Sanhedrin 66b (סו:) — the Talmud in English

What is the reason

that it was written

“You shall not curse”? -

Learn from this two things!

We derive from this a warning against two curses: (a) cursing the Name, and (b) cursing the judge.

If so, the warning against cursing the judge is superfluous, and we return to the Gemara’s initial statement: “‘If it does not apply to its own subject’—since the warning against cursing the judge has been learned by means of the common feature of a prince and a deaf person—‘apply it to his father,’” and from this we derive a warning against cursing one’s father.

Mishna:

One who has intercourse with a betrothed נערה is not liable

to stoning unless

she is a נערה.

That is, she has manifested the signs of a נערה. But one who has intercourse with a betrothed minor whom her father betrothed is not liable to stoning.

[There is a dispute whether one who has intercourse with a betrothed minor is entirely exempt, or whether her death is by strangulation.]

These are the conditions through which one who has intercourse with a betrothed נערה becomes liable to stoning:

She must be

a virgin,

a נערה who has not yet had intercourse; she must be

betrothed,

having received kiddushin but not yet having entered the huppa;

and she must be in her father’s house,

and must not yet have gone to her husband. Even if her father himself handed her over to the husband’s agents and she engaged in intercourse on the way, there is no liability to stoning.

Two men had intercourse with her

while she remained a virgin, such as when they had intercourse with her unnaturally;

the first is liable to stoning

because he had intercourse with a virgin.

And

if

the second is liable to strangulation,

even though the first had intercourse with her unnaturally,

This ruling follows the view of Rabbi, below, who says that once the first man has had intercourse with her, she has left the presumptive status of a virgin. Therefore, the second is not liable to stoning, as one who has intercourse with a virgin would be, but to strangulation.

Gemara:

The Sages taught:

It is stated: “[Deuteronomy 22:23] ‘If there is a נערה, a virgin, betrothed to a man, etc., you shall take them both out to the stones and stone them, and they shall die.’”

From this we learn that liability to stoning applies only to a

נערה and not

to a

woman who has attained majority.

A נערה is defined as follows: (a) she has grown two pubic hairs, until the black hair is more abundant than the white hair.

(b) Six months have not yet passed from the time she became a נערה, since the period between נערות and majority is only six months.

Likewise, liability to stoning applies only to a

“virgin,”

as stated in that verse,

and not

to a

non-virgin.

Likewise, it applies to a

“betrothed woman, and not to a married woman.”

It is likewise stated there, concerning one who disseminates an evil report about the נערה, saying, “I did not find signs of virginity,” and it is found that she indeed committed adultery before marriage, that her death is by stoning.

It is stated there [Deuteronomy 22:21]: “Because she committed an outrage in Israel, to commit adultery in her father’s house,” and we learn from this that there is liability to stoning only if she committed adultery

in her father’s house—

excluding

the case

where the father handed over

the daughter

to the husband’s agents;

if she committed adultery on the way, she is not liable to stoning.

Rav Yehuda said in the name of Rav:

Our Mishna, which states that there is no liability to stoning unless one has intercourse with a נערה, but not with a minor,

is the statement of Rabbi Meir!

For Rabbi Meir said in Ketubot 29a that one who rapes a minor does not pay the fifty-sela fine to her father, because “נערה” is written [Deuteronomy 22:28].

Here too, it is stated, “a נערה, a virgin, betrothed,” and according to Rabbi Meir this indicates that the law of stoning applies only to a נערה, but not to a minor.

But the Sages

—who disagree with Rabbi Meir there in Ketubot—

say

that here too

“a betrothed נערה” includes even a minor.

One who has intercourse with her is judged by stoning. The verse excludes only a woman who has attained majority.

Rav Aḥa of Difti said to Ravina: From where do you know that our Mishna

which excludes a minor from the law of stoning is in accordance with

Rabbi Meir and

comes

also to exclude a minor,

in addition to excluding a woman who has attained majority from liability to stoning?

Perhaps

our Mishna is also in accordance with

the Sages, and

comes only

to exclude a woman who has attained majority, and nothing more?

From where do we know that the Mishna also excludes a minor?

He said to him:

Ravina said: According to your argument,

this,

the wording of the Mishna,

“He is not liable until she is a נערה, a virgin, betrothed,”

is not understandable.

Why did the Mishna need to say, “until she is a נערה”? It should have said

“He is liable only

for a נערה, a virgin, betrothed,” as it should have said.

That is how it should have been phrased.

And you must conclude that since the Mishna used the expression “until,” this indicates that he is not liable for intercourse with her while she is a minor, but only once she grows and becomes a נערה.

And that is all there is to it!

There is no need to add anything further, since it is certainly Rabbi Meir’s Mishna, and not that of the Sages!

Rabbi Yaakov bar Adda asked Rav:

We have learned in our Mishna, in accordance with Rabbi Meir, that one who has intercourse with a betrothed minor is not liable to stoning.

The question now arises:

If one has intercourse with a betrothed minor, according to

the opinion of

Rabbi Meir, what is the law?

Does Rabbi Meir

exclude him entirely

from every death penalty, since the minor with whom he had intercourse is not subject to punishment, and he too is therefore exempt?

Or

does he exclude him only

from

the death penalty of

stoning,

while the man who had intercourse with her is executed by strangulation, like anyone who has intercourse with a married woman?

He said to him:

Rav

said:

It is reasonable that Rabbi Meir excludes him only

from

the death penalty of

stoning,

but he is executed by strangulation.

Rabbi Yaakov bar Adda challenged him:

But it is written:

“[Deuteronomy 22:22] When a man is found lying with a woman married to a husband,”

“then both of them shall die,”

etc. This implies

until the two of them are equal

in their legal status, that both are subject to punishment. If so, since the minor is not punished because she is not subject to punishment, how can he be punished?

Rav was silent

and did not answer this refutation.

Shmuel said: What is the reason Rav was silent? Let him say to him

the following answer and prove it from the next verse: [Deuteronomy 22:25] “

But if the man finds the betrothed נערה in the field, and the man seizes her and lies with her,

then the man who lay with her shall die alone.”

Why does the conclusion of this verse, that the man shall die alone, need to be stated? If it is stated in order to exclude her from the death penalty, is this not already explicit in the continuation: “But you shall do nothing to the נערה”?

Rather, we learn from this the law of one who has consensual intercourse with a betrothed minor: although she is exempt not because she was coerced, but because she is a minor and entirely not subject to punishment,

nevertheless, he dies alone. This proves that even though she is not subject to punishment, he is punished!

If so, why did Rav not give this answer? -

As a matter of dispute between tannaim:

This matter is subject to a dispute between tannaim. It is stated: [Deuteronomy 22:22]

“Then both of them shall die,

the man who lay with the woman.” And they are punished only

until the two of them are equal

in that both are liable to punishment—

the statement of Rabbi Yoshiya.

Rabbi Yonatan says: “Then the man who lay with her shall die alone,”

indicating that it is possible for only he to be put to death, while she does not die!

However, a difficulty arises:

But the other one,

Rabbi Yonatan, who maintains that only one of them may be executed—if so,

what does he expound from that phrase, “then both of them shall die”?

Rava said:

Rabbi Yonatan expounds “then both of them shall die”

to exclude an act of sharpening,

in which he sharpens and presses his organ against her flesh outside the place of intercourse. He derives pleasure from this act, but she does not.

This is what is stated by “then both of them shall die”: both are liable only for an act in which the two derive equal pleasure!

The difficulty is: If so,

but the other one,

Rabbi Yoshiya, who learns from “then both of them shall die” that they must be equal in their punishment—how does he learn the rule that they must derive equal pleasure from the act, and that in an act of sharpening one is exempt because they do not derive equal pleasure from it?

The answer is:

An act of sharpening is nothing!

There is no need to exclude it from the punishment, since it is not included in the category of forbidden sexual relations, but is merely licentiousness.

But the other one,

Rabbi Yoshiya, who maintains that the two are punished only when they are equal in their punishment,

this

verse, “Then the man who lay with her shall die

alone”—what does he expound from it?

Does he not maintain that one cannot be punished alone?

Rabbi Yoshiya expounds this verse

as it was taught:

If ten men had intercourse with her while she was still a virgin,

such as when they had intercourse with her unnaturally,

all are liable to stoning!

Since all of them had intercourse with a virgin נערה.

Rabbi says: The first

among them to have intercourse with her is

liable to stoning, and all the others to strangulation!

Since with regard to death by stoning, it is stated “alone,” meaning that only one who has intercourse with the virgin alone is executed by stoning—that is, the first of them. His intercourse is considered the sole intercourse with this virgin, while all the others are judged by strangulation, like anyone who has intercourse with a married woman.

This is what Rabbi Yoshiya learns from the word “alone,” in accordance with Rabbi: even if many men had intercourse with her, only the first is executed by stoning!

The Sages taught:

It is stated [Leviticus 21:9]:

“And the daughter of a koen, when she profanes herself by committing adultery,

she profanes her father; she shall be burned by fire.”

Rabbi says:

“When she profanes herself,” stated in this verse, is an expression of

beginning

[as will be explained below].

And so

the verse

says:

“[Deuteronomy 22:25]

Then the man who lay with her shall die alone.”

The Gemara is puzzled:

What is Rabbi saying?

Rabbi

Rav Huna, son of Rav Yehoshua, said: Rabbi is of the opinion of Rabbi Yishmael

as expressed by Rabbi Yishmael at the beginning of our chapter;

he agrees with him.

For

Rabbi Yishmael says: Only a

betrothed

daughter of a koen who committed adultery

is taken out

and judged

by burning—

not a married woman.

A married woman is judged like any other woman who commits adultery while married—to her husband—by strangulation.

Rabbi’s words can now be explained:

And this is what Rabbi is saying:

Rabbi

if the beginning of intercourse,

meaning the first intercourse, when she is penetrated by a man before she marries, takes place

through adultery,

her punishment is

burning,

in accordance with Rabbi Yishmael.

But the other one,

any adulterous intercourse that is not the first intercourse, but takes place after marriage, is

punished by strangulation!

After we have explained Rabbi’s initial statement, the question is:

What does “and so”

mean when he says, “Then the man who lay with her shall die alone”?

The explanation is that this law taught by Rabbi—that a first adulterous intercourse entails stoning—is

like the matter there,

like the matter mentioned in that verse:

Just as there,

in the verse cited above, which speaks of the punishment of one who rapes a betrothed נערה,

at the beginning of intercourse,

that is, her first intercourse, since she is betrothed,

the verse speaks

of

the verse

there, and only he is liable to stoning, whereas if another man has intercourse with her afterward, he is not liable to stoning,

so too here,

likewise here,

at the beginning of intercourse,

with the first intercourse of a betrothed woman,

the verse speaks,

and therefore her death is by burning. But all subsequent adulterous intercourse after marriage is punished by strangulation!

Rav Bibi bar Abaye said

to Rav Huna, son of Rav Yehoshua:

Master, he did not say it that way! And who is it

who did not explain it this way?

Rav Yosef!

He, Rav Yosef, explained it as follows:

Rabbi is of the opinion of Rabbi Meir,

and not of Rabbi Yishmael.

For

Rabbi Meir says [above, 51a]: If a daughter of a koen is married to a suitable Israelite and commits adultery while married to him, her death is by burning. But if she

married one of those disqualified

and committed adultery while married to him,

her death is by strangulation!

And this is what Rabbi is saying:

Rabbi

if the beginning of her profanation,

if the beginning of her profanation with regard to her status as a member of the priesthood occurred

through adultery,

that is, she had until then been married to a suitable Israelite, and this adultery was her first profanation, she is judged

by burning!

But if she married one of those disqualified, and therefore this adultery is not the beginning of her profanation with regard to her status as a member of the priesthood, since she was profaned when she married the disqualified man, and she committed adultery while married to him, her death is by strangulation!

But the other one,

even if she married a suitable Israelite and became liable to burning through her first adulterous intercourse, all subsequent adulterous intercourse

is punished by strangulation!

Rabbi’s words, “And the daughter of a koen, when she profanes herself by committing adultery,” are thus explained to mean that if the beginning of her adultery and profanation took place while she was married to a suitable Israelite, her death is by burning.

However, Rabbi’s words still require explanation:

And what does “and so”

mean when he says, “Then the man who lay with her shall die alone”?

According to this explanation of Rabbi’s words, her liability to burning is not derived from the fact that the first intercourse was forbidden, but from the fact that she began to profane her status as a member of the priesthood, even though she had already been penetrated through marriage.

By contrast, the man who has intercourse with a betrothed נערה [the case discussed in the verse, “Then that man shall die”] becomes liable only because this is specifically the first intercourse. If so, there is no connection between these two matters?