|1 but if she was married to
a Levite, Israelite, heathen,2 a profaned
bastard,4 or a
Nathin,5 whence do we know that the
same applies? From the verse: And the daughter of a man who is a priest,
which teaches that even if she is married to one who is not a priest the
same applies.6 Further: she [profaneth
her father; she shall be burnt in fire] teaches that only she is punished
by fire, but not her paramour, nor those who testify falsely against her.
R. Eliezer said: If with her father, she is burnt; if with her father-in-law,
she is stoned.7
The Master said: 'I might think that this applies even to the Profanation of the Sabbath.' But if she profaned the Sabbath, must she not be stoned?8 — Raba replied: This is taught according to R. Simeon, who regards burning a severer penalty.I might think that since the Divine Law has in general been stricter with the priests [than with the Israelites], giving them an additional number of precepts, therefore the priest's daughter [if she profaned the Sabbath] should be burnt; hence we are taught that this verse applies only to profanation by whoredom. But why should she differ from a priest himself?9 — I would think that a priest is punished more leniently, because he is permitted to work on the Sabbath in the sacrificial service;10 but since a priest's daughter is not so permitted, her punishment should be stoning. We are therefore taught otherwise.
'I might think that this applies even to an unmarried woman. But does not the Writ state: 'by playing the whore'? — This is taught on the view of R. Eliezer, who maintained: If an unmarried man cohabits with an unmarried woman without conjugal intent, he renders her a harlot.11
'But perhaps "her father" is stated in order to exclude others?' — How then would you explain the verse? That she committed adulterous incest with her father! If so, why only a priest's daughter: does not the same apply to an Israelite's daughter? For [did not] Raba say: R. Isaac b. Abudimi said unto me: 'We learn identity of law from the fact that hennah [they] occurs in two related passages, and likewise zimmah [wickedness] in two'?12 — The verse [she profaneth] is necessary. For I would think that this whole passage treats of incest with one's father, and the penalty of burning is prescribed here intentionally to obviate Raba's deduction.13 Hence the deduction [from she profaneth].
'The daughter of any priest: from this phrase I know the law only if she was married to a priest; if she was married to a Levite, Israelite, heathen, a profaned person, bastard, or a Nathin, whence do I know that the same applies? From the verse: And the daughter of a man who is a priest, which teaches that even if she is married to one who is not a priest the same applies.' But because she is married to one of these, is she no longer considered a priest's daughter? Moreover, does Scripture state … a priest's daughter married to a priest?14 — I might think that since Scripture states, if she profane herself by playing the whore, the law deals only with one who now profanes herself for the first time;15 but in these other cases where she was already profaned before [this law should not apply]. For, a Master stated: [The verse,] If the priest's daughter also be married unto a stranger, [she may not eat of an offering of the holy things]16 teaches that if she cohabits with one who is unfit for her,17 he disqualifies her [to eat of the holy food] — And [similarly] if she was married to a Levite or an Israelite, since Scripture also states, [But if a priest's daughter be a widow or divorced, and have no child] and is returned unto her father's her house, as in her youth, [she shall eat of father's meat, i.e., of the holy food],18 it shows that as long as her husband [a Levite or Israelite] is alive, she must not eat of the holy food.19 Hence I would think that she should not be burnt; therefore the verse teaches otherwise.
Now this ruling [that even if married to a bastard, etc., she is burnt] does not agree with R. Meir's view. For it has been taught: If a priest's daughter, married to an Israelite, ate of terumah,20 she must repay the principals but not the additional fifth.21 [If she committed adultery] her penalty is burning. But if she was married to one unfit for her [e.g., a bastard, etc.] she must repay the principal and the added fifth, and her penalty is strangulation: this is the ruling of R. Meir. But the Sages hold that in both cases she must pay the principal but not the fifth, and her penalty is burning.
'R. Eliezer said: If with her father, she is burnt; if with her father-in-law, she is stoned.' What is meant by 'her father' and 'her father-in-law'? If we say 'her father' means [that she committed whoredom] with her father, and 'her father-in-law' [that she did so] with her father-in-law: why speak particularly of a priest's daughter; an Israelite's daughter too is thus punished — a daughter [for incest with her father] by burning, and a daughter-in-law by stoning? — But 'her father' means 'under her father's authority',22 and 'her father-in-law' indicates 'under her father-in-law's authority'.23 Whose view is this? If the Rabbis? Do they not maintain that a nesu'ah is excluded [from strangulation and punished] by burning, but not so an arusah [who is stoned]? If R. Simeon's? Does he not maintain that both an arusah and a nesu'ah are burnt? And if R. Ishmael's?24 Does he not maintain that only an arusah is burnt, but not a nesu'ah, and accordingly, [when under the authority of] her father-in-law, she is strangled?25 — Rabin sent a message in the name of R. Jose son of R. Hanina:26 This is the explanation of the teaching.27 Indeed it is in accordance with the Rabbis' views and this is its meaning: Where an adulterous woman's death is more lenient than that of her father for incest [with his daughter], that is in the case of an Israelite's daughter, who is a arusah, her punishment being strangulation;28 then in the case of a priest's daughter, her punishment is the same as her father's, viz., burning; but where an adulterous woman's penalty is greater than her father's, that is in the case of an Israelite's daughter, who is an arusah, her punishment being stoning,29 then in the case of a priest's daughter, her punishment is as that of her father-in-law for incest with her, viz., by stoning.30 R. Jeremiah objected to this explanation: Does then the Baraitha state 'greater' or 'lesser'? But R. Jeremiah explained it thus:
1 or to refer to the authority under which she is?2 Hence Raba explained it thus: This is in agreement with R. Simeon [who holds burning to be the severest penalty]. R. Eliezer [who taught this] maintaining that a nesu'ah is as an arusah: just as with an arusah, [the penalty of a priest's daughter] is raised in stringency by one degree more [than that of an Israelite's daughter], viz., from stoning to burning, so also with a nesu'ah the penalty is raised in stringency by one degree, viz., from strangulation to stoning.3 R. Hanina objected: But R. Simeon maintains that in both cases the penalty is burning! Hence Rabina explained it thus: This is really according to the Rabbis, but you must reverse the text, thus: If 'with her father' [i.e. an arusah], she is stoned; if 'with her father-in-law', [i.e., a nesu'ah], she is burned. And as to the phrase 'with her father'?4 He [R. Eliezer] is influenced by the general phraseology.5
R. Nahman said in the name of Rabbah b. Abbuha in the name of Rab: The halachah is in accordance with the message sent by Rabin in the name of R. Jose b. Hanina. R. Joseph queried: [Do we need] to fix a halachah for [the days of] the Messiah?6 — Abaye answered: If so, we should not study the laws of sacrifices, as they are also only for the Messianic era. But we say: Study and receive reward;7 so in this case too, study and receive reward: [He replied:] This is what I mean: Why state a halachah? In the course of the discussion, was there given a ruling at all?8
Now, what statement of R. Ishmael was referred to?9 — It has been taught: And the daughter of any priest, If she profanes herself by playing the whore:10 Scripture here speaks of a maiden [na'arah] who is an arusah. You say so, but perhaps it also refers to a nesu'ah? — The Writ sayeth: And the man that committeth adultery with another man's wife, even he that committeth adultery with his neighbour's wife, the adulterer and the adulteress shall be put to death.11 Now all are included in the terms 'adulterer' and 'adulteress', but the Writ excluded the daughter of an Israelite, teaching that she is stoned,12 and the daughter of a priest, teaching that she is burnt. Just as the exception made for an Israelite's daughter refers to an arusah, but not a nesu'ah;13 so also, when a priest's daughter was excepted, an arusah was so excepted, but not a nesu'ah. Further, false witnesses [in respect of the charge of adultery] and the paramour [of an adulterous woman] were [originally] included in the verse: [If a false witness rise up against any man to testify against him that which is wrong …] then ye shall do unto him, as he had thought to hove done unto his brother.14 — Now, how can the words, as he had thought apply to a Paramour!15 — But say thus: The punishment of her false witnesses Is included in the text referring to the death of her paramour,16 because Scripture states: then ye shall do unto him, as he had thought to have done unto his brother; implying, but not unto his sister.17 This is R. Ishmael's opinion. R. Akiba said: [A priest's daughter], whether an arusah or a nesu'ah, is excepted [from the punishment of strangulation,] but is punished with fire. I might think that this applies even to an unmarried woman: but her father is mentioned in this passage, and her father is also mentioned elsewhere:18 just as elsewhere the reference is to whoredom by one who is bound to a husband, so here too. Thereupon R. Ishmael said unto him: If so, just as the second passage refers to a maiden [na'arah] who is an arusah, so this verse [treating of a priest's daughter] should be taken to refer to a maiden who is an arusah; [but if a nesu'ah, her punishment should be different]. R. Akiba replied: My brother, I interpret the and the daughter etc., when it would have been sufficient to say the daughter etc., as teaching the inclusion of a nesu'ah.19 R. Ishmael said to him: Shall we except this woman [i.e., a nesu'ah from the punishment of strangulation] and impose [the severer penalty of] death by fire, because you interpret the superfluous 'waw' ['and']; if this superfluous wow indicates the inclusion of a nesu'ah, then include an unmarried woman too;20 whilst if it implies the exclusion of an unmarried woman [since the Deuteronomic passage explicitly relates to a married woman], then exclude a nesu'ah too. And R. Akiba?21 — [He holds that] the gezerah shawah serves the purpose to exclude an unmarried woman, whilst the superfluous 'waw' serves to indicate the inclusion of a nesu'ah. And R. Ishmael? — In raising the foregoing [objection] he thought that since R. Akiba had replied. 'I interpret the superfluous waw', it proved that he had withdrawn his deduction front the gezerah shawah.22 Now, how does R. Ishmael interpret this superfluous waw? — As shewing that which was taught by the father of Samuel b. Abin: Since we find Scripture differentiating in male [priests] between the [physically] unblemished and the blemished,23 I would think that a distinction must also be drawn in their daughters:24 therefore Scripture writes a pleonastic 'waw' [to teach the inclusion of the daughter of a physically blemished priest].25 And R. Akiba?26 — He deduces this from the verse: [for the offerings of the Lord made by fire, and the bread of their God,] they [i.e. the priests] do offer: therefore they shall be holy.27 And R. Ishmael? — He maintains that that verse could apply only to priests themselves,28 but not to their daughters. Hence the necessity of the pleonastic 'waw'.
Now how does R. Ishmael interpret
- To Next Folio -