Sanhedrin 50b

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.”