions from identical phraseology on his own authority). Thus R. Ishmael thought that R. Akiba had abandoned this gezerah shawah, being doubtful of the authenticity of its tradition. ');">²²</span>

ור"ע אהני גזירה שוה למעוטי פנויה ואהני בת ובת לרבות את הנשואה

Now, howdoes R. Ishmael interpret this superfluous <i>waw</i>? — As shewing that whichwas taught by the father of Samuel b. Abin: Since we find Scripturedifferentiating in male [priests] between the [physically] unblemished andthe blemished,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Lev. XXI, 17, forbidding priests with a physical blemish to perform the sacrificial service. ');">²³</span>

ורבי ישמעאל סבר מדקאמר ליה בת ובת ש"מ הדר ביה מגזירה שוה

I would think thata distinction must also be drawn in theirdaughters:<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' With respect to adultery. viz., that only the daughter of a physically perfect priest is burnt. ');">²⁴</span>

ור' ישמעאל האי בת ובת מאי דריש ביה מיבעי ליה לכדתני אבוהי דשמואל בר אבין לפי שמצינו שחלק הכתוב בזכרים בין תמימים לבעלי מומין יכול נחלוק בבנותיהן ת"ל בת ובת

therefore Scripture writesa pleonastic '<i>waw</i>' [to teach the inclusion of the daughter of a physicallyblemished priest].<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Weiss, Dor, Vol. II, p. 105, quotes R. Ishmael's remark in this connection 'shall we exclude a nesu'ah because thou interpretest a superfluous 'waw' as being a protest against R. Akiba's method of interpretation? From the whole passage, however, we see that R. Ishmael was not fundamentally opposed to this at all, but merely disagreed on the actual application of the extension and apparent inconsistency in R. Akiba's distinction between a nesu'ah and an unmarried woman. ');">²⁵</span>

ורבי עקיבא (ויקרא כא, ו) מוהם מקריבים והיו קדש נפקא

And R.Akiba?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Whence does he derive this latter deduction? ');">²⁶</span>

ור' ישמעאל אי מההיא הוה אמינא ה"מ אינהו אבל בנותיהן לא קמ"ל

— He deduces this from theverse: [for the offerings of the Lord made by fire, and the bread of theirGod,] they [i.e. the priests] do offer: therefore they shall beholy.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Ibid. XXI, 6. Therefore they shall be holy is an emphatic assertion of their holiness, implying that they do not lose it even if blemished. ');">²⁷</span>

ורבי ישמעאל

And R. Ishmael? — He maintainsthat that verse could apply only to prieststhemselves,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Teaching that they retain their holiness even if blemished, e.g that they may not be defiled by the dead. ');">²⁸</span> but not to their daughters.Hence the necessity of the pleonastic '<i>waw</i>'. Now how does R. Ishmael interpret