Sanhedrin 105

בשלמא לר' יונתן כדקא מפרש רבי טעמא אלא לרבי יאשיה ממאי דאיכא חנק בעולם אימא סייף

Now, R. Jonathan's view raises no difficulty, its reason being explainedby Rabbi. But on R. Josiah's view, how do we know that there is death bystrangulation at all; perhaps the sword ismeant?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Since the only ground for his assertion is the leniency of strangulation, perhaps there are only three death penalties, and when unspecified death is decreed in the Torah, it means the sword, the most lenient of the three. ');">¹</span>

אמר רבא ארבע מיתות גמרא גמירי להו

— Raba replied: It is a traditionthat there are four deaths. Why does R. Jonathan say, 'not because strangulationis the most lenient death'? — Because his dispute with R. Josiah is on thesame lines as that of R. Simeon and theRabbis.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' As to which is the easiest death (v. supra 50b). R. Jonathan maintaining that strangulation is not the easiest. ');">²</span>

מאי לא מפני שהיא קלה קמיפלגי בפלוגתא דרבי שמעון ורבנן

R. Zera asked of Abaye; Those who are stoned, but in whose case Scripturedoes not explicitly decreestoning,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' For a number of offences such as idolatry, adultery by a betrothed maiden, desecration of the Sabbath, etc., Scripture explicitly ordains stoning. But in the case of others, e.g., witchcraft, incest, incitement to idolatry, etc., Scripture merely decrees death, and by a gezerah shawah we learn that stoning is meant. ');">³</span>

א"ל רבי זירא לאביי שאר הנסקלין דלא כתיב בהו סקילה דגמרי מאוב וידעוני במאי גמרי במות יומתו גמרי או בדמיהם בם גמרי

so that we derive the penaltyby analogy of a necromancer, or awizard,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Cf. infra 54a. ');">⁴</span>

א"ל בדמיהם דמיהם בם גמרי דאי במות יומתו גמרי דמיהם דמיהם למה לי

from which phrase do we deduceit: from 'they shall surely be put to death', or from 'their blood shallbe upon them'?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Lev. XX, 27 A man also or a woman that hath a familiar spirit (necromancer), or that is a wizard, they shall surely be put to death: they shall stone them with stones: their blood shall be upon them. In the case of all other malefactors who are stoned, though stoning is not explicitly stated, the two phrases 'they' shall surely be put to death' and 'their blood shall be upon their head' occur. ');">⁵</span>

אלא מאי בדמיהם דמיהם גמרי מות יומתו למה לי

— He replied: It isdeduced from the phrase 'their blood shall be upon them', for if it is inferredfrom the passage 'they shall surely be put to death', what need is thereof the words 'their blood shall be upon them'? But do you say that it isdeduced from 'their blood shall be upon them'; what need is there then ofthe phrase 'they shall surely be put to death'? — Even as it has been taught:He that smote him shall surely be put to death; for he is amurderer.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Num. XXXV, 21. ');">⁶</span>

כדתניא (במדבר לה, כא) מות יומת המכה רוצח הוא אין לי אלא במיתה הכתובה בו מניין שאם אי אתה יכול להמיתו במיתה הכתובה בו שאתה ממיתו בכל מיתה שאתה יכול להמיתו תלמוד לומר מות יומת המכה מ"מ

I only know that he maybe executed with the death that is decreed for him: Whence do I know thatif you cannot execute him with that death, you may execute him with any otherdeath? — From the verse: He that smote him shall surely be put to death,implying in any manner possible.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' This is learnt from the emphatic 'surely', expressed in Hebrew' as usual, by the insertion of the infinitive before the finite form of the verb. [H] _ V. supra 45b. ');">⁷</span>

אמר ליה רב אחא מדפתי לרבינא ואי במות יומתו גמרי מאי קא קשיא ליה

R. Aha of Difti questioned Rabina: Now, had the deduction been from the phrase,they shall surely be put to death — what would be R. Zera'sdifficulty?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' For since he asked from which phrase the deduction is made, it is obvious that if from one particular phrase, a difficulty would arise. ');">⁸</span>

אילימא אשת איש קא קשיא ליה למיתי ולמיגמר מות יומת מאוב וידעוני מה להלן בסקילה אף כאן בסקילה

Shall we say that hisdifficulty would be in respect of [adultery with] a marriedwoman,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' For which it was said above, that the death penalty being unspecified, it is strangulation. ');">⁹</span>

מדאמר רחמנא ארוסה בסקילה מכלל דנשואה לאו בסקילה

namely, that we ought to learnthe manner of death from the law of a necromancer or a wizard; just as thereit is stoning, so here too?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' I.e., instead of regarding it as an unspecified death penalty, why not treat it as explicit, in virtue of the phrase they shall surely be put to death, written also in the case of adultery with a married woman. ');">¹⁰</span>

ואלא מכה אביו ואמו קא קשיא ליה למיתי ולמיגמר מאוב וידעוני

Butsince the Divine Law ordained stoning for anarusah,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Deut. XXII, 23f. ');">¹¹</span>

עד דגמרי מאוב וידעוני ליגמרו מאשת איש דאי אתה רשאי למושכה להחמיר עליה אלא להקל עליה

it follows that a nesu'ahis not stoned!<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' So that this difficulty falls to the ground. ');">¹²</span>

אמר ליה שאר הנסקלין גופייהו קא קשיא ליה דאי במות יומת גמרי עד דגמרי מאוב וידעוני ליגמרו מאשת איש:

If, again, the difficultywould arise in respect of one who smites his father ormother;<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Who is strangled, infra 84b. ');">¹³</span>

<big><strong>מתני׳</strong></big> אלו הן הנסקלין הבא על האם ועל אשת האב ועל הכלה ועל הזכור ועל הבהמה והאשה המביאה את הבהמה והמגדף והעובד עבודת כוכבים והנותן מזרעו למולך ובעל אוב וידעוני והמחלל את השבת והמקלל אביו ואמו והבא על נערה המאורסה והמסית והמדיח והמכשף ובן סורר ומורה

namely, that we ought tolearn [by analogy of a necromancer or a wizard [that he isstoned]?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Since the phrase he shall surely be put to death (Ex. XXI, 15) is written of him too. ');">¹⁴</span>

הבא על האם חייב עליה משום אם ומשום אשת אב רבי יהודה אומר אינו חייב אלא משום האם בלבד

But instead of deducingit from the necromancer, etc., deduce it rather from adultery with a marriedwoman [who is strangled], since you may not make a deduction in favour ofa stringent penalty in preference to a lenientone.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' For as the same phrase (v. p. 375. n.7 ) occurs in the three places. viz., (i) necromancer etc. (stoning), (ii) married woman (strangulation), and (iii) he that smites his father or mother, the last to be deduced from one of the first two, it follows, that one must incline to leniency. So that even if the deduction were made from the phrase, they shall surely be put to death, it would be still correct to say that one who smites his father or mother is strangled. ');">¹⁵</span>

הבא על אשת אב חייב משום אשת אב ומשום אשת איש בין בחיי אביו בין לאחר מיתת אביו בין מן האירוסין בין מן הנישואין

— He replied: His difficultywould be in respect of all others who are stoned, for if it [the punishmentof them by stoning] is deduced from the phrase, they shall surely be putto death, why deduce it from a necromancer and a wizard; deduce it ratherfrom the adultery of a marriedwoman?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Since the deduction must be in favour of the more lenient death. ');">¹⁶</span>

הבא על כלתו חייב עליה משום כלתו ומשום אשת איש בין בחיי בנו בין לאחר מיתת בנו בין מן האירוסין בין מן הנישואין:

<b><i>MISHNAH</i></b>. THE FOLLOWING ARE STONED: HE WHO COMMITS INCEST WITH HIS MOTHER,HIS FATHER'S WIFE, OR HIS DAUGHTER-IN-LAW; HE WHO SEXUALLY ABUSES A MALEOR BEAST; A WOMAN WHO COMMITS BESTIALITY WITH A BEAST; A BLASPHEMER; AN IDOLATER;HE WHO GIVES OF HIS SEED TO MOLECH; A NECROMANCER OR A WIZARD; ONE WHO DESECRATESTHE SABBATH; HE WHO CURSES HIS FATHER OR MOTHER; HE WHO COMMITS ADULTERYWITH A BETROTHED MAIDEN; HE WHO INCITES [INDIVIDUALS TO IDOLATRY]; HE WHOSEDUCES [A WHOLE TOWN TOIDOLATRY];<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' The former is called mesith: the latter maddiah. ');">¹⁷</span>

<big><strong>גמ׳</strong></big> תניא רבי יהודה אומר אם לא היתה אמו ראויה לאביו אינו חייב אלא משום האם בלבד

A SORCERER; AND A WAYWARDAND REBELLIOUS SON.

מאי אינה ראויה לו אילימא חייבי כריתות וחייבי מיתות בית דין מכלל דרבנן סברי אע"ג דאינה ראויה לו הא לית ליה קידושין בגווה

ONE WHO [UNWITTINGLY] COMMITS INCEST WITH HIS MOTHER INCURS A PENALTY INRESPECT OF HER BOTH AS HIS MOTHER AND AS HIS FATHER'SWIFE.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Hence if unwittingly, he is bound to bring two sin-offerings. ');">¹⁸</span>

אלא חייבי לאוין ור' יהודה סבר לה כרבי עקיבא דאמר אין קידושין תופסין בחייבי לאוין

R. JUDAH SAID: HE IS LIABLEIN RESPECT OF HER AS HIS MOTHER ONLY. ONE WHO COMMITS INCEST WITH HIS FATHER'SWIFE INCURS A PENALTY IN RESPECT OF HER BOTH AS HIS FATHER'S WIFE, AND ASA MARRIED WOMAN. [HE IS GUILTY IN RESPECT OF THE FORMER] BOTH DURING HISFATHER'S LIFETIME AND AFTER HIS DEATH, WHETHER SHE WAS WIDOWED FROMERUSIN<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' V. p. 333, n. 3. ');">¹⁹</span>

מתיב רב אושעיא איסור מצוה ואיסור קדושה חולצות ולא מתייבמות

OR FROMNESU'IN.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Hence if unwittingly, he is bound to bring two sin-offerings. ');">¹⁸</span> HE WHO COMMITS INCEST WITHHIS DAUGHTER-IN-LAW INCURS A PENALTY IN RESPECT OF HER BOTH AS HISDAUGHTER-IN-LAW AND AS A MARRIED WOMAN. [HE IS GUILTY IN RESPECT OF THE FORMER]BOTH DURING HIS SON'S LIFETIME AND AFTER HIS DEATH, WHETHER SHE WAS WIDOWEDFROM ERUSIN OR FROM NESU'IN. <b><i>GEMARA</i></b>. It has been taught: R. Judah said: Ifhis mother was unfit for his father, he is guilty only in respect of hermaternal relationship to him. What is meant by unfit for him? Shall we say,forbidden to him on pain ofextermination<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Divine punishment (Kareth) through sudden or premature death, opposed to capital punishment at the hand of man, v. Glos. ');">²⁰</span> or death inflictedby the <i>Beth din</i>? This would prove that theRabbis<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Represented by the anonymous opinion in the Mishnah. ');">²¹</span> hold that even for such heincurs a twofold penalty. But how so, seeing that his father cannot be legallymarried to her at all?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Lit., 'he has no claim of kiddushin in her regard'. Kiddushin (marriage betrothal) is invalid when contracted between parties forbidden to each other under such severe penalties. Consequently, she is not his wife, and her son, in committing incest, does not transgress the interdict attaching to one's father's wife. ');">²²</span> — Henceit must refer to a woman who is forbidden to him in virtue of a negativeprecept,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Which carries with it the penalty of flogging, but not of death or extermination; e.g. a bastard or a nathin or a divorcee in respect of a priest. The Sages maintain that in such cases kiddushin, though forbidden, is valid if contracted. ');">²³</span> R. Judah agreeing withR. Akiba, who holds that <i>Kiddushin</i> is not valid between those who are interdictedto each other by a negative command. R. Oshaia objected: [We have learnt:] A woman who is forbidden [to her deceasedhusband's brother] by a positive precept, or on the score of sanctity, mustperform the <i>halizah</i> ceremony,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' V. p. 331, n. 7. ');">²⁴</span> butmay not marry her brother-in-law.