Sanhedrin 52a — the Talmud in English

This

“

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

And we answer: Rabbi Ishmael

needs it

to expound “her father

as it was taught:

Rabbi Meir would say: What does the verse come to teach by saying, “her father she profanes”—

to say that through her immorality she profaned her father,

for if they had treated him

as her father

with sanctity

until today—from now onward

they treat him as profane;

and if they had treated him

with honor—

from now 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

according to whose view do we now call a wicked person

“a wicked son of a wicked man,” and even a wicked son of a righteous man

even when he is a wicked son of a righteous man,

in accordance with whom—

in accordance with this tanna

who holds that through the descendants becoming wicked, the father is profaned.

We learned in the Mishna:

This

is the manner of performing

the mitzva of

those who are stoned,

as was taught in the preceding chapter. And in the following mishnayot, the manner of performing the other executions will be explained.

And we inquire concerning it:

What did it teach that it states

what did we learn in the Mishna, such that it was taught that

this

is the manner of performing

the mitzva of those who are stoned?

And we explain:

Because it taught

in the preceding chapter:

When the judgment has been concluded, they take him out to stone him; the place of stoning was two stories high

and so on;

and since it needed to teach

and since the Mishna wished to teach here afterward the manner of performing

the mitzva of those who are burned—

therefore

it also taught

that we learn here as well that

this

is the manner of performing

the mitzva of those who are stoned,

as was taught in the preceding chapter. And now the manner of performing the mitzva of those who are burned will be explained.

Mishna:

How did they perform

the mitzva of those who are burned?

They would sink him

the one sentenced to burning

into

the midst of

manure, until

the height of

his knees—

his knees, so that he would be unable to move at the time of throwing the wick into his mouth, and it would fall upon his flesh.

And they would place a cloth

made of fabric

that was coarse

[woven coarsely]

inside

another cloth

that was

made of a

soft weave, and they would wrap

the soft cloth

around his neck.

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

And therefore the inner weave was made of coarse fabric, so that through this he would be compelled to open his mouth. But on the outside they placed a soft weave, so that it would not rub against his neck and injure him.

And

when they were opening his mouth,

the court’s agent would light

the wick,

and throw it

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

his intestines.

—

it contracts his intestines.

Rabbi Judah says,

if they opened his mouth by means of a cloth,

he too

if he dies by their hand

choking him

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

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

Rather, he opens his mouth with tongs, against his will—

against his will,

and he lights the wick, throws it into his mouth, and it descends into his intestines and constricts his intestines.

Rabbi Eleazar son of Rabbi Zadok said: It happened with one daughter of a koen who committed adultery,

and the law of a koen’s daughter is explicit in the portion of Emor [Leviticus 21:9]: “And the daughter of a koen, when she profanes herself by committing harlotry, she profanes her father; she shall be burned with fire.”

And they surrounded her with bundles of branches,

and ignited fire in them,

and burned her,

so it is evident that the mitzva of those who are burned is actual burning.

They said to him,

the Sages: They do not perform the mitzva of burning in this manner. And that incident was performed only

because the court of that time was not expert,

in how to perform the mitzva of those who are burned, for they were Sadducees, and they interpreted the verses according to their plain meaning and did not accept the expositions of the Sages.

Gemara:

It was stated in the Mishna: “And he lights the wick and throws it into his mouth.”

And the Gemara asks:

What is a “wick,”

of what was it made?

Rav Mattana said: A wick of metal,—

tin that was melted in fire.

And the Gemara brings a source for the fact that the mitzva of burning is fulfilled by throwing a wick into his mouth and not by burning the body:

From where do we know

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

It is derived

by a gzera shava

“burning” from “burning,” from the congregation of Korah.

For concerning the congregation 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 [there 17:4]: “And Eleazar the koen took the copper fire-pans that those who had been burned had offered.” It is clear that they were sentenced to burning.

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

Those liable for burning were compared to those burned in the congregation of Korah:

Just as there

the burning in the congregation of Korah was

the burning of the soul, and

if the

body

remained

intact, so here

those liable for burning—their mitzva will be fulfilled through

the burning of the soul while the body remains intact,

and not through burning the entire body.

Rabbi Eleazar said: It is derived—

we learn by a gzera shava

“burning” from “burning,” from the sons of Aaron.

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

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

Those liable for burning were compared to the sons of Aaron:

Just as there

the burning among the sons of Aaron was

the burning of the soul, and

if the

body

remained

intact, so here

those liable for burning—their mitzva will be fulfilled through

the burning of the soul while the body remains intact,

and not through burning the entire body.

And the Gemara wonders:

The one who derives it from the congregation of Korah, from where does he know

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

And the Gemara answers:

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

from the fact that it says “with their souls,” it implies that they were punished in their souls and not in their bodies, that is,

their souls were burned and

if the

body

remained

intact.

But the other one,

[Rabbi Eleazar] held that it is impossible to derive the mitzva of burning from the burning of the congregation of Korah, since

that

the death of the sons of Korah

was actual burning,

and therefore Rabbi Eleazar derived it by a gzera shava from the burning of the sons of Aaron.

And what—

how does Rabbi Eleazar interpret 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 became liable

the congregation of Korah

for burning on account of matters of their souls—

on account of the flattery of eating and drinking that enters their souls.

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

As Resh Lakish expounded. For Resh Lakish said: What is written

[Psalms 35:16]

“With the flatterers of mockery at a feast, they gnashed their teeth at me”?

Because of the flattery with which they flattered Korah concerning drinking,

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

the minister of Gehenna gnashed his teeth at them.

Thus, they became liable for death on account of the eating and drinking that Korah gave them; accordingly, what is stated, “the sinners with their souls,” is to be interpreted like Rabbi Eleazar: They became liable for burning on account of matters of their souls.

And

the Gemara returns and challenges

the one who derives

the mitzva of those who are burned

from the sons of Aaron: From where does he know

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?

And the Gemara answers:

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

which implies that they did not die through the destruction of their bodies by burning; rather, they died

in the manner of death,

that is, their souls departed.

But the other one

[the one who derives the gzera shava from the burning of the sons of Korah] held that it is impossible to derive the mitzva of burning from the death of the sons of Aaron, since

that one,

their death was through

actual burning,

for their entire bodies were burned.

And what is written, “And they died,”

which implies that they did not die in the manner of burning, but in the manner of death?

The intention is

that it began in them

the burning

from within,

from inside their bodies, and they died immediately

in the manner of death,

and afterward their entire bodies were burned. Therefore it is impossible to derive from the death of the sons of Aaron the mitzva of burning, since there their entire bodies were ultimately burned.

And the Gemara brings proof that their death was through burning inside their bodies, and afterward their entire bodies were burned:

For it was taught: Abba Yose 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.

It 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, elders carry the burden of the young.

Since it was explained in the Gemara that the punishment of the assembly of Korach came upon them because they flattered him, the Gemara brought a statement in which it will be explained how it happened that wise men followed Korach to dispute with Moshe Rabbeinu.