Search

Sanhedrin 50

Want to dedicate learning? Get started here:

podcast placeholder

0:00
0:00




Summary

The rabbis and Rabbi Shimon present conflicting views on how to rank the four death penalties by severity. The Gemara examines both positions in detail, exploring the textual and logical proofs each side uses to support their ordering. For the rabbis’ position, the Gemara investigates the basis for claiming that stoning is the most severe, followed by burning, then execution by sword, and finally strangulation as the least severe. It similarly examines Rabbi Shimon’s reasoning for ranking burning as more severe than both death by the sword and strangulation, stoning as more severe than the sword and strangulation, and finally, strangulation as more severe than the sword.

This fundamental disagreement about the death penalties’ relative severity is based on other disputes between the rabbis and Rabbi Shimon regarding capital punishment. One such case involves a betrothed daughter of a kohen (priest) who commits adultery. The rabbis maintain she should be stoned, following the law for any betrothed woman who commits adultery. Rabbi Shimon, however, rules she should be burned, treating her case like a married kohen’s daughter. They also differ on the punishment for someone who leads a city into idol worship – the rabbis prescribe stoning, and Rabbi Shimon strangulation.

Sanhedrin 50

קָסָבְרִי רַבָּנַן: נְשׂוּאָה יוֹצְאָה לִשְׂרֵיפָה, וְלֹא אֲרוּסָה. וּמִדְּאַפְּקַהּ רַחֲמָנָא לַאֲרוּסָה בִּסְקִילָה, שְׁמַע מִינַּהּ: סְקִילָה חֲמוּרָה.

The Gemara answers: The Rabbis hold that only the married daughter of a priest who committed adultery is singled out from all those who commit adultery, for burning, but not one who is betrothed, as a betrothed woman who committed adultery, whether or not she is the daughter of a priest, is executed by stoning. And since the Merciful One singles out a betrothed woman who is not married from all married women who commit adultery, to be executed by stoning, conclude from it that stoning is more severe than burning.

סְקִילָה חֲמוּרָה מִסַּיִיף, שֶׁכֵּן נִיתְּנָה לִמְגַדֵּף וּלְעוֹבֵד עֲבוֹדָה זָרָה. וּמַאי חוּמְרָא? כְּדַאֲמַרַן.

Stoning is considered more severe than decapitation by the sword, as it is meted out to one who blasphemes and to one who worships idols. And for what reason is the severity of these transgressions considered greater than others? As we said, it is because the transgressors undermine the fundamental tenets of Judaism.

אַדְּרַבָּה: סַיִיף חָמוּר, שֶׁכֵּן נִיתַּן לְאַנְשֵׁי עִיר הַנִּדַּחַת. וּמַאי חוּמְרָא? שֶׁכֵּן מָמוֹנָן אָבֵד.

The Gemara raises an objection: On the contrary; decapitation by the sword would appear to be more severe than stoning, as it is meted out to the people of an idolatrous city, who also undermine the fundamental tenets of Judaism. And for what reason is the severity of this case of an idolatrous city considered greater than others? Because the transgressors are not only executed, their property is destroyed as well.

אָמַרְתָּ: אֵיזֶה כֹּחַ מְרוּבֶּה, כֹּחַ הַמַּדִּיחַ אוֹ כֹּחַ הַנִּידָּח? הֱוֵי אוֹמֵר: כֹּחַ הַמַּדִּיחַ. וְתַנְיָא: מַדִּיחֵי עִיר הַנִּדַּחַת – בִּסְקִילָה.

The Gemara answers: In response to this objection, you should say: The severity of which transgression is greater: The severity of the transgression of the one who subverts the city, inciting them to sin, or the severity of the transgression of the subverted? You must say that the severity of the transgression of the subverter is greater. And it is taught in a baraita: The subverters of an idolatrous city are executed by stoning. Evidently, stoning is a more severe type of execution than decapitation.

סְקִילָה חֲמוּרָה מֵחֶנֶק, שֶׁכֵּן נִיתַּן לִמְגַדֵּף וּלְעוֹבֵד עֲבוֹדָה זָרָה. וּמַאי חוּמְרָא? כְּדַאֲמַרַן.

Stoning is considered more severe than strangulation, as it is meted out to one who blasphemes and to one who worships idols. And for what reason is the severity of these transgressions considered greater? As we said, it is because the transgressors undermine the fundamental tenets of Judaism.

אַדְּרַבָּה: חֶנֶק חָמוּר – שֶׁכֵּן נִיתַּן לְמַכֵּה אָבִיו וְאִמּוֹ. וּמַאי חוּמְרָא? שֶׁכֵּן הוּקַּשׁ כְּבוֹדָן לִכְבוֹד הַמָּקוֹם.

The Gemara raises an objection: On the contrary; strangulation is more severe, as it is meted out to one who wounds his father or his mother. And for what reason is the severity of this transgression considered greater? Because the honor of one’s parents is compared to the honor of the Omnipresent (see Kiddushin 30b).

מִדְּאַפְּקֵיהּ רַחֲמָנָא לַאֲרוּסָה בַּת יִשְׂרָאֵל מִכְּלַל נְשׂוּאָה בַּת יִשְׂרָאֵל מֵחֶנֶק לִסְקִילָה, שְׁמַע מִינַּהּ: סְקִילָה חֲמוּרָה.

The Gemara answers: Since the Merciful One singles out the case of a betrothed Jewish woman from the category of a married Jewish woman, changing the punishment of a betrothed Jewish woman who committed adultery from strangulation to stoning, conclude from it that stoning is more severe.

שְׂרֵיפָה חֲמוּרָה מִסַּיִיף, שֶׁכֵּן נִיתְּנָה לְבַת כֹּהֵן שֶׁזִּינְּתָה. וּמַאי חוּמְרָא? שֶׁכֵּן מְחַלֶּלֶת אֶת אָבִיהָ.

Burning is considered more severe than decapitation by the sword, as it is meted out to a priest’s daughter who committed adultery. And for what reason is the severity of this transgression considered greater than others? Because she profanes both herself and her father.

אַדְּרַבָּה: סַיִיף חָמוּר, שֶׁכֵּן נִיתַּן לְאַנְשֵׁי עִיר הַנִּדַּחַת. וּמַאי חוּמְרָא? שֶׁכֵּן מָמוֹנָן אָבֵד.

The Gemara raises an objection: On the contrary; decapitation by the sword is more severe, as it is meted out to the people of an idolatrous city. And for what reason is the severity of this case considered greater? Because the transgressors are not only executed, their property is destroyed as well.

נֶאֱמַר ״אָבִיהָ״ בִּסְקִילָה, וְנֶאֱמַר ״אָבִיהָ״ בִּשְׂרֵיפָה. מָה ״אָבִיהָ״ הָאָמוּר בִּסְקִילָה – סְקִילָה חֲמוּרָה מִסַּיִיף, אַף ״אָבִיהָ״ הָאָמוּר בִּשְׂרֵיפָה – שְׂרֵיפָה חֲמוּרָה מִסַּיִיף.

The Gemara answers: The severity of burning is derived by means of a verbal analogy. The term “her father” is stated with regard to stoning, in the verse: “And the men of her city shall stone her with stones and she shall die, because she has done a depraved thing in Israel, to play the harlot in the house of her father” (Deuteronomy 22:21), and the term “her father” is stated with regard to burning, in the verse: “And the daughter of a priest, when she profanes herself by playing the harlot, she profanes her father; she shall be burned with fire” (Leviticus 21:9). Therefore, just as concerning the term “her father” that is stated with regard to stoning it is established that stoning is more severe than decapitation by the sword, so too, concerning the term “her father” that is stated with regard to burning, it may be established that burning is more severe than decapitation by the sword.

שְׂרֵיפָה חֲמוּרָה מֵחֶנֶק, שֶׁכֵּן נִיתְּנָה לְבַת כֹּהֵן שֶׁזִּינְּתָה. וּמַאי חוּמְרָא? כְּדַאֲמַרַן.

Burning is considered more severe than strangulation, as it is meted out to a priest’s daughter who committed adultery. And for what reason is the severity of this transgression considered greater? As we said, because she profanes both herself and her father.

אַדְּרַבָּה: חֶנֶק חָמוּר, שֶׁכֵּן נִיתַּן לְמַכֵּה אָבִיו וְאִמּוֹ. וּמַאי חוּמְרָא? שֶׁכֵּן הוּקַּשׁ כְּבוֹדָן לִכְבוֹד הַמָּקוֹם.

The Gemara raises an objection: On the contrary; strangulation is more severe, as it is meted out to one who wounds his father or his mother. And for what reason is the severity of this transgression considered greater? Because the honor of one’s parents is compared to the honor of the Omnipresent.

מִדְּאַפְּקֵיהּ רַחֲמָנָא לִנְשׂוּאָה בַּת כֹּהֵן מִכְּלַל נְשׂוּאָה בַּת יִשְׂרָאֵל מֵחֶנֶק לִשְׂרֵיפָה, שְׁמַע מִינַּהּ: שְׂרֵיפָה חֲמוּרָה.

The Gemara answers: Since the Merciful One singles out the case of the married daughter of a priest from the category of a married Jewish woman, changing the punishment of the married daughter of a priest who committed adultery from strangulation to burning, conclude from it that burning is more severe than strangulation.

סַיִיף חָמוּר מֵחֶנֶק, שֶׁכֵּן נִיתַּן לְאַנְשֵׁי עִיר הַנִּדַּחַת. וּמַאי חוּמְרָא? שֶׁכֵּן מָמוֹנָם אָבֵד.

Decapitation by the sword is considered more severe than strangulation, as it is meted out to the people of an idolatrous city. And for what reason is the severity of this case considered greater? Because their property is destroyed as well.

אַדְּרַבָּה: חֶנֶק חָמוּר שֶׁכֵּן נִיתַּן לְמַכֵּה אָבִיו וְאִמּוֹ. וּמַאי חוּמְרָא? שֶׁכֵּן הוּקַּשׁ כּוּ׳.

The Gemara raises an objection: On the contrary; strangulation is more severe, as it is meted out to one who wounds his father or his mother. And for what reason is the severity of this transgression considered greater? Because the honor of one’s parents is compared to the honor of the Omnipresent.

אֲפִילּוּ הָכִי, פּוֹשֵׁט יָדוֹ בָּעִיקָּר עָדִיף.

The Gemara answers: Nevertheless, the transgression of one who undermines the fundamental tenets of Judaism is more severe, as he defiles the honor of the Omnipresent Himself, so his punishment must certainly be the most severe.

רַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן אוֹמֵר כּוּ׳. שְׂרֵיפָה חֲמוּרָה מִסְּקִילָה, שֶׁכֵּן נִיתְּנָה לְבַת כֹּהֵן שֶׁזִּינְּתָה. וּמַאי חוּמְרָא? שֶׁכֵּן מְחַלֶּלֶת אֶת אָבִיהָ.

§ The mishna teaches that Rabbi Shimon says that the order of severity is burning, stoning, strangulation, and killing. The Gemara explains the basis for his opinion. Burning is considered more severe than stoning, as burning is meted out to a priest’s daughter who committed adultery. And for what reason is the severity of this transgression considered greater than the others? Because she profanes both herself and her father.

אַדְּרַבָּה: סְקִילָה חֲמוּרָה, שֶׁכֵּן נִיתְּנָה לִמְגַדֵּף וּלְעוֹבֵד עֲבוֹדָה זָרָה. וּמַאי חוּמְרָא? שֶׁכֵּן פּוֹשֵׁט יָדוֹ בָּעִיקָּר.

The Gemara raises an objection: On the contrary; stoning is more severe, as it is meted out to one who blasphemes and to one who worships idols. And for what reason is the severity of these transgressions greater? Because the transgressor undermines the fundamental tenets of Judaism.

רַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן לְטַעְמֵיהּ, דְּאָמַר: אַחַת אֲרוּסָה וְאַחַת נְשׂוּאָה יָצְאָה לִשְׂרֵיפָה. וּמִדְּאַפְּקֵיהּ רַחֲמָנָא לַאֲרוּסָה בַּת כֹּהֵן מִכְּלַל אֲרוּסָה בַּת יִשְׂרָאֵל מִסְּקִילָה לִשְׂרֵיפָה, שְׁמַע מִינַּהּ: שְׂרֵיפָה חֲמוּרָה.

The Gemara answers: Rabbi Shimon conforms to his line of reasoning, as he says that the daughter of a priest, whether she is betrothed or married, is singled out for burning. And since the Merciful One singles out the case of the betrothed daughter of a priest from the category of a betrothed Jewish woman, changing her punishment from execution by stoning to execution by burning, conclude from it that burning is more severe than stoning, as the punishment for a priest’s daughter who committed adultery must certainly be more severe than that of the daughter of a non-priest.

שְׂרֵיפָה חֲמוּרָה מֵחֶנֶק, שֶׁכֵּן נִיתְּנָה לְבַת כֹּהֵן שֶׁזִּינְּתָה. וּמַאי חוּמְרָא? כְּדַאֲמַרַן.

The Gemara continues to explain the order of severity according to Rabbi Shimon. Burning is considered more severe than strangulation, as it is meted out to a priest’s daughter who committed adultery. And for what reason is the severity of this transgression considered greater? As we said, it is because she profanes both herself and her father.

אַדְּרַבָּה: חֶנֶק חָמוּר, שֶׁכֵּן נִיתַּן לְמַכֵּה אָבִיו וְאִמּוֹ. וּמַאי חוּמְרָא? שֶׁכֵּן הוּקַּשׁ כְּבוֹדָם לִכְבוֹד הַמָּקוֹם.

The Gemara raises an objection: On the contrary; strangulation is more severe, as it is meted out to one who wounds his father or his mother. And for what reason is the severity of this transgression considered greater? Because the honor of one’s parents is compared to the honor of the Omnipresent.

מִדְּאַפְּקֵיהּ רַחֲמָנָא לִנְשׂוּאָה בַּת כֹּהֵן מִכְּלַל נְשׂוּאָה בַּת יִשְׂרָאֵל, מֵחֶנֶק לִשְׂרֵיפָה, שְׁמַע מִינַּהּ: שְׂרֵיפָה חֲמוּרָה.

The Gemara answers: Since the Merciful One singles out the case of the married daughter of a priest who committed adultery from the category of a married Jewish woman who committed adultery, changing her punishment from execution by strangulation to execution by burning, conclude from it that burning is more severe than strangulation.

שְׂרֵיפָה חֲמוּרָה מִסַּיִיף, שֶׁכֵּן נִיתְּנָה לְבַת כֹּהֵן שֶׁזִּינְּתָה. וּמַאי חוּמְרָא? כְּדַאֲמַרַן.

Burning is considered more severe than decapitation by the sword, as it is meted out to a priest’s daughter who committed adultery. And for what reason is the severity of this transgression considered greater? As we said, it is because she profanes both herself and her father.

אַדְּרַבָּה: סַיִיף חָמוּר, שֶׁכֵּן נִיתַּן לְאַנְשֵׁי עִיר הַנִּדַּחַת. וּמַאי חוּמְרָא? שֶׁכֵּן מָמוֹנָם אָבֵד.

The Gemara raises an objection: On the contrary; decapitation by the sword is more severe, as it is meted out to the people of an idolatrous city. And for what reason is the severity of this case considered greater? Because their property is destroyed as well.

אָמַרְתָּ: וְכִי אֵיזֶה כֹּחַ מְרוּבֶּה, כֹּחַ הַמַּדִּיחַ אוֹ כֹּחַ הַנִּידָּח?

The Gemara answers: In response to this objection, you should say: But the severity of which transgression is greater: The severity of the transgression of the subverter, or the severity of the transgression of the subverted?

הֱוֵי אוֹמֵר: כֹּחַ הַמַּדִּיחַ. וְקַל וָחוֹמֶר: וּמָה חֶנֶק, שֶׁחָמוּר מִסַּיִיף – שְׂרֵיפָה חֲמוּרָה מִמֶּנּוּ; סַיִיף הַקַּל – לֹא כׇּל שֶׁכֵּן?

You must say that the severity of the transgression of the subverter is greater. Since those who subverted the people of an idolatrous city are executed by stoning, this is evidently a more severe type of capital punishment than decapitation. And it is inferred a fortiori that if it is so that concerning strangulation, which is more severe than decapitation by the sword, nevertheless burning is more severe than it, is it not all the more so obvious that burning is more severe than decapitation by the sword, which is a more lenient type of execution compared to strangulation?

סְקִילָה חֲמוּרָה מֵחֶנֶק, שֶׁכֵּן נִיתְּנָה לִמְגַדֵּף וּלְעוֹבֵד עֲבוֹדָה זָרָה. וּמַאי חוּמְרָא? כְּדַאֲמַרַן.

Stoning is considered more severe than strangulation, as it is meted out to one who blasphemes and to one who worships idols. And for what reason is the severity of these transgressions considered greater? As we said, it is because the transgressors undermine the fundamental tenets of Judaism.

אַדְּרַבָּה: חֶנֶק חָמוּר, שֶׁכֵּן נִיתַּן לְמַכֵּה אָבִיו וְאִמּוֹ. וּמַאי חוּמְרָא? שֶׁכֵּן הוּקַּשׁ כּוּ׳.

The Gemara raises an objection: On the contrary; strangulation is more severe, as it is meted out to one who wounds his father or his mother. And for what reason is the severity of this transgression considered greater? Because the honor of one’s parents is compared to the honor of the Omnipresent.

מִדְּאַפְּקֵיהּ רַחֲמָנָא לַאֲרוּסָה בַּת יִשְׂרָאֵל מִכְּלַל נְשׂוּאָה בַּת יִשְׂרָאֵל מֵחֶנֶק לִסְקִילָה, שְׁמַע מִינַּהּ: סְקִילָה חֲמוּרָה.

The Gemara answers: Since the Merciful One singles out the case of the betrothed daughter of a non-priest who committed adultery from the category of a married Jewish woman who committed adultery, changing her punishment from execution by strangulation to execution by stoning, conclude from it that stoning is more severe.

סְקִילָה חֲמוּרָה מִסַּיִיף, שֶׁכֵּן נִיתְּנָה לַמְגַדֵּף כּוּ׳. אַדְּרַבָּה: סַיִיף חָמוּר שֶׁכֵּן נִיתַּן לְאַנְשֵׁי עִיר הַנִּדַּחַת. וּמַאי חוּמְרָא? שֶׁכֵּן מָמוֹנָם אָבֵד.

Stoning is considered more severe than decapitation by the sword, as it is meted out to one who blasphemes and to one who worships idols. The Gemara raises an objection: On the contrary; decapitation by the sword is more severe, as it is meted out to the people of an idolatrous city. And for what reason is the severity of this case considered greater? Because their property is destroyed as well.

אָמַרְתָּ: וְכִי אֵיזֶה כֹּחַ מְרוּבֶּה, כֹּחַ הַמַּדִּיחַ אוֹ כֹּחַ הַנִּידָּח? הֱוֵי אוֹמֵר כֹּחַ הַמַּדִּיחַ. וְקַל וָחוֹמֶר: וּמָה חֶנֶק שֶׁחָמוּר מִסַּיִיף, סְקִילָה חֲמוּרָה מִמֶּנּוּ; סַיִיף הַקַּל – לֹא כׇּל שֶׁכֵּן?

The Gemara answers that in response to this objection you should say: But the severity of which transgression is greater: The severity of the transgression of the subverter, or the severity of the transgression of the subverted? You must say that the severity of the transgression of the subverter is greater. Since those who subverted the people of an idolatrous city are executed by stoning, this punishment is evidently more severe than decapitation. And it is inferred a fortiori that if it is so that concerning strangulation, which is more severe than decapitation by the sword, nevertheless stoning is more severe than it, is it not all the more so obvious that stoning is more severe than decapitation by the sword, which is a more lenient type of execution compared to strangulation?

חֶנֶק חָמוּר מִסַּיִיף, שֶׁכֵּן נִיתַּן לְמַכֵּה אָבִיו וְאִמּוֹ. וּמַאי חוּמְרָא? כְּדַאֲמַרַן.

Strangulation is more severe than decapitation by the sword, as it is meted out to one who wounds his father or his mother. And for what reason is the severity of this transgression considered greater? As we said, because the honor of one’s parents is compared to the honor of the Omnipresent.

אַדְּרַבָּה: סַיִיף חָמוּר שֶׁכֵּן נִיתַּן לְאַנְשֵׁי עִיר הַנִּדַּחַת. וּמַאי חוּמְרָא? שֶׁכֵּן מָמוֹנָם אָבֵד.

The Gemara raises an objection: On the contrary; decapitation by the sword is more severe, as it is meted out to the people of an idolatrous city. And for what reason is the severity of this transgression considered greater? Because their property is destroyed as well.

אָמַרְתָּ: וְכִי אֵיזֶה כֹּחַ מְרוּבֶּה, כֹּחַ הַמַּדִּיחַ אוֹ כֹּחַ הַנִּידָּח? הֱוֵי אוֹמֵר: כֹּחַ הַמַּדִּיחַ. וְתַנְיָא: מַדִּיחֵי עִיר הַנִּדַּחַת בִּסְקִילָה. רַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן אוֹמֵר: בְּחֶנֶק.

The Gemara answers that you should say in response to this objection: But the severity of which transgression is greater: The severity of the transgression of the subverter, or the severity of the transgression of the subverted? You must say that the severity of the transgression of the subverter is greater, and it is taught in a baraita: The subverters of an idolatrous city are executed by stoning. Rabbi Shimon says: By strangulation. Therefore, according to the opinion of Rabbi Shimon, it is clear that strangulation is a more severe type of capital punishment than decapitation.

מַרְגְּלָא בְּפוּמֵּיהּ דְּרַבִּי יוֹחָנָן: נַעֲרָה הַמְאוֹרָסָה בַּת כֹּהֵן שֶׁזִּינְּתָה – בִּסְקִילָה. רַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן אוֹמֵר: בִּשְׂרֵיפָה. זִינְּתָה מֵאָבִיהָ – בִּסְקִילָה. רַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן אוֹמֵר: בִּשְׂרֵיפָה.

§ Rabbi Yoḥanan was wont to say the following baraita: A betrothed young woman who is the daughter of a priest and who committed adultery is executed by stoning. Rabbi Shimon says: She is executed by burning. A betrothed young woman who is the daughter of a non-priest and who engaged in intercourse with her father is executed by stoning. Rabbi Shimon says: By burning.

מַאי קָא מַשְׁמַע לַן? לְרַבָּנַן – נְשׂוּאָה יָצְאָה לִשְׂרֵיפָה, וְלֹא אֲרוּסָה. לְרַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן – אַחַת אֲרוּסָה וְאַחַת נְשׂוּאָה יָצְאָה לִשְׂרֵיפָה. וְטַעְמָא מַאי? מִשּׁוּם דִּלְרַבָּנַן סְקִילָה חֲמוּרָה, לְרַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן שְׂרֵיפָה חֲמוּרָה.

The Gemara asks: What does this baraita teach us? The Gemara answers: It teaches us that according to the opinion of the Rabbis, the married daughter of a priest is singled out for burning, and not a betrothed one, who is executed by stoning. According to the opinion of Rabbi Shimon, the daughter of a priest, whether she is betrothed or married, is singled out for burning. And what is the reason for their respective opinions with regard to the punishment of the daughter of a priest? It is because according to the Rabbis stoning is more severe than burning, whereas according to Rabbi Shimon burning is more severe.

נָפְקָא מִינַּהּ לְמִי שֶׁנִּתְחַיֵּיב שְׁתֵּי מִיתוֹת בֵּית דִּין, נִידּוֹן בַּחֲמוּרָה.

In addition to the case of the priest’s daughter who committed adultery, there is a practical difference between these two opinions, which is that one who was sentenced to two different court-imposed death penalties for two sins he committed is punished with the more severe of the two, and these tanna’im disagree as to which type of death penalty is more severe.

מַאי רַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן? דְּתַנְיָא: רַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן אוֹמֵר, שְׁנֵי כְּלָלוֹת נֶאֶמְרוּ בְּבַת כֹּהֵן.

What is the source of the opinion of Rabbi Shimon that a priest’s betrothed daughter who committed adultery is executed by stoning? As it is taught in a baraita: Rabbi Shimon says: Two general halakhot are stated in the Torah with regard to the daughter of a priest, one rendering the betrothed daughter of a priest who committed adultery liable to be executed by stoning, and the other rendering the married daughter of a priest who committed adultery liable to be executed by strangulation.

בְּבַת כֹּהֵן, וְלֹא בְּבַת יִשְׂרָאֵל?! אֵימָא: אַף בְּבַת כֹּהֵן.

The Gemara interrupts the baraita and asks: Are they stated only with regard to the daughter of a priest, and not with regard to the daughter of a non-priest? Aren’t these halakhot stated with regard to the daughter of a non-priest as well? Rather, emend the text and say: These two halakhot are stated with regard to the daughter of a priest as well.

וְהוֹצִיא הַכָּתוּב נְשׂוּאָה מִכְּלַל נְשׂוּאָה, וַאֲרוּסָה מִכְּלַל אֲרוּסָה.

The baraita continues: The verse: “And the daughter of a priest, when she profanes herself by playing the harlot, she profanes her father; she shall be burned with fire” (Leviticus 21:9), is stated with regard to both a betrothed woman and a married woman. And the verse thereby singles out the married daughter of a priest from the category of an ordinary married woman, whose punishment is execution by strangulation, and it singles out the betrothed daughter of a priest from the category of an ordinary betrothed woman, who is executed by stoning.

מָה כְּשֶׁהוֹצִיא הַכָּתוּב נְשׂוּאָה מִכְּלַל נְשׂוּאָה לְהַחְמִיר, אַף כְּשֶׁהוֹצִיא הַכָּתוּב אֲרוּסָה מִכְּלַל אֲרוּסָה לְהַחֲמִיר.

Therefore, just as when the verse singles out the married daughter of a priest from the category of a married woman it is to render her punishment more severe, so too, when the verse singles out the betrothed daughter of a priest from the category of a betrothed woman it is to render her punishment more severe. This indicates that burning is a more severe type of capital punishment than stoning.

זוֹמְמֵי נְשׂוּאָה בַּת כֹּהֵן, בִּכְלַל זוֹמְמֵי נְשׂוּאָה בַּת יִשְׂרָאֵל; וְזוֹמְמֵי אֲרוּסָה בַּת כֹּהֵן, בִּכְלַל זוֹמְמֵי אֲרוּסָה בַּת יִשְׂרָאֵל.

The punishment for the conspiring witnesses concerning the married daughter of a priest, who testified falsely that she committed adultery, is included in the punishment for the conspiring witnesses concerning the married daughter of a non-priest, and the punishment for the conspiring witnesses concerning the betrothed daughter of a priest is included in the punishment for the conspiring witnesses concerning the betrothed daughter of a non-priest. The Torah is not more severe with them; the conspiring witnesses in the case of any married woman accused of committing adultery are strangled, and the conspiring witnesses in the case of any betrothed woman accused of committing adultery are stoned.

תָּנוּ רַבָּנַן: ״וּבַת אִישׁ כֹּהֵן כִּי תֵחֵל״ – יָכוֹל אֲפִילּוּ חִלְּלָה אֶת הַשַּׁבָּת? תַּלְמוּד לוֹמַר ״לִזְנוֹת״ – בְּחִילּוּלִין שֶׁבִּזְנוּת הַכָּתוּב מְדַבֵּר.

The Sages taught: The verse states: “And the daughter of a priest [ish kohen], when she profanes herself by playing the harlot, she profanes her father; she shall be burned with fire” (Leviticus 21:9). One might have thought that the expression “when she profanes [ki teḥel]” is referring even to one who desecrated [ḥillela] Shabbat; she too should be executed by burning. To counter this, the verse states: “By playing the harlot”; the verse is speaking of profanation through promiscuity.

יָכוֹל אֲפִילּוּ פְּנוּיָה? נֶאֱמַר כָּאן ״אָבִיהָ״, וְנֶאֱמַר לְהַלָּן ״אָבִיהָ״. מָה לְהַלָּן זְנוּת עִם זִיקַת הַבַּעַל, אַף כָּאן זְנוּת עִם זִיקַת הַבַּעַל.

One might have thought even if she is unmarried and she engaged in promiscuous intercourse she should be executed by burning. This is incorrect, as here it is stated: “Her father,” and there it is stated with regard to a betrothed woman who committed adultery: “Because she has done a depraved thing in Israel, to play the harlot in the house of her father” (Deuteronomy 22:21). Just as there, the reference is to the promiscuous intercourse of one who has a bond to a husband, so too here, the reference is to the promiscuous intercourse of one who has a bond to a husband.

אוֹ אֵינוֹ אוֹמֵר ״אָבִיהָ״ אֶלָּא לְהוֹצִיא אֶת כׇּל הָאָדָם? כְּשֶׁהוּא אוֹמֵר ״הִיא מְחַלֶּלֶת״, הֱוֵי כָּל אָדָם אָמוּר.

Or perhaps one might have thought that the verse states “her father” only in order to exclude all men except her father, i.e., she is liable to be executed by burning only if she engaged in intercourse with her father. To counter this, when it states “she profanes,” indicating that it is she who profanes her father and not her father who profanes himself and her, all men are stated, i.e., included.

הָא מָה אֲנִי מְקַיֵּים ״אָבִיהָ״? נֶאֱמַר כָּאן ״אָבִיהָ״, וְנֶאֱמַר לְהַלָּן ״אָבִיהָ״. מָה לְהַלָּן זְנוּת עִם זִיקַת הַבַּעַל, אַף כָּאן זְנוּת עִם זִיקַת הַבַּעַל.

Therefore, how do I realize the meaning of the expression “she profanes her father”? What halakha does it teach? The baraita answers: Here it is stated: “Her father,” and there it is stated: “Her father.” Just as there, the reference is to the promiscuous intercourse of one who has a bond to a husband, so too here, the reference is to the promiscuous intercourse of one who has a bond to a husband.

אִי מָה לְהַלָּן נַעֲרָה וְהִיא אֲרוּסָה, אַף כָּאן נַעֲרָה וְהִיא אֲרוּסָה? נַעֲרָה וְהִיא נְשׂוּאָה, בּוֹגֶרֶת וְהִיא אֲרוּסָה, בּוֹגֶרֶת וְהִיא נְשׂוּאָה, וַאֲפִילּוּ הִזְקִינָה – מִנַּיִן?

The baraita asks: If the halakha of the priest’s daughter who committed adultery is compared, by means of a verbal analogy, to the halakha of a betrothed woman who committed adultery, then perhaps one should say that just as there the reference is specifically to a young woman, i.e., to one whose first signs of maturity appeared within the past half year, who is betrothed, so too here, in the case of the daughter of a priest, the reference is to a young woman who is betrothed. But if she is a young woman who is married, or a grown woman who is betrothed, or a grown woman who is married, or even if she grew old, and is not normally referred to as a daughter, from where is it derived that her punishment is execution by burning?

תַּלְמוּד לוֹמַר ״וּבַת כֹּהֵן״ – מִכׇּל מָקוֹם.

The verse states: “And the daughter of a priest,” in any case. It is derived from the conjunction “and,” represented by the letter vav, that this punishment applies to any woman who is the daughter of a priest.

״בַּת כֹּהֵן״,

The verse states: “The daughter of a priest.”

New to Talmud?

Check out our resources designed to help you navigate a page of Talmud – and study at the pace, level and style that fits you. 

The Hadran Women’s Tapestry

Meet the diverse women learning Gemara at Hadran and hear their stories. 

In January 2020, my chevruta suggested that we “up our game. Let’s do Daf Yomi” – and she sent me the Hadran link. I lost my job (and went freelance), there was a pandemic, and I am still opening the podcast with my breakfast coffee, or after Shabbat with popcorn. My Aramaic is improving. I will need a new bookcase, though.

Rhondda May
Rhondda May

Atlanta, Georgia, United States

It’s hard to believe it has been over two years. Daf yomi has changed my life in so many ways and has been sustaining during this global sea change. Each day means learning something new, digging a little deeper, adding another lens, seeing worlds with new eyes. Daf has also fostered new friendships and deepened childhood connections, as long time friends have unexpectedly become havruta.

Joanna Rom
Joanna Rom

Northwest Washington, United States

I started with Ze Kollel in Berlin, directed by Jeremy Borowitz for Hillel Deutschland. We read Masechet Megillah chapter 4 and each participant wrote his commentary on a Sugia that particularly impressed him. I wrote six poems about different Sugiot! Fascinated by the discussions on Talmud I continued to learn with Rabanit Michelle Farber and am currently taking part in the Tikun Olam course.
Yael Merlini
Yael Merlini

Berlin, Germany

When we heard that R. Michelle was starting daf yomi, my 11-year-old suggested that I go. Little did she know that she would lose me every morning from then on. I remember standing at the Farbers’ door, almost too shy to enter. After that first class, I said that I would come the next day but couldn’t commit to more. A decade later, I still look forward to learning from R. Michelle every morning.

Ruth Leah Kahan
Ruth Leah Kahan

Ra’anana, Israel

I decided to learn one masechet, Brachot, but quickly fell in love and never stopped! It has been great, everyone is always asking how it’s going and chering me on, and my students are always making sure I did the day’s daf.

Yafit Fishbach
Yafit Fishbach

Memphis, Tennessee, United States

I started the daf at the beginning of this cycle in January 2020. My husband, my children, grandchildren and siblings have been very supportive. As someone who learned and taught Tanach and mefarshim for many years, it has been an amazing adventure to complete the six sedarim of Mishnah, and now to study Talmud on a daily basis along with Rabbanit Michelle and the wonderful women of Hadran.

Rookie Billet
Rookie Billet

Jerusalem, Israel

I started my Daf Yomi journey at the beginning of the COVID19 pandemic.

Karena Perry
Karena Perry

Los Angeles, United States

About a year into learning more about Judaism on a path to potential conversion, I saw an article about the upcoming Siyum HaShas in January of 2020. My curiosity was piqued and I immediately started investigating what learning the Daf actually meant. Daily learning? Just what I wanted. Seven and a half years? I love a challenge! So I dove in head first and I’ve enjoyed every moment!!
Nickie Matthews
Nickie Matthews

Blacksburg, United States

I started to listen to Michelle’s podcasts four years ago. The minute I started I was hooked. I’m so excited to learn the entire Talmud, and think I will continue always. I chose the quote “while a woman is engaged in conversation she also holds the spindle”. (Megillah 14b). It reminds me of all of the amazing women I learn with every day who multi-task, think ahead and accomplish so much.

Julie Mendelsohn
Julie Mendelsohn

Zichron Yakov, Israel

Hearing and reading about the siyumim at the completion of the 13 th cycle Daf Yomi asked our shul rabbi about starting the Daf – he directed me to another shiur in town he thought would allow a woman to join, and so I did! Love seeing the sources for the Divrei Torah I’ve been hearing for the past decades of living an observant life and raising 5 children .

Jill Felder
Jill Felder

Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania, United States

I started learning Talmud with R’ Haramati in Yeshivah of Flatbush. But after a respite of 60 years, Rabbanit Michelle lit my fire – after attending the last three world siyumim in Miami Beach, Meadowlands and Boca Raton, and now that I’m retired, I decided – “I can do this!” It has been an incredible journey so far, and I look forward to learning Daf everyday – Mazal Tov to everyone!

Roslyn Jaffe
Roslyn Jaffe

Florida, United States

I’ve been learning since January 2020, and in June I started drawing a phrase from each daf. Sometimes it’s easy (e.g. plants), sometimes it’s very hard (e.g. korbanot), and sometimes it’s loads of fun (e.g. bird racing) to find something to draw. I upload my pictures from each masechet to #DafYomiArt. I am enjoying every step of the journey.

Gila Loike
Gila Loike

Ashdod, Israel

I started learning Daf Yomi because my sister, Ruth Leah Kahan, attended Michelle’s class in person and suggested I listen remotely. She always sat near Michelle and spoke up during class so that I could hear her voice. Our mom had just died unexpectedly and it made me feel connected to hear Ruth Leah’s voice, and now to know we are both listening to the same thing daily, continents apart.
Jessica Shklar
Jessica Shklar

Philadelphia, United States

I started learning daf yomi at the beginning of this cycle. As the pandemic evolved, it’s been so helpful to me to have this discipline every morning to listen to the daf podcast after I’ve read the daf; learning about the relationships between the rabbis and the ways they were constructing our Jewish religion after the destruction of the Temple. I’m grateful to be on this journey!

Mona Fishbane
Mona Fishbane

Teaneck NJ, United States

I began learning the daf in January 2022. I initially “flew under the radar,” sharing my journey with my husband and a few close friends. I was apprehensive – who, me? Gemara? Now, 2 years in, I feel changed. The rigor of a daily commitment frames my days. The intellectual engagement enhances my knowledge. And the virtual community of learners has become a new family, weaving a glorious tapestry.

Gitta Jaroslawicz-Neufeld
Gitta Jaroslawicz-Neufeld

Far Rockaway, United States

My Daf journey began in August 2012 after participating in the Siyum Hashas where I was blessed as an “enabler” of others.  Galvanized into my own learning I recited the Hadran on Shas in January 2020 with Rabbanit Michelle. That Siyum was a highlight in my life.  Now, on round two, Daf has become my spiritual anchor to which I attribute manifold blessings.

Rina Goldberg
Rina Goldberg

Englewood NJ, United States

What a great experience to learn with Rabbanit Michelle Farber. I began with this cycle in January 2020 and have been comforted by the consistency and energy of this process throughout the isolation period of Covid. Week by week, I feel like I am exploring a treasure chest with sparkling gems and puzzling antiquities. The hunt is exhilarating.

Marian Frankston
Marian Frankston

Pennsylvania, United States

A beautiful world of Talmudic sages now fill my daily life with discussion and debate.
bringing alive our traditions and texts that has brought new meaning to my life.
I am a מגילת אסתר reader for women . the words in the Mishna of מסכת megillah 17a
הקורא את המגילה למפרע לא יצא were powerful to me.
I hope to have the zchut to complete the cycle for my 70th birthday.

Sheila Hauser
Sheila Hauser

Jerusalem, Israel

It has been a pleasure keeping pace with this wonderful and scholarly group of women.

Janice Block
Janice Block

Beit Shemesh, Israel

I started learning daf in January, 2020, being inspired by watching the Siyyum Hashas in Binyanei Haumah. I wasn’t sure I would be able to keep up with the task. When I went to school, Gemara was not an option. Fast forward to March, 2022, and each day starts with the daf. The challenge is now learning the intricacies of delving into the actual learning. Hadran community, thank you!

Rochel Cheifetz
Rochel Cheifetz

Riverdale, NY, United States

Sanhedrin 50

קָסָבְרִי רַבָּנַן: נְשׂוּאָה יוֹצְאָה לִשְׂרֵיפָה, וְלֹא אֲרוּסָה. וּמִדְּאַפְּקַהּ רַחֲמָנָא לַאֲרוּסָה בִּסְקִילָה, שְׁמַע מִינַּהּ: סְקִילָה חֲמוּרָה.

The Gemara answers: The Rabbis hold that only the married daughter of a priest who committed adultery is singled out from all those who commit adultery, for burning, but not one who is betrothed, as a betrothed woman who committed adultery, whether or not she is the daughter of a priest, is executed by stoning. And since the Merciful One singles out a betrothed woman who is not married from all married women who commit adultery, to be executed by stoning, conclude from it that stoning is more severe than burning.

סְקִילָה חֲמוּרָה מִסַּיִיף, שֶׁכֵּן נִיתְּנָה לִמְגַדֵּף וּלְעוֹבֵד עֲבוֹדָה זָרָה. וּמַאי חוּמְרָא? כְּדַאֲמַרַן.

Stoning is considered more severe than decapitation by the sword, as it is meted out to one who blasphemes and to one who worships idols. And for what reason is the severity of these transgressions considered greater than others? As we said, it is because the transgressors undermine the fundamental tenets of Judaism.

אַדְּרַבָּה: סַיִיף חָמוּר, שֶׁכֵּן נִיתַּן לְאַנְשֵׁי עִיר הַנִּדַּחַת. וּמַאי חוּמְרָא? שֶׁכֵּן מָמוֹנָן אָבֵד.

The Gemara raises an objection: On the contrary; decapitation by the sword would appear to be more severe than stoning, as it is meted out to the people of an idolatrous city, who also undermine the fundamental tenets of Judaism. And for what reason is the severity of this case of an idolatrous city considered greater than others? Because the transgressors are not only executed, their property is destroyed as well.

אָמַרְתָּ: אֵיזֶה כֹּחַ מְרוּבֶּה, כֹּחַ הַמַּדִּיחַ אוֹ כֹּחַ הַנִּידָּח? הֱוֵי אוֹמֵר: כֹּחַ הַמַּדִּיחַ. וְתַנְיָא: מַדִּיחֵי עִיר הַנִּדַּחַת – בִּסְקִילָה.

The Gemara answers: In response to this objection, you should say: The severity of which transgression is greater: The severity of the transgression of the one who subverts the city, inciting them to sin, or the severity of the transgression of the subverted? You must say that the severity of the transgression of the subverter is greater. And it is taught in a baraita: The subverters of an idolatrous city are executed by stoning. Evidently, stoning is a more severe type of execution than decapitation.

סְקִילָה חֲמוּרָה מֵחֶנֶק, שֶׁכֵּן נִיתַּן לִמְגַדֵּף וּלְעוֹבֵד עֲבוֹדָה זָרָה. וּמַאי חוּמְרָא? כְּדַאֲמַרַן.

Stoning is considered more severe than strangulation, as it is meted out to one who blasphemes and to one who worships idols. And for what reason is the severity of these transgressions considered greater? As we said, it is because the transgressors undermine the fundamental tenets of Judaism.

אַדְּרַבָּה: חֶנֶק חָמוּר – שֶׁכֵּן נִיתַּן לְמַכֵּה אָבִיו וְאִמּוֹ. וּמַאי חוּמְרָא? שֶׁכֵּן הוּקַּשׁ כְּבוֹדָן לִכְבוֹד הַמָּקוֹם.

The Gemara raises an objection: On the contrary; strangulation is more severe, as it is meted out to one who wounds his father or his mother. And for what reason is the severity of this transgression considered greater? Because the honor of one’s parents is compared to the honor of the Omnipresent (see Kiddushin 30b).

מִדְּאַפְּקֵיהּ רַחֲמָנָא לַאֲרוּסָה בַּת יִשְׂרָאֵל מִכְּלַל נְשׂוּאָה בַּת יִשְׂרָאֵל מֵחֶנֶק לִסְקִילָה, שְׁמַע מִינַּהּ: סְקִילָה חֲמוּרָה.

The Gemara answers: Since the Merciful One singles out the case of a betrothed Jewish woman from the category of a married Jewish woman, changing the punishment of a betrothed Jewish woman who committed adultery from strangulation to stoning, conclude from it that stoning is more severe.

שְׂרֵיפָה חֲמוּרָה מִסַּיִיף, שֶׁכֵּן נִיתְּנָה לְבַת כֹּהֵן שֶׁזִּינְּתָה. וּמַאי חוּמְרָא? שֶׁכֵּן מְחַלֶּלֶת אֶת אָבִיהָ.

Burning is considered more severe than decapitation by the sword, as it is meted out to a priest’s daughter who committed adultery. And for what reason is the severity of this transgression considered greater than others? Because she profanes both herself and her father.

אַדְּרַבָּה: סַיִיף חָמוּר, שֶׁכֵּן נִיתַּן לְאַנְשֵׁי עִיר הַנִּדַּחַת. וּמַאי חוּמְרָא? שֶׁכֵּן מָמוֹנָן אָבֵד.

The Gemara raises an objection: On the contrary; decapitation by the sword is more severe, as it is meted out to the people of an idolatrous city. And for what reason is the severity of this case considered greater? Because the transgressors are not only executed, their property is destroyed as well.

נֶאֱמַר ״אָבִיהָ״ בִּסְקִילָה, וְנֶאֱמַר ״אָבִיהָ״ בִּשְׂרֵיפָה. מָה ״אָבִיהָ״ הָאָמוּר בִּסְקִילָה – סְקִילָה חֲמוּרָה מִסַּיִיף, אַף ״אָבִיהָ״ הָאָמוּר בִּשְׂרֵיפָה – שְׂרֵיפָה חֲמוּרָה מִסַּיִיף.

The Gemara answers: The severity of burning is derived by means of a verbal analogy. The term “her father” is stated with regard to stoning, in the verse: “And the men of her city shall stone her with stones and she shall die, because she has done a depraved thing in Israel, to play the harlot in the house of her father” (Deuteronomy 22:21), and the term “her father” is stated with regard to burning, in the verse: “And the daughter of a priest, when she profanes herself by playing the harlot, she profanes her father; she shall be burned with fire” (Leviticus 21:9). Therefore, just as concerning the term “her father” that is stated with regard to stoning it is established that stoning is more severe than decapitation by the sword, so too, concerning the term “her father” that is stated with regard to burning, it may be established that burning is more severe than decapitation by the sword.

שְׂרֵיפָה חֲמוּרָה מֵחֶנֶק, שֶׁכֵּן נִיתְּנָה לְבַת כֹּהֵן שֶׁזִּינְּתָה. וּמַאי חוּמְרָא? כְּדַאֲמַרַן.

Burning is considered more severe than strangulation, as it is meted out to a priest’s daughter who committed adultery. And for what reason is the severity of this transgression considered greater? As we said, because she profanes both herself and her father.

אַדְּרַבָּה: חֶנֶק חָמוּר, שֶׁכֵּן נִיתַּן לְמַכֵּה אָבִיו וְאִמּוֹ. וּמַאי חוּמְרָא? שֶׁכֵּן הוּקַּשׁ כְּבוֹדָן לִכְבוֹד הַמָּקוֹם.

The Gemara raises an objection: On the contrary; strangulation is more severe, as it is meted out to one who wounds his father or his mother. And for what reason is the severity of this transgression considered greater? Because the honor of one’s parents is compared to the honor of the Omnipresent.

מִדְּאַפְּקֵיהּ רַחֲמָנָא לִנְשׂוּאָה בַּת כֹּהֵן מִכְּלַל נְשׂוּאָה בַּת יִשְׂרָאֵל מֵחֶנֶק לִשְׂרֵיפָה, שְׁמַע מִינַּהּ: שְׂרֵיפָה חֲמוּרָה.

The Gemara answers: Since the Merciful One singles out the case of the married daughter of a priest from the category of a married Jewish woman, changing the punishment of the married daughter of a priest who committed adultery from strangulation to burning, conclude from it that burning is more severe than strangulation.

סַיִיף חָמוּר מֵחֶנֶק, שֶׁכֵּן נִיתַּן לְאַנְשֵׁי עִיר הַנִּדַּחַת. וּמַאי חוּמְרָא? שֶׁכֵּן מָמוֹנָם אָבֵד.

Decapitation by the sword is considered more severe than strangulation, as it is meted out to the people of an idolatrous city. And for what reason is the severity of this case considered greater? Because their property is destroyed as well.

אַדְּרַבָּה: חֶנֶק חָמוּר שֶׁכֵּן נִיתַּן לְמַכֵּה אָבִיו וְאִמּוֹ. וּמַאי חוּמְרָא? שֶׁכֵּן הוּקַּשׁ כּוּ׳.

The Gemara raises an objection: On the contrary; strangulation is more severe, as it is meted out to one who wounds his father or his mother. And for what reason is the severity of this transgression considered greater? Because the honor of one’s parents is compared to the honor of the Omnipresent.

אֲפִילּוּ הָכִי, פּוֹשֵׁט יָדוֹ בָּעִיקָּר עָדִיף.

The Gemara answers: Nevertheless, the transgression of one who undermines the fundamental tenets of Judaism is more severe, as he defiles the honor of the Omnipresent Himself, so his punishment must certainly be the most severe.

רַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן אוֹמֵר כּוּ׳. שְׂרֵיפָה חֲמוּרָה מִסְּקִילָה, שֶׁכֵּן נִיתְּנָה לְבַת כֹּהֵן שֶׁזִּינְּתָה. וּמַאי חוּמְרָא? שֶׁכֵּן מְחַלֶּלֶת אֶת אָבִיהָ.

§ The mishna teaches that Rabbi Shimon says that the order of severity is burning, stoning, strangulation, and killing. The Gemara explains the basis for his opinion. Burning is considered more severe than stoning, as burning is meted out to a priest’s daughter who committed adultery. And for what reason is the severity of this transgression considered greater than the others? Because she profanes both herself and her father.

אַדְּרַבָּה: סְקִילָה חֲמוּרָה, שֶׁכֵּן נִיתְּנָה לִמְגַדֵּף וּלְעוֹבֵד עֲבוֹדָה זָרָה. וּמַאי חוּמְרָא? שֶׁכֵּן פּוֹשֵׁט יָדוֹ בָּעִיקָּר.

The Gemara raises an objection: On the contrary; stoning is more severe, as it is meted out to one who blasphemes and to one who worships idols. And for what reason is the severity of these transgressions greater? Because the transgressor undermines the fundamental tenets of Judaism.

רַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן לְטַעְמֵיהּ, דְּאָמַר: אַחַת אֲרוּסָה וְאַחַת נְשׂוּאָה יָצְאָה לִשְׂרֵיפָה. וּמִדְּאַפְּקֵיהּ רַחֲמָנָא לַאֲרוּסָה בַּת כֹּהֵן מִכְּלַל אֲרוּסָה בַּת יִשְׂרָאֵל מִסְּקִילָה לִשְׂרֵיפָה, שְׁמַע מִינַּהּ: שְׂרֵיפָה חֲמוּרָה.

The Gemara answers: Rabbi Shimon conforms to his line of reasoning, as he says that the daughter of a priest, whether she is betrothed or married, is singled out for burning. And since the Merciful One singles out the case of the betrothed daughter of a priest from the category of a betrothed Jewish woman, changing her punishment from execution by stoning to execution by burning, conclude from it that burning is more severe than stoning, as the punishment for a priest’s daughter who committed adultery must certainly be more severe than that of the daughter of a non-priest.

שְׂרֵיפָה חֲמוּרָה מֵחֶנֶק, שֶׁכֵּן נִיתְּנָה לְבַת כֹּהֵן שֶׁזִּינְּתָה. וּמַאי חוּמְרָא? כְּדַאֲמַרַן.

The Gemara continues to explain the order of severity according to Rabbi Shimon. Burning is considered more severe than strangulation, as it is meted out to a priest’s daughter who committed adultery. And for what reason is the severity of this transgression considered greater? As we said, it is because she profanes both herself and her father.

אַדְּרַבָּה: חֶנֶק חָמוּר, שֶׁכֵּן נִיתַּן לְמַכֵּה אָבִיו וְאִמּוֹ. וּמַאי חוּמְרָא? שֶׁכֵּן הוּקַּשׁ כְּבוֹדָם לִכְבוֹד הַמָּקוֹם.

The Gemara raises an objection: On the contrary; strangulation is more severe, as it is meted out to one who wounds his father or his mother. And for what reason is the severity of this transgression considered greater? Because the honor of one’s parents is compared to the honor of the Omnipresent.

מִדְּאַפְּקֵיהּ רַחֲמָנָא לִנְשׂוּאָה בַּת כֹּהֵן מִכְּלַל נְשׂוּאָה בַּת יִשְׂרָאֵל, מֵחֶנֶק לִשְׂרֵיפָה, שְׁמַע מִינַּהּ: שְׂרֵיפָה חֲמוּרָה.

The Gemara answers: Since the Merciful One singles out the case of the married daughter of a priest who committed adultery from the category of a married Jewish woman who committed adultery, changing her punishment from execution by strangulation to execution by burning, conclude from it that burning is more severe than strangulation.

שְׂרֵיפָה חֲמוּרָה מִסַּיִיף, שֶׁכֵּן נִיתְּנָה לְבַת כֹּהֵן שֶׁזִּינְּתָה. וּמַאי חוּמְרָא? כְּדַאֲמַרַן.

Burning is considered more severe than decapitation by the sword, as it is meted out to a priest’s daughter who committed adultery. And for what reason is the severity of this transgression considered greater? As we said, it is because she profanes both herself and her father.

אַדְּרַבָּה: סַיִיף חָמוּר, שֶׁכֵּן נִיתַּן לְאַנְשֵׁי עִיר הַנִּדַּחַת. וּמַאי חוּמְרָא? שֶׁכֵּן מָמוֹנָם אָבֵד.

The Gemara raises an objection: On the contrary; decapitation by the sword is more severe, as it is meted out to the people of an idolatrous city. And for what reason is the severity of this case considered greater? Because their property is destroyed as well.

אָמַרְתָּ: וְכִי אֵיזֶה כֹּחַ מְרוּבֶּה, כֹּחַ הַמַּדִּיחַ אוֹ כֹּחַ הַנִּידָּח?

The Gemara answers: In response to this objection, you should say: But the severity of which transgression is greater: The severity of the transgression of the subverter, or the severity of the transgression of the subverted?

הֱוֵי אוֹמֵר: כֹּחַ הַמַּדִּיחַ. וְקַל וָחוֹמֶר: וּמָה חֶנֶק, שֶׁחָמוּר מִסַּיִיף – שְׂרֵיפָה חֲמוּרָה מִמֶּנּוּ; סַיִיף הַקַּל – לֹא כׇּל שֶׁכֵּן?

You must say that the severity of the transgression of the subverter is greater. Since those who subverted the people of an idolatrous city are executed by stoning, this is evidently a more severe type of capital punishment than decapitation. And it is inferred a fortiori that if it is so that concerning strangulation, which is more severe than decapitation by the sword, nevertheless burning is more severe than it, is it not all the more so obvious that burning is more severe than decapitation by the sword, which is a more lenient type of execution compared to strangulation?

סְקִילָה חֲמוּרָה מֵחֶנֶק, שֶׁכֵּן נִיתְּנָה לִמְגַדֵּף וּלְעוֹבֵד עֲבוֹדָה זָרָה. וּמַאי חוּמְרָא? כְּדַאֲמַרַן.

Stoning is considered more severe than strangulation, as it is meted out to one who blasphemes and to one who worships idols. And for what reason is the severity of these transgressions considered greater? As we said, it is because the transgressors undermine the fundamental tenets of Judaism.

אַדְּרַבָּה: חֶנֶק חָמוּר, שֶׁכֵּן נִיתַּן לְמַכֵּה אָבִיו וְאִמּוֹ. וּמַאי חוּמְרָא? שֶׁכֵּן הוּקַּשׁ כּוּ׳.

The Gemara raises an objection: On the contrary; strangulation is more severe, as it is meted out to one who wounds his father or his mother. And for what reason is the severity of this transgression considered greater? Because the honor of one’s parents is compared to the honor of the Omnipresent.

מִדְּאַפְּקֵיהּ רַחֲמָנָא לַאֲרוּסָה בַּת יִשְׂרָאֵל מִכְּלַל נְשׂוּאָה בַּת יִשְׂרָאֵל מֵחֶנֶק לִסְקִילָה, שְׁמַע מִינַּהּ: סְקִילָה חֲמוּרָה.

The Gemara answers: Since the Merciful One singles out the case of the betrothed daughter of a non-priest who committed adultery from the category of a married Jewish woman who committed adultery, changing her punishment from execution by strangulation to execution by stoning, conclude from it that stoning is more severe.

סְקִילָה חֲמוּרָה מִסַּיִיף, שֶׁכֵּן נִיתְּנָה לַמְגַדֵּף כּוּ׳. אַדְּרַבָּה: סַיִיף חָמוּר שֶׁכֵּן נִיתַּן לְאַנְשֵׁי עִיר הַנִּדַּחַת. וּמַאי חוּמְרָא? שֶׁכֵּן מָמוֹנָם אָבֵד.

Stoning is considered more severe than decapitation by the sword, as it is meted out to one who blasphemes and to one who worships idols. The Gemara raises an objection: On the contrary; decapitation by the sword is more severe, as it is meted out to the people of an idolatrous city. And for what reason is the severity of this case considered greater? Because their property is destroyed as well.

אָמַרְתָּ: וְכִי אֵיזֶה כֹּחַ מְרוּבֶּה, כֹּחַ הַמַּדִּיחַ אוֹ כֹּחַ הַנִּידָּח? הֱוֵי אוֹמֵר כֹּחַ הַמַּדִּיחַ. וְקַל וָחוֹמֶר: וּמָה חֶנֶק שֶׁחָמוּר מִסַּיִיף, סְקִילָה חֲמוּרָה מִמֶּנּוּ; סַיִיף הַקַּל – לֹא כׇּל שֶׁכֵּן?

The Gemara answers that in response to this objection you should say: But the severity of which transgression is greater: The severity of the transgression of the subverter, or the severity of the transgression of the subverted? You must say that the severity of the transgression of the subverter is greater. Since those who subverted the people of an idolatrous city are executed by stoning, this punishment is evidently more severe than decapitation. And it is inferred a fortiori that if it is so that concerning strangulation, which is more severe than decapitation by the sword, nevertheless stoning is more severe than it, is it not all the more so obvious that stoning is more severe than decapitation by the sword, which is a more lenient type of execution compared to strangulation?

חֶנֶק חָמוּר מִסַּיִיף, שֶׁכֵּן נִיתַּן לְמַכֵּה אָבִיו וְאִמּוֹ. וּמַאי חוּמְרָא? כְּדַאֲמַרַן.

Strangulation is more severe than decapitation by the sword, as it is meted out to one who wounds his father or his mother. And for what reason is the severity of this transgression considered greater? As we said, because the honor of one’s parents is compared to the honor of the Omnipresent.

אַדְּרַבָּה: סַיִיף חָמוּר שֶׁכֵּן נִיתַּן לְאַנְשֵׁי עִיר הַנִּדַּחַת. וּמַאי חוּמְרָא? שֶׁכֵּן מָמוֹנָם אָבֵד.

The Gemara raises an objection: On the contrary; decapitation by the sword is more severe, as it is meted out to the people of an idolatrous city. And for what reason is the severity of this transgression considered greater? Because their property is destroyed as well.

אָמַרְתָּ: וְכִי אֵיזֶה כֹּחַ מְרוּבֶּה, כֹּחַ הַמַּדִּיחַ אוֹ כֹּחַ הַנִּידָּח? הֱוֵי אוֹמֵר: כֹּחַ הַמַּדִּיחַ. וְתַנְיָא: מַדִּיחֵי עִיר הַנִּדַּחַת בִּסְקִילָה. רַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן אוֹמֵר: בְּחֶנֶק.

The Gemara answers that you should say in response to this objection: But the severity of which transgression is greater: The severity of the transgression of the subverter, or the severity of the transgression of the subverted? You must say that the severity of the transgression of the subverter is greater, and it is taught in a baraita: The subverters of an idolatrous city are executed by stoning. Rabbi Shimon says: By strangulation. Therefore, according to the opinion of Rabbi Shimon, it is clear that strangulation is a more severe type of capital punishment than decapitation.

מַרְגְּלָא בְּפוּמֵּיהּ דְּרַבִּי יוֹחָנָן: נַעֲרָה הַמְאוֹרָסָה בַּת כֹּהֵן שֶׁזִּינְּתָה – בִּסְקִילָה. רַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן אוֹמֵר: בִּשְׂרֵיפָה. זִינְּתָה מֵאָבִיהָ – בִּסְקִילָה. רַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן אוֹמֵר: בִּשְׂרֵיפָה.

§ Rabbi Yoḥanan was wont to say the following baraita: A betrothed young woman who is the daughter of a priest and who committed adultery is executed by stoning. Rabbi Shimon says: She is executed by burning. A betrothed young woman who is the daughter of a non-priest and who engaged in intercourse with her father is executed by stoning. Rabbi Shimon says: By burning.

מַאי קָא מַשְׁמַע לַן? לְרַבָּנַן – נְשׂוּאָה יָצְאָה לִשְׂרֵיפָה, וְלֹא אֲרוּסָה. לְרַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן – אַחַת אֲרוּסָה וְאַחַת נְשׂוּאָה יָצְאָה לִשְׂרֵיפָה. וְטַעְמָא מַאי? מִשּׁוּם דִּלְרַבָּנַן סְקִילָה חֲמוּרָה, לְרַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן שְׂרֵיפָה חֲמוּרָה.

The Gemara asks: What does this baraita teach us? The Gemara answers: It teaches us that according to the opinion of the Rabbis, the married daughter of a priest is singled out for burning, and not a betrothed one, who is executed by stoning. According to the opinion of Rabbi Shimon, the daughter of a priest, whether she is betrothed or married, is singled out for burning. And what is the reason for their respective opinions with regard to the punishment of the daughter of a priest? It is because according to the Rabbis stoning is more severe than burning, whereas according to Rabbi Shimon burning is more severe.

נָפְקָא מִינַּהּ לְמִי שֶׁנִּתְחַיֵּיב שְׁתֵּי מִיתוֹת בֵּית דִּין, נִידּוֹן בַּחֲמוּרָה.

In addition to the case of the priest’s daughter who committed adultery, there is a practical difference between these two opinions, which is that one who was sentenced to two different court-imposed death penalties for two sins he committed is punished with the more severe of the two, and these tanna’im disagree as to which type of death penalty is more severe.

מַאי רַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן? דְּתַנְיָא: רַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן אוֹמֵר, שְׁנֵי כְּלָלוֹת נֶאֶמְרוּ בְּבַת כֹּהֵן.

What is the source of the opinion of Rabbi Shimon that a priest’s betrothed daughter who committed adultery is executed by stoning? As it is taught in a baraita: Rabbi Shimon says: Two general halakhot are stated in the Torah with regard to the daughter of a priest, one rendering the betrothed daughter of a priest who committed adultery liable to be executed by stoning, and the other rendering the married daughter of a priest who committed adultery liable to be executed by strangulation.

בְּבַת כֹּהֵן, וְלֹא בְּבַת יִשְׂרָאֵל?! אֵימָא: אַף בְּבַת כֹּהֵן.

The Gemara interrupts the baraita and asks: Are they stated only with regard to the daughter of a priest, and not with regard to the daughter of a non-priest? Aren’t these halakhot stated with regard to the daughter of a non-priest as well? Rather, emend the text and say: These two halakhot are stated with regard to the daughter of a priest as well.

וְהוֹצִיא הַכָּתוּב נְשׂוּאָה מִכְּלַל נְשׂוּאָה, וַאֲרוּסָה מִכְּלַל אֲרוּסָה.

The baraita continues: The verse: “And the daughter of a priest, when she profanes herself by playing the harlot, she profanes her father; she shall be burned with fire” (Leviticus 21:9), is stated with regard to both a betrothed woman and a married woman. And the verse thereby singles out the married daughter of a priest from the category of an ordinary married woman, whose punishment is execution by strangulation, and it singles out the betrothed daughter of a priest from the category of an ordinary betrothed woman, who is executed by stoning.

מָה כְּשֶׁהוֹצִיא הַכָּתוּב נְשׂוּאָה מִכְּלַל נְשׂוּאָה לְהַחְמִיר, אַף כְּשֶׁהוֹצִיא הַכָּתוּב אֲרוּסָה מִכְּלַל אֲרוּסָה לְהַחֲמִיר.

Therefore, just as when the verse singles out the married daughter of a priest from the category of a married woman it is to render her punishment more severe, so too, when the verse singles out the betrothed daughter of a priest from the category of a betrothed woman it is to render her punishment more severe. This indicates that burning is a more severe type of capital punishment than stoning.

זוֹמְמֵי נְשׂוּאָה בַּת כֹּהֵן, בִּכְלַל זוֹמְמֵי נְשׂוּאָה בַּת יִשְׂרָאֵל; וְזוֹמְמֵי אֲרוּסָה בַּת כֹּהֵן, בִּכְלַל זוֹמְמֵי אֲרוּסָה בַּת יִשְׂרָאֵל.

The punishment for the conspiring witnesses concerning the married daughter of a priest, who testified falsely that she committed adultery, is included in the punishment for the conspiring witnesses concerning the married daughter of a non-priest, and the punishment for the conspiring witnesses concerning the betrothed daughter of a priest is included in the punishment for the conspiring witnesses concerning the betrothed daughter of a non-priest. The Torah is not more severe with them; the conspiring witnesses in the case of any married woman accused of committing adultery are strangled, and the conspiring witnesses in the case of any betrothed woman accused of committing adultery are stoned.

תָּנוּ רַבָּנַן: ״וּבַת אִישׁ כֹּהֵן כִּי תֵחֵל״ – יָכוֹל אֲפִילּוּ חִלְּלָה אֶת הַשַּׁבָּת? תַּלְמוּד לוֹמַר ״לִזְנוֹת״ – בְּחִילּוּלִין שֶׁבִּזְנוּת הַכָּתוּב מְדַבֵּר.

The Sages taught: The verse states: “And the daughter of a priest [ish kohen], when she profanes herself by playing the harlot, she profanes her father; she shall be burned with fire” (Leviticus 21:9). One might have thought that the expression “when she profanes [ki teḥel]” is referring even to one who desecrated [ḥillela] Shabbat; she too should be executed by burning. To counter this, the verse states: “By playing the harlot”; the verse is speaking of profanation through promiscuity.

יָכוֹל אֲפִילּוּ פְּנוּיָה? נֶאֱמַר כָּאן ״אָבִיהָ״, וְנֶאֱמַר לְהַלָּן ״אָבִיהָ״. מָה לְהַלָּן זְנוּת עִם זִיקַת הַבַּעַל, אַף כָּאן זְנוּת עִם זִיקַת הַבַּעַל.

One might have thought even if she is unmarried and she engaged in promiscuous intercourse she should be executed by burning. This is incorrect, as here it is stated: “Her father,” and there it is stated with regard to a betrothed woman who committed adultery: “Because she has done a depraved thing in Israel, to play the harlot in the house of her father” (Deuteronomy 22:21). Just as there, the reference is to the promiscuous intercourse of one who has a bond to a husband, so too here, the reference is to the promiscuous intercourse of one who has a bond to a husband.

אוֹ אֵינוֹ אוֹמֵר ״אָבִיהָ״ אֶלָּא לְהוֹצִיא אֶת כׇּל הָאָדָם? כְּשֶׁהוּא אוֹמֵר ״הִיא מְחַלֶּלֶת״, הֱוֵי כָּל אָדָם אָמוּר.

Or perhaps one might have thought that the verse states “her father” only in order to exclude all men except her father, i.e., she is liable to be executed by burning only if she engaged in intercourse with her father. To counter this, when it states “she profanes,” indicating that it is she who profanes her father and not her father who profanes himself and her, all men are stated, i.e., included.

הָא מָה אֲנִי מְקַיֵּים ״אָבִיהָ״? נֶאֱמַר כָּאן ״אָבִיהָ״, וְנֶאֱמַר לְהַלָּן ״אָבִיהָ״. מָה לְהַלָּן זְנוּת עִם זִיקַת הַבַּעַל, אַף כָּאן זְנוּת עִם זִיקַת הַבַּעַל.

Therefore, how do I realize the meaning of the expression “she profanes her father”? What halakha does it teach? The baraita answers: Here it is stated: “Her father,” and there it is stated: “Her father.” Just as there, the reference is to the promiscuous intercourse of one who has a bond to a husband, so too here, the reference is to the promiscuous intercourse of one who has a bond to a husband.

אִי מָה לְהַלָּן נַעֲרָה וְהִיא אֲרוּסָה, אַף כָּאן נַעֲרָה וְהִיא אֲרוּסָה? נַעֲרָה וְהִיא נְשׂוּאָה, בּוֹגֶרֶת וְהִיא אֲרוּסָה, בּוֹגֶרֶת וְהִיא נְשׂוּאָה, וַאֲפִילּוּ הִזְקִינָה – מִנַּיִן?

The baraita asks: If the halakha of the priest’s daughter who committed adultery is compared, by means of a verbal analogy, to the halakha of a betrothed woman who committed adultery, then perhaps one should say that just as there the reference is specifically to a young woman, i.e., to one whose first signs of maturity appeared within the past half year, who is betrothed, so too here, in the case of the daughter of a priest, the reference is to a young woman who is betrothed. But if she is a young woman who is married, or a grown woman who is betrothed, or a grown woman who is married, or even if she grew old, and is not normally referred to as a daughter, from where is it derived that her punishment is execution by burning?

תַּלְמוּד לוֹמַר ״וּבַת כֹּהֵן״ – מִכׇּל מָקוֹם.

The verse states: “And the daughter of a priest,” in any case. It is derived from the conjunction “and,” represented by the letter vav, that this punishment applies to any woman who is the daughter of a priest.

״בַּת כֹּהֵן״,

The verse states: “The daughter of a priest.”

Want to follow content and continue where you left off?

Create an account today to track your progress, mark what you’ve learned, and follow the shiurim that speak to you.

Clear all items from this list?

This will remove ALL the items in this section. You will lose any progress or history connected to them. This is irreversible.

Cancel
Yes, clear all

Are you sure you want to delete this item?

You will lose any progress or history connected to this item.

Cancel
Yes, delete