Sanhedrin 107
תניא כוותיה דרבא (ויקרא כ, יא) איש פרט לקטן
It has been taught in support of Raba; [And the man that lieth with his father'swife hath uncovered his father's nakedness: both of them shall surely beput to death,' their blood shall be upon them.]<a rel="footnote" href="#56a_1"><sup>1</sup></a>
(ויקרא כ, יא) אשר ישכב את אשת אביו משמע בין אשת אביו שהיא אמו ובין אשת אביו שלא אמו אמו שאינה אשת אביו מניין ת"ל (ויקרא כ, יא) ערות אביו גלה מופנה להקיש ולדון ממנו גזרה שוה
The man excludes a minor;that lieth with his father's wife, implies whether she is his mother or not.Whence do I know that his mother who is not his father's wife [is also thusforbidden]? — From the verse, [he] hath uncovered his father's nakedness.For this is redundant,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' In a gezerah shawah, the word used as a basis of deduction must be otherwise redundant ([H]), being required for no other purpose. This is the opinion of R. Ishmael and R. Eliezer; the former deeming it sufficient if the redundancy is in one of the passages only, the latter insisting that the word must be superfluous in both. R. Akiba, however, maintained that such redundancy, even in one passage, is unnecessary. ');"><sup>2</sup></span>
מות יומתו בסקילה אתה אומר בסקילה או אינו אלא באחת מכל מיתות האמורות בתורה נאמר כאן דמיהם בם ונאמר באוב וידעוני דמיהם בם מה להלן בסקילה אף כאן בסקילה
in order thatan analogy may be drawn therefrom and identity of meaning based on a gezerahshawah deduced.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' The gezerah shawah, whereby this phrase is made to include one's mother, is given further on. ');"><sup>3</sup></span>
עונש שמענו אזהרה מניין ת"ל (ויקרא יח, ז) ערות אביך לא תגלה ערות אביך זו אשת אביך
[They] shall surelybe put to death, by stoning. You say, by stoning; but perhaps it means byone of the other deaths decreed in the Torah? — The Writ saith here, theirblood shall be upon them; and in the case of a necromancer or a wizard, theWrit saith likewise, their blood shall be uponthem;<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Lev. XX, 27. A man also or a woman that hath a familiar spirit (i.e., a necromancer), or that is a wizard, shall surely be put to death: they shall stone them with stones, their blood shall be upon them. ');"><sup>4</sup></span>
אתה אומר אשת אביך או אינו אלא ערות אביך ממש נאמר כאן ערות אביך לא תגלה ונאמר להלן (ויקרא כ, יא) ערות אביו גלה מה להלן באישות הכתוב מדבר אף כאן באישות הכתוב מדבר
just as there, stoning is meant,so here too. Now, in this verse, we are informed of the penalty: whence dowe know the formal prohibition?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' It is an axiom that before punishment can be imposed for any act, it must be explicitly prohibited. Now the whole of this verse merely decrees the punishment to be inflicted: hence the Talmud asks, where in the formal prohibition? ');"><sup>5</sup></span>
ומשמע בין אשת אביו שהיא אמו בין אשת אביו שאינה אמו אמו שאינה אשת אביו מניין תלמוד לומר (ויקרא יח, ז) ערות אמך לא תגלה
—From the verse, The nakedness of thy father … shalt thou notuncover:<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Ibid. XVIII, 7. ');"><sup>6</sup></span>
אין לי אלא באזהרה שעשה הכתוב אמו שאינה אשת אביו כאמו שהיא אשת אביו עונש מניין
the nakedness of thy fathermeans thy father's wife. You say so: but perhaps it has its literalmeaning?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' In which case it should be part of the wider injunction of Lev. XVIII, 22: Thou shalt not lie with mankind as with womankind. ');"><sup>7</sup></span>
נאמר כאן ערות אביך לא תגלה ונאמר להלן ערות אביו גלה מה באזהרה עשה הכתוב אמו שאינה אשת אביו כאמו שהיא אשת אביו אף בעונש עשה הכתוב אמו שאינה אשת אביו כאמו שהיא אשת אביו
— It is here said, The nakednessof thy father … shalt thou not uncover; andelsewhere<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Ibid. XX, 11. ');"><sup>8</sup></span>
(ויקרא יח, ז) אמך היא משום אמו אתה מחייבו ואי אתה מחייבו משום אשת אב
it is said, [he] hath uncoveredhis father's nakedness: just as there the reference is to the opposite sex,so here too; and it implies his father's wife, whether his mother or not.Whence do we know [that this law applies to] his mother, even if she is nothis father's wife? — From the verse, The nakedness of thy mother thou shaltnot uncover. From this I learn only the formal prohibition, viz., that theScripture interdicts his mother, though not his father's wife, just as hisfather's wife. Whence do I derive thepunishment?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' I.e., that it is a punishable offence too; for no punishment is mentioned in this verse. ');"><sup>9</sup></span>
ורבנן ערות אביך ממש
— It is here stated,the nakedness of thy father … thou shalt not uncover,' and It is saidelsewhere, [he] hath uncovered his father's nakedness: just as the Writassimilated his mother, when not his father's wife, to his mother who wasalso his father's wife, in respect of formal prohibition, so it assimilatedher in respect of punishment. She is thy mother; this teaches, you must punishhim in respect of her as a mother, but not as his father'swife.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Thus the whole Baraitha supports Raba's statement. ');"><sup>10</sup></span>
האי (ויקרא יח, כב) מואת זכר נפקא לחייב עליו שתים
But the Rabbis contend: thenakedness of thy father is literally meant. But is this not taught by theverse: Thou shalt not lie with mankind as withwomankind?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Lev. XVIII, 22. ');"><sup>11</sup></span>
וכדרב יהודה דאמר רב יהודה נכרי הבא על אביו חייב שתים הבא על אחי אביו חייב שתים
— This teaches thata double penalty is incurred; and as Rah Judah said: If a heathen committedpederasty with his father or with his paternal uncle he incurs a double penalty.Raba said: This dictum of Rab Judah presumably refers to a Jew, the offencehaving been committed unwittingly, and the penalty mentioned being a sacrifice;whilst the designation 'heathen' is aeuphemism.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Not wishing to ascribe such a gross offence to a Jew. ');"><sup>12</sup></span>
אמר רבא מסתברא מילתא דרב יהודה בישראל בשוגג ובקרבן והאי דקאמר נכרי לישנא מעליא הוא דאי סלקא דעתך נכרי ממש דינו מאי ניהו קטלא בתרי קטלי קטלת ליה
For if you will say thathe meant a heathen literally, what is his penalty? Death! Will you slay himtwice? It has been taught likewise: He who commits pederasty with his fatheror with his paternal uncle incurs a twofold penalty. Some say that this doesnot agree with R. Judah [of theMishnah].<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Since he does not interpret the verse, the nakedness of thy father, literally, there is only one prohibition against pederasty, viz., that of Lev. XVIII, 22; hence in his view there is only one penalty, no matter with whom the offence is committed. ');"><sup>13</sup></span>
תניא נמי הכי הבא על אביו חייב שתים הבא על אחי אביו חייב שתים
But others maintain thatthis may agree even with R. Judah, and he deduces a twofold penalty by reasoningfrom the minor to the major, basing his argument upon the law pertainingto a paternal uncle, [thus:] If for a paternal uncle, who is but a relationof one's father, a twofold penalty isincurred,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' This is deduced from the verse (Lev. XVIII, 14), thou shalt not uncover the nakedness of thy father's brother, thou shalt not approach to his wife. Since his wife is specifically prohibited, the first half of the verse must be understood literally. Consequently, it is twice prohibited. (for it is also included in the prohibition of Lev. XVII, 22) and hence a double penalty is incurred. ');"><sup>14</sup></span>
איכא דאמרי דלא כרבי יהודה
how much more so is adouble penalty incurred for pederasty with one's father. These two conflictingviews are involved in the dispute of Raba andAbaye,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Infra 76a. ');"><sup>15</sup></span>
ואיכא דאמרי אפילו תימא רבי יהודה ומייתי לה בק"ו מאחי אביו ומה אחי אביו דקורבה דאביו הוא חייב שתים אביו לא כ"ש
one maintaining that punishmentis imposed as a result of a minor to a major conclusion, the other maintainingthat It is not.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' On the first view R. Judah may hold that a double penalty is incurred for pederasty with one's father. But on the second, this cannot be so. For he does not interpret the nakedness of thy father literally. Hence there is only one injunction (Lev. XVIII, 22) against this, and consequently only one penalty, the ad majus conclusion being insufficient to impose one. ');"><sup>16</sup></span>
וקמיפלגי בפלוגתא דאביי ורבא מר סבר עונשין מן הדין ומר סבר אין עונשין מן הדין
Now, whence do the Rabbis derive punishment for incest with one's father'swife after the former's death? It is all well according to R. Judah, forhe derives it by means of the <i>gezerah shawah</i>; but whence do the Rabbis deriveit? They answer thus: [he] hath uncovered his father'snakedness,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Ibid. XX, 11. ');"><sup>21</sup></span>
ורבי יהודה ההוא מיבעי ליה משום אשת אב אתה מחייבו ואי אתה מחייבו משום אשת איש
thereby teaching that one'smother, even if not his father's wife, is exactly as his father'swife.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' I.e., the emphasis of the clause teaches that. ');"><sup>24</sup></span>
והאנן תנן הבא על אשת אב חייב עליה משום אשת אב ומשום אשת איש בין בחיי אביו בין לאחר מיתת אביו ולא פליג רבי יהודה
<b><i>GEMARA</i></b>. Whence do I know that pederasty is punished by stoning? — Our Rabbis taught: [If a man lieth also with mankind, as the lyings of a woman,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Lit. rendering of [H] translated 'as he lieth with a woman'. ');"><sup>29</sup></span>
ורבנן עונש דאשת אביו לאחר מיתה מנא להו בשלמא רבי יהודה מייתי לה בגזרה שוה אלא רבנן מנא להו
A man — excludes a minor; [that] lieth also with mankind — denotes whether an adult or a minor; as the lyings of a woman — this teaches that there are two modes of intimacy,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Natural and unnatural. ');"><sup>31</sup></span>
אמרי לך ההוא ערות אביו גלה דמפיק לה רבי יהודה לגזירה שוה מפקי ליה אינהו לעונש דאשת אביו לאחר מיתה
both of which are punished when committed incestuously. R. Ishmael said: This verse comes to throw light [upon pederasty] but receives illumination itself.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' For the phrase, the lyings of a woman, is redundant in so far as it teaches that even unnatural pederasty is punishable, since all pederasty is such. Hence its teaching is thrown back upon itself, viz., that unnatural cohabitation is punishable when committed incestuously. ');"><sup>32</sup></span>
ורבנן עונש לאמו שאינה אשת אביו מנא להו אמר רב שישא בריה דרב אידי אמר קרא אמך היא עשאה הכתוב לאמו שאינה אשת אביו כאמו שהיא אשת אביו:
They shall surely be put to death: by stoning. You say, by stoning: but perhaps some other death decreed in the Torah is meant? — Their blood shall be upon them is stated here, and also in the case of one who has a familiar spirit or is a wizard:<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Ibid. XX, 27. ');"><sup>33</sup></span>