Sanhedrin 49b (מט:) — the Talmud in English

Mishna:

Four

types of capital punishment

were entrusted to the court,

to judge those liable to them.

The first tanna holds that the most severe of these executions is

stoning,

followed by

burning,

followed by

execution by the sword and strangulation.

The latter is the least severe of them.

For in his view, stoning is more severe than burning, both are more severe than execution by the sword, and all three are more severe than strangulation. If a person became liable for two forms of execution, he is judged by the more severe one .

Rabbi Shimon says:

The order of their severity is not as the first tanna stated; rather, the most severe of them is

burning,

followed by

stoning,

followed by

strangulation and execution by the sword.

The latter is the least severe of them.

For in his view, burning is more severe than stoning, and strangulation is more severe than execution by the sword.

This

is the procedure for performing the

mitzva of stoning

as it was taught in the preceding chapter. In the following mishnayot, the procedures for performing the other executions will be explained.

Gemara:

Rava said in the name of Rav Seḥora, who said in the name of Rav Huna: Wherever

we find in the mishnayot

that the Sages taught

an order of matters

by enumeration,

meaning that they arranged the matters and presented one after another,

there is no inherent precedence or following.

The order of the matters is not significant, since the Sages were not precise about presenting the earlier matter first and the later matter afterward. For we find cases in which a matter was taught at the end of the Mishna even though it must be performed first, such as the order of the eight garments of the High Koen, in which the trousers are put on first, while the Mishna did not list them first in accordance with the order in which they are worn .

There are particular cases in which the Mishna arranged the matters in their proper ideal order, but if one changed the order, the act is valid after the fact, such as the actions listed in the order of ḥalitza.

Except for the seven cleansing agents,

which concern a bloodstain, where the Mishna was precise about the order of the actions.

As we learned: The seven cleansing agents

are passed over the stain

to examine whether it is menstrual blood, which renders impure the ritually pure objects that it touched, or whether it is merely pigment, in which case the ritually pure objects remain pure:

insipid saliva—

saliva that is empty, dried, and lacking any taste of food, namely, the saliva of a person who has tasted nothing all day ;

and the water

of kneaded

beans

—broad beans that are chewed, crushed, and rubbed against the garment;

and urine

that has fermented and become foul-smelling ;

and natron—

a type of soft earth called natron, with which the garment is rubbed for cleansing;

and borit—

a type of cleansing herb ;

kamolya—

a type of lime;

and ashleg—

a type of cleansing substance found in the cavities of pearls that rise from the sea .

If one laundered the garment with all seven of these cleansing agents in the order listed in the Mishna—first insipid saliva, then bean water, then urine, and so on—and the stain disappeared, this is a sign that it was blood. If the stain did not disappear, this is a sign that it was pigment and not blood .

And the latter clause states

of the Mishna: If

he passed them

the cleansing agents over the garment

not in their order—

not in the order in which they were listed in the Mishna—

or if he passed all seven of them at once,

all seven cleansing agents simultaneously—

he has done nothing,

for if the stain did not disappear as a result, it remains uncertain whether it is blood. The reason it did not disappear in the cleansing is that the beans are effective only after the garment has first been washed with saliva, and likewise each of the other agents is effective only when used in the order listed in the Mishna.

Rav Pappa the Elder said in the name of Rav: The four executions as well

in our Mishna were arranged by the Mishna in a precise order

as is demonstrated by the fact that Rabbi Shimon differs

and presents those four executions in a different order—

infer from this

that the order in which they were written

was taught specifically,

according to their degree of severity: the more severe was listed first. If a person became liable for two executions, the execution listed earlier in the Mishna takes precedence over the other.

And the other one,

Rav Seḥora, also agrees that the Mishna was precise about arranging the executions according to their severity. However, Rav Seḥora

does not discuss a matter that is subject to dispute;

he did not wish to cite a law concerning which there is a dispute .

Rav Pappa said: The order of Yoma as well,

the order of the Yom Kippur service, which is arranged in the mishnayot of tractate Yoma one after another, must be performed specifically in the order in which it was written.

As we learned

in tractate Yoma [6a]:

All the procedures of Yom Kippur

all the services that the High Koen performs on Yom Kippur in white garments,

which are stated in order,

having been presented in the mishnayot according to a particular order,

if

he did not perform them according to their order, but

performed one procedure before another—

he has done nothing,

and must perform them again according to the order.

And the other one,

the other amora, who did not cite this Mishna as teaching that the services must specifically be performed in order, holds:

That is merely a stringency,

the requirement to perform those services according to the order in which they were taught is merely a stringency imposed by the Torah concerning the service of that day. If one changed the order, the service is invalid—not because one service is more important than another, but because the day itself has a special stringency. The Torah used the term “statute” in describing the order of the Yom Kippur services, meaning that they must specifically be performed in this order. Therefore, he did not cite this Mishna together with the other mishnayot whose orders are precise because of the relative importance of the matters—for example, the four executions, which are listed according to their severity, and the seven cleansing agents, which are listed according to the particular nature and strength of each agent, which causes it to precede the next. In the case of Yom Kippur, by contrast, the importance of the order does not result from the relative severity of the services, but only from the special sanctity of the day, which requires that its order not be changed.

Rav Huna, son of Rav Yehoshua, said: The order of the daily offering as well

must be performed specifically according to the order in which it was taught.

For it states concerning it: This is the order of the daily offering,

which implies that care must be taken to perform it precisely according to the order taught.

And the other one,

Rav Pappa did not cite this Mishna because he holds that

that

Mishna, which states “this is the order of the daily offering,” does not mean that if one does not perform it according to the order taught the service is invalid. Rather, the order is only

for the mitzva ideally,

and if one changed and reversed the order, it is valid.

And

what Rav Seḥora said—that in all mishnayot in which matters are taught in an order the order is not necessarily precise, except for the cases cited above, where it is precise—he stated this principle in order

to exclude [

to exclude ]

the mitzva of ḥalitza,

so that one should not say that the order stated there is precise.

As we learned

in Yevamot [106b]: The order of

the mitzva of ḥalitza

what is it?

He comes

the yavam

and his yevama before the court,

and the court

would give him advice

sound

and appropriate for him,

for example, if he is young and she is old, or if he is old and she is young, they advise him to perform ḥalitza and not to perform yibbum,

as it is stated [

Deuteronomy 25:8 ]:

“And the elders of his city shall call him and speak to him,”

meaning words appropriate for him.

And she says

first:

“My yavam refuses

to establish a name for his brother in Israel; he does not wish to perform yibbum with me” [Deuteronomy 25:7].

And he says

to her:

“I do not wish to take her” [

Deuteronomy 25:8 ].

And they would recite in the sacred tongue,

both the yavam and the yevama must recite these verses in the sacred tongue.

And afterward:

“And his yevama shall approach him before the eyes of the elders, remove his shoe from his foot, and spit before him” [

Deuteronomy 25:9 ], and the saliva must be

visible to the judges,

for the judges must see the saliva as the yevama expels it from her mouth, since the words “before the eyes of the elders” in the verse refer also to “and spit before him.”

And afterward:

“And she shall respond and say, So shall be done to the man

who will not build his brother’s house,

and his name shall be proclaimed in Israel

the house of the one whose shoe was removed” [ibid., verses 9–10].

Thus far are the words of the Mishna there.

And Rav Yehuda said

in the Gemara there: The order of

the mitzva of ḥalitza

is as follows:

She reads

the yevama the verse “My yavam refuses,”

and he reads

the yavam the verse “I do not wish to take her”;

she removes

the yevama

and spits, and she reads

the verse “So shall be done to the man.”

And we inquire concerning this: What is he teaching us?

What innovation did Rabbi Yehuda teach us by this statement? After all,

it is stated in the Mishna!

The Gemara there answered:

This teaches us

that

the mitzva is performed in this manner;

there is a mitzva to perform it in this order, but

if he reversed

the order,

we have no concern,

there is no invalidation as a result.

It is clarified from Rabbi Yehuda’s words there that the order presented in the Mishna concerning ḥalitza is not essential.

It was taught likewise,

that the order in ḥalitza is not essential, as we learned:

Whether he performed the ḥalitza before the spitting or the spitting before the ḥalitza—

what he did is valid.

And

this same principle stated by Rav Seḥora—that in all mishnayot in which matters are taught in an order, the order is not necessarily precise, except for the cases cited above, where it is precise—also came

to exclude

to exclude

this, as we learned [

Yoma 71b ]:

The High Koen serves

throughout the entire year

with eight garments—

garments, while

an ordinary koen

serves

with four

garments: a.

with a tunic,

b.

with trousers,

c.

with a turban,

d.

and a sash.

All of them were made of white linen.

The High Koen adds to them

four additional garments called the golden garments, and they are:

a.

the breastplate,

woven from five kinds of thread: gold, sky-blue wool, purple wool, crimson wool, and linen.

b.

and the ephod,

also woven from five kinds of thread like the breastplate. It resembles an apron worn over his garments at the back and fastened in front opposite his heart.

c.

and the robe,

made solely of sky-blue wool, with golden bells on its lower hem, so that its sound would be heard when he entered the Sanctuary.

d.

and the diadem,

a type of gold plate, on which was written “Holy to the Lord,” worn upon his forehead.

And it was taught

in a beraita:

From where is it derived that nothing may precede the trousers?

That he may not put on another garment before the trousers, but must put on the trousers first .

As it is stated [

Leviticus 16:4 ]:

“And the linen trousers shall be upon

his flesh”

This indicates that he puts them on while still unclothed, for they are worn only directly upon his flesh; otherwise, why would the verse mention “upon his flesh” at all?

We see, then, that although the Mishna listed the tunic before the trousers, nevertheless, in the order of putting them on, the trousers must precede the tunic; and the Mishna did not list them according to the order in which they are worn.

And we raise an objection:

And for what reason did the tanna list the tunic first?

Why did the tanna list the tunic before the trousers, when the trousers precede it in the act of dressing?

And we answer:

Because the verse listed it first!

Because the verse listed it first, as it is written in the verse: “He shall wear the sacred linen tunic, and the linen trousers shall be upon his flesh” .

And we raise an objection:

And for what reason did the verse list it first?

Why did the verse list the tunic before the trousers?

And we answer:

Because it is preferable to Him to mention first the garment that covers his entire body,

the Torah prefers to mention first the garment with which the entire body is covered. The tunic covers the entire body, whereas the trousers cover only half the body.

We learned in the Mishna that, according to the first tanna, the order of the executions follows their severity: first

stoning

and afterward

burning, and so on.

And we explain:

Stoning

according to the first tanna

is more severe than burning—

as

the death penalty of stoning

was given to the blasphemer,

one who “blesses” the Name [as a euphemism], as it is stated [Leviticus 24:14]: “Bring the one who cursed outside the camp, and let all who heard him lay their hands upon his head, and let the entire assembly stone him,”

and to one who worships idolatry,

which are severe transgressions.

What is the basis for their severity?

And what is the severity of these transgressions, such that we say that the type of execution imposed for them is certainly more severe than the other types of execution?—

as

in these transgressions

one stretches out his hand against the fundamental principle,

for he sins against God, may He be blessed. Therefore, these transgressions are exceedingly severe; and if the Torah imposed stoning for such severe transgressions, this indicates that stoning is a severe form of execution.

And we raise an objection:

On the contrary, burning is more severe

than stoning,

as

burning

was given to the daughter of a priest who committed adultery—and what is the basis for her severity?

And what is the severity of a priest’s daughter who committed adultery?—

as she profanes her father! [

As will be explained below, 52a, ] if people had treated her father as sacred, from that point onward they treat him as ordinary, saying about him: “Cursed is the man who fathered this daughter; cursed is the man who raised this daughter” .

If so, the question remains: From where did the Sages derive that stoning is more severe than burning? They derived it from the fact that it was prescribed for a severe transgression such as blasphemy and idolatry. Perhaps burning is more severe than stoning, since we find that it was prescribed for a priest’s daughter who committed adultery, which is a severe transgression ?