משנה: אַרְבַּע מִיתוֹת נִמְסְרוּ לְבֵית דִּין סְקִילָה שְׂרֵיפָה הֶרֶג וָחֶנֶק. רִבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן אוֹמֵר שְׂרֵיפָה סְקִילָה חֶנֶק וָהֶרֶג. זוֹ מִצְוַת הַנִּסְקָלִין׃ MISHNAH: Four kinds of execution was the court empowered to impose: Stoning, burning, decapitation, and strangling. Rebbi Simeon says: Burning, stoning, strangling, and decapitation1They differ in the evaluation of which type of execution inflicts more pain on the condemned, starting with the worst and ending with the easiest.. The preceding was prescribed for stoning.
הלכה: אַרְבַּע מִיתוֹת נִמְסְרוּ לְבֵית דִּין כול׳. וְלָרָשׁוּת לֹא נִיתַּן אֶלָּא דִין הֶרֶג בִּלְבַד. סְקִילָה מְנַיִין. וּסְקַלְתָּ֥ם בָּֽאֲבָנִי֭ם וָמֵֽתוּ׃ שְׂרֵיפָה. שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר בָּאֵ֞שׁ יִשְׂרְפ֤וּ אוֹתוֹ וְאֶתְהֶ֔ן. הֶרֶג. נֶאֱמַר כָּאן נְקִימָה וְנֶאֱמַר לְהַלָּן וְהֵֽבֵאתִ֨י עֲלֵיכֶ֜ם חֶ֗רֶב נֹקֶ֨מֶת֙ נְקַם־בְּרִ֔ית. מַה נְקִימָה הָאֲמוּרָה לְהַלָּן חֶרֶב. אַף נְקִימָה הָאֲמוּרָה כָאן חֶרֶב. חֶנֶק. לֵית מַשְׁכַּח לֵיהּ. אָֽמְרָת. כָּל־מִיתָה הָאֲמוּרָה בַתּוֹרָה סְתָם אֵין אַתָּה רַשַּׁאי לְהַחֲמִיר עָלֶיהָ אֶלָּא לְהָקֵל עָלֶיהָ וְתָלוּ אוֹתָהּ בַּחֶנֶק. HALAKHAH: “Four kinds of execution was the court empowered to impose,” etc. But to the government2The Roman Imperial government. When Caracalla extended Roman citizenship to all free inhabitants of the empire, he thereby abolished crucifixion (except for slaves). only decapitation was given. From where stoning? You shall stone them with stones that they die3Deuteronomy.17.5">Deut. 17:5.. Burning, for it is written, in fire you shall burn him and them4Leviticus.20.14">Lev. 20:14.. Avenging is written here5Exodus.21.20">Ex. 21:20. The slave slain by his master shall be avenged. Sanhedrin.52b">Babli 52b; the Babli text in Mekhilta dR. Ismael p. 273, dR. Simeon bar Iohai p. 175., and there it is written: I shall bring over you a sword which avenges the vengeance of the Covenant6Leviticus.26.25">Lev. 26:25.. Since avenging mentioned there is by the sword, also avenging mentioned here is by the sword. Strangling? You do not find it7It is not mentioned anywhere in biblical literature as a recognized form of execution. The Babli’s discussion, 52b, is inconclusive.. You say that for any death penalty mentioned in the Torah with no particular indication, you are not empowered to make it more stringent, but only to make it less so; they assigned this to strangling.
רִבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן אוֹמֵר. שְׂרֵיפָה חֲמוּרָה מִסְּקִילָה. וְרַבָּנִין מָרִין. סְקִילָה חֲמוּרָה מִשְּׂרֵיפָה. רִבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן אוֹמֵר. חֶנֶק חָמוּר מֵהֶרֶג. וְרַבָּנִין מָרִין. הֶרֶג חָמוּר מֵחֶנֶק. רִבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן דָּרַשׁ. כָּל־שֵׁם בַּת כֹּהֵן בִּשְׂרֵיפָה. וְרַבָּנִין מָרִין. כָּל־שֵׁם אֲרוּסָה בִסְקִילָה. רִבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן דָּרַשׁ. מַה בַת כֹּהֵן שֶׁהֶחֱמִירָה תוֹרָה בָּאֲרוּסָה שֶׁתְּהֵא בִּשְׂרֵיפָה הֵיקִילָה בִנְשׂוּאָה שֶׁתְּהֵא בִסְקִילָה. בַּת יִשְׂרָאֵל שֶׁהֵיקִילָה תוֹרָה בָּאֲרוּסָה שֶׁתְּהֵא בִסְקִילָה אֵינוֹ דִין שֶׁנָּקֵל עָלֶיהָ בִנְשׂוּאָה שֶׁתְּהֵא בַהֲרִיגָה. וְרַבָּנִין דָּֽרְשִׁין. מַה אִם בַּת יִשְׂרָאֵל שֶׁהֶחֱמִירָה הַתּוֹרָה בָּאֲרוּסָה שֶׁתְּהֵא בִסְקִילָה הֵיקִילָה בִנְשׂוּאֵהָ שֶׁתְּהֵא בִשְׂרֵיפָה. בַת כֹּהֵן שֶׁהֵיקִילָה הַתּוֹרָה בָּאֵירוּסֶיהָ שֶׁתְּהֵא בִּשְׂרֵיפָה אֵינוֹ דִין שֶׁנָּקֵל עָלֶיהָ בְּנִישּׂוּאֶיהָ שֶׁתְּהֵא בַחֲנִיקָה. Rebbi Simeon says, burning is worse than stoning, but the rabbis teach that stoning is worse than burning. Rebbi Simeon says, strangulation is worse than decapitation; but the rabbis teach that decapitation is worse than strangulation1They differ in the evaluation of which type of execution inflicts more pain on the condemned, starting with the worst and ending with the easiest.. Rebbi Simeon explained that any reference to “Cohen’s daughter” implies burning, but the rabbis teach that any reference to “preliminarily married” implies stoning8Adultery by a preliminarily married virgin is punishable by stoning (Deuteronomy.22.24">Deut. 22:24), by a definitively married woman by “death” (Leviticus.20.10">Lev. 20:10), which by the preceding argument means the least painful of the four kinds of execution. Leviticus.21.9">Lev. 21:9 prescribes death by burning for the whoring daughter of a Cohen. The status (unmarried, preliminarily or definitively married) of the Cohen’s daughter is not spelled out. Since sexual activity of an unmarried woman is nowhere in the Bible classified as a capital crime [Sifra Emor Pereq 1(15)], it is assumed that the Cohen’s daughter mentioned in the verse cannot be unmarried (virgin or widowed). The problem remains whether Leviticus.21.9">Lev. 21:9 refers to a preliminarily or definitively married woman.
For R. Simeon, who holds that burning is more painful than stoning, Leviticus.21.9">Lev. 21:9 refers to any adulterous daughter of a Cohen, irrespective of the status of her marriage (Sanhedrin.50a">Babli 50a). For the rabbis who hold that stoning is more painful than burning, Leviticus.21.9">Lev. 21:9 cannot refer to a preliminarily married maiden since then it would treat a Cohen’s daughter more leniently than an Israel’s, which contradicts the entire tenor of Leviticus.21.1-9">Lev. 21:1–9.
The formulation of the rabbis’ position is not quite correct since Deuteronomy.22.24">Deut. 22:24 applies only to a preliminarily married maiden (between the ages of 12 and 12 years 6 months; cf. Yevamot 1:2:10" href="/Jerusalem_Talmud_Yevamot.1.2.10">Yebamot 1:3, Notes 159–160). In the text following, “preliminarily married” means “preliminarily married maiden”; “definitively married” means “definitively married or adult preliminarily married”.. Rebbi Simeon explained: The Torah was stringent with a Cohen’s daughter and ordered that as preliminarily married she be burned, but was lenient with the definitively married one that she be stoned9This statement contradicts the assertion in the previous paragraph that R. Simeon applies Leviticus.21.9">Lev. 21:9 to any married daughter of a Cohen; it also contradicts both the principles that (1) penalties must be spelled out in Scripture, cannot be inferred by hermeneutical rules, and (2) in any argument de minore ad majus only the data of the rules which are compared can be used; only identical terms can be transferred. Both objections again lead to the conclusion that R. Simeon cannot differentiate between a preliminarily and a definitively married daughter of a Cohen.. The Torah was lenient with the preliminarily married daughter of an Israel and ordered that she be stoned; it is logical that we be lenient with the definitively married one that she be decapitated10This is no logical argument at all but a clear reference to biblical verses; cf. Sanhedrin 7:5:1" href="/Jerusalem_Talmud_Sanhedrin.7.5.1">Note 8. The only inference is that for R. Simeon the standard method of execution must be beheading.. But the rabbis explain, since the Torah was stringent with the preliminarily married daughter of an Israel and ordered that she be stoned, it was lenient with her in her definitively married status to be burned11A clear scribal error; it must be “strangled” (Sanhedrin 7:5:1" href="/Jerusalem_Talmud_Sanhedrin.7.5.1">Note 8).. The Torah was lenient with the daughter of a Cohen in her pleliminarily married status and ordered that she be burned; it is logical that we be lenient with her in her definitively married status that she be strangled12This proves that at the end of the preceding sentence one has to read “strangled”..
רִבִּי אַבָּהוּ בְשֵׁם רִבִּי יוֹסֵי בֶן חֲנִינָה. כָּל־מִיתָה שֶׁהִיא לְמַטָּה מִמִּיתַת אָבִיהָ בִשְׂרֵיפָה. כְּשֶׁהִיא אֶצֶל אָבִיהָ עִם אָבִיהָ בִשְׂרֵיפָה וְעִם חָמִיהָ בִסְקִילָה. אֶת־אָבִ֨יהָ֙ הִ֣יא מְחַלֶּ֔לֶת בָּאֵ֖שׁ תִּשָּׂרֵֽף׃ רִבִּי לִיעֶזֶר אוֹמֵר. עִם אָבִיהָ בִשְׂרֵיפָה עִם חָמִיהָ בִסְקִילָה. הִיא בִשְׂרֵיפָה וְאֵין בּוֹעֲלָהּ בִּשְׂרֵיפָה. הִיא בִשְׂרֵיפָה וְאֵין זוֹמְמֶיהָ בִּשְׂרֵיפָה. כְּיוֹצֵא בָהֶם בִּשְׂרֵיפָה הִיא וָהֵן בִּשְׂרֵיפָה. כְּיוֹצֵא בָהֶן בִּסְקִילָה הִיא וָהֵן בִּסְקִילָה. כְּיוֹצֵא בָהֶן בְּחֶנֶק הֵן בִּשְׂרֵיפָה וְהוּא בְּחֶנֶק. Rebbi Abbahu in the name of Rebbi Yose ben Ḥanina: Anyone who is executed less cruelly than her father’s death is by burning13The discussion follows the rabbis, for whom stoning is more severe than burning. The statement is a little more explicit in the Sanhedrin.51a">Babli, 51a.
A definitively married Israel woman who commits adultery is strangled, except that if she commit incest with her father both are burned (Leviticus.20.14">Lev. 20:14). As a preliminarily married maiden she would be stoned. Therefore, it is clear that for the rabbis the daughter of a Cohen is burned only if either she commits incest with her father or adultery when definitively married.. As long as she is with her father, with her father she is burned, with her father-in-law stoned. With her father she is desecrating, in fire she should be burned14Leviticus.21.9">Lev. 21:9, reading אֶת as “with”. The quote with the following two sentences is a baraita, Sifra Emor Pereq 1(19); Sanhedrin 14:4" href="/Tosefta_Sanhedrin.14.4">Tosephta 14:17.. Rebbi Eliezer says, with her father she is burned, with her father-in-law stoned15Leviticus.20.12">Lev. 20:12. From Leviticus.20.27">Lev. 20:27: they shall be put to death, by a stone they shall be stoned, their blood be on them, it is inferred that any expression “their blood be on them” means execution by stoning. Sanhedrin.54a">Babli 54a.. She by burning, her paramour not by burning16The singular used in Leviticus.21.9">Lev. 21:9 implies that only she is executed by burning; her paramour is punished, like any adulterer with a married woman, by strangulation (Sanhedrin.51a">Babli 51a).. She by burning, her perjured witnesses not by burning. Similarly by burning, she and they by burning. Simnilarly by stoning, she and they by stoning. Similarly by strangulation, they by burning but he by strangulation17The last three sentences are repeated as last sentences of this Tractate, Sanhedrin 11:6:2-5" href="/Jerusalem_Talmud_Sanhedrin.11.6.2-5">Halakhah 11:8; Sanhedrin 14:4" href="/Tosefta_Sanhedrin.14.4">Tosephta 14:17. “They” are perjured witnesses who falsely accuse her. If they accuse her of adultery as a definitively married woman, then the perjured witnesses are strangled, the prescribed punishment of the paramour. If they accuse her of incest with her father, they are burned, the prescribed punishment of her father. If they accuse her of adultery as preliminarily married maiden, they are stoned, the prescribed punishment both of her and her paramour.
The last sentence cannot stand as it appears here. In Chapter 11, one reads כְּיוֹצֵא בָהֶן בְּחֶנֶק הִיא וְהֵן בְּחֶנֶק “similarly by strangulation, she and they by strangulation.” In the Tosephta כְּיוֹצֵא בָהֶן בְּחֶנֶק הוּא בִּשְׂרֵיפָה וְהֵן בְּחֶנֶק “similarly by strangulation, he is burned and they by strangulation.” One sees that none of the scribes understood what he was writing. One may read in Chapter 11 “he and they by strangulation,” or in the Tosephta “she is burned and they strangled”. In the text here, one has to read: “she by burning but he (or they) by strangulation.”.
רִבִּי אַבָּהוּ בְשֵׁם רִבִּי יוֹסֵי בֶן חֲנִינָה. רַבָּנִין דָּֽרְשִׁין. אַנְשֵׁי עִיר הַנִּדַּחַת בִּכְלָל עוֹבְדֵי עֲבוֹדָה זָרָה הָיוּ בִסְקִילָה. יָֽצְאוּ לִידּוֹן בְּקַלָּה שֶׁבְּמִיתוֹת בִּשְׂרֵיפָה. לֹא דַייֶךָ שֶׁאַתְּ מוֹצִיאָהּ לִידוֹן בְּקַלָּה שֶׁבְּמִיתוֹת בִּשְׂרֵיפָה אֶלָּא שֶׁאַתְּ מוֹצִיאָן לָדוּן בַּקַּלָּה שֶׁבְּמִיתוֹת בַּחֲנִיקָה. רִבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן דָּרַשׁ. נָבִיא הַשֶּׁקֶר בִּכְלָל עוֹבְדֵי עֲבוֹדָה זָרָה הָיוּ בִשְׂרֵיפָה. יָֽצְאוּ לִידּוֹן בְּקַלָּה שֶׁבְּמִיתוֹת בִּסְקִילָה. לֹא דַייֶךָ שֶׁאַתְּ מוֹצִיאָן לִידוֹן בִּסְקִילָה אֶלָּא שֶׁאַתְּ רוֹצֶה לְהוֹצִיאָן בַּקַּלָּה שֶׁבְּמִיתוֹת בַּהֲרִיגָה. Rebbi Abbahu in the name of Rebbi Yose ben Ḥanina: The rabbis explain that the inhabitants of a seduced city18A city which by vote of city council and population decides to become pagan. Its inhabitants have to be killed by the sword (Deuteronomy.13.13-19">Deut. 13:13–19). Individual apostates to paganism have to be stoned (Deuteronomy.17.5">Deut. 17:5). should have been included in the category of idolaters, by stoning. They were treated to a less painful way of execution; that should be by burning19Just one degree less than stoning.. It is not enough that you decree for them an easier death by burning, but should you have them judged by the easiest way, by strangulation20This is the rabbis’ argument to prove that beheading is worse than strangulation. If the punishment of the inhabitants of the seduced city were the easiest way of execution, the verse simply should have decreed the unspecified death penalty. Since beheading was specified, it must be worse than the unspecified death penalty.
The reason behind the argument is R. Ismael’s tenth hermeneutical principle [Sifra Wayyiqra Pereq 1(2)], that special treatment for a crime already treated in general always expresses a leniency, not greater strictness.? Rebbi Simeon explained: The false prophet21Deuteronomy.13.2-6">Deut. 13:2–6. He is described as a missionary for paganism; his sentence is “death” which means strangulation for the rabbis and beheading for R. Simeon. should have been included in the category of idolaters, by burning22This makes no sense since it contradicts Deuteronomy.17.5">Deut. 17:5. The first two sentences of the argument attributed to R. Simeon are simply taken from the rabbis’ argument with stoning and burning switched, even though the argument is irrelevant.. He was treated to a less painful way of execution, which should be by stoning. It is not enough that you decree for them an easier death by stoning, but you have him judged by the easiest way, by beheading23Since the rabbis must agree that the false prophet be executed in the least painful way, they agree that once a punishment is reduced, it may be reduced to the lowest level; the rabbis’ argument in Sanhedrin 7:1:5" href="/Jerusalem_Talmud_Sanhedrin.7.1.5">Note 20 is contradicted. The mention of death by the sword in Deuteronomy.13.16">Deut. 13:16 may be an example of the third hermeneutical rule, “a general principle exemplified once”..
רִבִּי שְׁמוּאֵל בַּר סוֹסַרְטַאי בְשֵׁם רִבִּי אַבָּהוּ מַחֲלִף. רַבָּנִין דָּֽרְשִׁין. נָבִיא הַשֶּׁקֶר בִּכְלָל עוֹבְדֵי עֲבוֹדָה זָרָה הָיָה בִסְקִילָה. יָצָא לִידוֹן בְּקַלָּה שֶׁבְּמִיתוֹת בִּשְׂרֵיפָה. לֹא דַייֶךָ שֶׁאַתְּ מוֹצִיאוֹ בִשְׂרֵיפָה אֶלָּא שֶׁאַתְּ מוֹצִיאוֹ לִידוֹן בַּקַּלָּה שֶׁבְּמִיתוֹת בַּחֲנִיקָה. Rebbi Samuel ben Sosartai in the name of Rebbi Abbahu switches the arguments. The rabbis explained: The rabbis explain that the false prophet should have been included in the category of idolaters, by stoning. He was treated to a less painful way of execution, [this should have been] by burning. It is not enough that you decree burning for them, but you have him judged by the easiest way, by strangulation24This adapts for the rabbis the argument ascribed to R. Simeon in the preceding paragraph..
רִבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן דָּרַשׁ. אַנְשֵׁי עִיר הַנִּדַּחַת בִּכְלָל עוֹבְדֵי עֲבוֹדָה זָרָה הָיוּ בִּשְׂרֵיפָה. יָֽצְאוּ לִידּוֹן בְּקַלָּה שֶׁבְּמִיתוֹת בִסְקִילָה. לֹא דַייֶךָ אֶלָּא שֶׁאַתְּ מוֹצִיאָן לִידּוֹן בַּקַּלָּה שֶׁבְּמִיתוֹת בַּהֲרִיגָה. Rebbi Simeon explained: The inhabitants of a seduced city should have been included in the category of idolaters, by burning. They were treated to a less painful way of execution; that should be by stoning22This makes no sense since it contradicts Deuteronomy.17.5">Deut. 17:5. The first two sentences of the argument attributed to R. Simeon are simply taken from the rabbis’ argument with stoning and burning switched, even though the argument is irrelevant.. This is not enough for you but you have them judged by the easiest way, by beheading25In this version, the arguments of both parties are completely parallel; each one is consistent within its own system. Both systems are compatible with the biblical verses..