Sanhedrin 54a (נד.) — the Talmud in English

It was taught in accordance with the opinion of Rava:

With regard to one who has intercourse with his mother, we find that a prohibition is stated: “You shall not uncover the nakedness of your mother” [Leviticus 18:7]. But no punishment is stated for it.

And with regard to one who has intercourse with his father’s wife, we find both a punishment and a prohibition. In the passage of Aharei Mot [Leviticus 18:8] it is stated: “You shall not uncover the nakedness of your father’s wife; it is the nakedness of your father.” And in the passage of Kedoshim [ibid. 20:11] it is stated: “And 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 beraita expounds the verse that speaks of the punishment of one who has intercourse with his father’s wife: “

‘A man’—excluding a minor”—

if a minor has intercourse with his father’s wife, he is exempt.

“Who lies with his father’s wife” implies both a father’s wife who is his mother and a father’s wife who is not his mother,

for as long as she is married to his father, if he has intercourse with her, he is liable on account of his father’s wife.

But

with regard to his mother who is not his father’s wife,

for example, if she was divorced by his father,

from where

do we know that he is liable for her, given that a punishment is stated for one who has intercourse with his father’s wife, but not for one who has intercourse with his mother?

The verse states:

Since the same matter is stated twice with regard to one who has intercourse with his father’s wife—in the prohibition it is stated [Leviticus 18:8], “You shall not uncover the nakedness of your father’s wife; it is the nakedness of your father,” and in the punishment it is stated [Leviticus 20:11],

“He has uncovered his father’s nakedness,”

the Sages expounded that the verse stated with regard to the punishment is

superfluous

and is not expounded in its immediate context; rather, it was written in order

to establish an analogy and derive a gezera shava

from it, to impose the death penalty for intercourse with one’s mother, whether or not she is his father’s wife, as the beraita will explain below.

And the beraita continues to expound the verse: “

Both shall surely be put to death

” —

—

by stoning.

You say that they are put to death by stoning;

from where do you derive this?

Or perhaps

their death is

by one of all the deaths stated in the Torah?

Rather,

it is stated here

with regard to one who has intercourse with his father’s wife,

“their blood is upon them,” and it is stated with regard to a necromancer and a sorcerer, “their blood is upon them.” Just as there

the death of a necromancer and a sorcerer is

by stoning,

as it is stated with regard to them: “They shall surely be put to death; they shall stone them with stones; their blood is upon them,” and we expound by analogy that just as their death is by stoning,

so here,

with regard to one who has intercourse with his father’s wife, his death is

by stoning.

We have heard the punishment for one who has intercourse with his father’s wife;

from where is the prohibition,

where do we find a prohibition concerning one’s father’s wife?

The verse states: “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.”

And the beraita explains:

“The nakedness of your father”—this is your father’s wife,

which indicates that wherever the term “your father’s wife” is mentioned without qualification, one is liable whether she is his mother or not.

You say

that the verse “You shall not uncover the nakedness of your father” is a prohibition concerning

your father’s wife, or perhaps

it refers to uncovering

the actual nakedness of your father?

And the beraita explains:

It is stated here

with regard to the prohibition [Leviticus 18:7],

“You shall not uncover the nakedness of your father,” and it is stated there

with regard to the punishment [ibid. 20:11],

“He has uncovered his father’s nakedness.” Just as there the verse speaks of a marital relationship,

as it is stated in the verse concerning the punishment, “A man who lies with his father’s wife has uncovered his father’s nakedness,” so too, wherever “the nakedness of your father” is stated here

in the passages of prohibition,

the verse speaks of

a marital relationship.

And it follows

that the prohibition and punishment stated with regard to one’s father’s wife apply

both to a father’s wife who is his mother and to a father’s wife who is not his mother,

who married his father after he was born, since the verse states without qualification: “You shall not uncover the nakedness of your father’s wife.”

But

with regard to his mother who is not his father’s wife,

for example, if his mother was divorced by his father,

from where

do we know that she is forbidden to him?

The verse states: “You shall not uncover the nakedness of your mother,”

indicating that his mother is forbidden to him whether she is still his father’s wife or has been divorced by him, since the verse makes no distinction and refers simply to “your mother.”

And still,

I have derived only the prohibition—

that the verse equates his mother who is not his father’s wife with his mother who is his father’s wife.

But

from where is the punishment derived?

And the beraita explains:

It is stated here

with regard to the prohibition [Leviticus 18:7],

“You shall not uncover the nakedness of your father,” and it is stated there

with regard to the punishment for one’s father’s wife,

“He has uncovered his father’s nakedness,”

and this verse is superfluous, since the prohibition has already stated that intercourse with one’s father’s wife is the uncovering of the father’s nakedness.

Therefore, the Sages expounded that this verse comes to establish an analogy, extending the punishment in the same manner as the prohibition.

Just as with regard to the prohibition

we find that

the verse made

the Torah equate

his mother who is not his father’s wife with his mother who is his father’s wife,

as it is stated, “You shall not uncover the nakedness of your mother,” and we expound that every woman who is one’s mother is forbidden,

so too with regard to the punishment, the verse made

his

his mother who is not his father’s wife equal to his mother who is his father’s wife,

and one is liable to stoning for her.

It follows that with regard to the prohibition against one’s mother, we find a prohibition—“You shall not uncover the nakedness of your mother; she is your mother, you shall not uncover her nakedness”—and a punishment, derived from the superfluous phrase “He has uncovered his father’s nakedness,” which is stated with regard to one’s father’s wife.

The beraita returns to analyze the prohibition stated with regard to one’s mother: “You shall not uncover the nakedness of your mother; she is your mother, you shall not uncover her nakedness.”

From the superfluous word

“she is your mother”

it follows:

You hold him liable on account of his mother, but you do not hold him liable on account of his father’s wife.

This provides support for Rava, since from the words “she is your mother” it may be inferred that one who has intercourse with his mother who is also his father’s wife violates only the prohibition concerning his mother. But nothing can be inferred from the words “it is the nakedness of your father,” since Rabbi Yehuda will later derive from this verse that one’s father’s wife remains forbidden even after death.

But the Rabbis

hold that the verse

“You shall not uncover the nakedness of your father”

refers to intercourse with one’s father

himself.

The Gemara raises a difficulty:

Is this not derived from “And with a male

you shall not lie as one lies with a woman”

?

And why was it necessary for the verse also to prohibit intercourse with one’s father?

The Gemara answers:

To make him liable for two

offenses—one on account of “And with a male,” and one on account of “the nakedness of his father.”

And this is in accordance with the statement of Rav Yehuda, as Rav Yehuda said: A gentile

—the Gemara explains below that the reference is actually to a Jew, and this is a euphemistic expression—

who has intercourse with his father is liable for two.

Likewise,

one who has intercourse with his father’s brother is liable for two,

on account of “And with a male,” and on account of [Leviticus 18:14], “You shall not uncover the nakedness of your father’s brother,” which, according to Rabbi Yehuda, means his actual father’s brother.

Rava said: The statement of Rav Yehuda is reasonable

if such an incident occurred

with a Jew,

who had intercourse with his father or his father’s brother

unintentionally,

so that he is liable for two offerings,

and

although he is liable for only one punishment of karet, nevertheless

with regard to an offering

he is liable for two.

And the fact that he said “a gentile” is a euphemistic expression.

For if it enters your mind

that the statement concerns

an actual gentile, the law

of a gentile who has intercourse with a male

what is it?

Execution.

And is it possible to say that

with two executions

for two deaths

you execute him?

Therefore, you must conclude that Rabbi Yehuda was speaking of a Jew who unintentionally has intercourse with his father, and is liable for two offerings.

It was taught likewise: One who has intercourse with his father is liable for two.

And likewise,

one who has intercourse with his father’s brother is liable for two.

There are those who say:

This beraita is

not in accordance with Rabbi Yehuda,

since according to him the meaning of the verse “You shall not uncover the nakedness of your father” is one’s father’s wife. Consequently, one who has intercourse with his father is liable for only one offense, on account of “And with a male.”

And there are those who say: Even if you say

that this beraita is in accordance with

Rabbi Yehuda,

for with regard to the verse “You shall not uncover the nakedness of your father’s brother,” Rabbi Yehuda concedes that its plain meaning is intended—intercourse with one’s father’s brother. Consequently, one who has intercourse with his father’s brother is liable for two even according to Rabbi Yehuda: on account of “And with a male” and on account of “the nakedness of your father’s brother.”

And he derives it

Rabbi Yehuda

by a kal va-chomer from his father’s brother: Just as one’s father’s brother, who is related through his father, entails liability for two,

one who has intercourse with

his father—is it not all the more so

that he is liable for two?

And

the Gemara explains the point of dispute between the two versions of the statement:

They disagree with regard to the dispute between Abaye and Rava:

One master holds—

the one who says that even according to Rabbi Yehuda one who has intercourse with his father is liable for two holds that

punishment may be derived through logical inference,

and therefore derives liability for one’s father by a kal va-chomer from one’s father’s brother.

And the other master holds—

the one who maintains that according to Rabbi Yehuda one who has intercourse with his father is liable for only one holds that

punishment may not be derived through logical inference

—and therefore specifically one who has intercourse with his father’s brother is flogged twice, but one who has intercourse with his father is not. If so, the beraita that states that one who has intercourse with his father is flogged twice is not in accordance with Rabbi Yehuda.

The Gemara returns to explain the dispute between Rabbi Yehuda and the Rabbis.

The beraita explained that according to Rabbi Yehuda, the source of the prohibition against one who has intercourse with his father’s wife is the verse “You shall not uncover the nakedness of your father.”

The Gemara asks:

And the Rabbis,

who derive from “You shall not uncover the nakedness of your father” the prohibition against one who has intercourse with his father,

from where do they derive the prohibition concerning one’s father’s wife?

The Gemara answers:

They derive it from

the following verse,

“You shall not uncover the nakedness of your father’s wife.”

And Rabbi Yehuda

holds that

that

verse

is needed to prohibit one’s father’s wife after his death,

as she remains forbidden to him even after his father’s death.

And the Rabbis:

From where do they know that a father’s wife is forbidden even after his death?

They derive it from the end of the verse,

as it is stated,

“It is the nakedness of your father,”

which implies that she is forever forbidden as the nakedness of his father.

And Rabbi Yehuda:

For what purpose, then, is it stated, “It is the nakedness of your father”?

That

is needed to teach that one who has intercourse with his father’s wife while his father is alive is liable under only one designation—

you hold him liable on account of his father’s wife, but you do not hold him liable on account of a married woman.

And

the Gemara is astonished:

Did we not learn

in our Mishna:

One who has intercourse with his father’s wife is liable for her on account of his father’s wife and on account of a married woman, both during his father’s lifetime and after his father’s death?

And Rabbi Yehuda did not disagree,

even though he disagreed with regard to one’s mother who is his father’s wife and held that he is liable under only one designation. Why did he not disagree with regard to a father’s wife, maintaining that he is liable only under the designation of father’s wife and not as a married woman?

Abaye said:

Although Rabbi Yehuda did not disagree in the Mishna, nevertheless

he disagreed in the beraita.

The Gemara raises another difficulty:

And the Rabbis:

Granted, they derive the prohibition concerning one’s father’s wife after his death from “It is the nakedness of your father,” but

from where do they derive the punishment for one’s father’s wife after his death?

And

granted, Rabbi Yehuda derives it through a gezera shava,

deriving the punishment from the prohibition: Just as the prohibition concerning one’s father’s wife applies even after his father’s death, so too the punishment applies both before his death and after his death.

But from where do the Rabbis derive it?

The Rabbis can say to you:

The Rabbis hold that

that

same verse stated with regard to the punishment [Kedoshim 20:11],

“He has uncovered his father’s nakedness,” which Rabbi Yehuda uses for a gezera shava

to impose the death penalty on one who has intercourse with his mother,

they use

the verse to derive

the punishment for one’s father’s wife after his death.

The Gemara raises another difficulty:

And the Rabbis:

Granted, the punishment for one who has intercourse with his mother when she is married to his father can be derived from the law of one’s father’s wife, but

from where do they derive the punishment for his mother who is not his father’s wife?

Rav Shisha, son of Rav Idi, said: The verse states—

“She is your mother”; the verse made his mother who is not his father’s wife equal to his mother who is his father’s wife.

It is stated in the Mishna:

One who has intercourse with his daughter-in-law

is liable on account of his daughter-in-law and on account of a married woman.

And

the Gemara asks:

He should also be liable on account of his son’s wife,

since the verse states [Leviticus 18:15]: “You shall not uncover the nakedness of your daughter-in-law; she is your son’s wife, you shall not uncover her nakedness.” Thus, a separate prohibition is mentioned for “your daughter-in-law” and for “your son’s wife.” Why, then, is he not liable for two?

Abaye said: The verse begins with “your daughter-in-law” and concludes with “your son’s wife,”

“she is your son’s wife.” The expression “she is” indicates that the verse comes

to tell you: This is your daughter-in-law

mentioned earlier;

this is your son’s wife.

And the Torah wrote it in this manner in order to make one who has intercourse with his daughter-in-law liable even after his son’s death.

Mishna:

The principal laws presented here were already taught above [53a]. Nevertheless, the tanna repeated them here in order to explain why an animal that did not sin is put to death. In passing, he also repeated the law of “one who has intercourse with a male,” so as not to deviate from the wording with which the Mishna began .

One who has intercourse with a male

2 , and with an animal

3 , and a woman who brings an animal upon herself

both the animal that copulates and the woman with whom it copulates have the law of being

stoned.

The source of this law will be explained in the Gemara.

The Mishna asks:

If a man sinned, what sin has the animal committed?

After all, it has no understanding; why, then, is it stoned?

Rather, because a transgression came about through it for a man,

and he stumbled through it into sin,

therefore the verse says: It shall be stoned .

Alternatively

[another reason why the animal is stoned]:

so that an animal should not pass through the marketplace, and people say: This is the animal on account of which so-and-so was stoned

Gemara:

Here it will be explained from where it is derived that one who engages in intercourse with a male or with an animal is executed by stoning.

One who engages in intercourse with a

male—how do we know this?

As the Sages taught in a beraita [Sifra, Kedoshim, chapter 10]: It is stated in the Torah [Leviticus 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.”

in a beraita, a tannaitic source not included in the Mishna [Sifra, Kedoshim, chapter 10]: It is stated in the Torah [Leviticus 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.”

The Sages expounded:

“A man”—excluding a minor .

“Who lies with a male,” whether an adult or a minor.

That is, since it is not written, “who lies with an adult male,” we learn that there is no distinction regarding those who are penetrated, whether the person is an adult or a minor. And even if he had intercourse with a minor who is not subject to punishment, he is executed by stoning.

We also learn that even where the one who penetrates is not subject to punishment, such as when he is a minor who is nine years and one day old , if the one who was penetrated was an adult, he is executed by stoning. It is not necessary for both of them to be subject to punishment .

“As one lies with a woman”—the verse teaches you that there are two modes of intercourse with a woman.

That is: one who has intercourse with any of the women forbidden by the Torah is liable, whether he had intercourse with her in the usual manner or not in the usual manner.

Rabbi Yishmael said: This came to teach, but in the end it is found to be learned from it.

That is, the verse “as one lies with a woman” comes to teach us that there are two modes of intercourse with a woman. But this teaching is not needed in the passage concerning intercourse with a male, since all intercourse with a male is not in the usual manner.

Rather, it is found to be learned from it with regard to the other forbidden relations, for which one is liable even if he had intercourse with them not in the usual manner .

“They shall surely be put to death”—by stoning.

The beraita challenges this: From where

do you say

that his punishment is

by stoning? Or

perhaps he

is not

to be executed

except by one of all the forms of death stated in the Torah?

It is stated here, “their blood is upon them,” and it is stated with regard to a necromancer and a wizard [Leviticus 20:27]: “And a man or a woman in whom there is a necromantic spirit or a wizarding spirit shall surely be put to death; they shall stone them with stones;

“their blood is upon them.”

Just as there,

when “their blood is upon them” is stated, they are executed

by stoning, so too here

they are executed

by stoning.