Sanhedrin 53a (נג.) — the Talmud in English

And the Gemara raises an objection:

Granted according to

the opinion of

Rabbi Yonatan,

it is understandable why the statement “he shall be put to death” means strangulation,

as Rabbi explains the reason:

the death at the hands of man is juxtaposed to death at the hands of Heaven.

But according to

the opinion of

Rabbi Yoshiya,

there is a difficulty, since according to him the necessity to interpret “he shall be put to death” as referring to strangulation derives from the fact that it is the lightest form of execution.

From where does he know that strangulation exists in the world,

that strangulation is one of the court-imposed death penalties? Perhaps, according to the Torah, there are only three court-imposed death penalties—stoning, burning, and decapitation—and if so,

say

that “he shall be put to death” means

decapitation,

which is the lightest death penalty mentioned in the Torah?

And the Gemara answers:

Rava said: The four death penalties were received by tradition.

It was stated as a halakha given to Moses at Sinai that there are four court-imposed death penalties: stoning, burning, killing by the sword, and strangulation.

And since it was not explicitly stated who is to be executed by strangulation, Rabbi Yoshiya learned that it is the lightest death penalty. On the contrary, for this reason it is stated everywhere, “he shall be put to death,” without specifying by which death penalty, so that we will thereby know that the death penalty is strangulation, as it is the lightest death penalty.

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

What is the meaning of “not because it is light”?

And the Gemara explains that Rabbi Yoshiya and Rabbi Yonatan

disagree with regard to the dispute between Rabbi Shimon and the Rabbis,

which was cited in the Mishna at the beginning of the chapter.

The Rabbis maintained that the order of the death penalties according to their severity is stoning, burning, killing by the sword, and strangulation; and Rabbi Yoshiya likewise held that strangulation is the lightest death penalty.

But Rabbi Shimon maintained that the order of the death penalties is burning, stoning, strangulation, and killing. And Rabbi Yonatan agreed with him in what he said, that strangulation is not a light death penalty, which indicates that killing by the sword is lighter than it.

The next Mishna lists eighteen individuals liable to stoning. In the case of five of them, the Torah explicitly states that their punishment is stoning, whereas concerning the others it states: “They shall surely be put to death; their blood is upon them.”

And the Gemara below [54a] explains that all those liable to stoning concerning whom it is stated, “They shall surely be put to death; their blood is upon them,” are juxtaposed to a necromancer and a sorcerer, concerning 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 punishment of a necromancer and a sorcerer is stoning, so too, all those concerning whom it is stated, “They shall surely be put to death; their blood is upon them,” have the punishment of stoning.

Rabbi Zeira said to Abaye: The other individuals liable to stoning

for whom stoning is not written

explicitly, but

who are derived from a necromancer and a sorcerer

by means of a juxtaposition.

From what do we derive them,

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

from the

words

“they shall surely be put to death,” or do we derive them from “their blood is upon them”?

He said to him,

Abaye:

“Their blood

is upon them”;

we derive them from “their blood is upon them.”

Because

if we derive them from “they shall surely be put to death,”

it would be difficult:

why do I need

“their blood is upon them”? Why is it stated concerning all of them, “their blood is upon them”?

And for this reason one must say that the juxtaposition is from “their blood is upon them.” [Thus far is Abaye’s answer.]

The Gemara is astonished by his statement:

But if so,

the juxtaposition is

derived from “their blood is upon them”;

then the reverse difficulty should be raised: Why do I need

“they shall surely be put to death,”

why is “they shall surely be put to death” stated concerning all those liable to stoning, since the obligation of stoning has already been derived from “their blood is upon them”?

And the Gemara explains: Actually, the derivation is from the words “their blood is upon them,” and that which is stated concerning 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 a murderer [Numbers 35:21]:

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

I have derived only

that they must put him to death

by the death penalty written concerning him,

namely, killing by the sword, as we derived above from that which is stated: “He shall surely avenge.”

But

from where is it derived that if you cannot put him to death by the death penalty written concerning him, you put him to death by any death penalty by which you are able to put him to death?

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

Earlier, the Gemara explained that Rabbi Zeira asked Abaye from which words those liable to stoning are juxtaposed to a necromancer and a sorcerer, and Abaye answered him that the derivation is from “their blood is upon them.” From Rabbi Zeira’s statement it appears that if the juxtaposition were from the words “they shall surely be put to death,” he would have raised a difficulty concerning it. The Gemara now attempts to explain what his difficulty was.

Rav Aḥa of Difti said to Ravina:

And if we derive them from “they shall surely be put to death,” what difficulty did he have

for Rabbi Zeira?

If you say

that the death penalty of

a married woman was his difficulty,

as the Gemara explained above, the source that one who engages in intercourse with a married woman is liable to strangulation is that it is stated, “they shall surely be put to death,” without specifying by which death penalty they are to be executed.

And if it is said that the juxtaposition of those liable to stoning to a necromancer and a sorcerer is derived from the words “they shall surely be put to death,” the following difficulty could be raised: From where do we know that one who engages in intercourse with a married woman is liable to strangulation? We should

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

“he shall surely be put to death” means

stoning, so too here

one who engages in intercourse with a married woman is liable

to stoning?

This is not a difficulty, since

from the fact that the Merciful One said

that one who engages in intercourse with

a betrothed woman is liable to stoning,

it follows

by inference

that

one who engages in intercourse with

a

married woman

is

not liable to stoning,

and therefore it is possible to interpret her death penalty as strangulation, as we said above.

Rather,

one must say that Rabbi Zeira’s difficulty concerned the death penalty of

one who strikes his father or his mother.

For it is stated [Exodus 21:15]: “One who strikes his father or his mother shall surely be put to death.” And the Gemara will derive below that his death penalty is strangulation. But if it is said that all those liable to stoning were juxtaposed to a necromancer and a sorcerer from the words “they shall surely be put to death,” then we should

come and derive it from a necromancer and a sorcerer:

Just as concerning 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 this too is not a difficulty, because we have already found a case in which “he shall surely be put to death” means strangulation, namely, a married woman; and if so,

before deriving it from a necromancer and a sorcerer, let them derive it from a married woman, for you are not permitted to interpret it stringently, but only leniently.

And since this is so, Rav Aḥa asked why Rabbi Zeira was not satisfied with juxtaposing those liable to stoning to a necromancer and a sorcerer through the words “they shall surely be put to death.”

Ravina said

to Rav Aḥa: According to Rabbi Zeira,

the other individuals liable to stoning themselves were his difficulty.

From where is it known that all those whom the Mishna lists as liable to stoning are liable to stoning?

For if

their juxtaposition to a necromancer and a sorcerer

is derived from “they shall surely be put to death,”

then, on the contrary,

before deriving

“they shall surely be put to death”

from a necromancer and a sorcerer

to obligate them to stoning,

let them derive

“he shall surely be put to death”

from a married woman

to obligate them to strangulation.

And Abaye answered him that the juxtaposition is from the words “their blood is upon them.” Therefore, all those concerning whom it is stated, “their blood is upon them,” are juxtaposed to a necromancer and a sorcerer, and their liability is stoning. But concerning a married woman it is not stated “their blood is upon them,” but only “they shall surely be put to death”; and everywhere that death is stated without specification, we must execute the person by strangulation, either based on the reasoning of Rabbi Yoshiya or based on the ruling of Rabbi Natan.

Mishna:

These are the individuals liable to stoning:

It is an established principle that punishment is not administered unless a warning has first been given; therefore, a verse serving as a warning was stated for all those liable to stoning. In the prohibitions of forbidden sexual relations, the warnings are mentioned in the portion of Acharei Mot, and the punishments in the portion of Kedoshim.

1.

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 the punishment is not stated concerning her, and the Gemara records a dispute between the Sages and Rabbi Yehuda as to the source from which the liability for death of one who engages in intercourse with his mother is derived.

2.

And with his father’s wife,

who is not his mother. The warning concerning her is [Leviticus 18:8]: “The nakedness of your father’s wife you shall not uncover; it is your father’s nakedness.” And the punishment is [Leviticus 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 the Gemara explains that everywhere that “their blood is upon them” is stated, it refers to the death penalty of stoning.

3.

And with his daughter-in-law.

The warning concerning her is [Leviticus 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 [Leviticus 20:12]: “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.”

4.

And with a male.

The warning is [Leviticus 18:22]: “And with a male you shall not lie as one lies with a woman.” The punishment is [Leviticus 20:13]: “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.”

5.

And with an animal.

The warning is [Leviticus 18:23]: “And with no animal shall you give your lying for seed.”

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

6.

And a woman who brings an animal

upon herself. The warning is [Leviticus 18:23]: “And a woman shall not stand before an animal for mating with it.”

The punishment is [Leviticus 20:16]: “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.”

7.

And one who blasphemes.

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

The punishment is [Leviticus 24:16]: “One who pronounces the Name of the Lord shall surely be put to death; the entire assembly shall stone him with stones.”

8.

And one who worships idols.

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

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

9.

And one who gives some of his offspring to Molekh.

The warning is [Leviticus 18:21]: “You shall not give any of your offspring to pass over to Molekh.”

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

10.

The warning is [Leviticus 19:31]: “Do not turn to the אבות or the ידעונים.”

The punishment is [Leviticus 20:27]: “A man or a woman in whom there is a בעל אוב or a ידעוני shall surely be put to death; they shall stone them with stones; their blood is upon them.”

11.

[The same verse.]

12.

And one who desecrates Shabbat.

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

The punishment is stated concerning the wood gatherer [Numbers 15:36]: “They stoned him.”

13.

And one who curses his father or his mother.

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

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

14.

And one who engages in intercourse with a betrothed young woman.

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

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

15.

And one who incites

individuals.

The warning is [Deuteronomy 13:11]: “They shall not continue to do this evil thing among you.”

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

16.

And one who leads astray

the masses, such as one who leads astray the inhabitants of an apostate city.

The warning is [Exodus 23:13]: “You shall not mention the name of other gods; it shall not be heard on your lips.”

The punishment is derived from the inciter by means of a gzera shava, “leading astray”—“leading astray”: concerning an inciter it is stated, “because he sought to lead you astray,” and concerning one who leads astray it is stated [Deuteronomy 13:6], “to lead you astray from the way.”

17.

And a sorcerer.

The warning is [Deuteronomy 18:10]: “There shall not be found among you ... one who divines or one who practices sorcery.”

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

18.

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]: “All the men of his city shall stone him with stones, and he shall die.”

The Mishna then presents several cases in which a person became liable, through a single act, for several prohibitions carrying the penalty of stoning:

One who engages in intercourse with his mother

[when she is married to his father] unwittingly

, he is liable for her

two sin-offerings, one

for the prohibition of his mother, and

one

for the prohibition of his father’s wife.

Rabbi Yehuda says: He is liable only

for one sin-offering,

for the prohibition of his mother alone.

But if his mother was divorced, everyone agrees that he is liable concerning her only on account of the prohibition 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 engaged in intercourse with her while she was married to his father,

he is liable for the prohibition of his father’s wife and for that of a married woman.

And if his father died, he is not liable for the prohibition of a married woman, but he remains liable on account of the prohibition of his father’s wife

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

since her status as his father’s wife does not lapse.

Likewise, the prohibition of a father’s wife applies

both from betrothal and from marriage

of his father to the woman.

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

unwittingly

, he is liable for her

two sin-offerings,

for the prohibition of his daughter-in-law and for that of a married woman,

as long as she is married to his son.

And if his son died, he is not liable for the prohibition of a married woman, but remains liable on account of his daughter-in-law

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.

Likewise, he is prohibited from his daughter-in-law

both from betrothal and from marriage

of his son.

Gemara:

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

The Gemara cites a beraita in which Rabbi Yehuda’s statement is presented differently from the way it appears in our Mishna.

It was taught: Rabbi Yehuda says:

One who engages in intercourse with his mother is liable for the prohibition of his mother and for that of his father’s wife. But

if his mother was not fit for his father,

as the Gemara will explain below,

he is liable only

for one sin-offering,

for the prohibition of his mother alone,

but he is exempt with regard to the prohibition of his father’s wife.

And the Gemara analyzes this:

What is the meaning of “she was 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 to karet or to a court-imposed death penalty,

such that betrothal does not take effect with her,

then it follows

by inference

that

the Rabbis

who disagree with Rabbi Yehuda in this matter, because they do not distinguish between a mother who is fit for his father and one who is not fit,

maintain

that if he engaged in intercourse with his father’s wife who was one of those liable to karet or to a court-imposed death penalty, he is liable concerning her for the prohibition of his father’s wife,

even though she is not fit for him.

But this cannot be, for

he has no possibility of effecting 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 the woman is one of

those liable for violating a negative commandment,

such as a widow to a High Priest, or a mamzeret or a woman of Gibeonite descent to an Israelite.

And Rabbi Yehuda agrees with the opinion of Rabbi Akiva, who says—

betrothal does not take effect with those liable for violating a negative commandment.

And the Gemara raises an objection from another source, where it is evident that Rabbi Yehuda does not agree with 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, his yevama shall come to him and he shall take her as his wife. And if the man does not wish to take his yevama, then his yevama shall go up to the gate, to the elders, and say: My yavam refuses to establish his brother’s name in Israel; he does not wish to perform levirate marriage with me. Then the elders of his city shall call him and speak to him.”

And in tractate Yevamot, the Gemara derived from that which is stated, “to her,” that if the yavam is subject to a prohibition carrying the punishment of karet, he neither performs levirate marriage nor halitza with her.

But if he is subject only to

a prohibition relating to a mitzva or a prohibition of sanctity, she performs halitza but does not enter into levirate marriage.

And we derive from the repeated expression “his yevama, his yevama” that there is another yevama who is not eligible for levirate marriage but is eligible for halitza. And who is she? This is a woman subject to a prohibition for violating a negative commandment.