|  |  | Previous Folio / Sanhedrin Directory / Tractate List / Navigate Site # Babylonian Talmud: Tractate Sanhedrin ### Folio 54a It has been taught in support of Raba; [And the man that lieth with his father's wife hath uncovered his father's nakedness: both of them shall surely be put to death,' their blood shall be upon them.]1 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 thus forbidden]? — From the verse, [he] hath uncovered his father's nakedness. For this is redundant,2 in order that an analogy may be drawn therefrom and identity of meaning based on a gezerah shawah deduced.3 [They] shall surely be put to death, by stoning. You say, by stoning; but perhaps it means by one of the other deaths decreed in the Torah? — The Writ saith here, their blood shall be upon them; and in the case of a necromancer or a wizard, the Writ saith likewise, their blood shall be upon them;4 just as there, stoning is meant, so here too. Now, in this verse, we are informed of the penalty: whence do we know the formal prohibition?5 — From the verse, The nakedness of thy father … shalt thou not uncover:6 the nakedness of thy father means thy father's wife. You say so: but perhaps it has its literal meaning?7 — It is here said, The nakedness of thy father … shalt thou not uncover; and elsewhere8 it is said, [he] hath uncovered his 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 not his father's wife? — From the verse, The nakedness of thy mother thou shalt not uncover. From this I learn only the formal prohibition, viz., that the Scripture interdicts his mother, though not his father's wife, just as his father's wife. Whence do I derive the punishment?9 — It is here stated, the nakedness of thy father … thou shalt not uncover,' and It is said elsewhere, [he] hath uncovered his father's nakedness: just as the Writ assimilated his mother, when not his father's wife, to his mother who was also his father's wife, in respect of formal prohibition, so it assimilated her in respect of punishment. She is thy mother; this teaches, you must punish him in respect of her as a mother, but not as his father's wife.10 But the Rabbis contend: the nakedness of thy father is literally meant. But is this not taught by the verse: Thou shalt not lie with mankind as with womankind?11 — This teaches that a double penalty is incurred; and as Rah Judah said: If a heathen committed pederasty 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 offence having been committed unwittingly, and the penalty mentioned being a sacrifice; whilst the designation 'heathen' is a euphemism.12 For if you will say that he meant a heathen literally, what is his penalty? Death! Will you slay him twice? It has been taught likewise: He who commits pederasty with his father or with his paternal uncle incurs a twofold penalty. Some say that this does not agree with R. Judah [of the Mishnah].13 But others maintain that this may agree even with R. Judah, and he deduces a twofold penalty by reasoning from the minor to the major, basing his argument upon the law pertaining to a paternal uncle, [thus:] If for a paternal uncle, who is but a relation of one's father, a twofold penalty is incurred,14 how much more so is a double penalty incurred for pederasty with one's father. These two conflicting views are involved in the dispute of Raba and Abaye,15 one maintaining that punishment is imposed as a result of a minor to a major conclusion, the other maintaining that It is not.16 Now, whence do the Rabbis derive a formal prohibition against a father's wife?17 — From the verse, The nakedness of thy father's wife thou shalt not uncover.18 And R. Judah? — He maintains that this verse interdicts her after his father's death. And the Rabbis? They maintain that this is derived from it is thy father's nakedness.19 And R. Judah? — He utilises it to teach that he is punished in respect of her as his father's wife, but not as a married woman.20 But we have learnt, ONE WHO COMMITS INCEST WITH HIS FATHER'S WIFE INCURS A PENALTY IN RESPECT OF HER BOTH AS HIS FATHER'S WIFE AND AS A MARRIED WOMAN. [HE IS GUILTY IN RESPECT OF THE FORMER] BOTH DURING HIS FATHER'S LIFETIME AND AFTER HIS DEATH; and R. Judah does not dispute it? — Abaye answered: He does dispute it in the Baraitha. Now, whence do the Rabbis derive punishment for incest with one's father's wife after the former's death? It is all well according to R. Judah, for he derives it by means of the gezerah shawah; but whence do the Rabbis derive it? They answer thus: [he] hath uncovered his father's nakedness,21 which R. Judah utilises for a gezerah shawah, is rather to be employed as teaching punishment for incest with one's father's wife after his death. Now, whence do the Rabbis derive punishment for incest with one's mother who is not his father's wife?22 — R. Shisha the son of R. Iddi said: The Writ saith, she is thy mother,23 thereby teaching that one's mother, even if not his father's wife, is exactly as his father's wife.24 HE WHO COMMITS INCEST WITH HIS DAUGHTER-IN-LAW, etc. Why is he not also guilty in respect of her as his son's wife?25 — Abaye answered: The Writ commences with his daughter-in-law, and concludes with his son's wife,26 teaching that they are identical.27 |  |  |
Dilling Exhibit 7 Begins
|  |  | MISHNAH. HE WHO COMMITS SODOMY WITH A MALE OR A BEAST, AND A WOMAN THAT COMMITS BESTIALITY ARE STONED. IF THE MAN HAS SINNED, WHEREIN HAS THE ANIMAL OFFENDED? BUT BECAUSE MAN WAS ENTICED TO SIN THEREBY,28 SCRIPTURE ORDERED THAT IT SHOULD BE STONED. ANOTHER REASON IS THAT THE ANIMAL SHOULD NOT PASS THROUGH THE STREETS, WHILST PEOPLE SAY, THIS IS THE ANIMAL ON ACCOUNT OF WHICH SO AND SO WAS STONED. GEMARA. 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,29 both of them have committed on abomination: they shall surely be put to death; their blood shall be upon them,]30 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,31 both of which are punished when committed incestuously. R. Ishmael said: This verse comes to throw light [upon pederasty] but receives illumination itself.32 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:33 just as there the reference is to stoning, so it is here too. To Part b Original footnotes renumbered. See Structure of the Talmud Files Lev. XX, 11. 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. The gezerah shawah, whereby this phrase is made to include one's mother, is given further on. 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. 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? Ibid. XVIII, 7. In which case it should be part of the wider injunction of Lev. XVIII, 22: Thou shalt not lie with mankind as with womankind. Ibid. XX, 11. I.e., that it is a punishable offence too; for no punishment is mentioned in this verse. Thus the whole Baraitha supports Raba's statement. Lev. XVIII, 22. Not wishing to ascribe such a gross offence to a Jew. 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. 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. Infra 76a. 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. Since they interpret the nakedness of thy father literally. Ibid. XVIII, 8. Which being redundant, extends the prohibition to after his father's death. As she stands in a double relationship to him, being his father's wife and at the same time a married woman, which is separately forbidden in Lev. XVIII, 20, the emphatic 'she is thy father's nakedness' shews that the latter relationship is not considered in this matter. Ibid. XX, 11. This being nowhere stated. Ibid XVIII, 7. I.e., the emphasis of the clause teaches that. Since there are two prohibitions, viz. Thou shall not uncover the nakedness of thy daughter-in-law; and, she is thy son's wife, thou shalt not uncover her nakedness (ibid. XVIII, 15). She is thy son's wife refers back to the word daughter-in-law. I.e., that it is to be regarded as one prohibition, not two, but that it applies even after the son's death. Lit., 'a stumbling block has come to the man through it.' Lit. rendering of [H] translated 'as he lieth with a woman'. Ibid. XX, 13. Natural and unnatural. 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. Ibid. XX, 27. Tractate List / Glossary / / Bible Reference ### Sanhedrin 54b This teaches the punishment: whence do we derive the formal prohibition? — From the verse, Thou shalt not lie with mankind, as with womankind: it is an abomination.1 From this we learn the formal prohibition for him who lies [with a male]: whence do we know a formal prohibition for the person who permits himself thus to be abused? — Scripture saith: There shall be no sodomite of the sons of Israel:2 and it is further said, And there were also sodomites in the land: and they did according to the abominations of the nations which the Lord had cast out before the children of Israel:3 this is R. Ishmael's view. R. Akiba said: This is unnecessary, the Writ saith, thou shalt not lie with mankind as with womankind: read, 'thou shalt not be lain with.'4 Whence do we learn a formal prohibition against bestiality? — Our Rabbis taught: [and if a man lie with a beast, he shall surely be put to death: and ye shall slay the beast].5 A man excludes a minor; [that] lieth with a beast — whether it be young or old; he shall surely be put to death — by stoning. You, by stoning; but perhaps one of the other deaths decreed in the Torah is meant? — It is here said, [and] ye shall kill [the beast]; and it is stated elsewhere, But thou shalt surely kill him. [… And thou shalt stone in him with stones]:6 just as there, stoning is meant, so here too. We have learnt from this the punishment for him who commits bestiality; whence do we derive punishment for him who allows himself to be thus abused? — The Writ saith: Whosoever lieth with a beast shall surely be put to death.7 Since this is redundant in respect of the person committing bestiality,8 you must regard it as applying to the person permitting himself to be thus abused.9 From the Writ we know that there is punishment both for him who commits bestiality and for him who permits himself to be thus abused; whence do we know the formal prohibition? — Scripture saith, neither shalt thou lie with any beast to defile thyself therewith.10 From this verse we learn the formal prohibition for him who commits bestiality, whence do we derive the formal prohibition for him who allows himself to be thus abused? Scripture saith: There shall be no Sodomite of the sons of Israel; and it is elsewhere said, And there were also sodomites in the land, etc.11 R. Akiba said: This is unnecessary. The Writ saith, Thou shalt not lie [with any beast], which means, thou shalt not permit thy lying [with any beast, whether actively or passively]. |  |  |
Underlining indicates text censored from the Rodkinson Talmud
|  |  | Now, he who [actively] commits pederasty, and also [passively] permits himself to be thus abused — R. Abbahu said: On R. Ishmael's view, he is liable to two penalties, one [for the injunction] derived from thou shalt not lie with mankind, and the other for [violating the prohibition,] There shall not be a Sodomite of the sons of Israel. But on R. Akiba's view, he incurs only one penalty, since thou shalt not lie and thou shalt not be lain with is but one statement.12 He who commits bestiality, and also causes himself to be thus abused — R. Abbahu said: On R. Ishmael's view, he incurs two penalties, one for the injunction, thou shalt not lie with any beast, and one for the prohibition, there shall be no sodomite of the sons of Israel. But on R. Akiba's view, he incurs but one penalty, since thy lying [actively] and thy lying [passively] is but one injunction. Abaye said: Even on R. Ishmael's view he incurs one penalty only, for there shall be no Sodomite applies to sodomy with mankind.13 If so, whence does R. Ishmael derive a formal prohibition against permitting oneself to be bestially abused? — From the verse, Whosoever lieth with a beast shall surely be put to death.14 Now, this being redundant in respect of him who [actively] lies with a beast,15 apply it to him who [passively] permits himself to be abused this; and the Divine Law designates the passive offender as the active offender:16 this teaches that the punishment for, and the formal prohibition against, active bestiality17 apply to passive submission too.18 He who submits both to pederasty and to bestiality — R. Abbahu said: On R. Akiba's view, he incurs two penalties; one for thou shalt not lie [with mankind], and the other for thou shalt not lie [with any beast]. But on R. Ishmael's view, he incurs only one punishment, both offences being derived from the single verse, There shall be no Sodomite.19 Abaye said: Even on R. Ishmael's view, he incurs two penalties, because it is written, Whosoever lieth with a beast shall surely be put to death.20 This being redundant in respect of active bestiality, it must be applied to passive submission, and the Divine Law thus designated passive submission as an active offence: just as for the active offence there is punishment and prohibitions so for the passive offence too.21 But he who commits pederasty and causes himself to be abused thus; and also commits bestiality and causes himself to be abused too — both R. Abbahu and Abaye maintain that on R. Ishmael's view he is trebly guilty, and on R. Akiba's view he is doubly guilty.22 Our Rabbis taught: In the case of a male child, a young one is not regarded as on a par with an old one; but a young beast is |  |  |
Dilling Exhibit 54 Begins
|  |  | treated as an old one.23 What is meant by this? — Rab said: Pederasty with a child below nine years of age is not deemed as pederasty with a child above that. Samuel said: Pederasty with a child below three years is not treated as with a child above that.24 What is the basis of their dispute? — Rab maintains that only he who is able to engage in sexual intercourse, may, as the passive subject of pederasty throw guilt [upon the active offender]; whilst he who is unable to engage in sexual intercourse cannot be a passive subject of pederasty [in that respect].25 But Samuel maintains: Scripture writes, [And thou shalt not lie with mankind] as with the lyings of a woman.26 It has been taught in accordance with Rab: Pederasty at the age of nine years and a day; - To Next Folio - Original footnotes renumbered. See Structure of the Talmud Files Ibid. XVIII, 22. Deut. XXIII, 18. I Kings XIV, 24. Just as abomination applies to sodomy in the latter verse, so it applies to it in the former too: thus it is as though the former verse read, There shall be no Sodomite of the sons of Israel: it is an abomination. And just as the abomination implicit here applies to both parties, so the abomination explicitly stated in Lev. XIII, 22 refers to both. I. e., the niph'al, the letters being the same, [H], and [H]. Ibid. XX, 15. Deut. XIII, 10, referring to a mesith, one who incites to idolatry. Ex. XXII, 18. As it is taught elsewhere, viz., in Lev. XX, 15. One of the methods of Talmudic hermenueutics is to apply a Biblical statement, superfluous in respect of its own law, to some other subject. Lev. XVIII, 23. Ibid. v. p. 368. n. 1: the same reasoning applying to bestiality as to pederasty. I.e., though differently vocalized in order to deduce two injunctions, it is nevertheless one statement only, so that a person transgressing these two injunctions violates one Biblical prohibition only. Not to bestiality at all, in spite of the fact that this was cited above in this connection. Ex. XXII, 18. Since it is stated in Lev. XVIII. I.e., though as shewn, this verse applies to a passive offender, yet its grammatical construction speaks of active bestiality. The reference having been given above. So that all is deduced from one verse, involving only one penalty. Since R. Akiba maintains that the prohibition of passive sodomy is included in active sodomy, it follows that passive pederasty and bestiality are two distinct offences, for there are two distinct injunctions. But as R. Ishmael maintains that the injunction against active sodomy does not include passive submission, and that the latter, whether in pederasty or bestiality, is derived from the single injunction, There shall be no sodomite, the double offence incurs one penalty only. Ex. XXII, 18. Thus, this applies to passive bestiality, whilst there shall be no sodomite applies to passive pederasty. Hence, there being two separate injunctions for the two offences, a double punishment is incurred. Thus: R. Abbahu maintains that on R. Ishmael's view: (i) active pederasty is forbidden by Thou shalt not lie with mankind; (ii) active bestiality by Thou shalt not lie with any beast; (iii) passive pederasty and bestiality by There shall be no sodomite. Whilst Abaye maintains that on R. Ishmael's view, (i) active pederasty is derived from Thou shalt not lie with mankind; (ii) submission thereto from There shall be no sodomite; and (iii) active and passive bestiality from Neither shalt thou lie with any beast to defile thyself therewith. (Lev. XVIII, 23) Hence, according to R. Abbabu and Abaye there are three injunctions for the four offences. Further, R. Abbahu and Abaye both teach R. Akiba's view to be that (i) active and passive bestiality are derived from Thou shalt not lie with mankind as with womankind; and (ii) active and passive bestiality from Neither shalt thou lie with any beast. Hence there are two injunctions for the four offences. The reference is to the passive subject of sodomy. As stated supra 54a, guilt is incurred by the active participant even if the former be a minor, i.e., less than thirteen years old. Now, however, it is stated that within this age a distinction is drawn. I.e., Rab makes nine years the minimum; but if one committed sodomy with a child of lesser age, no guilt is incurred. Samuel makes three the minimum. At nine years a male attains sexual matureness. Lev. XVIII, 22. Thus the point of comparison is the sexual matureness of woman, which is reached at the age of three. Tractate List / Glossary / / Bible Reference |  |  |