|  |  | Previous Folio / Sanhedrin Directory / Tractate List / Navigate Site # Babylonian Talmud: Tractate Sanhedrin ### Folio 50a — The Rabbis1 maintain that a priest's daughter, only if a nesu'ah, is excepted [from the usual punishment by strangulation meted out for adultery] and is executed by burning; but an arusah, [who, if an Israelite's daughter, is stoned] as [if a priest's daughter] not excepted [from the usual punishment, i.e., she is stoned likewise].2 Now since [in a case of a priest's daughter] an arusah is singled out by the Divine Law [and punished] by stoning [instead of burning], we may conclude that stoning is more severe than burning.3 Stoning is severer than slaying by the sword, since it is the punishment of a blasphemer and an idol worshipper, the greater enormity of whose offence has already been stated.4 On the contrary, is not death by the sword more severe, since that is the penalty for the inhabitants of a seduced city,5 the graver character of whose sin is proved by the fact that their property is destroyed? — Now, let us consider: whose crime is greater; that of the seducer or of the seduced? Surely that of the seducer.6 And it has been taught: The seducers of a seduced city are executed by stoning.7 Stoning is severer than strangulation, since it is the penalty of the blasphemer and the idol worshipper, the enormity of whose offence has already been stated. On the contrary, is not strangulation severer, since it is the punishment of one who smites his father or mother, the greater seriousness of whose offence lies in the fact that their honour is assimilated to that of the Omnipresent?8 — Since the Divine Law excluded an arusah, the daughter of an Israelite, from the general penalty of a nesu'ah, the daughter of an Israelite, altering her punishment from strangulation to stoning, it follows that stoning is severer.9 Burning is severer than slaying by the sword, since it is the penalty of a priest's adulterous daughter, the greater enormity of whose offence lies in the fact that she thereby profanes her father. On the contrary, is not the sword severer, since this is the penalty of the inhabitants of a seduced city, the enormity of whose crime is shewn by the fact that their property is destroyed? — 'Her father' is mentioned in connection with stoning;10 'her father' is also mentioned in reference to burning:11 just as when 'her father' is mentioned in connection with stoning, stoning is severer than the sword; so 'her father', when mentioned in connection with burning, shews that burning is severer than slaying by the sword.12 Burning is severer than strangulation, since it is the punishment of a priest's adulterous daughter, the enormity of whose offence has already been stated. On the contrary, is not strangulation severer, since it is the punishment of one who smites his father or mother, the greater enormity of whose offence lies in the fact that their honour is assimilated to that of the Omnipresent? — Since the Divine Law varied the penalty of a nesu'ah, if a priest's daughter, from that of a nesu'ah, if an Israelite's daughter, from strangling to burning, we may conclude that burning is severer.13 Slaying is severer than strangling, since thereby the inhabitants of a seduced city are punished, the severity of whose punishment is attested by the fact that their property is destroyed. On the contrary, is not strangulation severer, being the punishment of one who smites his father or mother, the greater enormity of whose offence lies in the fact that their honour is assimilated to that of the Almighty? — Even so the offence against the fundamental tenet of Judaism [which is the crime of the seduced city] is greater. R. SIMEON ENUMERATED THEM THUS etc. [In his view] burning is severer than stoning, since it is the punishment of a priest's adulterous daughter, the enormity of whose offence lies in the fact that she profanes her father. On the contrary, is not stoning severer, being the punishment of a blasphemer and idol-worshipper, the gravity of whose offence lies in that they reject the fundamental tenet of Judaism? — R. Simeon's view here is in accordance with his other opinion, viz., that a priest's adulterous daughter, whether an arusah or a nesu'ah, is excepted [from the punishment meted out to an Israelites' daughter], in that her penalty is burning. Now since the Divine Law varied the punishment of an arusah, if a priest's daughter, from that of an Israelite's daughter, from stoning to burning, it follows that burning is a severer penalty. Burning is severer than strangulation, since it is the punishment of a priest's adulterous daughter, the gravity of whose offence has already been stated. On the contrary, is not strangulation severer than burning, being the punishment of one who strikes his father or mother, the enormity of whose offense is constituted by the fact that their honour is compared to that of the Omnipresent? — Since the Divine Law excluded a nesu'ah, the daughter of a priest, from the penalty of a nesu'ah, if an Israelite's daughter, by changing her death from strangling to burning, it follows that burning is severer. Burning is severer than slaying, since it is the punishment of a priest's adulterous daughter, the enormity of whose offence has already been stated. On the contrary, is not the sword more severe, since it is the penalty of the inhabitants of a seduced city, the gravity of whose offence is shewn by the fact that their property is destroyed? Now consider, whose offence is greater: that of the seducer or of the seduced? To Part b Original footnotes renumbered. See Structure of the Talmud Files The anonymous opinion cited first in the Mishnah. Marriage consists of two stages: kiddushin or erusin, whereby the matrimonial bond is made, not to be broken without divorce; and huppah, or home taking, without which cohabitation is forbidden. A woman who has undergone the first ceremony is called an arusah (betrothed); after the second she is called a nesu'ah (married). Nowadays both ceremonies are united, the canopy (huppah) being symbolic of the home to which the husband takes his newly-married wife; but in ancient days there was generally an interval between them. For obviously the offence of an arusah, who is still in her father's house and thereby profanes him, is greater than that of a nesu'ah; and therefore we may assume that her punishment is correspondingly greater. This conclusion is further supported by the fact that a nesu'ah, if an Israelite's daughter, is punished by strangulation, the most lenient of all death penalties, whilst an arusah is punished by stoning, the most severe. Rashi, however, points out that Scripture does not state that a priest's daughter, only if a nesu'ah, is excepted from the punishment of an Israelite's daughter: but not if an arusah. It is only because the Rabbis hold stoning to be more severe than burning that they assume that an arusah, if a priest's daughter, cannot be more leniently treated than if a Israelite's daughter, for her penalty to be commuted from stoning to burning. This vitiates the whole argument. Hence we must fall back upon the first line of reasoning, that stoning is severer, since it is the punishment of an idol worshipper and blasphemer, because their offence, constituting a rejection of the fundamental basis of Judaism is greater than that of the harlot, in spite of the fact that she profanes her father. That being so, the passage 'the Rabbis maintain etc.' will not be part of the proof, but an answer to an unexpressed difficulty. For this difficulty arises: If stoning is severer than burning, how is it that a priest's daughter is punished by the latter instead of the former, which is the punishment of an Israelite's daughter (if an arusah)? To this the answer is given that only a nesu'ah is thus punished by burning, whilst an Israelite's daughter is only strangled — an easier death than burning. But if an arusah, her death is by stoning, just as in the case of an Israelite's daughter. Consequently, the next passage now, since an arusah, etc.' is entirely superfluous, being neither part of the argument nor an answer to the unexpressed difficulty: Rashi therefore deletes it from the text. Supra. 49b. Deut. XIII, 13-19. The Rabbis always regarded the offence of the tempter as greater than that of the sinner himself. Cf. Ab. V, 23: 'He who causes the multitudes to sin, shall not have the means to repent … Jeroboam, the son of Nebat, sinned and caused the multitude to sin; the sin of the multitude was laid upon him.' This is in conformity with the general rabbinic dictum: 'All Israel are sureties for one another'. Thus proving stoning to be the greater penalty. Cf. Honour thy father and thy mother (Ex. XX, 12) with Honour the Lord with thy substance (Prov. III, 9). An arusah's sin is greater, because she destroys her virginity in addition to disgracing her family. In the case of a betrothed damsel who committed whoredom: Then shall they bring out the damsel to the door of her father's house, and the men of her city 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, 21. In the case of a priest's daughter: 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. A Gezerah Shawah, v. Glos. The sin of a priest's daughter is greater than that of an Israelite's daughter, since the former profanes her father in addition to disgracing herself. Tractate List / Glossary / / Bible Reference ### Sanhedrin 50b Surely that of the seducer! This affords an argument from a major to a minor premise. If burning is severer than strangulation [as has already been shewn], though1 the latter is severer than the sword,2 it [burning] is surely severer than slaying, which is a lesser penalty. Stoning is severer than strangulation, being the penalty of a blasphemer and idol worshipper, the extreme gravity of whose offence has already been stated. On the contrary, is not strangulation severer, since it is the penalty of one who smites his father or mother, the gravity of whose offence lies in the fact that their honour is likened etc.? — Since the Divine Law excluded an arusah, the daughter of an Israelite, from the penalty of a nesu'ah, the daughter of an Israelite, changing it from strangling to stoning,3 it follows that stoning is severer. 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 penalty of the inhabitants of a seduced city, the gravity of whose offence is proved by the fact that their property is destroyed? — Now consider, whose offence is greater: the seducer's or the seduced? Surely that of the seducer! Hence you may argue from a major to a minor premise. If stoning is severer than strangulation, though the latter be severer than slaying,4 surely it is severer than slaying itself. Strangulation is severer than slaying, since it is the penalty of one who smites his father or mother, the gravity of whose offence has already been stated — On the contrary, is not slaying severer, since it is the penalty of the inhabitants of a seduced city, the enormity of whose crime is attested by the fact that their property is destroyed? — Now consider: whose offence is greater, the seducer's or the seduced? Surely the seducer's! And it has been taught: The seducers of a seduced city are punished by stoning. R. Simeon maintained: By strangulation. R. Johanan used to teach:5 If a betrothed [i.e., an arusah] maiden6 committed adultery, her punishment is stoning. R. Simeon said: It is burning. If she committed incestuous adultery with her father, her punishment is stoning. R. Simeon said: It is burning.7 What does this shew? — That according to the Rabbis, only a nesu'ah, [if a priest's daughter] was excluded from the penalty of an Israelite's daughter by being burnt [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 thus excepted, by being burnt [instead of strangled]. Why so? — Because the Rabbis consider 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 more severe.8 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's daughter.9 Do these principles apply only to a priest's daughter, and not to an Israelite's daughter [surely not]?10 — Say thus: In respect of a 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 an arusah, from the penalty of an Israelite's daughter, an arusah.11 Now, just as when the scripture excluded the priest's daughter, a nesu'ah, from the penalty of an Israelite's daughter, a nesu'ah, it was in order to decree a severer punishment;12 so also, when excluding the priest's daughter, an arusah, from the penalty of an Israelite's daughter, an arusah, it must have been in order to impose a greater punishment.13 But false witnesses in respect of a nesu'ah, the daughter of a priest, are treated as though they had testified against an Israelite's daughter; likewise, if in respect of an arusah, who is a priest's daughter, they are punished just as though they had testified against an Israelite's daughter.14 Our Rabbis taught: And the daughter of any priest, if she profane herself:15 I might think that this applies even to the profanation of the Sabbath,16 — but the Writ states by playing the whore: thus Scripture speaks only of profanation through whoredom. I might think that this applies even to an unmarried woman. But her father is mentioned in this passage,17 and her father is also mentioned elsewhere:18 just as elsewhere the reference is to whoredom by one who is bound to a husband, so here too. But perhaps 'her father' is stated in order to exclude others?19 — When Scripture states, She profaneth her father, it must apply to whoredom with others.20 Hence, to what purpose do I put the phrase 'her father' [which, strictly speaking, is superfluous]? 'Her father' is mentioned in this passage, and 'her father' is also mentioned elsewhere; just as elsewhere the reference is to whoredom by one who is bound to a husband, so here too.21 If so, just as the reference there is to a maiden22 who is an arusah, so here too the reference is to a maiden who is an arusah: but if she is a maiden and a nesu'ah, or if she is a full-grown damsel23 and an arusah, or a full-grown damsel and a nesu'ah, or even if she is aged, whence do we know [that the same law applies]? — The Writ states: 'And the daughter of any priest',24 implying that the law holds good in all cases.25 'The daughter of any priest': - To Next Folio - Original footnotes renumbered. See Structure of the Talmud Files no note. B. Simeon holding that the seducer, whose offence is greater, was punished by strangulation, v. infra 89b. The offence of an arusah being greater, v. p. 335. n. 1. As will he proved in the next passage. Lit., 'It was fluent in his mouth', i.e., he received it orally from his teachers as at traditional law not actually taught in a Mishnah or a Baraitha (Rashi). '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]). All this is R. Johanan's saying. 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. 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. This is an interjection. 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. Burning instead of strangulation, all admitting that the former is more severe. 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. 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. Lev. XXI, 9. The Hebrew [H], used in the text, is not necessarily reflexive, as translated in the A.V. She profaneth her father. 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. 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. For if she commits incest with her father, he profanes her too. I.e., that her profanation is in respect of this tie. V. p. 337, n. 5. Heb. bogereth, v. p. 337, n. 5. Lev. XXI, 9. This is deduced by interpreting the copulative waw (and) as an extending particle. Tractate List / Glossary / / Bible Reference |  |  |