Sanhedrin 54a — 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 an admonition was stated: “You shall not uncover the nakedness of your mother” [Leviticus 18:7]. But a punishment was not stated concerning her.

And with regard to one who has intercourse with his father’s wife, we find both a punishment and an admonition: In the portion 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 portion of Kedoshim [there, 20:11] it is stated: “And a man who lies with his father’s wife has uncovered the nakedness of his father; both of them shall surely be put to death; their blood is upon them.”

And the beraita expounded 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”—this implies both a father’s wife who is his mother and a father’s wife who is not his mother,

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

But

his mother who is not his father’s wife,

such as when she was divorced from his father,

from where

do we know that he is liable concerning her, since a punishment for one who has intercourse with his mother was stated only with regard to one who has intercourse with his father’s wife?

The verse states:

From the fact that the same matter was stated twice concerning one who has intercourse with his father’s wife—in the admonition 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 the nakedness of his father,”

the Sages expounded that the verse stated concerning the punishment is

available

—it is not expounded in its own place, but it is stated in order

to make an analogy and derive from it a gzera shava

to obligate death for his mother, whether she is his father’s wife or whether she is not his father’s wife, as the beraita will explain below.

And the beraita continues to expound the verse: “

They shall surely be put to death

both of them”—

—

by stoning.

You say by stoning;

from where do you know this matter,

or is it not rather

that 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 wizard, “their blood is upon them”; just as there

with regard to a necromancer and a wizard their death is

by stoning,

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

? Where do we find an admonition concerning a 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,

and from the fact that his father’s wife was mentioned without qualification, it implies that whether she is his mother or whether she is not his mother, he is liable concerning her.

You say

that the verse “You shall not uncover the nakedness of your father” is an admonition concerning

your father’s wife, or is it not rather

the uncovering of the

actual nakedness of your father?

And the beraita explains:

It is stated here

in the admonition [Leviticus 18:7],

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

in the punishment [there, 20:11],

“He has uncovered the nakedness of his father”; just as below the verse speaks of marital relations,

as it is stated in the punishment: “A man who lies with his father’s wife has uncovered the nakedness of his father,” just as the nakedness of his father mentioned in the punishment is the nakedness of marital relations,

so here

in the verses of the admonition, wherever “the nakedness of your father” is stated—

the verse speaks of marital relations.

And it implies

that the admonition and punishment stated concerning a 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 it is stated without qualification: “You shall not uncover the nakedness of your father’s wife.”

But

his mother who is not his father’s wife,

such as when his mother was divorced from 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,”

therefore his mother is forbidden to him whether she is still his father’s wife or whether she was divorced from him, for the verse did not distinguish and mentioned “your mother” without qualification.

And still,

I have only

the admonition—that the verse made his mother who is not his father’s wife equivalent to his mother who is his father’s wife.

But

from where is the punishment

? And the beraita explains:

It is stated here

in the admonition [Leviticus 18:7],

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

in the punishment of a father’s wife,

“He has uncovered the nakedness of his father,”

and this verse is superfluous, since it was already stated in the admonition that intercourse with a father’s wife is the uncovering of the father’s nakedness.

Therefore the Sages expounded that this verse comes to make the punishment analogous to the admonition with regard to another law.

Just as with the admonition

we find that

the verse made

the Torah make

his mother who is not his father’s wife equivalent to 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 anyone who is your mother is forbidden,

so with the punishment, the verse made

his

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

and he is liable to stoning.

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

The beraita returns to analyze the admonition stated concerning his mother: “You shall not uncover the nakedness of your mother; she is your mother; you shall not uncover her nakedness.”

From the superfluity of the word

“she is your mother”

it implies:

You hold him liable because she is his mother, but you do not hold him liable because she is his father’s wife.

And from here there is support for Rava, for from the words “she is your mother” it can be excluded that one who has intercourse with his mother who is his father’s wife transgresses only because of his mother. But from the words “it is the nakedness of your father” nothing can be precisely inferred, since from this verse Rabbi Yehuda will later expound that a father’s wife is forbidden even after death.

And the Rabbis

hold that the verse

“You shall not uncover the nakedness of your father”

refers to intercourse with his father

itself.

The Gemara asks:

This is derived from “And with a male

you shall not lie as with the lyings of a woman”;

it follows,

so for what purpose did the verse need to prohibit intercourse with his father as well?

And the Gemara answers:

To hold him liable for two

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

And this is in accordance with what Rav Yehuda said: Rav Yehuda said: A gentile

—the Gemara explains below that the reference is to an Israelite, and he used an expression of refinement—

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,

because of “And with a male,” and because of [Leviticus 18:14] “You shall not uncover the nakedness of your father’s brother,” which implies, according to Rabbi Yehuda, that the reference is to his father’s brother himself.

Rava said: The statement of Rav Yehuda stands to reason,

for if such a case occurred

with an Israelite,

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

unwittingly,

so that he is liable for two,

and

although he is liable for only one excision, nevertheless

with regard to an offering

he is liable for two.

And the fact that he said “a gentile” is an expression of refinement.

For if it enters your mind

that the matter concerns

an actual gentile, his law

with regard to a gentile who has intercourse with a male

what is it

—

execution;

is it possible to say that

with two executions

you execute him?

Therefore, you are forced to conclude that Rabbi Yehuda spoke of an Israelite who had intercourse with his father unwittingly, so that he 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,

for according to him the meaning of the verse “You shall not uncover the nakedness of your father” is a father’s wife; and if so, one who has intercourse with his father is liable for only one, because 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 concerning the verse “You shall not uncover the nakedness of your father’s brother,” Rabbi Yehuda concedes that its meaning is according to its plain sense—intercourse with his father’s brother. It follows that one who has intercourse with his father’s brother is also, according to Rabbi Yehuda, liable for two: by the law of “And with a male,” and by the law 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 his father’s brother, who is related through his father, entails liability for two,

one who has intercourse with

his father—does this not follow all the more

that he is liable for two.

And

the Gemara explains in what the two versions of “there are those who say” disagree:

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

One master holds

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

punishment can be derived through logical inference,

and his father is learned by a kal va-chomer from his father’s brother.

And one master holds

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

punishment cannot be derived through logical inference

—and therefore specifically one who has intercourse with his father’s brother is liable for two, but one who has intercourse with his father is not. And if so, the beraita in which it is stated that one who has intercourse with his father is liable for two is not in accordance with Rabbi Yehuda.

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

In the beraita it was explained that according to Rabbi Yehuda, the source for the admonition concerning one who has intercourse with his father’s wife is from that which is stated: “You shall not uncover the nakedness of your father.”

And the Gemara raises an objection:

And the Rabbis,

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

from where do they derive the admonition concerning his 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 by him for the admonition concerning a father’s wife after death,

for even after the death of his father, she is forbidden to him as his wife.

And the Rabbis

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

They derive that from the ending of the verse,

as it is stated:

“It is the nakedness of your father,”

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

And Rabbi Yehuda,

for what purpose was “It is the nakedness of your father” stated?

That

is needed by him 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 because she is his father’s wife, but you do not hold him liable because she is a married woman.

And

the Gemara asks:

But did we not learn

in our Mishna:

One who has intercourse with his father’s wife is liable concerning her because of his father’s wife and because of a married woman, whether during his father’s lifetime or after his father’s death.

And Rabbi Yehuda did not disagree,

despite the fact that concerning his mother who is his father’s wife he disagreed and held that he is liable under only one designation; and why did he not disagree concerning a father’s wife, that he is liable only under the designation of wife and not because of a married woman?

Abaye said:

Although Rabbi Yehuda did not disagree in the Mishna, nevertheless

he disagreed in the beraita.

And the Gemara again raises an objection:

And the Rabbis,

granted that they derive the admonition concerning his father’s wife after death from “It is the nakedness of your father,” but

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

And

granted that Rabbi Yehuda derives it by a gzera shava,

deriving the punishment from the admonition: just as in the admonition the prohibition of a father’s wife applies even after the death of his father, so too the punishment applies both before death and after death,

but from where do the Rabbis derive it?

They can say to you

the Rabbis:

That

same verse mentioned concerning the punishment [Kedoshim, 20:11],

“He has uncovered the nakedness of his father,” which Rabbi Yehuda uses for a gzera shava

to obligate one who has intercourse with his mother in death,

they derive it

the Rabbis derive from it

the punishment for his father’s wife after death.

And the Gemara again asks:

And the Rabbis,

granted that the punishment for one who has intercourse with his mother when she is married to his father can be learned from the law of his 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 equivalent to his mother who is his father’s wife.

It was stated in the Mishna:

One who has intercourse with his daughter-in-law

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

And

the Gemara raises an objection:

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

for in the verse it is stated [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 was mentioned for the designation “your daughter-in-law” and for the designation “your son’s wife,” and why is he not liable for two?

Abaye said: The verse began with “his daughter-in-law” and concluded with “his son’s wife,”

“she is your son’s wife”; from the expression “she is” it implies that the verse came

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

mentioned previously;

this is his son’s wife.

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

Mishna:

The principal laws before us were already taught above [53a], but nevertheless the tannai repeated them here, in order to explain why an animal that did not sin is killed. And incidentally he also repeated the law of “one who has intercourse with a male,” in order not to deviate from his wording at the beginning of the Mishna.

One who has intercourse with a male

2, and with an animal

3, and the woman who brings the animal upon her

both the animal that lies with her and the woman with whom intercourse is had, their law is

by stoning.

And the source of the law will be explained in the Gemara.

The Mishna asks:

If a person sinned, in what way did the animal sin?

For it has no understanding, and why is it stoned?

Rather, since a stumbling block came to a person through it,

and he stumbled into a transgression through it,

therefore the verse said: It shall be stoned .

Alternatively

[another reason why the animal is stoned]:

so that an animal should not pass through the marketplace, and they would say: This is the one because of which so-and-so was stoned

Gemara:

It will be explained below from where we know that one who has intercourse with a male or with an animal is stoned.

One who has intercourse with the

male—from where do we derive it?

As the Sages taught

in the baraita [Torat Kohanim, Kodashim, chapter 10]: It is stated in the Torah [Leviticus 20:13], “And a man who lies with a male as with the lyings of 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 among those penetrated, between an adult and a minor. And even if he had intercourse with a minor who is not subject to liability, he is stoned.

We further learn that even in a case where the one who penetrates is not subject to liability, such as when he was a minor of nine years and one day , if the one penetrated was an adult, he is stoned. It is not necessary that both of them be subject to liability .

“The lyings of a woman”—the verse tells you that there are two lyings with a woman.

That is: one who has intercourse with any of the forbidden relations written in the Torah is liable, whether he had intercourse with her in the usual manner or whether he had intercourse with her in an unusual manner.

Rabbi Ishmael said: This comes to teach, and is found to be learned.

That is, the verse “the lyings of a woman” comes to teach us that there are two lyings with a woman, but this teaching is not needed in the passage of intercourse with a male, since every intercourse with a male is not in its usual manner.

Rather, it is found to be learned for the other forbidden relations, that one is liable for them even if he had intercourse with them in an unusual manner .

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

The baraita asks: From where

do you say

that his law is

by stoning? Or

perhaps he

is not

judged

except by one of all the deaths stated in the Torah?

It is stated here, “their blood is upon them,” and it is stated concerning a necromancer and a wizard

[Leviticus 20:27], “And a man or a woman in whom there shall be a necromantic spirit or a wizard, they 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 killed

by stoning, so here

they are killed

by stoning.