## Sanhedrin Daf 51b

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

לְעוֹלָם כְּרַבִּי יִשְׁמָעֵאל, וְהָכִי קָאָמַר: אֶת אָבִיהָ – בִּרְשׁוּת אָבִיהָ, בִּשְׂרֵיפָה; וְאֶת חָמִיהָ – מֵחָמִיהָ, בִּסְקִילָה; וְכׇל אָדָם – בְּחֶנֶק.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**Actually,** Rabbi Eliezer’s statement is **in accordance with** the opinion of **Rabbi Yishmael, and this** is what he **is saying:** The expression: **With her father,** means **under her father’s authority,** i.e., she is still betrothed, and she is executed **by burning** if she commits adultery. **And** the expression: **With her father-in-law,** means that after getting married, she engages in intercourse **with her father-in-law,** and she is therefore executed **by stoning. And** if she commits adultery with **any** other **man** after getting married, she is executed **by strangulation,** like any other married woman.


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

אָמַר רָבָא: מַאי שְׁנָא? אוֹ אִידֵּי וְאִידֵּי מַמָּשׁ, אוֹ אִידֵּי וְאִידֵּי רְשׁוּת.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**Rava says: What is different** between the wording of the two clauses of Rabbi Eliezer’s statement that allows for them to be understood differently? **Either** explain **this one and that one literally,** i.e., that she engages in intercourse with her father or father-in-law, **or** explain **this one and that one** as referring to the **authority** of the father or father-in-law.


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

אֶלָּא אָמַר רָבָא: לְעוֹלָם כְּרַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן, וְקָסָבַר רַבִּי אֱלִיעֶזֶר נְשׂוּאָה כַּאֲרוּסָה. מָה אֲרוּסָה חַד דַּרְגָּא מַסְּקִינַן לַהּ, מִסְּקִילָה לִשְׂרֵיפָה, אַף נְשׂוּאָה חַד דַּרְגָּא מַסְּקִינַן לַהּ, מֵחֶנֶק לִסְקִילָה.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**Rather, Rava says: Actually,** Rabbi Eliezer’s statement is **in accordance with** the opinion of **Rabbi Shimon** that burning is more severe than stoning, **and Rabbi Eliezer holds** that the *halakha* of **the married** daughter of a priest **is comparable to** that of **the betrothed** one. **Just as** with regard to **the betrothed** daughter of a priest **we raise her** punishment by **one level** vis-à-vis the betrothed daughter of a non-priest, **from stoning to burning, so too,** with regard to **the married** daughter of a priest, **we raise her** punishment by **one level** vis-à-vis the married daughter of a non-priest, **from strangulation to stoning.**


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

מַתְקֵיף לַהּ רַבִּי חֲנִינָא: הָא אִידֵּי וְאִידֵּי רַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן בִּשְׂרֵיפָה קָאָמַר?

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**Rav Ḥanina objects to this** explanation: **Doesn’t Rabbi Shimon** himself **say** that both in **this** case **and** in **that** case, i.e., whether she is betrothed or married, the daughter of a priest is executed **by burning?** His opinion cannot be interpreted contrary to his own statement.


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

אֶלָּא אָמַר רָבִינָא: לְעוֹלָם כְּרַבָּנַן, וְאֵיפוֹךְ – אֶת אָבִיהָ בִּסְקִילָה, וְאֶת חָמִיהָ בִּשְׂרֵיפָה. וְהַאי דְּקָאָמַר ״אֶת אָבִיהָ״ – סִירְכָא בְּעָלְמָא נָקֵט.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**Rather, Ravina says: Actually,** Rabbi Eliezer’s statement is **in accordance with** the opinion of **the Rabbis,** that the married daughter of a priest is executed by burning and the betrothed daughter of a priest is executed by stoning. **And reverse** the wording of Rabbi Eliezer’s statement as follows: When she is **with her father,** i.e., when she is betrothed, she is executed **by stoning, and** when she is **with her father-in-law,** i.e., when she is married, she is executed **by burning. And** the fact **that** the *tanna* **states** the phrase: **With her father,** instead of simply stating that she is betrothed, is because **he was merely drawn** to the common usage, i.e., the wording of the verse, and **employed** it.


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

אָמַר רַב נַחְמָן, אָמַר רַבָּה בַּר אֲבוּהּ, אָמַר רַב: הֲלָכָה כְּדִשְׁלַח רָבִין מִשְּׁמֵיהּ דְּרַבִּי יוֹסֵי בְּרַבִּי חֲנִינָא. אָמַר רַב יוֹסֵף: הִלְכְתָא לִמְשִׁיחָא?

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**Rav Naḥman says** that **Rabba bar Avuh says** that **Rav says:** The ***halakha*** in this matter **is in accordance with** the explanation **that Ravin sent in the name of Rabbi Yosei, son of Rabbi Ḥanina. Rav Yosef said** in response: Does one issue **a *halakha* for the messianic** period? Since the destruction of the Temple, courts do not have the authority to adjudicate capital cases (see 52b), and this authority will be restored only once the Temple is rebuilt, in the messianic period. Therefore, what is the purpose of stating the *halakha* in this matter when it is not currently relevant?


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

אֲמַר לֵיהּ אַבָּיֵי: אֶלָּא מֵעַתָּה, שְׁחִיטַת קֳדָשִׁים לָא לִיתְנֵי? הִלְכְתָא לִמְשִׁיחָא! אֶלָּא, דְּרוֹשׁ וְקַבֵּל שָׂכָר. הָכָא נָמֵי, דְּרוֹשׁ וְקַבֵּל שָׂכָר.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**Abaye said to him: If that is so, let** the *tanna* **not teach** all the *halakhot* of **the slaughter of sacrificial** animals, i.e., tractate *Zevaḥim*, as **it is** entirely **a *halakha* for the messianic** period. **Rather,** one studies these *halakhot* due to the principle of: **Study** Torah **and receive reward,** i.e., one is rewarded for the study of Torah regardless of its practical applicability. **Here too, study** Torah **and receive reward.**


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

הָכִי קָאָמְרִי: הִלְכְתָא לְמָה לִי? סוּגְיָא דִּשְׁמַעְתָּא הֲלָכָה קָאָמַר.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
Rav Yosef responded: **This is what I** meant to **say: Why do I** need **the *halakha*** with regard to this subject to be stated? **Is a *halakha* stated** in **the discussion of** Rabbi Eliezer’s **statement?** The statements of the *amora’im* are merely explanations of how to understand the wording of Rabbi Eliezer’s statement, but there is no difference between them with regard to the *halakha*.


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

מַאי רַבִּי יִשְׁמָעֵאל? דְּתַנְיָא: ״וּבַת [אִישׁ] כֹּהֵן כִּי תֵחֵל לִזְנוֹת״ – בְּנַעֲרָה וְהִיא אֲרוּסָה הַכָּתוּב מְדַבֵּר.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
§ The Gemara discusses the opinion of Rabbi Yishmael that the betrothed daughter of a priest who committed adultery is executed by burning, whereas the married daughter of a priest who committed adultery is executed by strangulation. **What** is the source for the opinion of **Rabbi Yishmael?** It is **as it is taught** in a *baraita*: With regard to the verse: **“And the daughter of a priest, when she profanes herself by playing the harlot”** (Leviticus 21:9), **the verse is speaking of a young woman who is betrothed.**


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

אַתָּה אוֹמֵר בְּנַעֲרָה וְהִיא אֲרוּסָה, אוֹ אֵינוֹ אֶלָּא אֲפִילּוּ נְשׂוּאָה? תַּלְמוּד לוֹמַר: ״אִישׁ אֲשֶׁר יִנְאַף אֶת אֵשֶׁת רֵעֵהוּ מוֹת יוּמַת הַנֹּאֵף וְהַנֹּאָפֶת״. הַכֹּל הָיוּ בִּכְלַל ״הַנּוֹאֵף וְהַנּוֹאֶפֶת״. הוֹצִיא הַכָּתוּב בַּת יִשְׂרָאֵל בִּסְקִילָה וּבַת כֹּהֵן בִּשְׂרֵיפָה. מָה כְּשֶׁהוֹצִיא הַכָּתוּב אֶת בַּת יִשְׂרָאֵל לִסְקִילָה – אֲרוּסָה וְלֹא נְשׂוּאָה, אַף כְּשֶׁהוֹצִיא הַכָּתוּב בַּת כֹּהֵן לִשְׂרֵיפָה – אֲרוּסָה וְלֹא נְשׂוּאָה.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**Do you say** that it is referring only **to a young woman who is betrothed, or** that **it is** referring **even** to **a married woman? The verse states:** “And **a man who commits adultery** with another man’s wife, he who commits adultery **with his neighbor’s wife, both the adulterer and the adulteress shall be put to death”** (Leviticus 20:10). **All** adulterers **were included in** the category of: **“The adulterer and the adulteress,”** and were executed by strangulation, until **the verse singled out the** betrothed **daughter of a non-priest** for execution **by stoning and the daughter of a priest** for execution **by burning.** It is therefore derived that **just as when the verse singles out the daughter of a non-priest for stoning** the Torah states that the reference is to a woman who is **betrothed and not married, so too, when the verse singles out the daughter of a priest for burning** it is referring to a woman who is **betrothed and not married.**


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

זוֹמְמֶיהָ וּבוֹעֲלָהּ בִּכְלַל ״וַעֲשִׂיתֶם לוֹ כַּאֲשֶׁר זָמַם וְגוֹ׳״.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The *baraita* continues: **The conspiring witnesses** concerning the daughter of a priest, **and** the **paramour of** the daughter of a priest, **are included in** the verse: **“And you shall do to him as he conspired** to do to his brother” (Deuteronomy 19:19).


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

בּוֹעֲלָהּ – מַאי ״כַּאֲשֶׁר זָמַם״ אִיכָּא? אֶלָּא: זוֹמְמֶיהָ בִּכְלַל מִיתַת בּוֹעֲלָהּ.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara interjects and asks: **What** reason **is there** for the punishment of **“as he conspired”** to be applied with regard to **her paramour? Rather,** the *baraita* should be read: **Her conspiring witnesses are included in the death** penalty **of her paramour,** i.e., they are executed by strangulation, which they sought to impose upon her paramour. They are not executed by burning, which is the death penalty that they sought to impose upon her.


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

מִשּׁוּם שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר: ״וַעֲשִׂיתֶם לוֹ כַּאֲשֶׁר זָמַם לַעֲשׂוֹת לְאָחִיו״, וְלֹא לַאֲחוֹתוֹ. דִּבְרֵי רַבִּי יִשְׁמָעֵאל.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
This is **because it is stated: “And you shall do to him as he conspired to do to his brother,”** which is interpreted to mean: “To his brother,” **but not to his sister.** This is **the statement of Rabbi Yishmael.**


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

רַבִּי עֲקִיבָא אוֹמֵר: אַחַת אֲרוּסָה וְאַחַת נְשׂוּאָה יָצָאת לִשְׂרֵיפָה. יָכוֹל אֲפִילּוּ פְּנוּיָה? נֶאֱמַר כָּאן ״אָבִיהָ״, וְנֶאֱמַר לְהַלָּן ״אָבִיהָ״. מָה לְהַלָּן זְנוּת עִם זִיקַת הַבַּעַל, אַף כָּאן זְנוּת עִם זִיקַת הַבַּעַל.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**Rabbi Akiva says: Both the betrothed and the married** daughter of a priest **are singled out for** execution by **burning.** One **might** have thought that **even an unmarried** daughter of a priest who engaged in promiscuous intercourse should be executed by burning. This is incorrect, as **here it is stated: “Her father,” and there it is stated,** with regard to a betrothed woman who committed adultery: **“Her father”** (Deuteronomy 22:21). It is derived through a verbal analogy that **just as below,** the reference is to the **promiscuous intercourse** of one who has **a bond to a husband, so too here,** the reference is to the **promiscuous intercourse** of one who has **a bond to a husband.**


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

אָמַר לוֹ רַבִּי יִשְׁמָעֵאל: אִי, מָה לְהַלָּן נַעֲרָה וְהִיא אֲרוּסָה, אַף כָּאן נַעֲרָה וְהִיא אֲרוּסָה.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**Rabbi Yishmael said to him: If** the *halakha* of a priest’s daughter who committed adultery is compared to the *halakha* of a betrothed woman who committed adultery, then it can be inferred that **just as there** the reference is specifically to **a young woman who is betrothed, so too here,** the reference is to **a young woman who is betrothed.** This serves as a proof for the opinion of Rabbi Yishmael, which is that only the betrothed daughter of a priest is executed by burning.


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

אָמַר לוֹ רַבִּי עֲקִיבָא: יִשְׁמָעֵאל אָחִי, ״בַּת״ ״וּבַת״ אֲנִי דּוֹרֵשׁ.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**Rabbi Akiva said to him: Yishmael, my brother, I derive** it from the fact that the verse could have stated: **“The daughter** of a priest,” but instead states: **“And the daughter** of a priest,” with the conjunction “and,” that married daughters of priests are also included in this punishment.


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

אָמַר לוֹ: וְכִי מִפְּנֵי שֶׁאַתָּה דּוֹרֵשׁ ״בַּת״ ״וּבַת״ נוֹצִיא זוֹ לִשְׂרֵיפָה? אִם מַשְׁמַע לְהָבִיא אֶת הַנְּשׂוּאָה, הָבֵיא אֶת הַפְּנוּיָה; וְאִם מַשְׁמַע לְהוֹצִיא אֶת הַפְּנוּיָה, הוֹצֵיא אֶת הַנְּשׂוּאָה.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
Rabbi Yishmael **said to him: And because you derive** this from the difference between the term **“the daughter”** and the term **“and the daughter,” we should take this** married daughter of a priest **out to** be executed by **burning?** This derivation of yours is inconsistent, because **if** the conjunction “and” **indicates the inclusion of the married** daughter of a priest, then it should **include the unmarried** daughter of a priest too. **And if it indicates the exclusion of an unmarried one, exclude the married** one as well.


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

וְרַבִּי עֲקִיבָא, אַהֲנִי גְּזֵירָה שָׁוָה לְמַעוֹטֵי פְּנוּיָה, וְאַהֲנִי ״בַּת״ ״וּבַת״ לְרַבּוֹת אֶת הַנְּשׂוּאָה.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara asks: **And** how would **Rabbi Akiva** respond? The Gemara answers: According to Rabbi Akiva, the **verbal analogy** between the *halakha* of the daughter of a priest and the *halakha* of a betrothed woman **serves to exclude** the case of **an unmarried** daughter of a priest from execution by burning, **and** the distinction between the terms **“the daughter”** and **“and the daughter” serves to include the** case of **a married woman.**


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

וְרַבִּי יִשְׁמָעֵאל סָבַר: מִדְּקָאָמַר לֵיהּ ״בַּת״ ״וּבַת״, שְׁמַע מִינַּהּ הֲדַר בֵּיהּ מִגְּזֵירָה שָׁוָה.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**And Rabbi Yishmael** challenged Rabbi Akiva’s opinion because he **thought** that **since** Rabbi Akiva had **said to him** that a married woman is included due to the distinction between **“the daughter”** and **“and the daughter,”** it was possible to **conclude from it** that Rabbi Akiva had **retracted** his derivation **from the verbal analogy,** which would have included a married woman, and instead derived the *halakha* only from the conjunction “and” in the term “and the daughter.” But in fact, Rabbi Akiva combined this derivation with the verbal analogy.


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

וְרַבִּי יִשְׁמָעֵאל, הַאי ״בַּת״ ״וּבַת״ מַאי דָּרֵישׁ בֵּיהּ? מִיבְּעֵי לֵיהּ לְכִדְתָנֵי אֲבוּהּ דִּשְׁמוּאֵל בַּר אָבִין: לְפִי שֶׁמָּצִינוּ שֶׁחִלֵּק הַכָּתוּב בִּזְכָרִים בֵּין תְּמִימִים לְבַעֲלֵי מוּמִין, יָכוֹל נַחְלוֹק בִּבְנוֹתֵיהֶן? תַּלְמוּד לוֹמַר: ״בַּת״ ״וּבַת״.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara asks: **And** as for **Rabbi Yishmael, what does he derive from this** distinction between **“the daughter”** and **“and the daughter”?** The Gemara answers: **He requires it for that which the father of Shmuel bar Avin taught** in a *baraita*: **Since we find that the verse differentiates with regard to male** priests **between unblemished** priests **and blemished** priests, as only unblemished priests may perform the Temple service, one **might** have thought **we should differentiate between their daughters** as well, and rule that the daughter of a blemished priest should not be sentenced to execution by burning for adultery. Therefore, instead of stating: **“The daughter,” the verse states: “And the daughter,”** to include the daughter of a blemished priest.


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

וְרַבִּי עֲקִיבָא מִן ״הֵם מַקְרִיבִם וְהָיוּ קֹדֶשׁ״ נָפְקָא.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara asks: **And** from where does **Rabbi Akiva** derive this? The Gemara answers: He derives it **from** the verse: “They shall be holy to their God, and not profane the name of their God; for the offerings of the Lord, the bread of their Lord, **they offer; and they shall be holy”** (Leviticus 21:6). From the phrase “And they shall be holy” **it is derived** that all priests are considered holy, even if they cannot bring offerings in the Temple. Consequently, there is no difference in this regard between the daughter of a blemished priest and the daughter of an unblemished priest.


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

וְרַבִּי יִשְׁמָעֵאל, אִי מֵהַהִיא הֲוָה אָמֵינָא: הָנֵי מִילֵּי אִינְהוּ, אֲבָל בְּנוֹתֵיהֶן לָא. קָא מַשְׁמַע לַן.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara asks: **And** why does **Rabbi Yishmael** not derive this *halakha* from this verse? The Gemara answers: Rabbi Yishmael would say: **If** it were to be derived **from that** verse, **I would say** that **this matter** applies with regard to the priests **themselves,** who are considered holy even if they are blemished, **but not** with regard to **their daughters.** Therefore, the term “and the daughter” **teaches us** that the *halakha* with regard to the daughters of blemished priests is just like the *halakha* with regard to the daughters of unblemished priests.


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

וְרַבִּי יִשְׁמָעֵאל,

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara asks: **And** as for **Rabbi Yishmael,**