MISHNAH: Four kinds of execution was the court empowered to impose: Stoning, burning, decapitation, and strangling. Rebbi Simeon says: Burning, stoning, strangling, and decapitation¹. The preceding was prescribed for stoning.

footnotes: ¹ They differ in the evaluation of which type of execution inflicts more pain on the condemned, starting with the worst and ending with the easiest.

HALAKHAH: “Four kinds of execution was the court empowered to impose,” etc. But to the government² only decapitation was given. From where stoning? You shall stone them with stones that they die³. 17:5.. Burning, for it is written, in fire you shall burn him and them⁴. 20:14.. Avenging is written here⁵. 21:20. The slave slain by his master shall be avenged. 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 Covenant⁶. 26:25.. Since avenging mentioned there is by the sword, also avenging mentioned here is by the sword. Strangling? You do not find it⁷. 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.

footnotes: ² The Roman Imperial government. When Caracalla extended Roman citizenship to all free inhabitants of the empire, he thereby abolished crucifixion (except for slaves). ³ Deut ⁴ Lev ⁵ Ex ⁶ Lev ⁷ It is not mentioned anywhere in biblical literature as a recognized form of execution. The Babli’s discussion, 52b, is inconclusive.

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 strangulation¹. Rebbi Simeon explained that any reference to “Cohen’s daughter” implies burning, but the rabbis teach that any reference to “preliminarily married” implies stoning⁸. 22:24), by a definitively married woman by “death” (Lev. 20:10), which by the preceding argument means the least painful of the four kinds of execution. 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 Lev. 21:9 refers to a preliminarily or definitively married woman. For R. Simeon, who holds that burning is more painful than stoning, Lev. 21:9 refers to any adulterous daughter of a Cohen, irrespective of the status of her marriage (Babli 50a). For the rabbis who hold that stoning is more painful than burning, 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 Lev. 21:1–9. The formulation of the rabbis’ position is not quite correct since Deut. 22:24 applies only to a preliminarily married maiden (between the ages of 12 and 12 years 6 months; cf. 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 stoned⁹. 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 decapitated¹⁰. 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 burned¹¹. 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 strangled¹².

footnotes: ¹ They differ in the evaluation of which type of execution inflicts more pain on the condemned, starting with the worst and ending with the easiest. ⁸ Adultery by a preliminarily married virgin is punishable by stoning (Deut ⁹ This statement contradicts the assertion in the previous paragraph that R. Simeon applies Lev ¹⁰ This is no logical argument at all but a clear reference to biblical verses; cf. Note 8. The only inference is that for R. Simeon the standard method of execution must be beheading. ¹¹ A clear scribal error; it must be “strangled” (Note 8). ¹² This proves that at the end of the preceding sentence one has to read “strangled”.

Rebbi Abbahu in the name of Rebbi Yose ben Ḥanina: Anyone who is executed less cruelly than her father’s death is by burning¹³. 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 burned¹⁴. 21:9, reading אֶת as “with”. The quote with the following two sentences is a baraita, Sifra Emor Pereq 1(19); Tosephta 14:17.. Rebbi Eliezer says, with her father she is burned, with her father-in-law stoned¹⁵. 20:12. From 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. Babli 54a.. She by burning, her paramour not by burning¹⁶. 21:9 implies that only she is executed by burning; her paramour is punished, like any adulterer with a married woman, by strangulation (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 strangulation¹⁷ 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.”.

footnotes: ¹³ The discussion follows the rabbis, for whom stoning is more severe than burning. The statement is a little more explicit in the Babli, 51a.A definitively married Israel woman who commits adultery is strangled, except that if she commit incest with her father both are burned (Lev ¹⁴ Lev ¹⁵ Lev ¹⁶ The singular used in Lev ¹⁷ The last three sentences are repeated as last sentences of this Tractate, Halakhah 11:8; 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

Rebbi Abbahu in the name of Rebbi Yose ben Ḥanina: The rabbis explain that the inhabitants of a seduced city¹⁸. 13:13–19). Individual apostates to paganism have to be stoned (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 burning¹⁹. 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 strangulation²⁰ 1(2)], that special treatment for a crime already treated in general always expresses a leniency, not greater strictness.? Rebbi Simeon explained: The false prophet²¹. 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 burning²². 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 beheading²³. 13:16 may be an example of the third hermeneutical rule, “a general principle exemplified once”..

footnotes: ¹⁸ A city which by vote of city council and population decides to become pagan. Its inhabitants have to be killed by the sword (Deut ¹⁹ Just one degree less than stoning. ²⁰ This 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 ²¹ Deut ²² This makes no sense since it contradicts Deut ²³ Since 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 Note 20 is contradicted. The mention of death by the sword in Deut

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 strangulation²⁴.

footnotes: ²⁴ This adapts for the rabbis the argument ascribed to R. Simeon in the preceding paragraph.

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 stoning²². 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 beheading²⁵.

footnotes: ²² This makes no sense since it contradicts Deut ²⁵ In 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.

MISHNAH: The order of burning: One makes him sink into manure up to his knees²⁶, puts a stiff cloth into soft ones and winds them around his throat. One person draws in his direction, the other draws in his direction until he opens his mouth²⁷. 10:1–6) which is called “burning” (v. 6) but whose bodies were not injured externally (v. 5), and similarly the deaths of the 250 followers of Korah (Num. 16:35); Babli 52a.. Then one lights a wick²⁸ and throws it into his mouth that it enters his innards and chars his intestines. Rebbi Jehudah says, in that case, if he would die in their hands they would not have fulfilled the duty of burning²⁹; one opens his mouth forcefully with tongs, lights a wire and throws it into his mouth that it enters his innards and chars his intestines. Rebbi Eleazar ben Ṣadoq said, it happened that a Cohen’s daughter whored; they surrounded her with firewood and burned her. They told him, because the court at that time was incompetent³⁰.

footnotes: ²⁶ To make the condemned lose partial consciousness from the methane gas coming from the manure. ²⁷ The two witnesses stand to either side of the condemned and choke him to force him to open his mouth. The coarse cloth is the one which chokes; the soft cloth is to shield the skin from injury. The entire procedure is modelled on the death of Nadab and Abihu (Lev ²⁸ Not really a wick but either liquid metal (Babli 52a) or burning oil. ²⁹ By refusing to open his mouth, the condemned could force his executioners to choke him to death, which is considered the least painful kind of execution. ³⁰ Not incompetent but Sadducee (or in any case anti-Pharisee).

HALAKHAH: “The order of burning,” etc. Why does one not use the hard cloth alone? One said, that he should not die³¹; as we find that when Hezekias closed the waters of the upper Giḥon spring³². 32:2,4., he stopped it with soft clothing.

footnotes: ³¹ To avoid strangling him. ³² 2Chr

³³, pp. 258–259). Rebbi Crispus in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: The Mishnah speaks of a ba aṣ*³⁴ wire. What is a *ba aṣ wire? The rabbis of Caesarea say, a mixture of lead and tin³⁵. Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Abun said, this follows him who said, “one lights a wire and throws it into his mouth.” But for him, who says, “it enters his innards and chars his intestines,” the Mishnah speaks of a wick of Naphtha³⁶.

footnotes: ³³ From here to the middle of Halakhah 5 there exists a (frequently lacunary) Genizah text (G) in pure Galilean spelling (L. Ginzberg, Yerushalmi Fragments ³⁴ Usually, בעץ is translated as “tin.” But since the pure metal appears in the text under its Greek name, the Hebrew word (and its Aramaic counterpart אֲבָצָא) denote the commercial product, a lead-tin alloy. ³⁵ Greek κασσίτερος, ὁ, “tin”. In G: וקסיטיר. ³⁶ The Babli, 52a, only recognizes a wire of lead.

³⁷ It was stated: Forty years before the Temple was destroyed, criminal jurisdiction was removed from Israel, and in the days of Simeon ben Ioḥai civil jurisdiction was removed from Israel. Rebbi Simeon ben Ioḥai said, praised be the Merciful, for I am not wise enough to judge.

footnotes: ³⁷ Halakhah 1:1, Notes 31–35.

“Rebbi Eleazar ben Rebbi Ṣadoq said, I was a child riding on my father’s shoulder when I saw the daughter of a Cohen who had whored; they surrounded her with firewood and burned her. They told him, you were a child; a child cannot testify.”³⁸ When he saw this, he³⁹ was no less than ten years old. When he walked with Rebbi, he must have been no less than thirty years old since it is not fitting for a great personality to be accompanied by anybody less than thirty years of age. As we have stated: “Rebbi said, I was coming from bet Sirin with Rebbi Eleazar ben Rebbi Ṣadoq when we ate figs and grapes outside the tabernacle⁴⁰; snacks may be eaten outside..

footnotes: ³⁸ Babli 52b, Tosephta 9:11. ³⁹ This is rather old for a child riding on his father’s shoulder. Probably it means “older than 5 years.” [More than 150 years separate the burning reported by R. Eleazar ben R. Sadoq I from R. Eleazar ben R. Sadoq II accompanying Rebbi.] ⁴⁰ On Tabernacles, only full meals have to be eaten in the sukkah

MISHNAH: The order of beheading. They were chopping off his head with a sword just as the [Roman] government does. Rebbi Jehudah says, this is ugliness but one puts his head on the block and cuts it with a butcher knife. They told him, there is no death uglier than this.

HALAKHAH: “The order of beheading,” etc. ⁴¹“Rebbi Jehudah agrees that there is no death uglier than this but the Torah said⁴². 18:3., in their statutes you shall not walk.” Rebbi Joḥanan said, also it was stated thus: One shall murder the murderer⁴³. 35:30: Any homicide; following witnesses one shall murder the murderer., the way he murdered. I could think that if he killed with a sword, one should kill him with a sword, with a rod one should kill him with a rod? Avenging is written here⁵. 21:20. The slave slain by his master shall be avenged. 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 Covenant⁶. 26:25.. Since avenging mentioned there is by the sword, also avenging mentioned here is by the sword. I could think that he⁴⁴ should kill him between the arms? It is said here⁴⁵. 19:19. Since this refers to perjured witnesses, it includes all kinds of death penalties., you shall eliminate the evil from your midst, and it is said there⁴⁶. 21:9., you shall eliminate the innocent blood from your midst. Elimination, elimination; breaking the neck, breaking the neck⁴⁷. 19:19 and Deut. 21:9. That of “breaking the neck” in Deut. 21:4 is defined by “neck” in Lev. 5:8. Since elimination in Deut. 21 is by breaking the neck, Deut. 19:19 also must refer to the neck. Since strangulation is not mentioned in the Pentateuch, the only method of execution to which this may refer is beheading.. Since elimination here is at the neck, also there it is at the neck. Since breaking the neck there implies chopping off the head, also here chopping off the head.

footnotes: ⁴¹ Babli 52b; Tosephta 9:11. ⁴² Lev ⁴³ Num ⁵ Ex ⁶ Lev ⁴⁴ The avenger. ⁴⁵ Deut ⁴⁶ Deut ⁴⁷ By the doctrine of invariability of lexemes the meaning of “elimination” must be the same in Deut

MISHNAH: The order of the strangled: One makes him sink into manure up to his knees²⁶, puts a stiff cloth into soft ones and winds them around his throat. One person draws in his direction, the other one draws in his direction until he expires.

footnotes: ²⁶ To make the condemned lose partial consciousness from the methane gas coming from the manure.

HALAKHAH: “The order of the strangled,” etc. Strangling? You do not find it⁷. This refers to death penalty in the Torah. For any death penalty mentioned in the Torah with no particular indication, you are not empowered to try to make it more stringent, only to make it less so, the words of Rebbi Josia. Rebbi Jonathan said to him, not because it is the least painful, but because it is mentioned in the Torah with no specific indication. For any death penalty mentioned in the Torah with no particular indication, you are not empowered to try to make it more stringent but only to make it less so; they ascribed this to strangling.

footnotes: ⁷ It is not mentioned anywhere in biblical literature as a recognized form of execution. The Babli’s discussion, 52b, is inconclusive.

You said, the order of strangling is the following: “One person draws in his direction, the other one draws in his direction.” Cahana asked before Rav: There⁵¹ 3:2. The sufferer from gonorrhea causes impurity to everything he sits on and everything which is moved either by his force or on which he sits (Lev. 15:10). For example, a sufferer from gonorrhea and a pure person sit in the same boat but do not touch at all. The moment the boat moves, the pure person and his garments become impure. This impurity is known as מִדְרָס “[caused by] stepping upon.” The Mishnah refers to two persons, one suffering from gonorrhea and one pure, who together are splicing the same rope, working at different ends. Since each of them moves the rope in his direction, the pure person and his garments become impure the moment the impure person moves the rope while the pure one is holding it., you say, “one draws in one direction, the other draws in one direction.” But here, you say, “one draws in his direction, the other draws in his direction.⁵²” He told him, there one is in front, the other in the back. But here, one is on one side, the other one is on the other side.

footnotes: ⁵¹ Mishnah Zavim ⁵² Why the change in language?

MISHNAH: The following are stoned: A male having sexual relations with the mother, or the father’s wife⁵³. 20:11. One infers from Lev. 20:27 that their blood be on them means that the punishment is stoning (Halakhah 9)., or the daughter-in-law, or a male, or an animal; or a female bringing an animal onto herself⁵⁴. 20:12,13,15,16.. Also the blasphemer⁵⁵. 24:23. It is a capital crime only if the Divine Name (which today is unknown) was used in the blasphemy., the worshipper of idols⁵⁶. 17:5., he who gives one of his descendants to the Moloch⁵⁷. 20:2., and the necromancer, and the medium⁵⁸. 20:27. The necromancer is the person who raises the spirits of the dead; cf. 1S. 28. The medium is one who incorporates a spirit which predicts the future, speaking from the medium’s body, not his mouth.. Also one who desecrates the Sabbath⁵⁹. 15:36., or who curses father or mother⁶⁰. 20:9., or who has sexual relations with a preliminarily married maiden⁸. 22:24), by a definitively married woman by “death” (Lev. 20:10), which by the preceding argument means the least painful of the four kinds of execution. 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 Lev. 21:9 refers to a preliminarily or definitively married woman. For R. Simeon, who holds that burning is more painful than stoning, Lev. 21:9 refers to any adulterous daughter of a Cohen, irrespective of the status of her marriage (Babli 50a). For the rabbis who hold that stoning is more painful than burning, 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 Lev. 21:1–9. The formulation of the rabbis’ position is not quite correct since Deut. 22:24 applies only to a preliminarily married maiden (between the ages of 12 and 12 years 6 months; cf. 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”., or who leads astray⁶¹. 13:11, cf. Mishnah 16., or who seduces⁶², or the sorcerer⁶³, or the deviant and rebellious son⁶⁴. 21:21..

footnotes: ⁵³ Even if she is not his mother, Lev ⁵⁴ Lev ⁵⁵ Lev ⁵⁶ Deut ⁵⁷ Lev ⁵⁸ Lev ⁵⁹ Num ⁶⁰ Lev ⁸ Adultery by a preliminarily married virgin is punishable by stoning (Deut ⁶¹ The missionary for another faith who addresses individuals in private; Deut ⁶² He acts in public; Halakhah 16. ⁶³ Halakhah 19. ⁶⁴ Deut

HALAKHAH: “The following are stoned,” etc. ⁶⁵ 1:1 (for which no Yerushalmi exists) than to the present Mishnah which rather serves as a header for the following Mishnaiot (6–19) which take up all cases mentioned in the Mishnah. Since the rules of evidence essentially guarantee that nobody can be executed, it is asserted, and shown in detail in the following Halakhot, that a criminal who escapes the earthly court is condemned by the Heavenly court to extirpation. If a sin punishable by extirpation was committed inadvertently, it can be atoned for by a purification sacrifice. (No sin committed intentionally can be atoned for by a sacrifice.) Keritut 1:1 contains a list of 36 sins punishable by extirpation, including those mentioned in the Mishnah here. That the number 36 is mentioned in the Mishnah is interpreted to mean that for each category a separate sacrifice is needed. For example, a person who inadvertently sleeps with a woman who is his mother married to his father has to bring two sacrifices, one for sleeping with his mother and one for his father’s wife. It is necessary in one forgetting⁶⁶. 4:13, 5:2,3) that an inadvertent sin, for which atonement by a sacrifice is possible, must involve an element of forgetting, either of the law which forbids the action, or of the identity of the person with whom the forbidden act was committed; this includes ignorance of the law or identity of the person. It is clear that a sacrifice is possible only if the person realizes the criminality of his act, i. e., he came to know the law or the identity. If then he forgets the information again, a new situation is created which is not a continuation of the previous one. This is a major topic of Tractate Ševu`ot. It seems that הֶעֱלֵם, הֶעֱלֵימוֹת are Babylonisms in the text; G writes עֲלם, עָלִמות, יעלמות., but in two forgettings? Since even for one woman, if he had relations with her several times in one forgetting, he is liable for each one⁶⁷. Rebbi Simeon ben Rebbi Hillel ben Pazi asked before Rebbi Hillel ben Pazi: The Mishnah refers to one woman who is forbidden under many names⁶⁵ 1:1 (for which no Yerushalmi exists) than to the present Mishnah which rather serves as a header for the following Mishnaiot (6–19) which take up all cases mentioned in the Mishnah. Since the rules of evidence essentially guarantee that nobody can be executed, it is asserted, and shown in detail in the following Halakhot, that a criminal who escapes the earthly court is condemned by the Heavenly court to extirpation. If a sin punishable by extirpation was committed inadvertently, it can be atoned for by a purification sacrifice. (No sin committed intentionally can be atoned for by a sacrifice.) Keritut 1:1 contains a list of 36 sins punishable by extirpation, including those mentioned in the Mishnah here. That the number 36 is mentioned in the Mishnah is interpreted to mean that for each category a separate sacrifice is needed. For example, a person who inadvertently sleeps with a woman who is his mother married to his father has to bring two sacrifices, one for sleeping with his mother and one for his father’s wife.. But if there were many women, or many forgettings, is that in one forgetting⁶⁸? He told him, it is necessary to state for one forgetting, since they disagreed: He acts in one forgetting but she in five forgettings. Rebbi Joḥanan said, he brings one sacrifice but she brings five sacrifices⁶⁹ 15a, this is a tannaïtic statement. The dissenting opinion is not mentioned there.. Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish said, since he brings [only]⁷⁰ one sacrifice, she brings only one sacrifice; lest you say that many women, or many forgettings, be treated as one forgetting. Therefore, it is necessary to say⁷¹ 1:1, it is stated that the number of possible cases is stated to stress that each sin represents a different obligation, following R. Johanan. In both questions of Note 68 the answer is that several sacrifices are required., he is liable for each one.

footnotes: ⁶⁵ This Halakhah refers more to Mishnah Keritut ⁶⁶ It is emphasized repeatedly (Lev ⁶⁷ It seems impossible to make sense of this sentence. The most probable emendation is to read “two forgettings”, see the preceding Note. ⁶⁵ This Halakhah refers more to Mishnah Keritut ⁶⁸ If in ignorance of the law, he slept with many menstruating women, or with several of his sisters, does this trigger the obligation of one or of several sacrifices? Similarly, if he repeatedly inadvertently slept with the same forbidden woman but in the intervals had realized the criminal character of his deed, does this trigger the obligation of one or of several sacrifices? ⁶⁹ In the Babli, KeritutI ⁷⁰ The word is missing in the Leiden ms., in G only the last א is clearly readable but the reconstruction of the word is quite certain. ⁷¹ In the missing Halakhah to Keritut

⁷² 7:2 (9c l.62–9d l.59). Rebbi Abun bar Ḥiyya said¹, there is here a sentence connecting the text to the preceding discussion, not applicable here. This shows that the text here is not a mechanical copy of the text in Šabbat.⁷⁴, R. Abun bar Hiyya is reported here to have stated that according to R. Ismael this holds only for a single detail, not for two or more. (As a statement of R. Johanan see below, Notes 95 ff.).: Rebbi Ismael stated so: You shall not divine nor cast spells⁷⁵. 19:26. Divination is an attempt to predict the future by magical means; spellbinding is practical witchcraft. Both are particular examples of the prohibition of witchcraft (Ex. 22:17), but no penalty is indicated.. Were not divination and spellbinding included in the general class but were mentioned separately to be treated differently from the general case? In general by extirpation, the separate cases for extirpation⁷⁶ 6(2), R. Ismael and R. Aqiba identify divination and spellbinding as examples of make-believe witchcraft which according to Mishnah 19 is not punishable by the human court. Automatically, these are separate examples of sins which require a purification sacrifice if done without criminal intent. A person who unintentionally acts as sorcerer, divinator, and spellbinder has to bring three sacrifices.. A statement of Rebbi Joḥanan says, it is a case of general case and detail⁷⁷. 1:2 describes sacrificial animals as animals, cattle, sheep, or goats. In the context, “animals” means “cattle, sheep, and goats”. In the discussion here, the details are mentioned in paragraphs other than the one describing the general category. Then one has to find a reason why the details have to be mentioned separately., as Rebbi Abbahu said in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan, for anybody who would perform any of these abominations will be extirpated⁷⁸. 18:29. This verse decrees a general verdict of extirpation on any violation of sexual taboos spelled out in Lev. 18, whether or not they are criminally punishable., etc. Was not his sister included in the general class⁷⁹. 18:9 but in the chapter about penalties, Lev. 20:17, the punishment is reserved for Heaven.? Rebbi Eleazar objected: Was it not written, the nakedness of your mother’s sister and your father’s sister you shall not uncover⁸⁰. 18:7,8. It seems that in G the verses were quoted correctly. It is incorrect also in Šabbat. It seems from the context that the text in G is a learned scribe’s correction of the original which, however, did not refer to Lev. 18:7,8 but to Lev. 20:19: The nakedness of your mother’s sister and your father’s sister you shall not uncover, for his close relative he touched, their sin they have to carry. Cf. Babli Yebamot 54a.? He told him, it was stated separately for a reason, to judge it by touching⁸¹. 20:19 makes two statements: The punishment is reserved for Heaven and the sin is committed the moment the genitals of the parties touch, without any penetration. Mishnah Yebamot 6:2 extends the equivalence of touching and penetration to all sexual offenses.. But is it not written⁸². 20:18. The implications are the same as for v. 19.: A man who would lie with an unwell**woman, who uncovered her nakedness, he touched her source, and she uncovered the source of her blood? He told him, it was stated separately for a reason, to judge it by touching. That you should not say, since one is guilty about her already by the impurity of touching, we should not treat the one who touched equal to the one who had full intercourse. Therefore, it was necessary to say it⁸³: “Therefore, it was necessary to say that he is liable for each one,” cf. Note 71. It is possible to justify the addition by noting that Lev. 18:29 decrees separate extirpation and, therefore, separate sacrifices for unintentional sin, for each separate category of incest.. But is it not written⁸⁴. 20:20.: A man who would sleep with his aunt uncovered his uncle’s nakedness? He told him, it was stated separately for a reason, to judge it by destruction⁸⁵ there is a reference here to Lev. 20:21. This also is missing in G, showing that the text here is secondary to that in Šabbat, since Lev. 20:20 says they shall die destroyed whereas v. 21 notes they shall be destroyed. The difference is explained in the following statement by R. Yudan. The Babli (Yebamot 55a) applies both statements to both verses., as Rebbi Yudan said, at all places where they will be destroyed is mentioned, they will be childless; where they shall die destroyed is mentioned, they shall bury their children.

footnotes: ⁷² This paragraph and the following almost to the end of the Halakhah have a slightly more complete parallel in Šabbat ¹ In Šabbat ⁷⁴ One of R. Ismael’s hermeneutical principles is that “a detail which was singled out from a general class was singled out not for itself but as an example for the entire class.” In Šabbat ⁷⁵ Lev ⁷⁶ To use witchcraft is a capital crime as indicated in the Mishnah; in the absence of witnesses there is an automatic Divine verdict of extirpation. But the special cases of divination and spellbinding only trigger a verdict of extirpation; they are not cases for the human court. This illustrates R. Ismael’s principle. In Sifra Qedošim Pereq ⁷⁷ The wording might be slightly misleading. There is a hermeneutical principle (#5 on R. Ismael’s list) which states that a general expression followed by particulars only refers to the particulars. This presupposes that both general expression and details are in the same paragraph. For example, Lev ⁷⁸ Lev ⁷⁹ The sister is forbidden in Lev ⁸⁰ A misquote from Lev ⁸¹ Lev ⁸² Lev ⁸³ In G and Šabbat ⁸⁴ Lev ⁸⁵ In Šabbat

Rebbi Yose said, it was necessary that his aunt be mentioned separately, to exclude his mother’s brother’s wife⁸⁷ 55a).. What is the reason? It is said here his aunt, and it is said there⁸⁸. 25:49. Since the subject of the entire Chapter is inheritance, it is understood that only the male line is addressed., either his uncle or his uncle’s son shall free**him. Since by his uncle mentioned there, the verse understands his father’s paternal brother, also by his aunt mentioned here, the verse speaks of his father’s paternal brother’s wife. Also his brother’s wife⁸⁹. 18:16. can be inferred⁹⁰, לְמֵידָה, seems preferable. from his aunt. Since by his aunt mentioned there, the verse speaks of his father’s paternal brother’s wife, also by his brother’s wife mentioned here, the verse speaks of his paternal brother’s wife. So far following Rebbi Aqiba. Following Rebbi Ismael? Rebbi Ismael stated: It is said here his brother’s wife and it is said there⁹¹. 20:21, the penalty clause referring to the prohibition formulated in Lev. 18:16., a man who would take his brother’s wife, she is niddah⁹². 18:19), who is forbidden relations with her husband, and to the person excommunicated (מְנֻדֶּה) who is separated from the community. In rabbinic Hebrew, the word נִדָּה is used exclusively for the menstruating woman; this is the reference made here, even though the argument is equally valid for the excommunicated person. (Babli Yebamot54b.). Since a menstruating woman will be permitted after being forbidden, also his [paternal] brother’s wife may be permitted [after being forbidden.⁹³. The menstruating woman is permitted after her purification; the brother’s wife may be permitted, viz., if the brother dies childless. In the latter case, “brother” means paternal brother (Yebamot 1:1, Note 45).] This excludes his maternal brother’s wife, who cannot be permitted after being forbidden⁹⁴.

footnotes: ⁸⁷ From punishment by loss of children (rejected in the Babli, Yebamot ⁸⁸ Lev ⁸⁹ Who is forbidden in Lev ⁹⁰ The reading of G and Šabbat ⁹¹ Lev ⁹² In biblical Hebrew, the meaning of the root נדד is the same as Arabic نحاد “to separate, to disperse”. This applies both to the menstruating woman (Lev ⁹³ The words in brackets are added from G and Šabbat ⁹⁴ But for whom no punishment is spelled out.

But Rebbi Joḥanan himself had a problem: from where does one prove it⁹⁵, the name is Ismael; this may be the correct attribution, cf. Note 124.? Rebbi Abbahu in the name of Rebbi Eleazar in the name of Rebbi Hoshaia: Two prohibitions and one extirpation, the prohibitions split the extirpation⁹⁶. For example⁹⁷. 30:32,33 regarding the holy oil. Only v. 33 is discussed., it should not be used to be rubbed on anybody’s skin and in its proportions you shall not imitate it, and it is written, a person who would compound similarly, or who would put it on a stranger, will be extirpated from his people, that is two prohibitions and one extirpation. The prohibitions split the extirpation⁹⁸ 14b.. Also from the following: Samuel bar Abba asked before Rebbi Zeura, should not well-being sacrifices, being treated separately, split all *sancta* regarding impurity⁹⁹. 7:11–27. Impurity of sacrifices available to priests is treated in *Lev*. 22:1–16. One should assume that a priest who inadvertently eats a combination of impure well-being and other sacrifices has to bring separate purification sacrifices; but this is not the case.? He told him, it was necessary that they be treated separately, to eliminate *sancta* destined for the upkeep of the Temple [regarding larceny]¹⁰⁰. While misuse of all kinds of sacrifices is also larceny, it is punishable only if the monetary value of the misuse is at least one *perutah*. Misuse of one half *perutah*’s worth of Temple donations and one half *perutah*’s worth of sacrifices is not punishable., lest one be liable for them because of mushiness¹⁰¹, leftovers¹⁰², and impurity. But is that not a Mishnah? “All *sancta* destined for the altar combine with one another with respect to liability for mushiness, leftovers, and impurity¹⁰³,” in contrast to *sancta* destined for the upkeep of the Temple¹⁰⁴ 4:1. The categories of mushiness, leftovers, and impurity do not apply to monetary gifts to the Temple. Anything donated to the Temple which is not a sacrifice or a temple vessel is sold by the Temple treasurer and thereby reverts to fully profane status.. Since they do not combine, they do (not)¹⁰⁵; it should be deleted. split¹⁰⁶. Rebbi Ḥanina¹⁰⁷ said, what he really questioned, should they not split but combine ¹⁰⁸, R. Ḥanina’s statement is an assertion that the rules *are* different for well-being and other sacrifices. This would agree with the Babli, *Meilah* 15a, that in fact well-being and purification offerings do not combine; the contrary statement of the Mishnah is classified as a rabbinic stringency.?

footnotes: ⁹⁵ This refers to the paragraph before the last, where R. Johanan explained that the sister had a special role in the list of incest prohibitions, to deduce that from the different levels of punishment the blanket decree of extirpation really represents separate decrees for each kind of infraction. In Šabbat ⁹⁶ This answers R. Joḥanan’s question. It is rather frequent to find verses containing multiple prohibitions covered by one mention of extirpation where the context makes it clear that each single infraction triggers extirpation. ⁹⁷ Ex ⁹⁸ A person who inadvertently compounds aromatic oil in the same composition as holy oil and uses it on people has to bring two sacrifices. The argument is repeated in Halakhah 9:1 (end of fol. 26d) and accepted in the Babli, Makkot ⁹⁹ Impurity of well-being sacrifices, the only ones available to lay people, is treated at length in Lev ¹⁰⁰ The text in brackets is found in G and in Šabbat ¹⁰¹ Sacrificing with the intent of eating of the sacrificial meat out of its time and place. ¹⁰² Eating of sacrificial meat after its allotted time. ¹⁰³ This shows that well-being and other sacrifices are equal in the hand of the Cohen. ¹⁰⁴ Mishnah Me`ilah ¹⁰⁵ The word is not in G and Šabbat ¹⁰⁶ Somebody committing simultaneous larceny involving gifts to the Temple and sacrifices has to atone separately for the two offenses. ¹⁰⁷ G reads: Hinena, preferable for chronological reasons. ¹⁰⁸ The question remains unanswered why the rules for well-being are no different from those for other sacrifices even for Cohanim. In Šabbat

If He stated a general principle as a positive commandment but the detail as a prohibition¹⁰⁹, the word of Rebbi Eleazar is that this is a general principle followed by a detail¹¹⁰. ¹¹¹ 8:1, Notes 20–36 (Babli Mo`ed qaṭan 3a). The text in Kilaim practically is identical with that in Šabbat; the text here is slightly abbreviated. The punishment for violating a biblical prohibition for which no penalty is specified is by flogging. The problem is that ploughing is not specifically mentioned in Lev. 25. Rebbi Eleazar said, one whips for ploughing in the Sabbatical year. Rebbi Joḥanan said, one does not whip for ploughing in the Sabbatical year. What is Rebbi Eleazar’s reason? The Land shall keep a Sabbath for the Eternal¹¹². 25:3., a general principle. Your field you shall not sow, your vineyard you shall not prune¹¹³. 25:4., detail. The sower and the pruner were included in the general case; why were they mentioned separately? To include with them; since the sower and the pruner are particular in that they perform work on the ground or on a tree, I have only what is work on the ground or on a tree. How does Rebbi Joḥanan treat this? They are two different things, and two different details for one general principle do divide. In Rebbi Eleazar’s opinion they do not divide¹¹⁴. But he holds that because they do not divide, they are for making inferences. In Rebbi Joḥanan’s opinion, they are not for making inferences. There is a difference here because He stated a general principle as a positive commandment but the detail as prohibitions. No positive commandment allows inferences for a prohibition and no prohibition allows inferences for a positive commandment. In Rebbi Eleazar’s opinion a positive commandment allows inferences for a prohibition but no prohibition allows inferences for a positive commandment. In Rebbi Joḥanan’s opinion it is obvious that one may dig cisterns, ditches, and caves during it. In Rebbi Eleazar’s opinion, may one dig cisterns, ditches, and caves during it? Just as one cannot make inferences for prohibitions, so one should not be able to make inferences for permissions¹¹⁵. Rebbi Abba from Carthage said, Rebbi Joḥanan’s reason is six years you shall sow your field, not in the Sabbatical; and six years you shall prune your vineyard¹¹⁶. 25:3., not in the Sabbatical. Any prohibition inferred from a positive commandment is a positive commandment; one violates a positive commandment¹¹⁷. Rebbi Jeremiah said, one violates a positive commandment. Rebbi Yose said, there is not even a positive commandment. But is it not written that the Land shall rest as a repose for the Eternal? That is for the prohibition implied by it¹¹⁸. 25:3–4 represents a general principle followed by a detail (even if the principle is a positive commandment and the detail a prohibition) then by R. Ismael’s hermeneutical rule כְּלָל וּפְרָט אֵין בִּכְלָל אֶלָּא מַה שֶׁבִּפְרָט “general principle followed by detail: the general principle only applies to the detail”, nothing not mentioned in the verse is prohibited..

footnotes: ¹⁰⁹ The vocalization and, consequently, the interpretation כלל of and פרט as verbs rather than nouns, is from G. Here ends the Genizah fragment. ¹¹⁰ If a pentateuchal verse partially is an exhortation to action and partially a prohibition, it nevertheless forms a logical unit. ¹¹¹ From here to the end of the Halakhah there also is a parallel in Kilaim ¹¹² Lev ¹¹³ Lev ¹¹⁴ To require separate atonement if performed inadvertently. ¹¹⁵ For R. Johanan, if ploughing is not sanctionable, digging for other than agricultural purposes certainly is permitted. But for R. Eleazar digging is work on the ground (in the language of his argument) but not in the field (as forbidden in the verse.) ¹¹⁶ Lev ¹¹⁷ As such it is not sanctionable; cf. Halakhah 5:3, Note 73. ¹¹⁸ He takes R. Eleazar literally at his word. If Lev

¹¹⁹ and Šabbat, explained in Kilaim 8:1, Notes 26–28. As the other sources show, the first sentence is a rhetorical question from a baraita referring to rabbinic additions to Sabbatical prohibitions. The words in brackets represent the introductory formula יָכוֹל added from the parallel sources, “I could think that …” which has to be disproved. Since this formula is central to the understanding of the paragraph, one has an additional indication of the secondary character of the text here.[I could think that] they should be giving lashes for the addition. Rebbi Joḥanan explains the baraita: I could think that one gives lashes for ploughing during the Sabbatical year, but Rebbi Eleazar explains the baraita: I could think that one gives lashes for the first two terms¹²⁰. Some Tannaïm state: Six years you shall sow your field, and six years you shall prune your vineyard; but some Tannaïm state: Your field you shall not sow, etc. He who says six years supports Rebbi Joḥanan; he who says your field you shall not sow supports Rebbi Eleazar.

footnotes: ¹¹⁹ This paragraph is slightly shortened from Kilaim ¹²⁰ The prohibition of agricultural work after the harvest of the preceding year, different for work on the ground or on trees.

A baraita supports¹²¹. The latter is the correct version as explained at length in Kilaim 8:1 Note 29 and refers to Sifry Deut. 70–71. The example refers to sacrificing outside the Temple district (or another holy place designated by God) and is missing in Kilaim. The statement itself is found in the Babli, Zebaḥim 106a. Rebbi Eleazar: Be on guard, a prohibition. Lest, a prohibition. And it is written¹²². 12:13–14: Be on guard, and do not offer your elevation sacrifices at any place which you see. Only at the place which the Eternal will choose … there you shall offer your elevation sacrifices and there you shall do everything which I am commanding you. This is a general prohibition followed by two specific positive commandments.: There, you shall offer your elevation offerings and there you shall make. There, you shall offer, that is the offering; and there you shall make, that is slaughtering and sprinkling. Just as offering is a positive commandment and a prohibition, so slaughtering and sprinkling which are positive commandments should be covered by a prohibition. Because it is written there you shall offer, and there you shall make. Therefore, if there you shall offer, and there you shall make were not written, no positive commandment would allow inferences for a prohibition and no prohibition would allow inferences for a positive commandment. How does Rebbi Joḥanan handle this? That you should not say as you say referring to the Sabbath: If one dug a hole, made a ditch, or dug to put in a pole, he is guilty only of one offense¹²³7:2). Different actions all of which are classified under the same category are considered one and the same violation of the Sabbath. The activities quoted here are all derivatives of ploughing (Babli Šabbat 73b).. Similarly, if he slaughtered and offered, he should be guilty only of one offense; therefore, it was necessary to say, he is liable for every single action¹²⁴ 107b, according to one opinion this is R. Ismael’s position..

footnotes: ¹²¹ In both parallels: disagrees with ¹²² Deut ¹²³ Sabbath prohibitions are classified into 39 different categories (Mishnah Šabbat ¹²⁴ In the Babli, Zebaḥim

¹²⁵ (ך) 8:1, Notes 33–36. Rebbi Zeˋira, Rav Ḥiyya bar Ashi in the name of Cahana: He who is planting on the Sabbath is guilty because of sowing. Rebbi Zeura said, he who prunes is like one who plants. If he planted and pruned on the Sabbath, according to Cahana he is guilty on two counts, according to Rebbi Zeura only on one count. Did not Rebbi Zeura say the pruner is like the planter, did perhaps he say the planter is like the pruner? All was included in the category of sowing; pruning was singled out for particular stringency. Because pruning was singled out for particular stringency you want to exempt it because of sowing? This means, there is no difference. If he planted and pruned on the Sabbath, according to both Cahana and Rebbi Zeura he is guilty on two counts

footnotes: ¹²⁵ This paragraph is from Kilaim

MISHNAH: A person having sexual relations with the mother is guilty because of mother and because of father’s wife¹²⁶. Rebbi Jehudah say, he is guilty only because of mother¹²⁷. 18:7 only forbids the mother; 18:8 only forbids the stepmother.. A person having sexual relations with the father’s wife is guilty because of father’s wife and because of married woman, whether during his father’s lifetime or after his father’s death¹²⁸, whether preliminarily married or definitively married. A person having sexual relations with his daughter-in-law is guilty because of his daughter-in-law and because of a married woman, whether during his son’s lifetime or after his son’s death¹²⁸, whether preliminarily married or definitively married.

footnotes: ¹²⁶ If he committed the incest in ignorance either of the person or the law, he owes two purification sacrifices. ¹²⁷ He holds that Lev ¹²⁸ But if the widowed stepmother is not remarried, he is not guilty for sleeping with an otherwise married woman. Similarly, a man sleeping with his daughter-in-law (Halakhah 8) is not guilty of adultery with a married woman if at the moment of the crime she was not married to anybody. Neither the prohibition of the stepmother nor that of the daughter-in-law are removed by divorce and remarriage to a third party. ¹²⁸ But if the widowed stepmother is not remarried, he is not guilty for sleeping with an otherwise married woman. Similarly, a man sleeping with his daughter-in-law (Halakhah 8) is not guilty of adultery with a married woman if at the moment of the crime she was not married to anybody. Neither the prohibition of the stepmother nor that of the daughter-in-law are removed by divorce and remarriage to a third party.

HALAKHAH: “A person having sexual relations with the mother,” etc. Halakhah 7:“A person having sexual relations with the father’s wife,” etc. From where the warning¹²⁹. 25:21). For any more serious infraction the pentateuchal style requires that separate verses must spell out (1) the prohibition, (2) the penalty to be imposed by the court, (3) the penalty imposed by Heaven in case the crime was not observed by two blameless adult male witnesses and, therefore, no court case was possible. In case of sexual crimes this would mean that the witnesses have to see the sex act. For a civil case, such as a husband wishing to divorce his wife because of her adultery, without paying her ketubah, it is enough for witnesses to testify to her going to a room with another man, locking the door, and extinguishing the lights. But this is not enough for a criminal conviction. for a person having sexual relations with the mother? Your mother’s nakedness you shall not uncover.¹³⁰. 18:7. From where extirpation? For anybody who would commit any of these abominations, the guilty persons will be extirpated from their people¹³¹. 18:29.. From where the warning for a person having sexual relations with the father’s wife? Your father’s wife’s nakedness you shall not uncover.¹³². 18:8 From where extirpation? For anybody who would commit,¹³¹. 18:29. etc. Punishment from where? A man who would sleep with his father’s wife, his father’s nakedness he uncovered; they shall be put to death,¹³³. 20:11. Even R. Jehudah will agree that this verse also refers to the mother. The verse ends: their blood be on them. In the next Halakhah it will be determined that this expression implies stoning; cf. Babli 54a. etc.

footnotes: ¹²⁹ A prohibition the penalty for which is not spelled out carries a penalty of flogging (Deut ¹³⁰ Lev ¹³¹ Lev ¹³² Lev ¹³¹ Lev ¹³³ Lev

From where the warning¹²⁹. 25:21). For any more serious infraction the pentateuchal style requires that separate verses must spell out (1) the prohibition, (2) the penalty to be imposed by the court, (3) the penalty imposed by Heaven in case the crime was not observed by two blameless adult male witnesses and, therefore, no court case was possible. In case of sexual crimes this would mean that the witnesses have to see the sex act. For a civil case, such as a husband wishing to divorce his wife because of her adultery, without paying her ketubah, it is enough for witnesses to testify to her going to a room with another man, locking the door, and extinguishing the lights. But this is not enough for a criminal conviction. for a person having sexual relations with his daughter-in-law? *Your daughter-in-law’s nakedness you shall not uncover.*¹³⁴. 18:15. From where extirpation? For any man who would commit any of these abominations will be extirpated,¹. 18:29.¹³⁵ etc. Punishment from where? A man who would sleep with his daughter-in-law¹³⁶. 20:12. etc.

footnotes: ¹²⁹ A prohibition the penalty for which is not spelled out carries a penalty of flogging (Deut ¹³⁴ Lev ¹ Lev ¹³⁵ The verse is slightly misquoted. ¹³⁶ Lev

We have it stated here, we have it stated in Keritut¹³⁷ 1:1.. One understands in Keritut¹³⁸ that he brings one sacrifice and then has to bring a second. What can you say in Sanhedrin¹³⁹? That he is stoned and then stoned again? Rebbi Yudan, Rebbi Mattaniah’s father, said: explain it for warnings¹⁴⁰. For if they warned him because of the father’s wife, he is hit,¹⁴¹ because of the mother, he is hit. Could they not also warn him because of a married woman? Rebbi Abun said, explain it if she was unmarried¹²⁸.

footnotes: ¹³⁷ The multiple transgressions committed by one act mentioned in the last three Mishnaiot are also implied by Mishnah Keritut ¹³⁸ If the sin was committed inadvertently, one act may require multiple sacrifices for atonement. ¹³⁹ A person can be executed only once. ¹⁴⁰ Since a person can only be convicted if he was warned in appropriate fashion (Halakhah 5:1), he will be convicted for the single transgression about which he had been warned. ¹⁴¹ As the commentaries point out, one cannot translate לוֹקֶה by “being flogged”, since one refers to capital crimes. ¹²⁸ But if the widowed stepmother is not remarried, he is not guilty for sleeping with an otherwise married woman. Similarly, a man sleeping with his daughter-in-law (Halakhah 8) is not guilty of adultery with a married woman if at the moment of the crime she was not married to anybody. Neither the prohibition of the stepmother nor that of the daughter-in-law are removed by divorce and remarriage to a third party.

¹⁴² There, we have stated¹⁴³ is quoted in the Babli, 53a.: Rebbi Jehudah says, if his mother was not fit for his father, he is liable only for one [sacrifice]. Therefore, if his mother was fit for his father, he is liable for two. Rebbi Abbahu in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: There is no difference. Whether his mother was fit for his father or unfit for his father, he is liable only once. The reason of Rebbi Joḥanan¹⁴⁴: Your mother is she, you find him guilty because of his mother; this directs the entire chapter towards his mother¹⁴⁵ 9(12). Lev. 18:7 reads: Your father’s nakedness and your mother’s nakedness you shall not uncover; she is your mother, do not uncover her nakedness. The unusual wordiness of the verse has to be explained. Later in the paragraph there is disagreement whether your father’s nakedness refers to homosexual relations or describes a woman other than the mother who had sexual relations with the father. R. Jehudah opts for the first alternative. The mother then is singled out; she is equally forbidden whether she is or ever was his father’s wife or not, just as the father is forbidden whether he ever was married to his mother or not. This excludes any possibility to charge relations with her as father’s wife as a separate crime.. Rebbi Abun bar Ḥiyya asked before Rebbi Zeˋira: What caused Rebbi Joḥanan¹⁴⁴ to concentrate on the mother and to leave the father’s wife aside? He told him, for he argues with Rebbi Ismael, as Rebbi Ismael explained: Your father’s wife’s nakedness¹⁴⁶ (v. 7) instead of a quote from v.8.; the verse refers to the male. Is not his father included in the category of the male¹⁴⁷? Only to make him liable twice, as we have stated: A person having sexual relations with his father is doubly liable about him¹⁴⁸. הבא.. Then should we not state “thirty-seven extirpations in the Torah”¹⁴⁹ 1:1 lists 36 separate cases of extirpation; homosexual acts with the father are not listed.? Rebbi Mana said, all denotations of males are one. ¹⁵⁰Your father’s wife’s nakedness; the verse refers to the father’s wife. Your mother’s nakedness, that is his mother who is his father’s wife. From where his mother who is not his father’s wife? Your mother is she; do not uncover her nakedness. How does Rebbi Ismael treat this? He explains it to apply after [the father’s] death¹⁵¹. Does Rebbi Aqiba not explain she is your father’s nakedness¹⁵². 18:8, referring to the stepmother.? There is no difference whether during lifetime or after death. Rebbi Aqiba explains: Your father’s wife’s nakedness¹⁴⁶ (v. 7) instead of a quote from v.8., the verse refers to the father’s wife. Your mother’s nakedness, that is his mother who is his father’s wife. From where his mother who is not his father’s wife? Your mother is she; do not uncover her nakedness. How does Rebbi Ismael treat this? He explains it to apply after [the father’s] death¹⁵³. Does not Rebbi Aqiba treat your father’s nakedness, your mother’s nakedness¹⁵⁴? Since your father refers to your father in any capacity¹⁵⁵ both for punishment¹⁵⁶. 20:11, warning in 18:7. and warning, so also your mother refers to one’s mother in any capacity both for punishment and warning. Is it not reasonable to explain that verse except following Rebbi Jehudah who because he does not accept “his mother who is his father’s wife”¹⁵⁷ in v. 7 refers to the father’s wife, the second mention to a mother not married to his father. must explain that your father’s nakedness, your mother’s nakedness refers to your father in any capacity both for punishment and warning, so also your mother refers to your mother in any capacity both for punishment and warning. Rebbi Zeˋira said, this implies that one infers from parallel language¹⁵⁸ 22b). Property (b) is meant if an expression is called “free”. The equal cut here is the use of your father’s nakedness both in v.7 and v.8. As we have seen, in v.7 the expression clearly is not “free”. even if it is free only from one side¹⁵⁹. Rebbi Yudan said to him¹⁶⁰ 8:3 (45a l. 48) where R. Yudan’s statement is an independent remark. Since R. Yudan lived a generation after R. Zeˋira, the Yoma version has to be accepted., this is obvious for Rebbi Aqiba since Rebbi Aqiba infers from parallel language even if it is not free¹⁶¹ 64a, Niddah 22b..

footnotes: ¹⁴² These two paragraphs are partially corrupt. In a few places, the required corrections are obvious; other passages are not so simple. The text was treated at length by M. Assis לפירושה של סוגיא אחת בירושלמי סנהדרין Sinai 99(1986) pp. 110–127. The parallel in the Babli is 53a–54a. ¹⁴³ In the Yerushalmi תַּמָּן תַּנִּינָן always introduces a Mishnah quote. Already J. N. Epstein in מבוא לנוסח המשנה p. 150 has noted that one should read תַּמָּן תְּנַיִין “there (in Babylonia) one states.” The Babylonian baraita ¹⁴⁴ It seems that one has to read “R. Jehudah” since R. Johanan opposes the conclusion of the argument. ¹⁴⁵ This is only the end of an argument which can be reconstructed from Sifra Qedošim Pereq ¹⁴⁴ It seems that one has to read “R. Jehudah” since R. Johanan opposes the conclusion of the argument. ¹⁴⁶ Obviously one has to read your father’s nakedness ¹⁴⁷ Since homosexual intercourse also is a capital crime. ¹⁴⁸ Babli 54a; Tosaphot s. v ¹⁴⁹ Mishnah Keritut ¹⁵⁰ This text is repeated later as R. Aqiba’s opinion. Since R. Ismael was quoted as opposing this interpretation, it is not his opinion. The text is dittography from the following. ¹⁵¹ Why is the mother mentioned twice, once in parallel with the father and once separately? ¹⁵² Lev ¹⁴⁶ Obviously one has to read your father’s nakedness ¹⁵³ Dittography from above. ¹⁵⁴ M. Assis here sees a lacuna referring to the earlier statement that the mother remains equally forbidden whether or not the father is alive. This is not a necessary inference. ¹⁵⁵ Whether married, seducer, rapist or paying for sexual services. ¹⁵⁶ Punishment is spelled out in Lev ¹⁵⁷ He rejects the interpretation that the first mention of your mother ¹⁵⁸ גְּזֵירָה שָׁוָה “equal cut” is the transfer of rules from one law to another if identical language was used. The majority opinion accepts inferences from “equal cut” only if (a) there exists a tradition that the words in question were written for this purpose and (b) no other inferences are drawn from the expressions in question (Babli Niddah ¹⁵⁹ M. Assis rightly points out that it is not free even in v.8 since the expression is used to forbid the stepmother after the father’s death. ¹⁶⁰ As M. Assis points out, the statement also is quoted in Yoma ¹⁶¹ This statement is unknown to Babylonian sources; the statement of the Babylonian R. Zeˋira is found in the Babli, Šabbat

Rebbi Jeremiah asked: Is a person having sexual relations with his mother guilty [of adultery] with her as a married woman¹⁶²? Come and see: if a third person had sexual relations with her, would he not be guilty [of adultery] with her as a married woman? Her son not so much more? Rebbi Yose objected: is not her stepson guilty [of adultery] with her as a married woman, but her son is not guilty [of adultery] with her as a married woman¹⁶³? As we have stated:¹⁶⁴ Also with all other cases of incest and adultery the situation is the same. His mother-in-law as a married woman, you catch him because of his mother-in-law¹⁶⁵. 18:17); the penalty for the willful crime is burning (20:14), more serious than strangling, the penalty for adultery (20:10).. His daughter-in-law as a married woman, you catch him because of his daughter-in-law¹⁶⁶ contradicts the Mishnah.. His sister as a married woman, do you catch him because of his sister? You smuggle him away from the serious crime and strike him for the easier one¹⁶⁷; this you cannot do as we have stated: A person having sexual relations with his sister is liable because of her as his sister and as a daughter of his father’s wife¹⁶⁸ (18:9,20:17), describing the full sister or the maternal half-sister, or your father’s wife’s daughter from your father(18:11), describing the paternal half-sister. It seems that there is no biblical penalty attached to relations with the paternal extramarital half-sister. Babli Yebamot 22b.. Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Jehudah says, a person having sexual relations with his sister¹⁶⁹ is only liable because of her as his sister; the same is true for his daughter-in-law. Rebbi Jeremiah, Rebbi Abbahu in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Jehudah follows the argument of his father Rebbi Jehudah. Just as Rebbi Jehudah accepts the description mentioned first, so Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Jehudah accepts the description mentioned first. Rebbi Jeremiah, Rebbi Abbahu in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan turned around: Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Jehudah does not follow the argument of his father Rebbi Jehudah. There he is liable because of his mother, who is not his father’s wife; he is liable because of his father’s wife who is not his mother. But here we find that he is permitted his father’s wife’s daughter, who is not his sister¹⁷⁰.

footnotes: ¹⁶² This is a question only for R. Jehudah; for the majority it already was answered positively, Note 128. ¹⁶³ To make sense of this objection, one has to read אֵשֶׁת אָב “the father’s wife” instead of אֵשֶׁת אִישׁ “a married woman”. R. Jehudah in the Mishnah explicitly declares the prohibition of the father’s wife inapplicable to the mother. ¹⁶⁴ A similar text is in Tosephta 10:2. ¹⁶⁵ The mother-in-law is forbidden as the wife’s mother (Lev ¹⁶⁶ The penalty is stoning (20:10). Even though the question here is about the number of sacrifices due for an unintended crime, the more serious crime is the only one counted. But, naturally, if in case of intentional crime the warning was given only about adultery, not about any incestuous aspect, the perpetrator is tried for adultery. This baraita ¹⁶⁷ Adultery is a capital crime; sleeping with one’s sister is punishable only by Heaven, not the human court.The verb קנתר used here is Greek κεντρόω “to strike with a stick” (to goad an animal.) ¹⁶⁸ The sister is always characterized as your father’s daughter or your mother’s daughter ¹⁶⁹ The unmarried sister. ¹⁷⁰ Children from previous marriages who are not related to one another are encouraged to marry. Rav was the son of R. Hiyya’s unrelated half-brother and half-sister from previous marriages of his parents.

MISHNAH: A man who had sexual relations with a male or an animal, or a woman who brings an animal [upon herself]¹⁷¹. If a human sinned, what did the animal sin¹⁷². 20:15 decrees that a male who had relations with an animal shall be killed together with the animal, while v. 16 decrees that a woman who had relations with an animal shall be stoned together with the animal. The two verses are considered a unit, so that killing in v. 15 is read as stoning.? But because it caused a mishap to a human, therefore the verse decreed that it should be stoned. Another explanation: Lest the animal be seen in public and people say, this is the one because of which X was stoned.

footnotes: ¹⁷¹ These are to be stoned, Mishnah 5. ¹⁷² Lev

HALAKHAH: “A man who had sexual relations with a male.” From where the warning¹²⁹. 25:21). For any more serious infraction the pentateuchal style requires that separate verses must spell out (1) the prohibition, (2) the penalty to be imposed by the court, (3) the penalty imposed by Heaven in case the crime was not observed by two blameless adult male witnesses and, therefore, no court case was possible. In case of sexual crimes this would mean that the witnesses have to see the sex act. For a civil case, such as a husband wishing to divorce his wife because of her adultery, without paying her ketubah, it is enough for witnesses to testify to her going to a room with another man, locking the door, and extinguishing the lights. But this is not enough for a criminal conviction. for a person having sexual relations with a male¹⁷³? With a male you shall not sleep in women’s ways¹⁷⁴. 18:22. A general parallel to this paragraph is in the Babli, 54b.. From where extirpation? For anybody who would commit any of these abominations will be extirpated¹. 18:29.¹³⁵, etc. Punishment from where? A man who would sleep with a male in women’s ways, an abomination did both of them commit; they shall be put to death; their blood be on them¹⁷⁵. 20:13.. You learn their blood be on them from their blood be on them¹⁵. 20:12. From 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. Babli 54a.. That is for the active one. For the passive one from where? With a male you shall not sleep in women’s ways, read: to be slept with¹⁷⁶. So far following Rebbi Aqiba. Following Rebbi Ismael? There shall be no qadeš among the sons of Israel¹⁷⁷. 23:18. The identification of the qadeš as the male prostitute follows later from the verse in Kings.. From where extirpation for the passive homosexual following Rebbi Ismael? Rebbi Jeremiah in the name of Rebbi Abbahu. It says here qadeš and it says there, also a qadeš was in the land¹⁷⁸. 14:24.. You learn qadeš from qadeš and qadeš from abomination¹⁷⁹ means the same in both verses. Also, qadeš must refer to the male since the feminine form qedešah is explicitly mentioned in Deut. 23:18. 1K. 14 continues: They did all the abominations of the peoples whom the Eternal had uprooted from before the Children of Israel. These abominations are referred to in Lev. 18:29 and the only abominations unique to a male are homosexuality and active bestiality. In the Babli, 54b, both R. Ismael’s and R. Aqiba’s statements are quoted as baraitot; partially also in Sifra Qedošim Pereq 9(12).. Rebbi Ḥiyya bar Ada in the name of Rebbi Ḥanina: Abomination from abomination¹⁸⁰.20, the expression abomination is only used for the homosexual. This implies that the qadeš in 1K. 14:24, and therefore in Deut. 23:18 is engaged in homosexual acts.. Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Abun said, a baraita¹⁸¹ states this: Both committed an abomination¹⁷⁴. 18:22. A general parallel to this paragraph is in the Babli, 54b.. Both are stoned, both are subject to warning, both by extirpation.

footnotes: ¹²⁹ A prohibition the penalty for which is not spelled out carries a penalty of flogging (Deut ¹⁷³ The form זְכוּר denotes, if not the penis, then the male as appendix to his sex organ. ¹⁷⁴ Lev ¹ Lev ¹³⁵ The verse is slightly misquoted. ¹⁷⁵ Lev ¹⁵ Lev ¹⁷⁶ The unvocalized text תשכב can be read either with the masoretes as active תִּשְׁכַּב “you shall sleep” or as passive תִּשָּׁכֵב “you shall be slept with”. The nonstandard vocalization in the text is from the ms. (Babli 54b). ¹⁷⁷ Deut ¹⁷⁸ 1K ¹⁷⁹ It is assumed that qadeš ¹⁸⁰ In Lev ¹⁸¹ Not recorded elsewhere. ¹⁷⁴ Lev

From where the warning¹²⁹. 25:21). For any more serious infraction the pentateuchal style requires that separate verses must spell out (1) the prohibition, (2) the penalty to be imposed by the court, (3) the penalty imposed by Heaven in case the crime was not observed by two blameless adult male witnesses and, therefore, no court case was possible. In case of sexual crimes this would mean that the witnesses have to see the sex act. For a civil case, such as a husband wishing to divorce his wife because of her adultery, without paying her ketubah, it is enough for witnesses to testify to her going to a room with another man, locking the door, and extinguishing the lights. But this is not enough for a criminal conviction. for a person having sexual relations with an animal? Do not give your emission into an animal to defile yourself by it¹⁸². 18:23. The entire paragraph has a parallel in the Babli, 54b.. From where extirpation? For anybody who would commit any of these abominations will be extirpated¹. 18:29.¹³⁵, etc. Punishment from where? A man who would sleep with a animal shall be put to death¹⁸³.20:15. The corresponding verse for a woman is 20:16.. You infer their blood be on them from their blood be on them². 20:12. From 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. Babli 54a.¹⁸⁴. So far following Rebbi Aqiba. Following Rebbi Ismael? Rebbi Ismael from his source¹⁷⁹ means the same in both verses. Also, qadeš must refer to the male since the feminine form qedešah is explicitly mentioned in Deut. 23:18. 1K. 14 continues: They did all the abominations of the peoples whom the Eternal had uprooted from before the Children of Israel. These abominations are referred to in Lev. 18:29 and the only abominations unique to a male are homosexuality and active bestiality. In the Babli, 54b, both R. Ismael’s and R. Aqiba’s statements are quoted as baraitot; partially also in Sifra Qedošim Pereq 9(12). and Rebbi Aqiba from his source¹⁸⁵ R. Aqiba always refers to Lev. 18:29.. Extirpation for a male passive partner is not found for Rebbi Ismael¹⁸⁶. 22:18.. Punishment for a male passive partner is not found for Rebbi Ismael or Rebbi Aqiba¹⁸⁷. 20., but it is written: One who sacrifices to the forces of nature shall be banned. Since this one is in for stoning and extirpation, also that one is in for stoning and extirpation¹⁸⁸. 22:19, but as adherent of foreign worship he is stoned. It is implied that the death penalty decreed in the preceding verse, anybody lying with an animal shall be put to death, for the passive participant in bestiality also must be executed by stoning.. What is the difference between them? If one had active homosexual relations followed by passive ones, in Rebbi Ismael’s opinion he is liable only once; in Rebbi Aqiba’s opinion he is liable twice¹⁸⁹. Therefore, combined active and passive homosexual activity violates one verse for R. Aqiba, two for R. Ismael.. If one had active relations with an animal followed by passive ones. Both in Rebbi Aqiba’s as in Rebbi Ismael’s opinions he is liable twice¹⁹⁰. 18:22 (or 23) and Ex. 22:18 are violated. The Babli disagrees, 54b.. If he had active homosexual relations with both a male and an animal he is liable twice. If he had passive homosexual relations with both a male and an animal he is liable twice. If he had simultaneous active sexual relations with two males, since both of them became guilty because of him, he is liable twice. If he had simultaneous passive sexual relations with two males, since both of them became guilty because of him, he is liable twice. It was stated: For males, an underage boy does not have the status of an adult¹⁹¹1:3 Notes 147,152.; a young animal has the status of a fully grown one. Rebbi Eleazar said, he cannot become liable because of it unless it be three years and one day of age¹⁹². 18:22 where homosexual acts are called lyings in woman’s way..

footnotes: ¹²⁹ A prohibition the penalty for which is not spelled out carries a penalty of flogging (Deut ¹⁸² Lev ¹ Lev ¹³⁵ The verse is slightly misquoted. ¹⁸³ Lev ² Lev ¹⁸⁴ The expression is used only in v. 16. It is implied that the punishment for male bestiality cannot be less than that of female bestiality. ¹⁷⁹ It is assumed that qadeš ¹⁸⁵ R. Ismael includes bestiality in the actions of a qadeš. ¹⁸⁶ The Babli disagrees and finds the passive participant in bestiality in Ex ¹⁸⁷ In Lev ¹⁸⁸ The worshipper of the forces of nature is banned Ex ¹⁸⁹ In the Babli, 54b, the attributions are switched. One has to follow the classical commentaries in correcting the Yerushalmi following the Babli since, as explained in Notes 175–178, R. Aqiba finds the prohibition of active and passive homosexuality in the same verse whereas R. Ismael defines the passive homosexual as qadeš ¹⁹⁰ For both R. Aqiba and R. Ismael both Lev ¹⁹¹ Sexual relations with males under the age of nine years and one day, and females under three years and one day, are not considered as sexual activities; cf. Ketubot ¹⁹² This does not refer to bestiality but to homosexuality. Homosexual relations of a male with an underage boy are not punishable unless the boy is at least three years and one day of age, i. e., that a valid sex act would have been performed if the child had been a girl. In the Babli, 54b/55a, Samuel derives this from Lev

Rebbi Abun bar Ḥiyya asked of Rebbi Zeˋira: For what reason did Rebbi Ismael and Rebbi Aqiba disagree about a male and an animal but did not disagree about any incest prohibition¹⁹³? He told him, because for all incest prohibitions it is written blood relative,¹⁹⁴. 18:6: No human shall come near to his blood relative to uncover nakedness refers to both sexes. The detailed prohibitions always are formulated for the male and mention the female’s nakedness, but here nakedness is mentioned without any pronoun, masculine or feminine. and about these it is not written blood relative. They objected: About the menstruating woman it is not written blood relative; did they disagree about her¹⁹⁵. 18:19 and the punishment, explicitly for both sexes, is 20:18.? Rebbi Jeremiah in the name of Rebbi Abbahu: For it is written approach, approach; it is as if all were here and there¹⁹⁶. Rebbi Ḥiyya bar Aba in the name of Rebbi Ḥanina: To the wife in the separation of her impurity you shall not come near to uncover her nakedness¹⁹⁷. 18:19. The verse seems to refer exclusively to the male; it is quoted as an objection.. Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Abun said, “not to come near” is “not to uncover.¹⁹⁸”

footnotes: ¹⁹³ For all other sexual prohibitions they agree that the warnings and punishments equally apply to both partners. ¹⁹⁴ The introductory clause Lev ¹⁹⁵ Both agree that for both partners the warning is Lev ¹⁹⁶ The singular in 18:19 is equivalent to the plural used in 18:6; it is as if “blood relative” were written there. ¹⁹⁷ Lev ¹⁹⁸ Since “not to uncover” is used in 20:18 explicitly for both sexes, “not to come near” in 18:19 also must apply to both sexes.

From where the warning¹²⁹. 25:21). For any more serious infraction the pentateuchal style requires that separate verses must spell out (1) the prohibition, (2) the penalty to be imposed by the court, (3) the penalty imposed by Heaven in case the crime was not observed by two blameless adult male witnesses and, therefore, no court case was possible. In case of sexual crimes this would mean that the witnesses have to see the sex act. For a civil case, such as a husband wishing to divorce his wife because of her adultery, without paying her ketubah, it is enough for witnesses to testify to her going to a room with another man, locking the door, and extinguishing the lights. But this is not enough for a criminal conviction. for a woman bringing an animal upon herself? A woman should not stand before an animal to be impregnated; it is mixture¹⁹⁹. 18:19.. Extirpation from where? For anybody who would commit any of these abominations will be extirpated¹. 18:29.¹³⁵. Punishment from where? If a woman stood before an animal to be impregnated, you should slay the woman and the animal; dying they shall be put to death, their blood be on them²⁰⁰. 20:16.. One infers slaying from slaying, stoning from stoning, their blood be on them from their blood be on them²⁰¹; this shows that in both cases the animal has to be killed in the same way. Stoning is to be inferred from their blood be on them (Notes 15,184) referring to the female; this then is transferred also to apply to the male..

footnotes: ¹²⁹ A prohibition the penalty for which is not spelled out carries a penalty of flogging (Deut ¹⁹⁹ Lev ¹ Lev ¹³⁵ The verse is slightly misquoted. ²⁰⁰ Misquoted from Lev ²⁰¹ Both for male and female bestiality it is said that the animal has to be slain

Rebbi Abba bar Mamal asked: Think of it, if he erroneously has sexual relations with it²⁰². Should it be stoned because of him while he is not liable²⁰³? Rebbi Simeon asked: Think of it, if he used it to plough on the Sabbath. Is he not being stoned while it is not liable²⁰⁴? You have only, as Rebbi Samuel ben Rav Isaac explained: ²⁰⁵. 8:4.With their silver and gold they made idols for themselves; it is not written “that they be extirpated” but that he be extirpated²⁰⁶. As if a person say: the bones of X be ground up for he led his son to evil ways.

footnotes: ²⁰² If a male thought that bestiality was not forbidden. ²⁰³ Instead of simply stating that the verse requires that the animal be killed, the Mishnah states two different reasons for it. The first reason, that it led a human into sin, applies even if the human is not prosecutable because he was not duly warned of the criminality of the intended act. The second reason, that the animal was known as the one for which a human was stoned, does not apply. Babli 55b in the name of Babylonian Amoraïm. ²⁰⁴ The second reason stated in the Mishnah would apply here, but no animal can be stoned for a Sabbath violation.Since R. Simeon is quoted after R. Abba bar Mamal, it seems that he is to be identified with R. Simeon ben Laqish. ²⁰⁵ Hos ²⁰⁶ It is possible that of a group of criminals only one actually is prosecutable. There is nothing remarkable if human and animal are treated differently.

MISHNAH: The blasphemer is not liable unless he explicitly use the Name²⁰⁷. Rebbi Joshua ben Qorḥa said, during the trial one deals with the witnesses by substitute name, may Yose hit²⁰⁸. 28:22. Yose. At the end of the proceedings one does not sentence him to death by substitute name but one dismisses the public, retains the most prestigious among them²⁰⁹ and says to him, tell us explicitly what you heard. He says it while the judges are standing; they tear their garments²¹⁰ and never mend them²¹¹. The second one²⁰⁹ says, also I [heard] like him; the third²⁰⁹ one says, also I [heard] like him.

footnotes: ²⁰⁷ The Tetragrammaton in its original pronunciation, now lost. ²⁰⁸ An expression of curse, Deut ²⁰⁹ The witnesses. ²¹⁰ Since everybody who hears a blasphemy using the Name has to rend his garment, as if a close relative had died. ²¹¹ As for garments rent because of the death of a parent, the tear cannot be mended invisibly. ²⁰⁹ The witnesses. ²⁰⁹ The witnesses.

HALAKHAH: “The blasphemer is not liable,” etc. ²¹² From where a warning for the blasphemer? You shall not curse God²¹³. 22:27. Since El means “power”, Elohim as a plural of majesty means “superior power”; in this case “supreme power” in contrast to elohim aḥerim which are not other gods” but “other powers”, such as the rain worshipped by Semites as Baal and by the Greeks as Zeus.. Extirpation from where? Anybody who curses his God shall bear his sin²¹⁴. 24:15. In Num. 9:13, referring to the Second Passover, it is spelled out that “carrying one’s sin” is equivalent to “being subject to extirpation” [Sifra Emor Pereq19(6), in the name of R. Jehudah.]. Punishment from where? He who curses the Name of the Eternal shall be put to death²¹⁵. 24:16.. But according to Rebbi Ismael, since Rebbi Ismael said that the verse refers to judges²¹⁶. 22:27 as referring to judges, who are called elohim in Ex. 22:7, Ps. 82:1. Babli 66a, Mekhilta dR. IsmaelMišpatim 19 (p. 317). The previous argument is R. Aqiba’s.? If he is warned about judges, then so much more about [divine] substitute names²¹⁷ p. 213. The argument seems to contradict the principle that “one may not punish on the basis of a logical argument” (cf. Halakhah 7:1 Note 9). But since the argument refers only to warning and Heavenly retribution, not to penalties imposed by the court, there is no contradiction.. If he is subject to extirpation for substitute names, so much more for the Unique Name. Some Tannaïm state: for substitute names warning and extirpation, for the Unique Name the death penalty. Some Tannaïm state: for substitute names warning, for the Unique Name the death penalty or extirpation²¹⁸ 19(5), opinion of the rabbis opposing Rebbi Meïr who equates the Unique Name and its substitute names.. He who says, for substitute names warning and extirpation, you shall not curse God and anybody who curses his God shall bear his sin by extirpation; for the Unique Name the death penalty, he who curses the Name of the Eternal shall be put to death. He who says, for substitute names warning, you shall not curse God, for the Unique Name the death penalty or extirpation, he who curses the Name of the Eternal shall be put to death; anybody who curses his God shall bear his sin²¹⁹, etc.

footnotes: ²¹² The parallel in the Babli is 56a. ²¹³ Ex ²¹⁴ Lev ²¹⁵ Lev ²¹⁶ He reads Ex ²¹⁷ Any reference to the Deity other than the Tetragrammaton, the Unique name. Babli 56a, Mekhilta dR. Simeon ben Iohai ²¹⁸ Sifra Emor Pereq ²¹⁹ The same group of verses can lead to two different conclusions without possibility of deciding between them.

Rebbi Jeremiah in the name of Rebbi Samuel bar Rav Isaac: This²²⁰ implies that one proceeds on the basis of a doubt. How is this? “X killed a person.” One proceeds to try him until his witnesses come. Rebbi Yose said to him, does one arrest a person in the market and insult him²²¹? But is it as follows: “X killed a person, and there are witnesses.” Let him be put under arrest until his witnesses come.

footnotes: ²²⁰ The Mishnah which states that the trial of the blasphemer proceeds before the court did hear the exact wording of the offensive statement. ²²¹ The court, acting as inquisitor, cannot arrest a person without a reasonable probability of conviction.

Does one tell him, blaspheme²²²? But that Name which I am saying before you, that one he cursed or by that one he cursed²²³. But the witnesses need not rend their garments since they already rent them when they heard it the first time.

footnotes: ²²² This is a question about the Mishnah. How can the court require the witness to sin by repeating the entire blasphemy? ²²³ The witness is not asked to blaspheme. The text of the blasphemy except for the Name had been testified to earlier; now it is only necessary to confirm that the Name was used, which alone makes the blasphemy a capital crime.The text makes it clear that blasphemy is not only cursing God by His Name but also cursing another person using the Name, including any magical practices using the Name.

Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish said, from here²²⁴ that in case the judges heard testimony while standing, their judgment is valid. You infer six statements from this²²⁴. One infers the statement of Rebbi Samuel bar Rav Isaac²²⁰, and one infers the statement of Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish. Also one infers that he who hears from one who heard has to rend²²⁵, and one infers that if one witness testified, the second one says, I testify to the same, and the third says, I testify to the same²²⁶. Also one infers that this is one of the tears which are not mended²¹¹, and one infers that even when they know from the start that it is the Unique Name, they have to rend.

footnotes: ²²⁴ From the Mishnah. ²²⁴ From the Mishnah. ²²⁰ The Mishnah which states that the trial of the blasphemer proceeds before the court did hear the exact wording of the offensive statement. ²²⁵ Since the judges have to tear their garments, even though they are hearing the blasphemy only indirectly. ²²⁶ This statement seems to apply only to the case of the blasphemer. Witnesses have to be heard one at a time (5:3–4) to determine that they are not perjured. The speaking of the Name is the only case in which witnesses appear together, after having been interrogated separately about all other aspects of the case. However, the Babli (60a) reads the statement as implying that by biblical standards a witness may state that his testimony is identical with that of the first witness and that the rules of 5:3–4 are rabbinic only. ²¹¹ As for garments rent because of the death of a parent, the tear cannot be mended invisibly.

Rebbi Ḥiyya said that Rebbi Yasa asked: We have stated²²⁷: “The herald goes before him: ‘X ben Y is led to be stoned because he committed crime Z; U and V testified against him. Anybody who knows of his innocence shall come and argue.’ ” We inferred that he who hears from one who heard has to rend. Does he who hears from one who heard from one who heard have to rend²²⁸?

footnotes: ²²⁷ Mishnah 6:2. ²²⁸ Does everybody who hears the herald have to rend his garment? Since this is not mentioned in the Mishnah, the implied answer to the question is negative.

Does one have to rend one’s garments for blasphemy?²²⁹ Let us hear from the following: When king Hezekias heard the words of Rab Šake, he rent his garment²³⁰. 19:1. Since the king heard the blasphemy from his ministers, it proves that one has to rend his garment even if he hears it indirectly. Babli 69a.. Does one have to rend for a Gentile’s blasphemy? According to him who said that Rab Šake was a Gentile, one rends. According to him who said that Rab Šake was an Israel, one does not rend²³¹ 3:6 (83b l. 32); Babli 60a. M. Cogan and H. Tadmor, II Kings, The Anchor Bible vol. 11 (1988) p. 230.. Rebbi Hoshaia stated: Both one who heard blasphemy from an Israel or one who heard from the mouth of a Gentile has to rend his garment. What is the reason? Since I am the Eternal, God over all flesh, should anything be extraordinary for me²³². 32:26.?

footnotes: ²²⁹ Finally one asks why one has to rend his garment when he hears blasphemy since this obligation is not mentioned in the Torah. ²³⁰ 2K ²³¹ On the one hand, it is not likely that a high official of the king of Assyria was not an Assyrian. On the other hand, why should a high Assyrian official be able to speak Hebrew unless he was a Jewish apostate? Mo`ed qaṭan ²³² Jer

Does one rend his garment nowadays²³³ 3:6, 83b l. 38.? Rebbi Yose, Rebbi Jeremiah in the name of Rebbi Ḥiyya bar Abba, Rebbi Ḥisqiah, Rebbi Jeremiah in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: When blasphemers proliferated, they stopped rending²³⁴. Does one rend for substitute names today? Let us hear from the following: Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish was travelling on the highway. He met a Samaritan who was repeatedly blaspheming, and he was rending. He dismounted from the donkey and gave him a blow on his heart saying to him: Samaritan! Does your mother have garments to supply me with? [His word] This implies²³⁵ that one rends for substitute names²³⁶ and rends his garments at the present time.

footnotes: ²³³ Since the pronunciation of the Name is unknown, an obligation to rend one’s garments would imply that it applies to substitutes of the Name. The paragraph has a parallel in Mo`ed qatan ²³⁴ The same statement in the Babli 60a in the name of R. Hiyya (bar Abba). The implication is that the status of substitute names is the same as that of the Name. ²³⁵ The scribe wrote הדא אמרה “this implies”. The corrector added מילתיה but then forgot to cross out הדא. One should read either “his word” or “this”. ²³⁶ Disagreeing with R. Joḥanan and the latter’s student R. Hiyya bar Abba.

MISHNAH: The worshipper of strange worship²³⁷ whether he worships²³⁸, or sacrifices²³⁹, or burns incense, or makes a libation, or prostrates himself; also one who accepts it as a god and says to it: you are my god²⁴⁰. But one who embraces²⁴¹, or kisses, or sweeps clean²⁴², or sprinkles water²⁴³; one who washes, rubs with oil, clothes, or puts shoes on it, violates a prohibition²⁴⁴. He who makes a vow in its name or keeps one in its name violates a prohibition. One who defecates in front of Baal Peor* follows its worship²⁴⁵. 5:14, *Job* 6:10) פער فعر means “to open one’s mouth wide”, in rabbinic Hebrew it always means “to defecate”. Therefore *Baal Pe`or is interpreted as a deity worshipped by defecating in front of it. The defecation then becomes a capital crime.. One who throws a stone at a statue of Mercury follows its worship²⁴⁶.

footnotes: ²³⁷ Who is mentioned in Mishnah 5 as subject to stoning. ²³⁸ In a way customary for the worship of the idol even if it does not resemble any approved worship of Heaven. ²³⁹ Any of the acts required in the Temple proffered to an idol is a capital crime even if ordinarily this is not the worship of this idol. ²⁴⁰ Without any other action. ²⁴¹ A statue. ²⁴² The floor on which the statue stands. ²⁴³ To settle the dust on the dirt floor on which the statue is standing. ²⁴⁴ The penalty would be flogging, not stoning. ²⁴⁵ While in later biblical texts (Is ²⁴⁶ While in general throwing a stone at an idol would be a commendable sign of disrespect, throwing a stone at a Hermes stele is a capital crime.

HALAKHAH: “The worshipper of strange worship,” etc. From where warning about strange worship? Do not worship them²⁴⁷. 20:5, Deut. 5:9 the Second Commandment.. Extirpation from where? He blasphemed the Eternal and will be extirpated²⁴⁸. 15:30. The verse describes any person who sins intentionally as a blasphemer. The verse decrees extirpation as punishment for any willful deed for which a sacrifice would be required if done inadvertently, in case it cannot be prosecuted in court for lack of witnesses. The traditional interpretation of the purification sacrifices prescribed in Num. 15:22–29, which differ from those prescribed under similar headings in Lev. 4:1–5:14, assigns the sacrifices prescribed in Num. exclusively to sins of idolatry; those of Lev. to the atonement of all other transgressions (Sifry Num. 111–112). Therefore, the following verse 15:30 can also be interpreted as specifically referring to idolatry.. But is there not written “blasphemed”? As one would say to another, you scraped out the entire pot²⁴⁹ 7b, formulates גִּירַפְתָּ הַקְּעָרָה “you scratched out the pot” and Rashi comments: ד can be replaced by ר. and did not leave anything; a parable which Rebbi Simeon ben Eleazar formulated: Two people were sitting with a pot of porridge between them. One of them stretched out his hand, scraped out the entire pot, and did not leave anything in it. So both the blasphemer and the worshipper of strange worship do not leave any commandment as residue²⁵⁰. From where the punishment? You shall lead out that man, or that woman, who did this deed to your gates, etc., up to and stone them with stones until they die²⁵¹. 17:5..

footnotes: ²⁴⁷ Ex ²⁴⁸ Num ²⁴⁹ It seems that in Galilean dialect גדּף جدف “to blaspheme” was pronounced like גדף جذف “to fly quickly” and this in turn sounded like גרף جرف “to scoop out with a shovel, to scratch out completely.” The parallel in the Babli, Keritut ²⁵⁰ Obeying a Divine command after blaspheming or worshipping a strange deity is an empty gesture, devoid of all value. ²⁵¹ Deut

Do not worship them²⁴⁷. 20:5, Deut. 5:9 the Second Commandment.. Should I say, not unless he worshipped every single strange worship in the world? The verse says, do not prostrate yourself before them²⁴⁷. 20:5, Deut. 5:9 the Second Commandment.. ²⁵² Prostration was included²⁵³; why is it mentioned separately? To tie to it: Prostration is special in that it is the act of a single person and is punishable separately, so I am adding any single act that one is liable for separately. Even though Rebbi Simeon ben Eleazar said²⁵⁴, if one sacrificed, and burned incense, and poured a libation in one forgetting²⁵⁵ he is liable only for one; he agrees that if one worshipped it in its proper worship which is identical with the worship of Heaven like prostrating, he is liable for each single action²⁵⁶. As Rebbi Samuel said in the name of Rebbi Zeˋira: *They should not continue to offer their sacrifices to spirits.*²⁵⁷. 17:7. They said to him, turn and refer it to sacrifices²⁵⁸.

footnotes: ²⁴⁷ Ex ²⁴⁷ Ex ²⁵² The argument is hinted at in the Babli, 60b. ²⁵³ Even though in the verse prostrating is mentioned before worshipping, it clearly is an act of worship and on purely logical grounds would not have to be mentioned separately. ²⁵⁴ Halakhah 13, 25c l. 18, the entire argument is attributed to R. Jehudah ben Tanhum. ²⁵⁵ If he was oblivious to the fact that worshipping other gods was forbidden, he only has to bring one purification sacrifice. ²⁵⁶ Applying any forms of worship of Heaven to any other purpose is sinful. Therefore, using it for pagan worship is not the same as accepting pagan rites of other forms. ²⁵⁷ Lev ²⁵⁸ The paragraph forbids any sacrificial act outside the holy precinct. It is not applicable to the question at hand.

Rebbi Yasa in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: If he sacrificed a defective lamb to it, he is guilty²⁵⁹. 22:20). Nevertheless, if regular pagan worship does not include animal sacrifices but a Jew chooses to sacrifice a defective animal to that idol, he is guilty of idolatry. The Babli, Avodah zarah51a, quotes R. Abbahu in the name of R. Johanan in the opposite sense.. From where this? As Rebbi Hila said, do not do such to the Eternal, your God²⁶⁰. 12:4. The paragraph deals with the destruction of places of pagan worship. It is interpreted to mean that anything similar to Temple worship, even if executed in an unacceptable way, is forbidden as pagan worship. Sifry Deut. 81 follows the Yerushalmi: “Anything which cannot be sacrificed in the Temple but somebody sacrificed it as foreign worship, if its kind might be sacrificed to God he is guilty; otherwise he cannot be prosecuted.”. Anything that you might do for the Eternal, your God, you may not do in this case.

footnotes: ²⁵⁹ It is forbidden to sacrifice defective animals to God (Lev ²⁶⁰ Deut

Rebbi Abun bar Ḥiyya asked before Rebbi Zeˋira: Do not worship them²⁴⁷. 20:5, Deut. 5:9 the Second Commandment., a principle. Do not prostrate yourself before them²⁴⁷. 20:5, Deut. 5:9 the Second Commandment., a detail. For you shall not prostrate yourself before another god²⁶¹. 34:14.; He again stated the principle. Principle, detail, and principle: is nothing covered but the detail²⁶², “principle, detail, principle has to be judged in light of the detail,” adding anything similar to detail. The passage supports the thesis of Menahem Cahana [קוים לתולדות התפתחותה ספר זיכרון ,של מידת כלל ופרט בתקופת התנאים לתרצה ליפשיץ, Jerusalem 2005, pp. 173–216] that only the list of hermeneutical rules is original but the detailed interpretation of the rules is Babylonian (following R. Aqiba), never accepted in the Yerushalmi. The latter does not differentiate between כְּלָל וּפְרָט,פְּרָט וּכְלָל,כְּלָל וּפְרָט וּכְלָל, and in all cases reduces the validity of the principle to the case of the detail. The question naturally deserves no answer since it is not כְּלָל וּפְרָט וּכְלָל but פְּרָט וּכְלָל וּכְלָל, which is not the subject of any hermeneutical rule.? Rebbi Abun bar Cahana asked before Rebbi Hila: Do not do such²⁶⁰. 12:4. The paragraph deals with the destruction of places of pagan worship. It is interpreted to mean that anything similar to Temple worship, even if executed in an unacceptable way, is forbidden as pagan worship. Sifry Deut. 81 follows the Yerushalmi: “Anything which cannot be sacrificed in the Temple but somebody sacrificed it as foreign worship, if its kind might be sacrificed to God he is guilty; otherwise he cannot be prosecuted.”, a principle. One who sacrifices to gods shall be banned²⁶³. 22:19., a detail. Only for the Eternal alone²⁶³. 22:19., He again stated the principle. Principle, detail, and principle; is not everything included²⁶⁴ 1:7, Babli Nazir35b).? Does it not add one who embraces and one who kisses²⁶⁸. 32:8, speaking of the Golden Calf.? He told him, why is prostrating mentioned? Not to infer from it that it is an action? He who embraces and he who (prostrates himself)²⁶⁶ do not exemplify actions.

footnotes: ²⁴⁷ Ex ²⁴⁷ Ex ²⁶¹ Ex ²⁶² Since in the Ten Commandments prostrating is mentioned before worshipping, the order really should be detail, principle, principle. Also, in our text of the Introduction to Sifra ²⁶⁰ Deut ²⁶³ Ex ²⁶³ Ex ²⁶⁴ This statement is not found elsewhere in talmudic texts. But in R. Aqiba’s system of additions (רֵבּוּי) and subtractions (מְעוּט), addition + subtraction + addition implies that almost everything corresponding to the broad description of the additions is included (Tosephta Ševu`ot ²⁶⁸ Ex ²⁶⁶ It is clear that one has to read ומנשק “and kisses” instead of ומשתחוה “and prostrates himself”. Embracing and kissing are not acts of worship.

From where about him who says, “you are my god”²⁶⁷? Rav Abun in the name of the rabbis there²⁶⁸. 32:8, speaking of the Golden Calf.: They prostrated themselves before it, and sacrificed to it, and said, these are your gods, Israel. Then he should not be guilty unless he sacrifice, burn incense, and declare. Rebbi Yose said, the verse is written only for the disgrace of Israel. They prostrated themselves before it, not before Heaven. And sacrificed to it, not to Heaven. And said, not to Heaven. What about this²⁶⁹? Saying is mentioned here and saying is said about one who leads astray¹. 13:11, cf. Mishnah 16.²⁷⁰. Since for saying mentioned about one who leads astray, saying is equated with acting, also for the saying mentioned here, we have to equate saying with acting.

footnotes: ²⁶⁷ That it is a capital crime. ²⁶⁸ Ex ²⁶⁹ How does the verse imply that declaring one’s allegiance to another power constitutes a capital crime? ¹ The missionary for another faith who addresses individuals in private; Deut ²⁷⁰ An example of הֶקֵּשׁ “trapping”, or בִּנְיַן אָב מִכָּתוּב אֶחָד, the third hermeneutical rule. Since in one case it is established that by talking alone one may commit a capital crime, in all other cases where talking is equated to actions constituting capital crimes, it is a capital crime in itself.

It is written²⁷¹. 17:3. If not for R. Zeˋira’s interpretation, one would translate or to the sun, or to the moon.: He went and worshipped other powers and prostrated himself before them, and to the sun, and to the moon. Rebbi Zeˋira said, it is not said to the sun but and to the sun. That is not principle and detail but addition²⁷², even R. Ismael will agree that the verse adds the worship of celestial bodies as bodies, rather than deities, to the definition of pagan worship.. Rebbi Abba bar Zemina objected before Rebbi Ze`ura; is it not written any which have fins and scales, and any which do not have fins and scales²⁷³. 11:9: This you may eat from anything which is in the water: Any with fin and scale in the water, in seas and rivers, those you may eat. On the face of it, the verse declares a principle of what may be eaten from the water, followed by a detail, from lakes (standing water) and rivers (flowing water).? Then this is not principle and detail but additions since there is written and²⁷⁴, even those needed by the rules of grammar, as additions. This may be R. Aqiba’s approach; it certainly is unacceptable for R. Ismael’s hermeneutical rules. Babli Ḥulin66b.? Rebbi Joḥanan bar Marius said, anywhere I am encountering and, I am deleting it²⁷⁵. Rebbi Samuel ben Eudaimon said, I would have said that anything in the oceans is forbidden, what is in barrels and vivaria²⁷⁶ “game, fish preserve”. should be permitted. The verse says, and anything which lives in water, an addition²⁷⁷. 11:9–10, Deut. 14:9 one reads מִכֹּ֖ל אֲשֶׁ֣ר בַּמָּ֑יִם, the partitive mem indicating that not everything living in the water can be eaten, but not referring to the varieties of water..

footnotes: ²⁷¹ Deut ²⁷² By the rule כְּלָל וּפְרָט וּכְלָל אֵין בִּכְלָל אֶלָּא מַה שֶׁבִּפְרָט “principle, detail, and principle: nothing is covered but the detail,” the verse seems to imply that only worship of sun or moon are capital crimes, not the worship of other gods (cf. Note 213). Since the detail is not standing alone but is connected to the general category by and ²⁷³ Lev ²⁷⁴ As explained later, the preceding argument would allow to eat seafood grown in barrels and aquariums, against the received rules, unless one accepts every and ²⁷⁵ This is essentially R. Ismael’s approach that “the Torah speaks human speech;” no word needed by the basic rules of grammar and syntax carries a hidden meaning. ²⁷⁶ Latin vivarium ²⁷⁷ Because of the introductory clause, the verse must be read as principle, principle, and detail; this does not fit the scheme of “principle and detail” but the wordiness must be interpreted as intended to cover all possible cases.The verse as quoted does not exist; in Lev

Rebbi Samuel bar Naḥmani in the name of Rebbi Hoshaia: If one says to it, you are my god, there is disagreement between Rebbi²⁷⁸ and the Sages. If he (prostrated himself)²⁶⁶, what is the rule? Rebbi Joḥanan said, everybody agrees that if he lowered his body²⁷⁹, he is guilty. What is the difference between raising and lowering his body, and raising and lowering his lips²⁸⁰? Rebbi Joḥanan said, following disagreement²⁸¹. Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish said, following the distinction²⁸². Rebbi Zeˋira said, a verse supports Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish: One rule should be for you, for the one acting in error²⁸³. 15:29; the reference to idolatrous acts is explained in Note 248.. This only refers to what represents an action. The one who embraces (and who prostrates himself)²⁶⁶, which are not action, from where²⁸⁴?

footnotes: ²⁷⁸ This disagreement is not mentioned in any other source. It is possible that a name should be inserted here. ²⁶⁶ It is clear that one has to read ומנשק “and kisses” instead of ומשתחוה “and prostrates himself”. Embracing and kissing are not acts of worship. ²⁷⁹ This is prostrating which by the verse was defined as an idolatrous act. ²⁸⁰ This is declaring the idol as one’s god, which also can be done by only moving body parts, the lips. In the Babli, 65b, R. Johanan extends his argument by criminalizing a person who prevents his ox from eating while threshing by shouting at it. ²⁸¹ The nature of this disagreement cannot be determined. It is possible that R. Joḥanan by his argument implies that embracing and kissing idols are capital crimes. ²⁸² The distinction made in the Mishnah between idolatrous acts which are capital crimes and those which are simple transgressions. ²⁸³ Num ²⁶⁶ It is clear that one has to read ומנשק “and kisses” instead of ומשתחוה “and prostrates himself”. Embracing and kissing are not acts of worship. ²⁸⁴ Therefore, embracing and kissing cannot be capital crimes since they do not fit the criterion for a purification sacrifice in case the act was unintentional.

MISHNAH: One who gives any of his descendants to the Moloch is only guilty if he delivers him to the Moloch and makes him pass through fire. If he delivered him to the Moloch but did not make him pass through fire, or made him pass though fire but did not deliver him to the Moloch, is only guilty if he delivers him to the Moloch and makes him pass through fire. The necromancer is the Πύθων²⁸⁵ and one who²⁸⁶ speaks from his armpit. The medium⁵⁸. 20:27. The necromancer is the person who raises the spirits of the dead; cf. 1S. 28. The medium is one who incorporates a spirit which predicts the future, speaking from the medium’s body, not his mouth. speaks through his mouth. These are stoned but one who consults them is forewarned.²⁸⁷. 19:31, Deut. 18:10–11), no punishment is spelled out in the biblical text.

footnotes: ²⁸⁵ Πύθων, -ωνος, ὁ, “the serpent Python”, a spirit of divination. The plural πύθωνες “ventriloquists”. ²⁸⁶ In the Babli and the independent Mishnah mss: the Πύθων who speaks from his armpit. ⁵⁸ Lev ²⁸⁷ While turning to necromancers and fortune-tellers is repeatedly forbidden (Lev

HALAKHAH: “One who gives any of his descendants to the Moloch.” From where a warning not to give any of his descendants to the Moloch? Do not give any of your descendants to the Moloch²⁸⁸. 18:21.. Extirpation from where? For he gave one of his descendants to the Moloch²⁸⁹. 20:3and shall be extirpated²⁹⁰. 20:5. It should read: I shall extirpate him.. Punishment from where? Each one of the Children of Israel, or of the sojourner in Israel, who would give any of his descendants to the Moloch shall be made to die; the people of the Land shall smash him with stones²⁹¹. 20:2.. Do not give any of your descendants, I could think that he was guilty if he handed over but did not make him pass²⁹²; the verse says: Do not give any of your descendants to pass through. I could think that he was guilty if he handed over and made him pass through but not for the Moloch; the verse says: Do not give any of your descendants to pass through for the Moloch²⁹³. I could think that he was guilty if he handed over and made him pass through for the Moloch but without fire; the verse says: among you, nobody should be found to make his son or his daughter pass through fire²⁹⁴. 18:10. In the Moloch paragraphs in Lev., the nature of “passing through” is never spelled out; by the doctrine of invariability of lexemes it is only made definite in this quote. Sifra Qedošim Parašah 10(3).. Passing through, passing through as an equal cut²⁹⁵. Since “passing through” mentioned there is through fire, so “passing through” mentioned here also is through fire. You have to say that he is not guilty unless he handed over and made him pass through fire for the Moloch. Rebbi Nasa in the name of Rebbi Eleazar: He is guilty only if he hand him over to the priests, takes him, and makes him pass. What if he lets him walk normally? It was stated: one was drawing him and made him pass through. It was stated: if he made him walk through on his feet he is not prosecutable²⁹⁶. Rebbi Eleazar ben Rebbi Simeon declares him guilty. Whether for the Moloch or for any other foreign worship; Rebbi Eleazar ben Rebbi Simeon says, he is guilty only for the Moloch²⁹⁷, he is guilty only for his descendants. Rebbi Joḥanan said, Rebbi Eleazar ben Rebbi Simeon’s reason is from here: It shall not be found in you²⁹⁸. 18:10 is read as in you; this is interpreted to describe one’s bodily issue, the children., from your body you should not be found making pass through. I shall extirpate him … from among his people²⁹⁹. 20:5.. To include all other foreign worship for extirpation³⁰⁰. 20:1–5 extirpation is mentioned twice, in vv. 3 and 5. One refers to Moloch worship; the other then must refer to any other worship using fire. Sifra Qedošim Parašah 10(15).. From where punishment? Of his descendants he gave to the Moloch²⁸⁹. 20:3*, death he shall be made to die*²⁹¹. 20:2., if he made him pass through himself. Does he not pass through on his feet? Because he made him pass through himself, but if he was drawing him and made him pass through, he is guilty. What does Rebbi Eleazar ben Rebbi Simeon mean, if he made him walk through on his feet he is not prosecutable? He has to make him pass through jumping.

footnotes: ²⁸⁸ Lev ²⁸⁹ Lev ²⁹⁰ A wrong quote from Lev ²⁹¹ Lev ²⁹² In the interpretation of the Talmudim, the child was handed over to the Moloch priests and then made to pass or be carried between two fires. It is not assumed that the child was burned since that would be murder which in itself is a capital crime and would obviate the discussion of the exact conditions which make Moloch worship a capital crime. In the Babli, 64b, it is assumed that there is one fire in a ditch and the Moloch worship requires to jump, not to walk, over the fire. This interpretation also is possible for the Yerushalmi.The paragraphs have a parallel in the Babli, 64b, partially with different attributions. ²⁹³ Since passing through (or jumping over) fire is characteristic for Moloch worship and not part of worship of Heaven, doing this for any other deity is forbidden foreign worship, subject to divine extirpation, but not a prosecutable capital crime. ²⁹⁴ Deut ²⁹⁵ Cf. 3:10, Note 158. ²⁹⁶ Babli 64b. In neither Talmud is it totally clear whether father or priests make the child pass through or over the fire. ²⁹⁷ Babli 64a. ²⁹⁸ The word בְּךָ in Deut ²⁹⁹ A not quite correct quote from Lev ³⁰⁰ In the Moloch paragraph Lev ²⁸⁹ Lev ²⁹¹ Lev

Rebbi Abun bar Ḥiyya asked before Rebbi Zeˋira: If he handed over but did not make to pass through,³⁰¹ is that the disagreement between Ḥizqiah and Rebbi Joḥanan? Fore they disagreed: If he slaughtered but did not sell, Ḥizqiah said he is liable, but Rebbi Joḥanan said, he is not liable³⁰² and sells stolen animals is liable to fourfold or fivefold restitution (Ex. 21 :37). The question arises whether stealing and slaughtering an animal which cannot be sold, e. g., one dedicated as a sacrifice but still in its owner's hand, triggers liability for quadruple or only double restitution. The problem is not mentioned elsewhere; a related one is in Ševuot 8:8. The comparison of civil and criminal law is unfounded; the question merits no answer..

footnotes: ³⁰¹ At the start of the Halakhah it was noted that if somebody handed over his child to the Moloch priests but did not make him pass over the fire, he is not guilty under the Moloch paragraph. One has to read that to mean that the intent had been for a full Moloch ceremony but that for some reason it was not executed. Then the question here is, whether there is any guilt in handing over the child knowing that the ceremony cannot be performed. ³⁰² The thief of livestock who slaughters

Rebbi Abba bar Ḥiyya in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan³⁰³: Look at the expression which the Torah taught you, Moloch; anything that you make king over yourself, even a chip of wood, even a pebble³⁰⁴ of “Moloch” means “to rule”.. I shall extirpate him from amidst his people, to include all other foreign worship in extirpation³⁰⁰. 20:1–5 extirpation is mentioned twice, in vv. 3 and 5. One refers to Moloch worship; the other then must refer to any other worship using fire. Sifra Qedošim Parašah 10(15).. Rebbi Nasa in the name of Rebbi Eleazar: to include all other foreign worship relating to sons and daughters, as it was stated: He is guilty whether for the Moloch or any other foreign worship, whether he worshipped them with sons and daughters, or worshipped them with fathers and mothers. Rebbi Zeˋira said: if its worship did not prescribe this; but if its worship did prescribe it, he is free from prosecution³⁰⁵. Rebbi Hila said, even if its worship did prescribe it, he is twice guilty³⁰⁶. A baraita supports Rebbi Hila: The Moloch was included in all other foreign worships; it is mentioned separately to be lenient in this regard that he be guilty only for his descendants³⁰⁷ must be attributed to R. Simeon.. Rebbi Tanḥum bar Jeremiah said, it follows that Rebbi Eleazar ben Rebbi Simeon follows the argument of his father Rebbi Simeon. Just as Rebbi Simeon said, the Moloch was included in all other foreign worships; it is mentioned separately to be lenient in this regard that he be guilty only for his descendants, so Rebbi Eleazar ben Rebbi Simeon said, the Moloch was included in all other foreign worships; it is mentioned separately to be lenient in this regard that he be guilty only for his descendants²⁹⁸. 18:10 is read as in you; this is interpreted to describe one’s bodily issue, the children..

footnotes: ³⁰³ In the Babli, 64a, this is a tannaïtic statement attributed to R. Hanina ben Antigonos. ³⁰⁴ Since the root mlk ³⁰⁰ In the Moloch paragraph Lev ³⁰⁵ He holds that Moloch worship is defined by its rules, not by the name given to the deity being worshipped. Since R. Eleazar ben R. Simeon was quoted earlier that in Moloch worship one is guilty only for his descendants; if the rules of worship require descendants, the rules of Moloch worship apply. But if the Moloch rules are applied to the worship of a deity whose published rules do not include the Moloch rules, then it is an act of idolatry irrespective of the nature of the participants. ³⁰⁶ Once for idolatry and once for following the Moloch rules. ³⁰⁷ The following paragraph shows that this baraita ²⁹⁸ The word בְּךָ in Deut

Rebbi Tanḥum ben Yudan said, even though Rebbi Eleazar ben Rebbi Simeon said²⁵⁴, if one sacrificed, and burned incense, and poured a libation in one forgetting²⁵⁵ he is liable only for one; he agrees that if one worshipped it in its proper worship which is identical to the worship of Heaven like prostrating, he is liable for each single action²⁵⁶. From where that if one sacrificed, and burned incense, and poured a libation in one forgetting he is liable only for one; he agrees that if one worshipped it in its proper worship which is identical with the worship of Heaven like prostrating, he is liable for each single action? As Rebbi Samuel said in the name of Rebbi Zeˋira: They should not continue to offer their sacrifices to spirits²⁵⁷. 17:7.. They said to him, turn and refer it to sacrifices.

footnotes: ²⁵⁴ Halakhah 13, 25c l. 18, the entire argument is attributed to R. Jehudah ben Tanhum. ²⁵⁵ If he was oblivious to the fact that worshipping other gods was forbidden, he only has to bring one purification sacrifice. ²⁵⁶ Applying any forms of worship of Heaven to any other purpose is sinful. Therefore, using it for pagan worship is not the same as accepting pagan rites of other forms. ²⁵⁷ Lev

Rebbi Yasa in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: If he sacrificed a defective lamb to it, he is guilty²⁵⁹. 22:20). Nevertheless, if regular pagan worship does not include animal sacrifices but a Jew chooses to sacrifice a defective animal to that idol, he is guilty of idolatry. The Babli, Avodah zarah51a, quotes R. Abbahu in the name of R. Johanan in the opposite sense.. From where this? As Rebbi Hila said, do not do such to the the Eternal, your God²⁶⁰. 12:4. The paragraph deals with the destruction of places of pagan worship. It is interpreted to mean that anything similar to Temple worship, even if executed in an unacceptable way, is forbidden as pagan worship. Sifry Deut. 81 follows the Yerushalmi: “Anything which cannot be sacrificed in the Temple but somebody sacrificed it as foreign worship, if its kind might be sacrificed to God he is guilty; otherwise he cannot be prosecuted.”. Anything that be for the Eternal, your God, you may not do.

footnotes: ²⁵⁹ It is forbidden to sacrifice defective animals to God (Lev ²⁶⁰ Deut

Rebbi Phineas said before Rebbi Yose in the name of Rav Ḥisda³⁰⁸: If its worship prescribed sons or daughters but he worshipped it with fathers or mothers, he is twice guilty. Rebbi Zeˋira enjoyed this; he thought that this was said following his teacher’s Rebbi Hila’s system and referred to Rebbi Eleazar ben Rebbi Simeon. He told him, what do you have in your hand? It referred to the rabbis! He answered, did you need it for this³⁰⁹?

footnotes: ³⁰⁸ The name tradition here is impossible. R. Phineas, student of the last generation Amora R. Yose who was R. Zeˋira’s student’s student, could not have been R. Zeˋira’s discussion partner and was an unlikely source for the statement of the second generation Rav Hisda. ³⁰⁹ Since the rabbis do not accept that the rules of the Moloch include any leniency, it is obvious that a person who worships any other deity by the Moloch ritual is guilty both of idolatry and of following the Moloch.

From where the warning about the necromancer? Do not turn to the necromancers³²⁶. 19:31. Here starts the discussion of the second part of the Mishnah.. From where extirpation? A person who would turn to necromancers and mediums³²⁷. 20:6., etc. Punishment from where? A man or woman, impersonating a necromancer or a medium, shall be put to death³²⁸. 20:27.. Why is the medium not mentioned in Keritut³²⁹ 1:1 mentions only the necromancer, not the medium.? Rebbi Ḥizqiah in the name of Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish: Because they are taken together in one prohibition, do not turn to the necromancers³³⁰ pentateuchal verses mentioning אוֹב it is paired with יִדְּעוֹנִי (the verses quoted plus Deut. 18:11). Babli 65b., etc. Rebbi Yasa in the name of Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish: Because it is a prohibition implied by a positive commandment³³¹_1:1 separately from the necromancer.. Rebbi Zeˋira said before Rebbi Yasa: No person except you thought of stating the medium in this way in Keritut. He told him, because as the verse formulated it so the Mishnah formulates it, a necromancer or a medium³³⁰ pentateuchal verses mentioning אוֹב it is paired with יִדְּעוֹנִי (the verses quoted plus Deut. 18:11). Babli 65b..

footnotes: ³²⁶ Lev ³²⁷ Lev ³²⁸ Lev ³²⁹ Mishnah Keritut ³³⁰ In all ³³¹ Cf. 5:3, Note 73. This formulation does not make any sense, as indicated by R. Zeˋira’s question. It should have been formulated: Because the medium is treated as an appendix to the necromancer. The medium never creates an obligation for a purification offering if one for necromancy already was established; he cannot be mentioned in Keritut ³³⁰ In all

“The necromancer is the πύθων²⁸⁵ and one who²⁸⁶ speaks from his armpit. The medium⁵⁸. 20:27. The necromancer is the person who raises the spirits of the dead; cf. 1S. 28. The medium is one who incorporates a spirit which predicts the future, speaking from the medium’s body, not his mouth. speaks through his mouth. These are stoned but one who consults them is forewarned²⁸⁷. 19:31, Deut. 18:10–11), no punishment is spelled out in the biblical text.. And one who asks the dead³³². 18:11. No criminal sanction is spelled out for this.. ³³³ explains the term “necromancer”. Some Tannaïm state: this is one who interrogates a skull. Some Tannaïm state: this is one who interrogates his¹¹⁷³ masculinity. What is the difference between one interrogated by his skull or one raised by his masculinity? The one interrogated by his skull rises normally, rises on the Sabbath, and a commoner can raise a king. But one raised by his masculinity does not rise normally³³⁵, does not rise on the Sabbath, and a commoner cannot raise a king.

footnotes: ²⁸⁵ Πύθων, -ωνος, ὁ, “the serpent Python”, a spirit of divination. The plural πύθωνες “ventriloquists”. ²⁸⁶ In the Babli and the independent Mishnah mss: the Πύθων who speaks from his armpit. ⁵⁸ Lev ²⁸⁷ While turning to necromancers and fortune-tellers is repeatedly forbidden (Lev ³³² Deut ³³³ Tosephta 10:7, explaining the term “interrogating the dead”. In the Babli, 65b, the same baraita ¹ The dead. ¹⁷³ The form זְכוּר denotes, if not the penis, then the male as appendix to his sex organ. ³³⁵ The dead appears feet up, head down.

Rebbi Huna said, a verse supports him who said, the necromancer is the one who raises by his masculinity. What is the reason? Please apply necromancer’s magic and raise for me whom I shall tell you³³⁶.28:8.. What do you understand from here? Rebbi Mana said, it implies that she was competent in many ways³³⁷. What about it? Your voice will be from the earth like that of a necromancer³³⁸. 29:4..

footnotes: ³³⁶ IS ³³⁷ Since Saul had to request a particular method, the woman must have been competent in all sorts of sorcery. She realized that her customer was Saul because she recognized Samuel whose status was that of a king. ³³⁸ Is

The words of the rabbis support Rebbi Yasa, as Rebbi Yasa said in the rabbis’ name: Because they burn incense to spirits³³⁹., burning incense to spirits. But a medium who is totally passive does not qualify.. Rebbi Hila in the name of Rebbi Yasa: Because they all were included by actions³⁴⁰ 1:1 involve some action..

footnotes: ³³⁹ This returns to the statement of R. Yasa in the first paragraph here. The user of necromancy is a potential candidate for a purification offering since it depends on an action, viz ³⁴⁰ A different formulation of the argument of Note 339; all transgressions mentioned in Keritut

MISHNAH: One who desecrates the Sabbath¹. 15:36.³⁴¹ by something which if performed intentionally makes him liable to extirpation, or to a purification sacrifice if in error. But he who curses father or mother⁶⁰. 20:9. is guilty only of he cursed them by the Name²⁰⁷. If he cursed them by a substitute name, Rebbi Meïr declares him guilty but the Sages free him from prosecution. One who has sexual relations with a preliminarily married adolescent⁷ is only liable if she was an adolescent, a virgin, and preliminarily married, in her father’s house. If two [men] had relations with her, the first one is stoned, the second is subject to strangling³⁴².

footnotes: ¹ Num ³⁴¹ If duly warned by two witnesses about the criminality of his intent, he can be prosecuted if in the absence of witnesses he would be subject to Divine extirpation. But if he violates any of the positive commandments for the Sabbath he cannot be prosecuted by biblical standards; for violating a simple prohibition he at most could be sentenced to 39 lashes. ⁶⁰ Lev ²⁰⁷ The Tetragrammaton in its original pronunciation, now lost. ⁷ It is not mentioned anywhere in biblical literature as a recognized form of execution. The Babli’s discussion, 52b, is inconclusive. ³⁴² As a common adulterer.

HALAKHAH: “One who desecrates the Sabbath,” etc. From where warning for the desecrator? Do not perform any work³⁴³. 20:10.. From where extirpation? For any who would perform work on it would be extirpated³⁴⁴. 31:14.. From where punishment? Its desecrator shall be made to die the death. Should we not state 37 kinds of extirpation in the Torah³⁴⁵1:1 74 kinds of extirpation should be mentioned since, as R. Yose ben Abun explains, each one of the 39 categories of work forbidden on the Sabbath defines its own obligation for a purification sacrifice if the person was aware that it was Sabbath and that he was performing this kind of work, and only had forgotten that it was forbidden. Then a single person could be obligated for up to 39 sacrifices for desecrating a single Sabbath. But if he simply had forgotten that it was Sabbath, a single sacrifice is due and this is what is counted in Keritut.? Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Abun said, because if he performs all of them, intentionally on the Sabbath and intentionally for the work, he is liable for each one singly.

footnotes: ³⁴³ Ex ³⁴⁴ Ex ³⁴⁵ This is a copy from Halakhah 9, Note 149. The question should be that in Keritut

From where a warning for the one who curses father or mother? Everybody has to fear his mother and father³⁴⁶. 19:3.. From where punishment and extirpation? And he who curses his father or mother shall be made to die the death³⁴⁷. 21:17.. And it says, for anybody who would commit any of these abominations will be extirpated¹ 3:9, explained there with a list of readings in Notes 126–135. The parallel in the Babli is 66b.¹³¹. 18:29..

footnotes: ³⁴⁶ Lev ³⁴⁷ Ex ¹ This text is also in Ketubot ¹³¹ Lev

³⁴⁹ 3:9, explained there with a list of readings in Notes 126–135. The parallel in the Babli is 66b.“One who has sexual relations with a preliminarily married maiden.” Rebbi Yasa in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan, Rebbi Ḥiyya in the name of Rebbi Eleazar: This is Rebbi Meïr’s. But for the rabbis even if she is a minor. What is Rebbi Meïr’s reason? “Lad” is written defectively in the paragraph. How do the rabbis explain “a lad”? Rebbi Abbahu in the name of Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish: Once in the paragraph it is written a young woman; this teaches that in the entire paragraph she is an adult. Rebbi Meïr objected to the rabbis: In the matter of the calumniator, a lad is written and she is an adult since a minor is not stoned? What do the rabbis do with this? Rebbi Abin said, explain it that he came to her as a male. Rebbi Jacob bar Abba asked before Rav: What is the law of him who comes to a minor? He said to him, by stoning. What is the law of him who comes to an adult? He said to him, I am reading an adolescent, not an adult. Read an adolescent, not a minor! Do you not agree with me that she has the right to a fine? He answered, because he mistreated her, that includes a minor for a fine. Read because he mistreated her, that includes an adult for a fine! Rav said, even though Rebbi Jacob bar Abba won the logical argument, practice is that he who comes to a minor is [punished] by stoning but she is free. Rebbi Abun in the name of (Rebbi)³⁵⁰ and the Babli that the speaker is Samuel, Rav’s contemporary, and not the later Galilean R. Samuel. Sifry Deut 243 disagrees with Samuels’ argument. Samuel. Why? He understood it from the following: The man who had lain with her alone shall die. Do we not know that the girl has not committed a capital crime? Why does the verse say, do not do anything to the girl; the girl has not committed a capital crime? That includes him who has sexual relations with a [preliminarily married] underage girl; he is stoned and she is free.

footnotes: ³⁴⁹ This text is also in Ketubot ³⁵⁰ It is clear from Ketubot

MISHNAH: The one who leads astray³⁵¹ and the seducer is that the former speaks Hebrew while the latter speaks in the vernacular. is a commoner who leads a commoner astray, by saying to him: There is something to worship at place X; it eats such and such, drinks such and such; it gives such and such benefits, can do such and such evil. For no capital crime in the Torah may one use entrapment³⁵², except for this one. If he said it to two persons, they become his witnesses, bring him to court, and stone him. If he said this to a single person, he should tell him, I have friends who also want this³⁵³. If he was sly³⁵⁴ and did not talk in their presence, one sets a trap behind a wall³⁵⁵; he tells him, repeat what you told me alone; then he tells him, how can we abandon our God in Heaven and worship wood and stones³⁵⁶., that apostasy is a crime.? If he repents, it is good³⁵⁷; if he says, it is our duty, or so it is good for us, those who stand behind the wall bring him to court and stone him. He says, I shall worship, I shall go and worship, let us go and worship; I shall sacrifice, I shall go and sacrifice, let us go and sacrifice; I shall burn incense, I shall go and burn incense, let us go and burn incense; I shall pour libations, I shall go and pour libations, let us go and pour libations; I shall prostrate myself, I shall go and prostrate myself, let us go and prostrate ourselves. The seducer³⁵¹ and the seducer is that the former speaks Hebrew while the latter speaks in the vernacular. is one who says, let us go and profess a strange worship.

footnotes: ³⁵¹ The one who leads astray (Note 61) presents a problem for law enforcement since a single listener cannot appear in court as a witness. In the Babli, the seducer (Note 62) is one who openly propagates another faith, who is easily prosecuted. But in the Yerushalmi the difference between him who leads astray ³⁵² By the prosecution, as spelled out in Mishnah 17. ³⁵³ In order to have him speak before two witnesses. ³⁵⁴ He knows that if he only speaks to a single listener, he may with impunity try to convert a thousand people since no two of them can testify to the same occurrence and, therefore, cannot appear as witnesses in court. ³⁵⁵ A rural wall of stones without mortar. ³⁵⁶ This is the required warning, viz ³⁵⁷ Then he cannot be prosecuted since what he said was before he was duly warned, which is not prosecutable in court. ³⁵¹ The one who leads astray (Note 61) presents a problem for law enforcement since a single listener cannot appear in court as a witness. In the Babli, the seducer (Note 62) is one who openly propagates another faith, who is easily prosecuted. But in the Yerushalmi the difference between him who leads astray

HALAKHAH: “The one who leads astray is a commoner,” etc. ³⁵⁸ 16:6 (י) Notes 125–132. The text there is the original, since only there the question “and here, you say so?” and the answer to it make sense. Therefore, not a Sage? Since he seduces, he is not a Sage. Since he is seduced, he is not a Sage. What does one do to outwit him? One hides two witnesses in an inner room and puts him into the outer room, lights a candle near him so they can see him and hear his voice. That is what they did to Ben Sateda in Lydda, where they hid two Sages, brought him to court, and stoned him. And here, you say so? It is different because he said, “I am”. Here also, “I am”? That he should not get wise to it. And what if he got wise to it? That he should not go away, and continue to seduce himself and others with him.

footnotes: ³⁵⁸ The parallel text is in Yebamot

The one who leads astray says it aloud, the seducer speaks in a low voice. One who leads astray who spoke in a low voice becomes a seducer; a seducer who spoke in a low voice becomes one who leads astray. The one who leads astray speaks in Hebrew, the seducer speaks in a vernacular. One who leads astray who spoke in a vernacular becomes a seducer; a seducer who spoke in Hebrew becomes one who leads astray³⁵¹ and the seducer is that the former speaks Hebrew while the latter speaks in the vernacular.,³⁵⁹.

footnotes: ³⁵¹ The one who leads astray (Note 61) presents a problem for law enforcement since a single listener cannot appear in court as a witness. In the Babli, the seducer (Note 62) is one who openly propagates another faith, who is easily prosecuted. But in the Yerushalmi the difference between him who leads astray ³⁵⁹ Since one who leads astray and the seducer are two different biblical categories, a missionary for paganism cannot be condemned if the paragraph under which he is condemned is not determined.

MISHNAH: The sorcerer is one who does a deed³⁶⁰ but not one who creates an illusion³⁶¹. Rebbi Aqiba says in the name of Rebbi Joshua: Two are collecting green melons³⁶² Chapter 1, Note 38.; one who collected cannot be prosecuted, the other one is guilty. The who does a deed is guilty; he who creates an illusion cannot be prosecuted.

footnotes: ³⁶⁰ To convict somebody of sorcery, to be punished by stoning (Mishnah 5), the witnesses have to prove that he created something contradicting the laws of nature; at the end of the Halakhah this seems to be restricted to the creation of a parentless living creature. ³⁶¹ In this matter, visual impressions do not count. ³⁶² In modern Hebrew “zucchini”; cf. Kilaim

HALAKHAH: “The sorcerer is one who does a deed,” etc. A sorceress you shall not let live³⁶³. 22:17., whether man or woman, but the Torah taught you the way of the world that most women have a tendency to sorcery³⁶⁴., the first part only in Mekhilta dR. Ismael, ad loc.. Rebbi Eliezer said, a sorcerer is [executed] by stoning. What is Rebbi Eliezer’s reason? It says here, a sorceress you shall not let live, and it says there, whether human or animal they shall not live³⁶⁵. 19:13. The verse requires stoning or shooting the transgressor. In the Babylonian sources (Babli and the two Mekhiltot), this argument is attributed to R. Aqiba, who in the Yerushalmi rejects it.. Since shall not live there means by stoning, also here by stoning. What is the rabbis’³⁶⁶ the author is R. Yose the Galilean, in Mekhilta dR. Ismael it is R. Ismael. reason? It says here, a sorceress you shall not let live, and it says there, you shall not let live anybody³⁶⁷. 20:16.. Since you shall not let live there means death by the sword, also you shall not let live here means death by the sword. Rebbi Aqiba said, from this argument I am deciding. It is preferable to learn you shall not let live from you shall not let live rather than from shall not live. What is Rebbi Jehudah’s reason³⁶⁸ 21b) and Mekhilta dR. Simeon ben Iohai his argument is attributed to Ben Azzai, in Mekhilta dR. Ismael to R. Yose the Galilean.? It says here, a sorceress you shall not let live, and it says there, anybody lying with an animal shall die the death³⁶⁹. 22:18, the verse following the one about the sorceress. Since in v. 17 the method of execution is not indicated, the instruction of v. 18 is interpreted in the light of Lev. 20:15–16 and applied to both verses.. Since the execution of the animal is by stoning, so here also by stoning³⁷⁰.

footnotes: ³⁶³ Ex ³⁶⁴ Babli 67a and Mekhilta dR. Simeon ben Iohai, ad loc ³⁶⁵ Ex ³⁶⁶ There “rabbis” oppose the Mishnah and decree beheading for the sorcerer; in Babli and Mekhilta dR. Simeon ben Iohai ³⁶⁷ Deut ³⁶⁸ The student of R. Eliezer’s student gives the final argument for the Mishnah. In the Babli (here and Berakhot ³⁶⁹ Ex ³⁷⁰ Since for animals the only explicitly mentioned example of execution is the stoning of the notorious bull.

Example. Rebbi Eliezer, Rebbi Joshua, and Rebbi Aqiba went to bathe at the public baths³⁷¹., βαλανεῖα). of Tiberias. A Minean³⁷² saw them, said what he said, and the cupola caught them³⁷³. Rebbi Eliezer said to Rebbi Joshua:³⁷⁴ Joshua ben Ḥanania, look what you can do. When this Minean was leaving, Rebbi Joshua said what he said and the door trapped him. Anybody who entered hit him with his fist, anybody leaving hit him when forcing the door open. He told them, undo what you did; they told him, you undo, then we shall undo. They mutually undid. When they left, Rebbi Joshua said to this Minean, is that all you are wise to? He answered, let us go down to the sea. When they had descended to the sea, this Minean said what he said and the sea was split. He told them, is that not what your teacher Moses did to the sea? They answered, do you not agree that our teacher Moses walked through it? He said to them, yes. They told him, enter it. He entered it. Rebbi Joshua commanded the prince of the sea³⁷⁵ who swallowed him.

footnotes: ³⁷¹ δημόσια (scil ³⁷² A Jewish heretic; a name frequently but not exclusively applied to Jewish Christians. ³⁷³ They were put under a spell so they could not leave the space under the cupola of the main room of the thermal baths. ³⁷⁴ In the rules of witchcraft all Sages of his generation were students of R. Eliezer, as told at the end of the Halakhah. ³⁷⁵ The angel running the Sea of Genezareth. The idea of angels running natural phenomena is a Jewish adaptation of the Greek myth of gods of the sea and nymphs of sources.

Example. Rebbi Eliezer, and Rebbi Joshua, and Rabban Gamliel travelled to Rome. They came to a place where they found children making stone heaps and saying as follows: What they do in the Land of Israel is to say, this is heave, this is tithe. They said, it is clear that Jews live here. They entered a place and were received at a house. They sat down to eat. It happened that no dish was brought to them unless it was brought [first] to a certain bedroom³⁷⁷. They became afraid that perhaps they were eating offerings to the dead³⁷⁸. They asked him, why is it that you bring no dish before us unless you brought it first to that bedroom? He told them, I have an old father who vowed not to leave that bedroom until he might see the Sages of Israel. They told him, go and tell him to come out because they are here. He came out; they asked him, what is your problem? He told them, pray for my son because he is sterile. Rebbi Eliezer said to Rebbi Joshua:³⁷⁴ Joshua ben Ḥanania, look what you can do. He told them, bring me linseed; they brought him linseed. It appeared to them as if he was sowing it on a table³⁷⁹.. It appeared as if he was watering it; it appeared to grow; it appeared that he was plucking out of it, until there appeared a woman with braided hair. He told her, undo what you did. She answered, I shall not undo. He told her, then I shall make you known. She said, I cannot, because they³⁸⁰ were thrown into the sea. Rebbi Joshua commanded the prince of the sea³⁷⁵ who disgorged them. Then they prayed for him and he had the merit of raising Rebbi Jehudah ben Bathyra³⁸¹ 3:4 Note 391) at Nisibis in Kurdistan, not on the road from Palestine to Rome. The source of the stories, characterized as non-legal texts by their Aramaic language, is a problem because it mixes Palestinian חמי “to see” with the Babylonian meaning “to decree” of the root גזר instead of Galilean “to decide”.. They said, if we came here only to bring the just person to the world, it would have been enough.

footnotes: ³⁷⁷ Greek κοιτών. ³⁷⁸ Since it is not usual to eat in a bedroom, they were afraid that the food was first offered to a corpse in a pagan ceremony which would make the food forbidden to them. ³⁷⁴ In the rules of witchcraft all Sages of his generation were students of R. Eliezer, as told at the end of the Halakhah. ³⁷⁹ Latin tabula ³⁸⁰ The charms used for the spell put on the son to make him sterile. ³⁷⁵ The angel running the Sea of Genezareth. The idea of angels running natural phenomena is a Jewish adaptation of the Greek myth of gods of the sea and nymphs of sources. ³⁸¹ The family Ben Bathyra is placed in both Talmudim (cf. Berakhot

Rebbi Joshua ben Hanania said: I am able to take gourds and watermelons and turn them into rams and deer who would produce rams and deer. Rebbi Yannai said, I was walking on a road in Sepphoris when I saw a Minean³⁷² taking a pebble, throwing it into the air, after which it came down transforming itself into a calf. But did not Rebbi Eleazar say in the name of Rebbi Yose ben Zimra: If all people of the world came together, they could not create one mosquito and bring it to life³⁸². Let us say that this Minean did not take a pebble, threw it into the air, after which it came down transforming itself into a calf, but he called on his genie³⁸³ who stole a calf for him from a cattle barn and brought it to him.

footnotes: ³⁷² A Jewish heretic; a name frequently but not exclusively applied to Jewish Christians. ³⁸² Since the objection is not raised against R. Joshua, plants are recognized as living things parallel to animals. Babli 67b. ³⁸³ Both vocalization and translation are tentative.

Rebbi Ḥinena ben Ḥanania said: I was promenading at Gufta³⁸⁴ 9:4 Note 85. of Sepphoris when I saw a Minean taking a skull, throwing it into the air, after which it came down transforming itself into a calf. I went and told it to my father. He said, if you ate from it, it was an action; otherwise it was an illusion.

footnotes: ³⁸⁴ An unidentified suburb of Sepphoris; cf. Kilaim

Rebbi Joshua ben Ḥanania said: Rebbi Eliezer used to explain 300 chapters in the matter of the sorceress, but from all of them I understood only two things: “Two are collecting green melons³⁶² Chapter 1, Note 38.; one who collected cannot be prosecuted, the other one is guilty. He who does a deed is guilty; he who creates an illusion cannot be prosecuted.” Rebbi Darosa said, there were 900 chapters. 300 where one is guilty, 300 where one is free³⁸⁵, and 300 where one is guilty but cannot be prosecuted.³⁸⁶

footnotes: ³⁶² In modern Hebrew “zucchini”; cf. Kilaim ³⁸⁵ Creating the illusion of witchcraft is not forbidden. ³⁸⁶ Forbidden action which nevertheless cannot lead to prosecution. A similar situation exists for Sabbath prohibitions where only a small part of Sabbath violations are of the kind that could be prosecuted in court. Babli 68a.