Sanhedrin 49b — the Talmud in English

Mishna:

Four

types of death penalties

were delivered to the court,

to judge those liable to them.

And the first tanna holds that the most severe death among them is

stoning,

and after it

burning,

and after it

killing by the sword. And strangulation

is the lightest among them.

For in his view stoning is more severe than burning, and both are more severe than killing by the sword, and all three are more severe than strangulation. And if a person became liable for two deaths, 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 among them is

burning,

and after it

stoning,

and after it

strangulation. And killing by the sword

is the lightest among them.

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

This

is the manner of performing

the mitzva of those stoned,

as they were taught in the preceding chapter. And in the following mishnayot, the manner of performing the other deaths will be explained.

Gemara:

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

that we find in the mishnayot

that the Sages taught

an order of things

by way of enumeration,

that they arranged the things and brought one thing after another,

there is no earlier and later.

The order of the things has no significance, since the Sages were not precise about bringing the earlier thing first and the later thing afterward. For we find places where a thing was taught at the end of the Mishna although it must be preceded in practice. For example, the order of the eight garments of the High Priest: the trousers precede [the other garments] in putting them on, but the Mishna did not teach them first, according to the order in which they are put on.

There are certain places in which the Mishna arranged the matters in their proper initial order, and if one changed the order of the matters, it is valid after the fact, such as the matters brought in the order of ḥalitza.

Except for the seven substances,

which are stated concerning a blood stain, with regard to which the Mishna was precise about the order of the matters.

For we learned: Seven substances

are passed over the stain

to examine whether it is menstrual blood that renders impure the pure items that touched it, or whether it is merely color and the pure items remain pure:

bland saliva —

empty, dried-up saliva, lacking every taste of food, namely, the saliva of a person who has tasted nothing all day ;

and the water

of the chewing of

beans

—which are chewed and crushed, and the garment is rubbed with them;

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 cleaning;

and soapwort —

a type of grass that cleans ;

and kamulya —

a type of lime;

and ashleg —

a type of cleaning substance found in the holes of pearls that rise from the sea .

If one washed the garment with all seven of these substances according to the order enumerated in the Mishna—first bland saliva, afterward bean water, afterward urine, and so on—and the stain disappeared, this is a sign that it was blood. And if the stain did not disappear, this is a sign that it was color and not blood.

And it teaches in the latter clause

of the Mishna: If

he passed them

the substances over the garment

not according to their order —

not according to the order in which they were enumerated in the Mishna,

or if he passed all seven of them together

all seven substances at once—

he has done nothing,

for if the stain did not pass away through this, there remains uncertainty whether it is blood, and the fact that it did not disappear in the cleaning is because the beans are effective only after washing with saliva, and likewise all of them are effective only if one washes with them according to the order in which they were enumerated in the Mishna.

Rav Pappa the elder said in the name of Rav: Even the four deaths

in our Mishna—the Mishna was precise about their order,

as Rabbi Shimon differs

and brought those four deaths in a different order—

infer from it

that the order in which they were written

is specifically taught,

according to their order of severity: the more severe one first. And if a person became liable for two deaths, the death placed earlier in the Mishna precedes the other.

But the other one,

Rav Seḥora, also agrees that the Mishna was precise about the order of the deaths, to arrange them according to their severity; rather, Rav Seḥora

does not discuss a matter of dispute,

he did not wish to bring a law in which there is a dispute.

Rav Pappa said: Even the order of Yoma

—also the order of the service of Yom Kippur, arranged in the mishnayot of tractate Yoma one after another, must be performed specifically according to the order in which they were written.

For we learned

in tractate Yoma [6a]:

All the acts of Yom Kippur

all the services of Yom Kippur performed by the High Priest in white garments

that are stated according to the order

that were brought in the mishnayot according to a particular order,

if

he did not perform them according to their order, but

performed one act before another—

he has done nothing,

and he must return and perform them according to the order.

But the other one,

the other amora, who did not bring this Mishna, which requires that they be performed specifically according to the order, holds:

that is merely a stringency,

what is required there—to perform the services according to the order in which they were taught—is merely an additional stringency with which the Torah was stringent concerning the service of that day. If he changed the order, it is invalid, and the invalidity is not because one service is more important than another; rather, the invalidity is due to the special stringency of the day, since the order of the services of the day is written with the term “statute,” whose meaning is that it must specifically be performed according to this order. Therefore he did not bring this Mishna together with the other mishnayot whose order is specifically intended because of the importance of the matters, such as the four deaths, which were written according to their order of severity, and likewise the seven substances, which were written according to the need and power of each one, causing it to precede the other. This is not so concerning Yom Kippur: the importance of the order is not due to the severity of the services, but only due to the special character of the day, so as not to change the order on it.

Rav Huna son of Rav Yehoshua said: Even the order of Tamid,

it must be performed specifically according to the order taught.

For it teaches concerning it: “This is the order of Tamid,”

which implies that there is a requirement to perform it specifically according to the order taught.

But the other one,

Rav Pappa did not bring this Mishna, because he holds that

that

Mishna, which states “this is the order of Tamid,” does not mean that if one does not perform it according to the order taught it is invalid; rather, the order is only

for the mitzva alone,

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

And

what Rav Seḥora said, that in all the mishnayot in which matters were taught according to an order, it is not specifically intended, except for the places mentioned above, in which it is specifically intended, he stated this rule in order

to exclude [

to remove ]

the mitzva of ḥalitza,

so that it should not be said that the order written in it is specifically intended.

For we learned

in Yevamot [106b]: The order of

the mitzva of ḥalitza

is how?

He comes

the brother-in-law

and his sister-in-law before the court,

and the court

would give him advice

good

appropriate for him,

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

as it is stated [Deuteronomy 25:8]:

[Deuteronomy 25:8]:

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

that is, words appropriate for him.

And she says

first:

“My brother-in-law refuses

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

And he says

to her:

“I do not desire to take her” [

Deuteronomy 25:8 ].

And in the sacred language they would say,

both the brother-in-law and the sister-in-law must recite these verses in the sacred language.

And afterward:

“And his sister-in-law shall approach him before the eyes of the elders, and she shall remove his shoe and spit before him” [

Deuteronomy 25:9 ], and it is necessary that there be

spittle visible to the judges,

for the judges must see the spittle when the sister-in-law expels it from her mouth, since the words “before the eyes of the elders” in the verse apply also to “and she shall spit before him.”

And afterward:

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

who will not build his brother’s house,

and his name shall be called in Israel

the house of the one whose shoe was removed” [there, 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 sister-in-law the verse “My brother-in-law refuses,”

and he reads

the brother-in-law the verse “I do not desire to take her,”

she removes

the sister-in-law

and spits, and she reads

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

And we raised an objection concerning it: What does he teach us?

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

it is a Mishna!

And the Gemara there answered:

This teaches us

that

the mitzva is thus:

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

and if he reversed

the order—

we have no concern,

there is no invalidity in this.

It is explained in the words of Rabbi Yehuda there that the order brought in the Mishna concerning ḥalitza does not invalidate.

It was also taught so,

that the order in ḥalitza does not invalidate, for we learned:

Whether he performed the removal of the shoe before the spitting, or the spitting before the removal of the shoe—

what he did is done.

And

so too, the rule stated by Rav Seḥora—that in all the mishnayot in which matters were taught according to an order, the order is not specifically intended, except for the places mentioned above, in which it is specifically intended—also came

to exclude

to remove

this, for we learned [

Yoma 71b ]:

The High Priest serves

throughout the entire year

with eight garments

—clothing,

and the ordinary priest

serves

with four

garments: a.

with a tunic,

b.

with trousers,

c.

with a turban,

d.

and a belt.

And all of them were made of white linen.

The High Priest adds to them

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

a.

the breastplate,

woven from five types of thread: gold, blue wool, purple wool, crimson wool, and linen.

b.

and the ephod,

also woven from five types of thread like the breastplate. It is a kind of apron that he wore over his garments, behind him, and fastened before him opposite his heart.

c.

and the robe,

made only of blue wool, and on its hem were golden bells, so that its sound would be heard when he entered the Sanctuary.

d.

and the frontplate,

like a golden plate, with “Holy to the Lord” written upon it, and it was placed on his forehead.

And it was taught

in a beraita:

From where [do we know] 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 linen breeches shall be upon

his flesh”:

this implies that he should put them on while he is still naked, for he puts them on only upon his flesh; for if not, why was “upon his flesh” written at all.

It is seen that although the Mishna placed the tunic before the breeches, nevertheless, in the order of putting them on, the breeches must precede the tunic, and the Mishna did not place them in the order of putting them on.

And we raise a difficulty:

And for what reason did the tan nay place it before the tunic?

Why did the tan nay state the tunic before the breeches, since the breeches precede it in putting them on?

And we answer:

Because the verse placed it before it!

Because the verse placed it first, as it is written in the verse: “A sacred linen tunic he shall put on, and linen breeches shall be upon his flesh” . The Yad Ramah wrote that we learn that the breeches precede the tunic in putting them on from the fact that it is not written, “And linen breeches he shall put on,” which would mean that after putting on the tunic he puts on the breeches; rather, it is written, “They shall be upon his flesh,” meaning that when he puts on the tunic, the breeches will already be upon his flesh.

And we raise a difficulty:

And for what reason did the verse place it first?

Why did the verse place the tunic before the breeches?

And we answer:

Because that which covers his entire body is preferable to it,

the Torah prefers to bring first the garment with which the entire body is covered, and the tunic covers the entire body, whereas the breeches cover only half the body.

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

stoning

and afterward

burning, and so forth.

And we explain:

Stoning

according to the first tanna

is more severe than burning—

since

the death penalty of stoning

was given to a blasphemer,

one who blesses the Name [in euphemistic language], as it is stated [Leviticus 24:14]: “Take out the one who curses, to outside the camp, and let all who heard place 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 severity?

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

Since

in these transgressions

he stretches out his hand against the fundamental principle,

for he sins against God, may He be blessed, and for this reason these transgressions are very severe; and if for these severe transgressions the Torah made him liable for stoning, it is a sign that it is a severe death.

And we raise a difficulty:

On the contrary, burning is more severe

than stoning,

since

burning

was given to the daughter of a kohen who committed adultery, and what is the severity

and what is the severity of the daughter of a kohen who committed adultery?—

Since she profanes her father! [as will be explained below, 52a]

For if they had treated her father as holy, from now on 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, it is difficult: From where do the Sages know that stoning is more severe than burning, from the fact that we find that it was given for a severe transgression such as blasphemy and idolatry? Perhaps burning is more severe than stoning, for we find that it was given to the daughter of a kohen who committed adultery, which is a severe transgression