## Sanhedrin Daf 51a

###### Sanhedrin 51a:1
[Sanhedrin 51a:1](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Sanhedrin/r/51a:1)

אֵין לִי אֶלָּא שֶׁנִּיסֵּת לְכֹהֵן. נִיסֵּת לְלֵוִי וּלְיִשְׂרָאֵל, לְכוּתִי, לְחָלָל, לְמַמְזֵר וּלְנָתִין – מִנַּיִין? תַּלְמוּד לוֹמַר: ״וּבַת אִישׁ כֹּהֵן״, אַף עַל פִּי שֶׁאֵינָהּ כֹּהֶנֶת.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**I have** a source **only** for the case of a priest’s daughter **who married a priest. From where** do I derive that she is also liable to be executed by burning if **she married a Levite or an Israelite, a Samaritan, a priest disqualified due to flawed lineage [*ḥalal*], a son born from an incestuous or adulterous relationship [*mamzer*], or a Gibeonite? The verse states: “And the daughter of a priest,”** indicating that this *halakha* applies **even if she is not** now **a priestess,** having married a non-priest.


###### Sanhedrin 51a:2
[Sanhedrin 51a:2](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Sanhedrin/r/51a:2)

״הִיא״ בִּשְׂרֵיפָה, וְאֵין בּוֹעֲלָהּ בִּשְׂרֵיפָה. ״הִיא״ בִּשְׂרֵיפָה, וְאֵין זוֹמְמֶיהָ בִּשְׂרֵיפָה.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
It is derived from the verse: **“She** shall be burned with fire,” that she is executed **by burning, but her paramour** is **not** executed **by burning;** his punishment is the same as that of one who engages in adulterous intercourse with the betrothed or married daughter of a non-priest. It is further derived from the word **“she”** that she is executed **by burning, but** witnesses who testified concerning **her** that she committed adultery and who were proven to be **conspiring witnesses** are **not** executed **by burning.**


###### Sanhedrin 51a:3
[Sanhedrin 51a:3](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Sanhedrin/r/51a:3)

רַבִּי אֱלִיעֶזֶר אוֹמֵר: אֶת אָבִיהָ בִּשְׂרֵיפָה, וְאֶת חָמִיהָ בִּסְקִילָה.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The *baraita* concludes: **Rabbi Eliezer says:** If she is **with her father** she is executed **by burning, and** if she is **with her father-in-law** she is executed **by stoning,** as the Gemara will explain below.


###### Sanhedrin 51a:4
[Sanhedrin 51a:4](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Sanhedrin/r/51a:4)

אָמַר מָר: יָכוֹל אֲפִילּוּ חִילְּלָה שַׁבָּת? חִילְּלָה שַׁבָּת – בַּת סְקִילָה הִיא!

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
§ After quoting this *baraita*, the Gemara now clarifies and discusses it. **The Master said** in the *baraita*: One **might** have thought that **even** one who **desecrated Shabbat** should be executed by burning. The Gemara asks: If **she desecrated Shabbat she is liable to** be executed by **stoning,** just like anyone else who desecrates Shabbat, so why would one think that because she is the daughter of a priest she should be executed by burning, a less severe type of capital punishment?


###### Sanhedrin 51a:5
[Sanhedrin 51a:5](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Sanhedrin/r/51a:5)

אֲמַר רָבָא: הָא מַנִּי? רַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן הִיא, דְּאָמַר שְׂרֵיפָה חֲמוּרָה. סָלְקָא דַּעְתָּךְ אָמֵינָא: הוֹאִיל וְאַחְמֵיר בְּהוּ רַחֲמָנָא בְּכָהֲנֵי, דְּרַבִּי בְּהוּ מִצְוֹת יְתֵירוֹת – תִּידּוֹן בִּשְׂרֵיפָה! קָא מַשְׁמַע לַן.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**Rava says:** In accordance with **whose** opinion **is this? It is** in accordance with the opinion of **Rabbi Shimon, who says** that **burning** is more **severe** than stoning. It might **enter your mind to say** that **since the Merciful One treats priests** more **stringently,** in **that He gave them additional mitzvot,** the daughter of a priest **should be punished** for desecrating Shabbat **by burning,** which, according to Rabbi Shimon, is more severe than stoning. Therefore, the verse **teaches us** that with regard to the desecration of Shabbat, the daughter of a priest receives the same punishment as the rest of the Jewish people.


###### Sanhedrin 51a:6
[Sanhedrin 51a:6](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Sanhedrin/r/51a:6)

מַאי שְׁנָא מִינֵּיהּ דִּידֵיהּ?

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara asks: In **what** way **is** she **different from** the priest **himself?** A priest who desecrates Shabbat is executed by stoning, so why would one have thought that the daughter of a priest should be punished by burning?


###### Sanhedrin 51a:7
[Sanhedrin 51a:7](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Sanhedrin/r/51a:7)

סָלְקָא דַּעְתָּךְ אָמֵינָא: אִיהוּ, דְּאִישְׁתַּרְיָא לֵיהּ שַׁבָּת לְגַבֵּי עֲבוֹדָה; הִיא, כֵּיוָן דְּלָא אִשְׁתַּרְיָא שַׁבָּת לְגַבַּהּ, אֵימָא תִּידּוֹן בִּשְׂרֵיפָה. קָא מַשְׁמַע לַן.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara answers: It might **enter your mind to say** that concerning the priest **himself,** the *halakhot* of Shabbat are less stringent, **as** acts that are forbidden on **Shabbat** are **permitted to him with regard to** the performance of the Temple **service.** Therefore, one might have thought that if a priest desecrates Shabbat in a manner that is forbidden to him, his punishment should not be more severe than that of a non-priest. But concerning **her,** the daughter of a priest, **since** acts that are forbidden on **Shabbat** are **not permitted to her** at all, as she does not perform the Temple service, one might **say** that **she should be punished by burning,** which is more severe. Therefore, the verse **teaches us** that this is not so.


###### Sanhedrin 51a:8
[Sanhedrin 51a:8](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Sanhedrin/r/51a:8)

יָכוֹל אֲפִילּוּ פְּנוּיָה? הָא ״לִזְנוֹת״ כְּתִיב!

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The *baraita* teaches: One **might** have thought that **even** if she is **unmarried** and engages in promiscuous intercourse she should be executed by burning. The Gemara asks: Why might one think this? **Isn’t it written** in the verse: “When she profanes herself **by playing the harlot [*liznot*]”?** This term is referring to a sinful relationship such as adultery and not to the promiscuous intercourse of an unmarried woman.


###### Sanhedrin 51a:9
[Sanhedrin 51a:9](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Sanhedrin/r/51a:9)

כִּדְרַבִּי אֶלְעָזָר, דְּאָמַר: פָּנוּי הַבָּא עַל הַפְּנוּיָה שֶׁלֹּא לְשׁוּם אִישׁוּת – עֲשָׂאָהּ זוֹנָה.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara answers: The statement of the *baraita* is **in accordance with** the opinion **of Rabbi Elazar, who says: An unmarried man who engages in intercourse with an unmarried woman, not for the purpose of marriage, has rendered her a *zona*,** i.e., a woman who has engaged in intercourse with a man forbidden to her by the Torah. In the opinion of Rabbi Elazar, the term *liznot* is referring to any promiscuous intercourse.


###### Sanhedrin 51a:10
[Sanhedrin 51a:10](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Sanhedrin/r/51a:10)

אוֹ אֵינוֹ אוֹמֵר ״אָבִיהָ״ אֶלָּא לְהוֹצִיא אֶת כׇּל אָדָם? אֶלָּא מַאי נִיהוּ – שֶׁזִּינְּתָה מֵאָבִיהָ? מַאי אִירְיָא בַּת כֹּהֵן? אֲפִילּוּ בַּת יִשְׂרָאֵל נָמֵי!

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The *baraita* teaches: **Or** perhaps one might have thought that the verse **states “her father” only in order to exclude all men** other than her father. The Gemara asks: **Rather, what** case **is** the verse referring to? Is it a case **where she engaged in intercourse with her father?** If so, **why** does the verse **specifically** mention **the daughter of a priest? Even the daughter of a non-priest** is executed by burning in such a case.


###### Sanhedrin 51a:11
[Sanhedrin 51a:11](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Sanhedrin/r/51a:11)

דְּאָמַר רָבָא: אֲמַר לִי רַב יִצְחָק בַּר אֲבוּדִימִי, אָתְיָא ״הֵנָּה״ ״הֵנָּה״.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara answers that the prohibition of and punishment for intercourse between a father and daughter are not stated explicitly in the Torah; rather, they are derived by means of two verbal analogies. **As Rava said: Rav Yitzḥak bar Avudimi said to me:** This prohibition is **derived** by means of a verbal analogy between the word ***henna*** in the verse: “The nakedness of your son’s daughter, or of your daughter’s daughter, their nakedness you shall not uncover; for theirs [*henna*] is your own nakedness” (Leviticus 18:10), and the word ***henna*** in a different verse: “You shall not uncover the nakedness of a woman and her daughter; you shall not take her son’s daughter, or her daughter’s daughter, to uncover her nakedness. They [*henna*] are near kinswomen; it is lewdness” (Leviticus 18:17). This verbal analogy indicates that just as it is prohibited to engage in intercourse with one’s granddaughter and with one’s wife’s daughter or granddaughter, so too, it is prohibited to engage in intercourse with one’s daughter.


###### Sanhedrin 51a:12
[Sanhedrin 51a:12](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Sanhedrin/r/51a:12)

אָתְיָא ״זִמָּה״ ״זִמָּה״.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
Furthermore, it is **derived** from a verbal analogy between the word **“lewdness”** (Leviticus 18:17) and the word **“lewdness”** in the verse: “And if a man take with his wife also her mother, it is lewdness; they shall be burned with fire, both he and they, so that there be no lewdness among you” (Leviticus 20:14), that one who engages in intercourse with his daughter or granddaughter is liable to be executed by burning.


###### Sanhedrin 51a:13
[Sanhedrin 51a:13](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Sanhedrin/r/51a:13)

אִיצְטְרִיךְ, סָלְקָא דַּעְתָּךְ אָמֵינָא: קְרָא לְאַפּוֹקֵי מִדְּרָבָא, מִדְּגַלִּי רַחֲמָנָא בְּבַת כֹּהֵן וְלֹא בְּבַת יִשְׂרָאֵל. קָא מַשְׁמַע לַן.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
Since the punishment for engaging in intercourse with one’s daughter is derived from a verbal analogy and is not stated explicitly, it **was necessary** for the verse to indicate that the daughter of a priest is liable to be executed by burning even if she commits adultery with a man who is not her father. Otherwise, it might **enter your mind to say** that **the verse** concerning the daughter of a priest is stated **to exclude** the statement **of Rava** in the following manner: **From** the fact **that the Merciful One revealed** this punishment explicitly **with regard to the daughter of a priest and not with regard to the daughter of a non-priest,** it may be derived that the punishment of burning does not apply to the daughter of a non-priest. Therefore, the verse **teaches us** through the expression “she profanes” that it is referring to a priest’s daughter who committed adultery with any man, and not just with her father.


###### Sanhedrin 51a:14
[Sanhedrin 51a:14](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Sanhedrin/r/51a:14)

בַּת כֹּהֵן – אֵין לִי אֶלָּא שֶׁנִּיסֵּת לְכֹהֵן. נִיסֵּת לְלֵוִי, לְיִשְׂרָאֵל, וּלְכוּתִי, וּלְחַלֵּל, לְנָתִין, וּלְמַמְזֵר מִנַּיִין? תַּלְמוּד לוֹמַר: ״בַּת אִישׁ כֹּהֵן״ – אַף עַל פִּי שֶׁאֵינָהּ כֹּהֶנֶת.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The *baraita* teaches: From the expression **“the daughter of a priest,” I have** a source **only** for the case of a priest’s daughter **who married a priest. From where** is it derived that she is also liable to be executed by burning if **she married a Levite, an Israelite, a Samaritan, a *ḥalal*, a Gibeonite, or a *mamzer*? The verse states: “And the daughter of a priest,”** indicating that this *halakha* applies **even if she is not** now **a priestess.**


###### Sanhedrin 51a:15
[Sanhedrin 51a:15](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Sanhedrin/r/51a:15)

מִשּׁוּם דְּאִינַּסְבָא לְהוּ לְהָנֵי, לָאו בַּת כֹּהֵן הִיא? וְתוּ, מִידֵּי ״כֹּהֶנֶת לְכֹהֵן״ כְּתִיב?

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara asks: **Because she married** one of **these** men who are not priests, **is she no** longer **the daughter of a priest?** Why should her punishment be different in these cases? **And furthermore, is it written: A priestess** who married **a priest?** The verse refers only to the status of her father, not to that of her husband.


###### Sanhedrin 51a:16
[Sanhedrin 51a:16](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Sanhedrin/r/51a:16)

סָלְקָא דַּעְתָּךְ אָמֵינָא: כִּי ״תֵחֵל לִזְנוֹת״ אָמַר רַחֲמָנָא, הָנֵי מִילֵּי הֵיכָא דְּקָא מַתְחֲלָא הַשְׁתָּא, אֲבָל הָא, כֵּיוָן דְּקָא מַתְחֲלָא וְקָיְימָא מֵעִיקָּרָא.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara answers: It might **enter your mind to say** that when **the Merciful One states: “When she profanes herself by playing the harlot,”** it indicates that **this matter** applies only in a case **where she profanes herself now** by committing adultery. **But** in **this** case, where she is married to a non-priest, **since she is already profaned from the outset,** from the time of her marriage, the verse does not apply to her.


###### Sanhedrin 51a:17
[Sanhedrin 51a:17](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Sanhedrin/r/51a:17)

דְּאָמַר מָר: ״וּבַת כֹּהֵן כִּי תִהְיֶה לְאִישׁ זָר״, כֵּיוָן שֶׁנִּבְעֲלָה לְפָסוּל לָהּ – פְּסָלָהּ.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara clarifies: If she is married to a man of flawed lineage, she is already profaned. **As the Master said,** it is derived from the verse: **“And if a priest’s daughter be married to a non-priest,** she shall not eat of that which is set apart from the sacred” (Leviticus 22:12), that **once she engaged in intercourse with one who is unfit for her, he has disqualified her** from ever partaking of *teruma*.


###### Sanhedrin 51a:18
[Sanhedrin 51a:18](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Sanhedrin/r/51a:18)

לְלֵוִי וְיִשְׂרָאֵל נָמֵי, ״וְשָׁבָה אֶל בֵּית אָבִיהָ כִּנְעוּרֶיהָ״, מִכְּלָל דְּכִי אִיתֵיהּ גַּבֵּיהּ לָא אָכְלָה,

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
And if she is married **to a Levite or an Israelite,** she is **also** disqualified from partaking of *teruma* for as long as they are married; as the verse states: “But if a priest’s daughter is a widow, or divorced, and has no child, **and returns to her father’s house, as in her youth,** she may eat of her father’s bread” (Leviticus 22:13). **By inference, while she is with** her non-priest husband, **she does not partake** of *teruma*.


###### Sanhedrin 51a:19
[Sanhedrin 51a:19](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Sanhedrin/r/51a:19)

אֵימָא: לָא תִּידּוֹן בִּשְׂרֵיפָה. קָא מַשְׁמַע לַן.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
Evidently, the marriage of the daughter of a priest to anyone who is not a priest involves some measure of profanation, and therefore one might **say** that **she should not be punished by burning,** the punishment unique to the daughter of a priest, if she committed adultery. Therefore, the verse **teaches us** that the punishment of execution by burning applies to any daughter of a priest, regardless of the status of her husband.


###### Sanhedrin 51a:20
[Sanhedrin 51a:20](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Sanhedrin/r/51a:20)

וּדְלָא כְּרַבִּי מֵאִיר, דְּתַנְיָא: בַּת כֹּהֵן שֶׁנִּיסֵּת לְיִשְׂרָאֵל וְאָכְלָה תְּרוּמָה – מְשַׁלֶּמֶת אֶת הַקֶּרֶן וְאֵינָהּ מְשַׁלֶּמֶת אֶת הַחוֹמֶשׁ, וּמִיתָתָהּ בִּשְׂרֵיפָה.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara adds: **And** this *baraita* is **not in accordance with** the opinion of **Rabbi Meir. As it is taught** in a *baraita*: With regard to **a priest’s daughter who married an Israelite and** then unwittingly **partook of *teruma*, she pays the principal,** as she partook of *teruma* to which she has no rights, **but she does not pay the** additional **one-fifth,** the fine paid by a non-priest who partakes of *teruma* unwittingly. This is because she is not completely disqualified from the priesthood; if she were to be widowed or divorced without children, it would again be permitted for her to partake of *teruma*. **And,** as befits the daughter of a priest, if she commits adultery, **her death** penalty is **by burning.**


###### Sanhedrin 51a:21
[Sanhedrin 51a:21](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Sanhedrin/r/51a:21)

נִיסֵּת לְאֶחָד מִן הַפְּסוּלִין – מְשַׁלֶּמֶת קֶרֶן וָחוֹמֶשׁ, וּמִיתָתָהּ בְּחֶנֶק. דִּבְרֵי רַבִּי מֵאִיר.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
Rabbi Meir continues: But if **she married one of the** men who are **unfit** for her, e.g., a *ḥalal*, a *mamzer*, or a Gibeonite, and she unwittingly partook of *teruma*, **she pays the principal and the** additional **one-fifth,** as she is permanently disqualified from partaking of *teruma*. **And** similarly, if she commits adultery, **her death** penalty is **by strangulation,** like the daughter of a non-priest, as she is completely disqualified from the priesthood. This is **the statement of Rabbi Meir.**


###### Sanhedrin 51a:22
[Sanhedrin 51a:22](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Sanhedrin/r/51a:22)

וַחֲכָמִים אוֹמְרִים: זוֹ וָזוֹ מְשַׁלְּמוֹת קֶרֶן וְלֹא חוֹמֶשׁ, וּמִיתָתָן בִּשְׂרֵיפָה.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**And the Rabbis say:** Both **this** one, who married an Israelite, **and that** one, who married a man of flawed lineage, **pay the principal and not the** additional **one-fifth,** as they do not entirely forfeit their priesthood, **and their death** penalty is **by burning,** in accordance with the above *baraita*.


###### Sanhedrin 51a:23
[Sanhedrin 51a:23](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Sanhedrin/r/51a:23)

רַבִּי אֱלִיעֶזֶר אוֹמֵר: אֶת אָבִיהָ – בִּשְׂרֵיפָה, וְאֶת חָמִיהָ – בִּסְקִילָה. מַאי אֶת אָבִיהָ וְאֶת חָמִיהָ?

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara continues its analysis of the *baraita*, which teaches: **Rabbi Eliezer says:** If she is **with her father** she is executed **by burning, and** if she is **with her father-in-law,** she is executed **by stoning.** The Gemara asks: **What** is the meaning of the expressions: **With her father, and: With her father-in-law?**


###### Sanhedrin 51a:24
[Sanhedrin 51a:24](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Sanhedrin/r/51a:24)

אִילֵּימָא: אֶת אָבִיהָ – מֵאָבִיהָ, וְאֶת חָמִיהָ – מֵחָמִיהָ, מַאי אִירְיָא בַּת כֹּהֵן? אֲפִילּוּ בַּת יִשְׂרָאֵל נָמֵי! בִּתּוֹ – בִּשְׂרֵיפָה, וְכַלָּתוֹ – בִּסְקִילָה.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**If we say** that **with her father** means she engages in intercourse **with her father, and with her father-in-law** means she engages in intercourse **with her father-in-law, why** is this *halakha* stated **specifically** with regard to **the daughter of a priest? Even** in the case of **the daughter of a non-priest** the *halakha* is the same; in the case of one who engages in intercourse with **his daughter,** they are executed **by burning, and** in the case of one who engages in intercourse with **his daughter-in-law,** they are executed **by stoning.**


###### Sanhedrin 51a:25
[Sanhedrin 51a:25](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Sanhedrin/r/51a:25)

אֶלָּא, אֶת אָבִיהָ – בִּרְשׁוּת אָבִיהָ, וְאֶת חָמִיהָ – בִּרְשׁוּת חָמִיהָ.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**Rather,** the expression: **With her father,** means **under her father’s authority,** i.e., she is still betrothed and not married yet, **and** the expression: **With her father-in-law,** means **under her father-in-law’s authority,** i.e., she is married.


###### Sanhedrin 51a:26
[Sanhedrin 51a:26](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Sanhedrin/r/51a:26)

כְּמַאן? אִי כְּרַבָּנַן, הָאָמְרִי: נְשׂוּאָה יָצָאת לִשְׂרֵיפָה וְלֹא אֲרוּסָה. אִי כְּרַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן, הָאָמַר: אַחַת אֲרוּסָה וְאַחַת נְשׂוּאָה בִּשְׂרֵיפָה.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara asks: **In accordance with whose** opinion is this statement? **If it is in accordance with** the opinion of **the Rabbis, don’t they say** that the **married** daughter of a priest who committed adultery **is singled out for** execution by **burning, but not** one who is **betrothed? If it is in accordance with** the opinion of **Rabbi Shimon, doesn’t he say** that **both the betrothed** daughter of a priest **and the married** one are executed **by burning?** The opinion of Rabbi Eliezer does not accord with either of these opinions.


###### Sanhedrin 51a:27
[Sanhedrin 51a:27](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Sanhedrin/r/51a:27)

וְאִי כְּרַבִּי יִשְׁמָעֵאל, הָאָמַר: אֲרוּסָה יָצָאת לִשְׂרֵיפָה, וְלֹא נְשׂוּאָה. אֶת חָמִיהָ – חֶנֶק הוּא!

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**And if it is in accordance with** the opinion of **Rabbi Yishmael** (see 51b), **doesn’t he say** that only the **betrothed** daughter of a priest **is singled out for** execution by **burning, but not** one who is **married?** In his opinion, if the daughter of a priest is **under** the authority of **her father-in-law,** i.e., if she is married, her punishment **is** death by **strangulation,** like any other married woman who committed adultery.


###### Sanhedrin 51a:28
[Sanhedrin 51a:28](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Sanhedrin/r/51a:28)

שְׁלַח רָבִין מִשְּׁמֵיהּ דְּרַבִּי יוֹסֵי בְּרַבִּי חֲנִינָא: כָּךְ הִיא הַצָּעָה שֶׁל מִשְׁנָה, לְעוֹלָם כְּרַבָּנַן, וְהָכִי קָאָמַר: כֹּל שֶׁהִוא לְמַטָּה מִמִּיתַת אָבִיהָ – וּמַאי נִיהוּ? נְשׂוּאָה בַּת יִשְׂרָאֵל. דְּאִילּוּ נְשׂוּאָה בַּת יִשְׂרָאֵל בְּחֶנֶק, הָכָא בְּמִיתַת אָבִיהָ בִּשְׂרֵיפָה.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**Ravin sent** the following explanation **in the name of Rabbi Yosei, son of Rabbi Ḥanina: This is the explanation [*hatza’a*] of** this **mishna,** i.e., the *baraita*: **Actually, it is in accordance with** the opinion of **the Rabbis. And this** is what it **is saying:** With regard to **any** act of adultery **whose** punishment **is less** severe **than the death** penalty **for** one who engages in intercourse with **her father, here, in** the case of the daughter of a priest, she receives **the death** penalty **of** one who engages in intercourse with **her father,** namely, execution **by burning. And what** act of adultery carries a less severe punishment than intercourse with one’s father? **It is** the case of **the married daughter of a non-priest; as the married daughter of a non-priest** who committed adultery is executed **by strangulation.**


###### Sanhedrin 51a:29
[Sanhedrin 51a:29](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Sanhedrin/r/51a:29)

כֹּל שֶׁהִיא לְמַעְלָה מִמִּיתַת אָבִיהָ, וּמַאי נִיהוּ? אֲרוּסָה בַּת יִשְׂרָאֵל. דְּאִילּוּ אֲרוּסָה בַּת יִשְׂרָאֵל בְּעָלְמָא בִּסְקִילָה, הָכָא בְּמִיתַת חָמִיהָ בִּסְקִילָה.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
With regard to **any** act of adultery **whose** punishment **is more** severe **than the death** penalty **for** one who engages in intercourse with **her father, here, in** the case of the daughter of a priest, she receives **the death** penalty **of** one who engages in intercourse with **her father-in-law,** namely, execution **by stoning. And what** case **is it?** It is the case of **the betrothed daughter of a non-priest, as in general, the betrothed daughter of a non-priest** who committed adultery is executed **by stoning.**


###### Sanhedrin 51a:30
[Sanhedrin 51a:30](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Sanhedrin/r/51a:30)

מַתְקֵיף לַהּ רַבִּי יִרְמְיָה: מִידֵּי ״לְמַעְלָה״ ״לְמַטָּה״ קָתָנֵי? אֶלָּא, אָמַר רַבִּי יִרְמְיָה:

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**Rabbi Yirmeya objects to this** explanation: **Does** the *baraita* **teach** the words **more** and **less?** These words, central to this interpretation, are not mentioned at all. **Rather, Rabbi Yirmeya says** an alternative interpretation: