Sanhedrin 53a — the Talmud in English

And the Gemara objects:

Granted, according to

the opinion of

Rabbi Yonatan,

it is understandable why what is stated, “He shall surely be put to death,” means death by strangulation,

as Rabbi explains the reason,

for human-imposed death was juxtaposed to death at the hands of Heaven.

But according to

the opinion of

Rabbi Yoshiyah,

it is difficult, for according to his words the necessity of interpreting “He shall surely be put to death” as strangulation is because this is the lightest death.

From where is it known that strangulation exists in the world,

from where does he know that strangulation is one of the deaths imposed by the court? For it is possible that according to the Torah there are only three deaths imposed by the court—stoning, burning, and the sword—and if so,

say

that “He shall surely be put to death” means

the sword,

for it is the lightest death mentioned in the Torah?

And the Gemara answers:

Rava said: The four deaths [imposed by the court] are a received tradition.

A halakha was stated to Moses from Sinai that there are four deaths imposed by the court: stoning, burning, execution, and strangulation.

And since it was not explained who are those executed by strangulation, Rabbi Yoshiyah learned that this is the lightest death. On the contrary, for this reason it is stated everywhere, “He shall surely be put to death,” without explaining by which death, so that we will thereby know that the death is by strangulation, which is the lightest death.

And the Gemara explains the wording of Rabbi Yonatan, who said, “Not because it is light.”

What is meant by “not because it is light”?

And the Gemara explains that Rabbi Yoshiyah and Rabbi Yonatan

dispute the dispute between Rabbi Shimon and the Rabbis

that was brought in the Mishna at the beginning of the chapter.

The Rabbis held that the order of the deaths according to their severity is stoning, burning, the sword, and strangulation; and so Rabbi Yoshiyah held that strangulation is the lightest death.

And Rabbi Shimon held that the order of the deaths is burning, stoning, strangulation, and execution. And Rabbi Yonatan held like him in what he said: that strangulation is not a light death, which implies that the sword is lighter than it.

In the following Mishna, eighteen liable for stoning are listed. With regard to five of them, it is stated explicitly in the Torah that their law is stoning, whereas with regard to the others it is stated, “They shall surely be put to death; their blood is upon them.”

And in the Gemara below [54a] it was explained that all those liable for stoning with regard to whom it is stated, “They shall surely be put to death; their blood is upon them,” were juxtaposed to a necromancer and a sorcerer, with regard to whom it is stated, “They shall surely be put to death; they shall stone them with stones; their blood is upon them.”

Just as the law of a necromancer and a sorcerer is stoning, so too all those with regard to whom it is stated, “They shall surely be put to death; their blood is upon them,” their law is stoning.

Rabbi Zeira said to Abaye: The other ones who are stoned,

with regard to whom stoning is not written,

explicitly, but rather

who are learned from a necromancer and a sorcerer,

by juxtaposition.

By what do they learn,

from which words did the Gemara juxtapose those liable for stoning to a necromancer and a sorcerer? Is it

by

the words

“They shall surely be put to death” that they learn, or by “their blood is upon them” that they learn?

He said to him,

Abaye:

By “their blood is upon them,”

their blood is upon them

is what they learn.

Because

if they learn by “They shall surely be put to death,”

it would be difficult:

Why do I need “their blood, their blood,”

for what purpose is it stated in all of them, “their blood is upon them”?

And for this reason it must be said that the juxtaposition is from “their blood is upon them.” [Until here is Abaye’s answer.]

The Gemara is astonished at his words:

Rather, what

is the juxtaposition

by “their blood, their blood” that they learn?

If so, the opposite difficulty arises:

Why do I need “They shall surely be put to death,”

for what purpose is it stated with regard to all those liable for stoning, “They shall surely be put to death,” since the liability for stoning has already been learned from “their blood is upon them”?

And the Gemara explains: Actually, the learning is from the words “their blood is upon them,” and what is stated in all of them, “He shall surely be put to death,” is expounded for another matter.

As it was taught,

we learned in a beraita: It is stated concerning the law of a murderer, [Numbers 35:21]

“The murderer shall surely be put to death; he is a murderer.”

I have only

that they are obligated to put him to death

with the death written with regard to him,—

the sword, as we expounded above from what is stated, “Vengeance shall be taken.”

But

from where is it derived that if you cannot put him to death with the death written with regard to him, you put him to death with any death by which you can put him to death?

The verse states: “The murderer shall surely be put to death,” in any event.

Earlier in the Gemara it was explained that Rabbi Zeira asked Abaye from which words those liable for stoning are juxtaposed to a necromancer and a sorcerer, and Abaye answered him that the learning is from “their blood is upon them.” From Rabbi Zeira’s words it appears that if the juxtaposition were from the words “They shall surely be put to death,” this would be difficult for him. Now the Gemara attempts to explain what was difficult for him.

Rav Aḥa of Difti said to Ravina:

And if they learn by “They shall surely be put to death,” what difficulty does this present to him

to Rabbi Zeira?

If you say

that the death of

a married woman was difficult for him,

for it was explained earlier in the Gemara that the source for the fact that one who engages in intercourse with a married woman is put to death by strangulation is what is stated, “They shall surely be put to death,” without specifying by which death they are to be put to death.

And if it is said that the juxtaposition of those liable for stoning to a necromancer and a sorcerer is learned from the words “They shall surely be put to death,” it would be difficult: From where do we know that one who engages in intercourse with a married woman is put to death by strangulation? Should we not

come and learn “He shall surely be put to death” from a necromancer and a sorcerer: Just as there

“They shall surely be put to death” means

by stoning, so here

the one who engages in intercourse with a married woman is put to death

by stoning?

This is not a difficulty, since

since the Merciful One said

that one who engages in intercourse with

a betrothed woman is put to death by stoning,

it follows

by inference

from

this

that one who engages in intercourse with

a married woman,

his death is

not by stoning,

and therefore it is possible to interpret that his death is by strangulation, as we said above.

Rather,

it must be said that the difficulty for Rabbi Zeira concerned the liability for the death of

one who strikes his father or his mother.

For it is stated [Exodus 21:15], “And one who strikes his father or his mother shall surely be put to death.” And the Gemara expounded below that his death is by strangulation. But if it is said that all those liable for stoning were juxtaposed to a necromancer and a sorcerer by the words “They shall surely be put to death,” then also, with regard to one who strikes his father or his mother, should we not

come and learn from a necromancer and a sorcerer:

Just as with regard to a necromancer and a sorcerer it is stated, “They shall surely be put to death,” meaning stoning, so too one who strikes his father or his mother shall be put to death by stoning?

But even this is not a difficulty, because we have already found a place where “He shall surely be put to death” is stated and it means strangulation, namely, a married woman; and if so,

before they learn from a necromancer and a sorcerer, let them learn from a married woman, for you are not permitted to draw it toward stringency, but only to draw it toward leniency.

And since this is so, Rav Aḥa asked why it is not acceptable to Rabbi Zeira to juxtapose those liable for stoning to a necromancer and a sorcerer by the words “They shall surely be put to death.”

Ravina said

to Rav Aḥa: According to Rabbi Zeira,

the other ones who are stoned themselves are what was difficult for him:

From where do we know that all these whom the Mishna listed as among those who are stoned are liable for stoning?

For if

their juxtaposition to a necromancer and a sorcerer

is learned by “They shall surely be put to death,”

then, on the contrary,

before they learn

“They shall surely be put to death”

from a necromancer and a sorcerer

to make them liable for stoning,

let them learn

“They shall surely be put to death”

from a married woman

to make them liable for strangulation.

And Abaye answered him that the juxtaposition is from the words “their blood is upon them”; therefore all those with regard to whom “their blood is upon them” is stated were juxtaposed to a necromancer and a sorcerer, and their liability is stoning. But with regard to a married woman, “their blood is upon them” was not stated, but only “They shall surely be put to death”; and wherever an unspecified death is stated, we must put him to death by strangulation, either on the basis of Rabbi Yoshiyah’s reasoning or on the basis of Rabbi Natan’s law.

Mishna:

These are those who are stoned:

It is an established principle that punishments are not imposed unless there was a warning; therefore, a verse serving as a warning was stated before the punishment for all those liable for stoning. With regard to the prohibitions of forbidden sexual relations, the warnings were mentioned in the portion of Aharei Mot, and the punishments in the portion of Kedoshim.

a.

One who engages in intercourse with his mother.

The source of the prohibition is the warning [Leviticus 18:7]: “The nakedness of your father and the nakedness of your mother you shall not uncover; she is your mother; you shall not uncover her nakedness.” But a punishment was not stated with regard to her, and in the Gemara the Sages and Rabbi Yehuda disputed from where the liability for death for one who engages in intercourse with his mother is derived.

b.

And with his father’s wife,

who is not his mother. Her warning is [there 18:8]: “The nakedness of your father’s wife you shall not uncover; it is your father’s nakedness.” And the punishment is [there 20:11]: “A man who lies with his father’s wife has uncovered his father’s nakedness; both of them shall surely be put to death; their blood is upon them.”

And it was explained in the Gemara that wherever “their blood is upon them” is stated, the reference is to death by stoning.

c.

And with his daughter-in-law.

Her warning is [there 18:15]: “The nakedness of your daughter-in-law you shall not uncover; she is your son’s wife; you shall not uncover her nakedness.” And the punishment is [there 20:12]: “And a man who lies with his daughter-in-law, both of them shall surely be put to death; they have committed a perversion; their blood is upon them.”

d.

And with a male.

The warning is [there 18:22]: “And with a male you shall not lie as one lies with a woman.” The punishment is [there 20:13]: “And a man who lies with a male as one lies with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination; they shall surely be put to death; their blood is upon them.”

e.

And with an animal.

The warning is [there 18:23]: “And with any animal you shall not give your lying for seed.”

The punishment is [there 20:15]: “And a man who gives his lying to an animal shall surely be put to death.”

f.

And the woman who brings the animal

upon her. The warning is [there 18:23]: “And a woman shall not stand before an animal for mating.”

The punishment is [there 20:16]: “And a woman who approaches any animal to mate with it, you shall kill the woman and the animal; they shall surely be put to death; their blood is upon them.”

g.

And one who blasphemes.

The warning is [Exodus 22:27]: “You shall not curse God.”

The punishment is [Leviticus 24:16]: “And one who punctures the Name of the Lord shall surely be stoned; the entire assembly shall stone him with a stone.”

h.

And one who worships idolatry.

The warning is [Exodus 20:5]: “You shall not worship them.”

The punishment is [Deuteronomy 17:5]: “And you shall stone them with stones, and they shall die.”

i.

And one who gives some of his offspring to Molech.

The warning is [Leviticus 18:21]: “And from your offspring you shall not give to pass to Molech.”

The punishment is [there 20:2]: “One who gives some of his offspring to Molech shall surely be put to death; the people of the land shall stone him with a stone.”

j.

And one who has an ov.

The warning is [there 19:31]: “Do not turn to the ovot and to the yid’onim.”

The punishment is [there 20:27]: “And a man or a woman in whom there is an ov or a yidoni shall surely be put to death; they shall stone them with a stone; their blood is upon them.”

k.

And a yidoni.

[There.]

l.

And one who desecrates Shabbat.

The warning is [Exodus 20:10]: “You shall not perform any labor.”

The punishment is stated with regard to the one who gathered wood [Numbers 15:36]: “And they stoned him.”

m.

And one who curses his father and his mother.

The warning is [Leviticus 19:14]: “You shall not curse the deaf.”

The punishment is [Leviticus 20:9]: “For any man, any man, who curses his father and his mother shall surely be put to death; he has cursed his father and his mother; his blood is upon him.”

n.

And one who engages in intercourse with a betrothed maiden.

The warning is [Leviticus 18:20]: “You shall not approach the wife of your fellow.”

The punishment is [Deuteronomy 22:24]: “And you shall stone them with stones, and they shall die.”

o.

And one who incites

individuals.

The warning is [Deuteronomy 13:11]: “And they shall no longer continue to do this.”

The punishment is [Deuteronomy 13:11]: “And you shall stone him with stones, and he shall die.”

p.

And one who incites

the many, such as one who incites the inhabitants of an apostate city.

The warning is [Exodus 23:13]: “And the name of other gods you shall not mention; it shall not be heard upon your mouth.”

The punishment is learned from an inciter by gzera shava, “incitement”—“incitement,” since with regard to an inciter it is stated, “for he sought to incite you,” and with regard to one who incites the many it is stated [Deuteronomy 13:6], “to incite you from the way.”

q.

And a sorcerer.

The warning is [Deuteronomy 18:10]: “There shall not be found among you … a diviner and a sorcerer.”

The punishment is [Exodus 22:17]: “You shall not allow a sorceress to live.”

r.

And a stubborn and rebellious son.

The warning is [Leviticus 19:26]: “You shall not eat over the blood.”

The punishment is [Deuteronomy 21:21]: “And all the men of his city shall stone him with stones, and he shall die.”

And the Mishna brings several cases in which a person became liable through one act for several prohibitions punishable by stoning:

One who engages in intercourse with his mother

[when she is married to his father] unintentionally

, is liable on her account

for two sin-offerings, one

because of his mother, and

one

because of his father’s wife.

Rabbi Yehuda says: He is liable only

for one sin-offering

because of the mother alone.

But if his mother was divorced, according to everyone he is liable on her account only because of his mother.

One who engages in intercourse with his father’s wife

who is not his mother—for example, his father married another woman—if he engages in intercourse with her while she is married to his father,

is liable because of his father’s wife and because of a married woman.

And if his father died, he is not liable because of a married woman, but because of his father’s wife he is liable

both during his father’s lifetime and after his father’s death,

since the status of his father’s wife did not lapse from her.

And likewise the prohibition of a father’s wife is stated

both from betrothal and from marriage

of his father to his wife.

One who engages in intercourse with his daughter-in-law

unintentionally

, is liable on her account

for two sin-offerings,

because of his daughter-in-law and because of a married woman,

as long as she is married to his son.

And if his son died, he is not liable because of a married woman, but because of his daughter-in-law he is liable

both during his son’s lifetime

and

after his son’s death,

because she is called his daughter-in-law even after his son’s death.

And likewise he is forbidden with his daughter-in-law

both from betrothal and from marriage

of his son.

Gemara:

The Mishna brought a dispute concerning one who engages in intercourse with his mother unintentionally: according to the Sages, he is liable for two sin-offerings, because of his mother and because of his father’s wife; and according to Rabbi Yehuda, he is liable only because of his mother.

And the Gemara brings a beraita in which Rabbi Yehuda’s words are presented differently from our Mishna.

It was taught: Rabbi Yehuda says:

One who engages in intercourse with his mother is liable because of his mother and because of his father’s wife, but

if his mother was not fit for his father,

as will be explained further in the Gemara,

he is liable only

for one sin-offering

because of the mother alone,

but he is exempt because of his father’s wife.

And the Gemara discusses:

What is meant by “she is not fit for him,”

which woman is called unfit for his father?

If you say

that his father married a woman who was one of

those liable for karet and those liable for deaths imposed by the court,

with whom betrothal does not take effect.

If so, it follows

by inference

from

the

Rabbis who dispute Rabbi Yehuda in this, in that they do not distinguish between a mother who is fit for his father and one who is unfit, that they

hold

that if he engages in intercourse with his father’s wife who is one of those liable for karet and deaths imposed by the court, he is liable on her account because of his father’s wife,

even though she is not fit for him.

But this cannot be, for

he has no betrothal with her,

betrothal does not take effect with her and she is not his father’s wife?

Rather,

it is necessarily the intention of Rabbi Yehuda when he says, “a woman who is not fit for him,” that this woman is one of

those liable for a negative commandment.

For example, a widow to a High Priest, or a mamzeret or a netina to an Israelite.

And Rabbi Yehuda agrees with Rabbi Akiva, who says—

betrothal does not take effect with those liable for negative commandments.

And the Gemara raises an objection from another place, where it is explained that Rabbi Yehuda does not hold like Rabbi Akiva:

Rav Oshaya raised an objection:

It is stated [Deuteronomy 25:5]: “When brothers dwell together and one of them dies and has no son, the wife of the deceased shall not be outside, to a stranger; her brother-in-law shall come upon her and take her as a wife and perform levirate marriage with her. And if the man does not wish to take his sister-in-law, then his sister-in-law shall go up to the gate, to the elders, and say: My brother-in-law refuses to establish a name for his brother in Israel; he does not wish to perform levirate marriage with me.”

And in tractate Yevamot the Gemara expounded from what is stated, “upon her,” that if the brother-in-law has a prohibition of karet, he neither performs levirate marriage nor performs halitza.

But if he has only

a prohibition of a mitzva or a prohibition of sanctity, she performs halitza but does not undergo levirate marriage.

And we expound from what is stated, “his sister-in-law,” “his sister-in-law,” that you have another sister-in-law who is not fit for levirate marriage but is fit for halitza; and which is this? This is one of those liable for negative commandments.