Sanhedrin 66b — the Talmud in English

What

was it written for the sake of

“You shall not curse”? \-

Learn from it two things!

From this we learn a warning concerning the two curses: a. concerning one who “blesses” the Name; b. concerning one who curses the judge.

And if so, the warning concerning cursing the judge is found to be superfluous, and we return to the words of the Gemara at its beginning: “If it does not apply to itself”—for the warning concerning cursing the judge was learned from the common feature of prince and deaf person—“apply it to his father,” and from this we learn a warning concerning one who curses his father.

Mishna:

One who has intercourse with a betrothed maiden is not liable

to stoning unless

she is a maiden.

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

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

And these are the conditions through which one who has intercourse with a betrothed maiden becomes liable to stoning:

That she be

a virgin,

a maiden who has not yet had intercourse; that she be

betrothed,

having received betrothal but not yet having entered the bridal canopy;

and she is in her father’s house,

and has not yet gone to her husband. And even if the father himself delivered her to the husband’s agents and she engaged in intercourse on the way—there is no liability to stoning in this case.

Two men had intercourse with her

while she still remained a virgin, and this is referring to a case in which they had intercourse with her unnaturally, so

the first is stoned,

because he had intercourse with a virgin.

And

if

the second is strangled,

even though the first had intercourse with her unnaturally,

And this law is according to the view of Rabbi below [66b], that once the first had intercourse with her, she has left the category of the presumption of virginity. Therefore, the second is not stoned, as one who has intercourse with a virgin would be, but is strangled.

Gemara:

The Sages taught:

It is stated: [Deuteronomy 22:23] “For there shall be a maiden, a virgin, betrothed to a man, etc., and you shall stone them with stones and they shall die.”

And from this we learn that liability to stoning was stated only for a

maiden and not

for a

mature woman.

And a maiden is: a. one who has brought two hairs, until the black hair becomes more abundant than the white.

b. That six months have not yet passed from the time of her maidenhood, since there are only six months between maidenhood and maturity.

And likewise liability to stoning was stated only for a

“virgin”

mentioned there in the verse,

and not

for a

non-virgin.

And likewise for a

“betrothed woman,” and not a married woman.

And it is likewise stated there concerning one who spreads an evil report about the maiden, and says, “I did not find virginity in her,” and it is discovered that she indeed engaged in intercourse before marriage: her death is by stoning.

And it is stated there [Deuteronomy 22:21], “For she has committed disgrace in Israel, to engage in intercourse in her father’s house,” and from this we learn that there is liability to stoning only if she engaged in intercourse

in her father’s house—

excluding

the place where

the father delivered

the daughter

to the husband’s agents,

and if she engaged in intercourse on the way, she is not stoned.

Rav Yehuda said in the name of Rav:

Our Mishna, which says that there is no liability to stoning unless one has intercourse with a maiden, 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 a fine of fifty silver coins to her father, because “maiden” is written [Deuteronomy 22:28].

And here too it says, “a maiden, a virgin, betrothed,” and according to Rabbi Meir this indicates that the law of stoning was stated only concerning a maiden, but not concerning a minor.

But the Sages

[who dispute Rabbi Meir there in Ketubot]

say

that here too

“a betrothed maiden” includes even a minor.

And one who has intercourse with her is judged by stoning. The verse excluded only a mature woman.

Rav Aha of Difti said to Ravina: From where is it that our Mishna

which excludes a minor from the law of stoning

is Rabbi Meir’s, and

comes

also to exclude a minor,

in addition to excluding a mature woman from liability to stoning?

Perhaps

our Mishna is also according to

the Sages, and

comes only

to exclude a mature woman and no more?

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

He said to him,

Ravina: According to your words,

this,

the wording of the Mishna,

“he is not liable until she is a maiden, a virgin, betrothed,”

is not understandable.

Why indeed did the Mishna need to write “until she is a maiden”? It should have said

“he is liable only

for a maiden, a virgin, betrothed”—it should have said this.

This is what should have been said.

And necessarily, since the Mishna used the expression “until,” it indicates that he is not liable for her while she is a minor, but only until she grows and becomes a maiden.

And no more is needed!

There is no need to add anything concerning this, since certainly our Mishna is Rabbi Meir’s and not the Sages’!

Rabbi Yaakov bar Adda asked Rav:

We learn in our Mishna according to Rabbi Meir that one who has intercourse with a betrothed minor is not stoned.

And now one must ask:

One who has intercourse with a betrothed minor, according to

the view of

Rabbi Meir—what is his status?

Is Rabbi Meir

entirely excluding him

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

or

does he exclude him only

from

the death by

stoning,

but the one who had intercourse is executed by strangulation, like anyone who has intercourse with a married woman?

He said to him,

Rav:

It is reasonable

that he excludes him only

from

the death by

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.—and it indicates

until both of them are equal

in their law, that both of them are liable to punishment. And if so, one who has intercourse with a minor, who is not punished because she is not liable to punishment—how is it possible to punish him?

Rav was silent

and did not answer this refutation.

Shmuel said: What is the reason Rav was silent? He should have said to him

and answered him from the following verse: [Deuteronomy 22:25]

“But if the man finds the maiden in the field, and the man seizes her and lies with her,

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

Why was the end of this verse, that the man dies alone, stated? If it was stated in order to exclude her from the punishment of death, is this not explicitly stated afterward: “But to the maiden you shall do nothing”?

Rather, from this we learn the law of one who has intercourse with a betrothed minor willingly. Her exemption is not because she is one who was raped, but because she is a minor and is entirely not liable to punishment.

Nevertheless, he dies alone. And it is proven that although punishment does not apply to her, he is punished!

If so, why did Rav not answer with this response? \-

As a dispute between תנאים:

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 not punished unless

until both of them are equal

in that both are punished—

the words of Rabbi Yoshiah.

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

indicating that it is possible that only he will be put to death alone, although she does not die.

However, one may challenge:

But the other one,

Rabbi Yonatan, who holds that it is possible that only one of them is put to death—if so,

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

Rava said:

Rabbi Yonatan expounds “both of them shall die”

to exclude the act of sharpenings,

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

And concerning this it is said, “Then both of them shall die”: both of them become liable only for something in which the two are equal in their pleasure!

And this is difficult: if so,

but the other one,

Rabbi Yoshiah, who learned from “both of them shall die” that they must be equal in their punishment—how does he learn this law, that they must be equal in their pleasure from the act, and that in the act of sharpenings one is exempt because they are not equal in its pleasure?

And the answer is:

The act of sharpenings is nothing!

And there is no need to exclude it from the punishment, since it is not included in the act of forbidden sexual relations, but is mere licentiousness.

But the other one,

Rabbi Yoshiah, who holds that the two are not punished unless 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 hold that one is not punished alone?

Rabbi Yoshiah expounds this verse

as it was taught: Ten men had

intercourse with her, and she still remained a virgin,

for example, they had intercourse with her unnaturally—

all are stoned!

Because all of them had intercourse with a maiden who was a virgin.

Rabbi says: The first

among them who had intercourse with her is

stoned, and all the others are strangled!

Because with regard to death by stoning, “alone” was stated. That is, only one who has intercourse with the virgin alone is executed by stoning—namely, the first among them. For 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.

And this is what Rabbi Yoshiah learns from the verse “alone,” according to Rabbi: even if many 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 priest, when she begins to commit harlotry

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

Rabbi says:

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

beginning!

[His words will be explained below.]

And so

the verse

says:

[Deuteronomy 22:25]

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

And the Gemara wonders:

What is Rabbi saying,

Rabbi?

Rav Huna son of Rav Yehoshua said: Rabbi, according to Rabbi Ishmael

as Rabbi Ishmael said at the beginning of our chapter,

holds this view.

For

Rabbi Ishmael said: Only a priest’s daughter who is

betrothed

and engaged in intercourse

goes out

and is judged

to burning—

but not a married woman.

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

And now Rabbi’s words are explained:

And this is what Rabbi said:

Rabbi.

If the beginning of intercourse,

that is, the first intercourse through which she has intercourse with a man, taking place before she married, is performed

in harlotry—

her law

is burning,

in accordance with Rabbi Ishmael’s words.

But the other one,

every intercourse in harlotry that is not the first intercourse, but takes place after marriage—is

by strangulation!

And after we have explained Rabbi’s first words, the question is:

What is the meaning of “and so”

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

And the explanation is: this law that Rabbi learned, that the first intercourse in harlotry imposes liability to stoning, is

as there,

like the matter brought in the verse there:

Just as there,

in the aforementioned verse, which speaks of the punishment of one who rapes a betrothed maiden,

at the beginning of intercourse,

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

the verse speaks

and

the verse

speaks there, and only he is stoned, whereas when another person has intercourse with her afterward, he is not stoned,

so here too,

so also here,

at the beginning of intercourse,

at the first intercourse of the betrothed woman,

the verse speaks,

and therefore her death is by burning. But the other acts of intercourse that will take place with her in harlotry after marriage are by strangulation!

Rav Bibi bar Abaye said

to Rav Huna son of Rav Yehoshua:

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

who did not explain it this way?

Rav Yosef!

And Rav Yosef explained it as follows:

Rabbi holds according to Rabbi Meir,

and not according to Rabbi Ishmael.

For

Rabbi Meir said [above, 51a]: A priest’s daughter who was married to a fit man and engaged in intercourse while under him—her death is by burning. But if she

married one of those disqualified,

and engaged in intercourse while under him—

her death is by strangulation!

And this is what Rabbi said:

Rabbi:

If the beginning of her profanation,

if the beginning of her profanation from the priesthood was

through harlotry,

[since until now she was married to a fit man, and this harlotry is her first profanation,] she is judged

by burning!

But if she married one of those disqualified, and therefore this harlotry does not constitute the beginning of her profanation from the priesthood—for she was profaned through her marriage to the disqualified man—and she engaged in intercourse while under him, her death is by strangulation!

But the other one,

even if she married a fit man and became liable to burning through the first intercourse in harlotry, her other acts of intercourse in harlotry afterward are

by strangulation!

And Rabbi’s words are explained: “And the daughter of a priest, when she begins to commit harlotry” means that if the beginning of her harlotry and profanation was while she was married to a fit man, it is by burning.

However, Rabbi’s words still require explanation:

And what is the meaning of “and so”

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

For according to this explanation of Rabbi’s words, the liability to burning is not derived for her because her first intercourse was forbidden, but because she began to profane the priesthood, even though she had already had intercourse through marriage.

Whereas one who has intercourse with a betrothed maiden [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 at all between these two matters?