Sanhedrin 52a (נב.) — the Talmud in English

This

is

“her father she profanes”; what does he expound from it?

And we answer: Rabbi Yishmael

needs it

to expound “her father”

as it was taught:

Rabbi Meir would say: What is the meaning of the verse “her father she profanes”—

to teach that through her licentiousness she profaned her father,

for if they had treated him

as a father

of sanctity

until that day—from then onward

they treat him as ordinary;

and if they had treated him with

honor—

from then onward

they treat him with disgrace.

They say

about the father:

Cursed is

the father

who fathered this one; cursed is

the father

who raised this one; cursed is

the father

from whose loins this one emerged.

Rav Ashi said: In accordance with whom do we call

a wicked person:

“a wicked person, son of a wicked person,” even a wicked person who is the son of a righteous person

and even if he is a wicked person who is the son of a righteous person—

in accordance with whom?

In accordance with this tanna,

who holds that when descendants become wicked, the father is profaned.

We learned in the Mishna:

This

is the procedure for performing the

mitzva of

those executed by stoning,

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

And we inquire:

What did he teach that he states

in the Mishna, because of which it was taught that

this

is the procedure for performing the

mitzva of those executed by stoning?

And we explain:

Because he taught

in the previous chapter:

Once the verdict has been concluded, they take him out to stone him; the place of stoning was twice the height of a person,

etc.

And since he wished to teach

the procedure for performing the

mitzva of those executed by burning

here afterward,

he also taught

here that

this

is the procedure for performing the

mitzva of those executed by stoning,

as was taught in the previous chapter. The procedure for performing the mitzva of those executed by burning will now be explained.

Mishna:

How did they perform the

mitzva of those executed by burning?

They would sink him

—the person sentenced to burning—

into

the

dung, until

the level of his

knees—

so that he could not move when the strip of metal was thrown into his mouth, and it would fall onto his flesh.

And they would place a scarf

made of

coarse

[woven thickly] fabric

inside

another scarf,

the

one made of

soft fabric, and they would wrap

the soft scarf

around his neck.

This one pulls toward himself and that one pulls toward himself, until he opens his mouth.

Therefore, the inner fabric was made of coarse material, so that he would be forced to open his mouth. On the outside, however, they placed soft fabric, so that it would not rub against his neck and injure him.

And

when they were opening his mouth ,

the court’s agent

would

ignite the strip of metal,

and throw it

into his mouth, and it would descend into his intestines and contract

—shrink—

his intestines.

Rabbi Yehuda says:

If they opened his mouth by means of a scarf,

he too

if he dies by their hands

by strangulation

, they would not fulfill in him the mitzva of burning,

because he had already died by strangulation; therefore, they would not open his mouth in this manner.

Rather, they open his mouth with tongs, against his will

—forcibly —

and ignite the strip of metal, throw it into his mouth, and it descends into his intestines and contracts his intestines.

Rabbi Elazar son of Rabbi Tzadok said: It happened that a certain kohen’s daughter committed adultery,

and the law of a kohen’s daughter is stated explicitly in the passage of Emor [Leviticus 21:9]: “And the daughter of a kohen, if she profanes herself through harlotry, she profanes her father; she shall be burned with fire.”

And they surrounded her with bundles of branches,

and they set fire to them,

and burned her,

which demonstrates that the mitzva of those executed by burning is performed through actual burning.

They said to him,

the Sages: The mitzva of burning is not fulfilled in this manner. That incident occurred only

because the court of that time was not expert

in how to perform the mitzva of those executed by burning, as they were Sadducees, who interpreted the verses according to their plain meaning and did not accept the Sages’ expositions. .

Gemara:

It was stated in the Mishna: And he ignites the strip of metal and throws it into his mouth.

The Gemara discusses this:

What is “a strip,”

of what was it made?

Rav Mattana said: A strip of metal,

—tin that was melted in fire.

The Gemara brings a source that the mitzva of burning is fulfilled by throwing a strip into his mouth, rather than by burning the body.

From where do we derive

that the form of burning is as mentioned in the Mishna?

It is derived

through a gzera shava,

“burning” from the assembly of Korah.

For concerning the assembly of Korah it is stated [Numbers 16:35]: “And a fire went forth from before the Lord and consumed the two hundred and fifty men who offered the incense.” And afterward [ibid. 17:4]: “And Elazar the kohen took the copper fire-pans that the burned men had offered.” It is clear that they were sentenced to burning.

And concerning execution by burning it is stated [Leviticus 21:9]: “She shall be burned with fire.”

Those liable to execution by burning were juxtaposed to those burned in the assembly of Korah:

Just as there,

the burning of the assembly of Korah was

the burning of the soul, with

the

body

remaining

intact, so here

those liable to execution by burning: Their mitzva is fulfilled through

the burning of the soul, with the body remaining intact,

and not by burning the entire body.

Rabbi Elazar said: It is derived

through a gzera shava,

“burning” from the sons of Aaron.

For concerning the sons of Aaron it is stated [Leviticus 10:2]: “And a fire went forth from before the Lord and consumed them, and they died before the Lord.” And afterward [ibid. 10:6]: “And your brothers, the entire house of Israel, shall bewail the burning that the Lord has burned.” It is thus clear that they were sentenced to burning.

And concerning those liable to execution by burning it is stated [Leviticus 21:9]: “She shall be burned with fire.”

Those liable to execution by burning were juxtaposed to the sons of Aaron:

Just as there,

the burning of the sons of Aaron was

the burning of the soul, with

the

body

remaining

intact, so here

those liable to execution by burning: Their mitzva is fulfilled through

the burning of the soul, with the body remaining intact,

and not by burning the entire body.

The Gemara raises a difficulty:

The one who derives it from the assembly of Korah—from where does he derive

that they died through the burning of the soul and that their bodies were not burned?

The Gemara answers:

As it is written: “And the fire-pans of these sinners, with their souls,”

the expression “with their souls” indicates that they were punished in their souls and not in their bodies; that is,

their souls were burned, with

the

body

remaining

intact.

But the other one,

Rabbi Elazar, held that the mitzva of burning cannot be derived from the burning of the assembly of Korah, since

that—

the death of the sons of Korah—

was actual burning,

and therefore Rabbi Elazar derived it through a gzera shava from the burning of the sons of Aaron. .

And what

does Rabbi Elazar understand by what is stated concerning the burning of the sons of Korah,

“with their souls,”

which implies that only their souls were burned and not their bodies?

They were liable

—the assembly of Korah—

to burning on account of matters involving their souls

—on account of the indulgence in eating and drinking that enters the soul. .

The Gemara brings support for Rabbi Elazar’s exposition of the word “with their souls”:

As Reish Lakish expounded, for Reish Lakish said: What is the meaning of that which is written

[Psalms 35:16]

“With flatterers mocking for a cake, they gnashed their teeth at me”?

Because of the flattery with which they flattered Korah over matters of food,

for Korah fed and gave drink to his group, and they joined him,

the minister of Gehinnom gnashed his teeth at them.

Thus, they became liable for death on account of the food and drink that Korah gave them. Accordingly, “the sinners with their souls” should be interpreted in accordance with Rabbi Elazar: They became liable to burning on account of matters involving their souls.

And

the Gemara returns and challenges

the one who derives

the mitzva of those executed by burning

from the sons of Aaron: From where does he derive

that the death of the sons of Aaron was through the burning of the soul without the burning of the body? Perhaps their entire bodies were burned?

The Gemara answers:

As it is written: “And they died before the Lord,”

which implies that they did not die through the destruction of their bodies by fire. Rather, they died

a death

—that is, their souls departed. .

But the other one,

the one who derives it through a gzera shava from the burning of the sons of Korah, held that the mitzva of burning cannot be derived from the death of the sons of Aaron, since

that one,

their death, was

actual burning,

for their entire bodies were burned.

And what does it mean by “and they died,”

which implies that they did not die in a manner resembling burning, but in a manner resembling death?

The meaning is that

it began in them

—the fire—

from within,

inside their bodies, and they died immediately

a death,

and afterward their entire bodies were burned. Therefore, the death of the sons of Aaron cannot serve as a source for the mitzva of burning, since there their entire bodies were ultimately burned.

The Gemara brings proof that their death was caused by burning within their bodies, after which their entire bodies were burned:

As it was taught: Abba Yosei ben Dostai says: Two threads of fire emerged from the Holy of Holies, divided into four, and two entered the nostrils of this one and two entered the nostrils of that one, and burned them.

This implies that after the fire entered their nostrils, they were completely burned.

The Gemara raises an objection:

But it is written, “and it consumed them,”

and from the fact that it says “and it consumed them” rather than “and it consumed them” with the shortened form, it is inferred that there is a limitation here: it consumed them, but not something else.

And this is understandable if we interpret the verse in accordance with Rabbi Elazar, who maintains that their souls were burned while their bodies remained; in that case, the verse “and it consumed them” can be interpreted as meaning that it consumed their souls but not their bodies. But according to the one who interprets the verse as meaning that the sons of Aaron were burned also in their bodies, what is excluded by the phrase “it consumed them”?

The Gemara answers: Even according to the one who says that the sons of Aaron were actually burned, one can expound the phrase “them” as follows:

them

the fire burned,

but not

their

garments,

for we find that their garments were not burned, as it is stated: “and they carried them in their tunics.”

The Gemara raises another objection: From where is it obvious to the Gemara that the mitzva of those liable for burning should be derived by means of a gzera shava, “burning” from “burning,” from the sons of Aaron or from Korah’s assembly?

And

not

derive

the mitzva of those liable for burning

from

what we find concerning the mitzva of burning

the bulls that are burned?

The comparison would be as follows:

Just as there

with regard to the bulls that are burned, their mitzva is fulfilled through

actual burning, so here

with regard to those liable for burning, their mitzva should be fulfilled through

actual burning?

The Gemara answers:

It is logical

that a human being

should be derived from another human being

—it is preferable to derive the mitzva of burning human beings from the burning of other human beings—namely, the sons of Aaron and Korah’s assembly. For there are four aspects in which the source and the subject being derived resemble one another.

The Gemara explains in which respects the burning of the sons of Aaron and Korah’s assembly resembles the mitzva of burning:

1.

For

both the sons of Aaron and Korah’s assembly, as well as the person sentenced to be burned, are

human beings,

who are punished by burning.

2. In both cases, the person burned is one who is burned because he is

a sinner.

3. In both cases, the burning is only the burning of the

soul

and not the burning of the body.

4. In neither case can there be the disqualification of the thought of

piggul.

This is not so with regard to the bulls that are burned: They are not human beings, they are not sinners, they are burned in their bodies, and the thought of piggul is relevant to them. Therefore, the mitzva of burning a human being cannot be derived from the bulls that are burned.

The Gemara challenges this:

On the contrary, it should have been derived from the bulls that are burned,

with regard to the mitzva of burning a human being.

For

with regard to the bulls that are burned, we find two aspects that resemble the mitzva of burning a human being.

1. The burning of the bulls is

a ritual instrument

—it constitutes the fulfillment of a mitzva, and likewise the burning of those liable for burning is the fulfillment of a mitzva.

2. The burning of the bulls is a mitzva

for all generations,

and likewise the mitzva of burning is a mitzva for all generations.

This is not so with regard to the burning of the sons of Aaron and Korah’s assembly, who were punished by Heaven: Their burning involved no fulfillment of a mitzva, since they were burned by Heaven, and their burning was not established as a halakhic procedure for all generations.

If so, it would be preferable to derive the mitzva of burning human beings from the mitzva of burning the bulls that are burned, with regard to which an explicit instruction was given concerning how the burning is to be carried out.

The Gemara answers: Although there is a rationale for deriving the mitzva of burning from the bulls that are burned, nevertheless it is preferable to compare the mitzva of burning to the burning of the sons of Aaron and Korah’s assembly, because

those

contain more details that resemble one another in the source and in the subject being derived.

The Gemara raises another objection:

The one who derives

the mitzva of those liable for burning by means of the gzera shava, “burning” from “burning,”

from Korah’s assembly—what is the reason that he does not derive it from the sons of Aaron?

It must be because

that

burning of the sons of Aaron

was actual burning, [

as was explained earlier in the Gemara.]

If so, the opposite difficulty arises: From where does he derive the comparison of the mitzva of those liable for burning to Korah’s assembly, and learn that the burning affects the soul and not the body?

Let him derive it from there

—from the sons of Aaron—that the mitzva of those liable for burning is actual burning, including the body?!

For we find two deaths by burning in the Torah: one involving the burning of the entire body—the sons of Aaron—and one involving the burning of the soul—in the case of Korah’s assembly. If so, what compelled that tanna to compare the mitzva of those liable for burning to Korah’s assembly rather than to the sons of Aaron?

Rav Naḥman said that Rabba bar Avuha said:

Indeed, logically there would be room to say that the mitzva of burning involves the burning of the entire body, as in the burning of the sons of Aaron. However, there is a source from another verse for comparing those liable for burning to the sons of Korah, who died through the burning of the soul, rather than comparing them to the sons of Aaron, who were burned in their bodies.

For

the verse says, “And you shall love your fellow as yourself”;

the Sages expounded:

Choose for him a fitting death,

so that he should die with minimal suffering.

Therefore, that tanna preferred to compare the mitzva of those liable for burning to Korah’s assembly, whose souls were burned, rather than to the sons of Aaron, whose bodies were burned.

The Gemara is astonished:

But once there is

his exposition,

that of Rav Naḥman,

to give him a fitting death, then

why do I need a gzera shava?

For this exposition itself can resolve the uncertainty concerning how to fulfill the mitzva of burning—whether through the burning of the soul or through the burning of the entire body. Since the verse says, “and you shall love your fellow as yourself,” it is logical to burn him only through the burning of the soul, so that he will not be disgraced. Why, then, did that tanna need to compare the mitzva of burning to the burning of Korah’s assembly?

The Gemara answers:

Had there not been the gzera shava

“burning” from “burning,” from Korah’s assembly,

I would have said

that

burning of the soul while the body remains intact is not burning at all,

but only if they burn his body in actuality.

And if it is on account of “and you shall love your fellow as yourself”

—if we wish to fulfill the principle “choose for him a fitting death”— it is sufficient that at the time of the burning one

add

and increase

a bundle of branches for him, so that it will burn the calf,

so that he will burn quickly.

This teaches us

—for this reason, the Gemara needed to compare the mitzva of burning to the burning of Korah’s assembly, in order to teach that burning of the soul is also considered burning.

Likewise, had it not been for Rav Naḥman’s exposition—“choose for him a fitting death”—there would have been no necessity to compare the mitzva of those liable for burning to Korah’s assembly, since it could also have been compared to the sons of Aaron, who were burned in their bodies. It was only following Rav Naḥman’s exposition that the mitzva of those liable for burning was compared to Korah’s assembly.

In connection with the Gemara’s having cited a dispute concerning the manner of the death of Nadav and Avihu, the Gemara cites a statement related to the reason for their death.

In the section of Mishpatim [Exodus 24:1], it is stated: “And to Moses He said: Ascend to the Lord—you, Aaron, Nadav and Avihu, and seventy of the elders of Israel—and you shall prostrate yourselves from afar.”

And Moses and Aaron were already walking on the road, with Nadav and Avihu walking behind them, and all Israel behind them.

Nadav said to Avihu: When will these two elders die, so that you and I will lead the generation? The Holy One, blessed be He, said to them: Let us see who buries whom.

Rav Pappa said: This is what people say: There are many old camels,

many old camels,

laden with the hides of young camels,

laden with the hides of young camels.

That is, the elders carry the burden of the young.

Since it was explained in the Gemara that the punishment of Korah’s assembly came upon them because they flattered him, the Gemara brought a statement explaining how it happened that wise men followed Korah in disputing Moses our teacher.