Талмуд к Санхе́дрин 7:17

HALAKHAH: “One does not explain sexual aberrations to three {persons},” etc. Rebbi Abba in the name of Rav Jehudah: This is Rebbi Aqiba’s, but following Rebbi Ismael⁶If there can be no public discussion about the rules concerning sexual aberrations, there can be no disagreement about these rules. This is acceptable following R. Aqiba who derives prohibition for both the active and the passive homosexual from Lev. 18:22, noting that the unvocalized verb can be read both in active and in passive voices (cf Sanhedrin 7:9, Note 176.) But R. Ismael who denies that Lev. 18:22 contains a prohibition of passive homosexuality does derive the prohibition from an intricate derivation involving verses which on the face of it do not describe deadly sins. Therefore he must invite public discussion of his position. The Babli 11b considers the Mishnah as a moral precept, not an enforceable ruling.? Since Rebbi Ismael states warnings to the actors⁷Sanhedrin 7:9, Notes 177–181; Babli Sanhedrin 54b.. Since Rebbi Immi was sitting and stating a warning for active homosexual and a warning for the passive homosexual, this implies that practice follows Rebbi Ismael⁸The Amora was openly teaching R. Ismael’s opinion as authoritative; the first clause in Mishnah 1 is not accepted..

By money, from where? “After he acquires,” this tells you that she is acquired by money.¹¹Babli 2a. In rabbinic Hebrew, לקח means “to buy”. The Babli shows from Gen. 23:13 that לקח in biblical Hebrew may mean “to accept a deal involving money”. By the talmudic doctrine of invariability of lexemes in biblical language, the same meaning must apply in all cases. By marital relations, from where? “And has marital relations with her,” this tells you that she is acquired by intercourse¹²Babli 9b. Deut. 24:1: “After a man takes a wife and has marital relations with her” is the preamble to the rules of divorce. The verse is read to mean: “After a man buys and/or has marital relations with a woman, if he desires to terminate the relationship he is required to follow the rules of divorce.” Since there is no divorce without a preceding marriage, it follows that acquiring a wife by money and/or intercourse establishes marriage by biblical standards.. I would say, by both together. Money without intercourse and intercourse without money, from where? ¹³This elliptic statement is shortened from Ketubot 3:6 (Notes 88–92). The man who sleeps with a virgin preliminarily married to another man is stoned; one who sleeps with a married woman who is not a virgin is strangled. Since the verse mentions only intercourse, it is deduced that even if no money was given, the girl is legally bound to her husband and the seducer or rapist is executed for adultery. Rebbi Abbahu in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan, it is written: “If a man is found lying with a woman having had intercourse with her husband.” Think of it, even if he did only acquire her by intercourse, the one coming after him is [executed] by strangulation. Not only regular intercourse but even perverse¹⁴Sex play which leads to satisfaction without penetration and ejaculation.. Rebbi Abbahu in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan, it is necessary to mention perverse intercourse for if it were regular, why mention her husband¹⁵If the verse was simply intended to state that the punishment of the adulterer with a non-virgin is different from that with a virgin, it would not have mentioned “her husband”. The husband makes his wife a non-virgin even by perverse intercourse, any other man only by penetration.? As we have stated there¹⁶Mishnah Sanhedrin 7:15.: “If she was raped by two men, the first is stoned, the second strangled¹⁷If the first one penetrated her..”

Does not the blasphemer have to bring a sacrifice²¹This is a matter of contention. In Mishnah Keritut1:1, the anonymous Tanna, supposed to represent the school of R. Aqiba, lists the blasphemer as one who has to bring a purification sacrifice for inadvertent sin but the Sages insist that the blasphemer cannot bring a sacrifice since a sacrifice is restricted to atone for actions.? The colleagues in the name of Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish: They answered him according to his²²The anonymous Tanna in our Mishnah here, who also is supposed to represent the school of R. Aqiba. argument. Following your argument, since you say that the blasphemer does not act, where do we find that somebody talks and brings a sacrifice that this one talks and brings a sacrifice? Rebbi Abba from Carthage asked, is not Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish’s argument inverted? There²³In Sanhedrin7:13 (Note 282) R. Simeon ben Laqish explains that for R. Aqiba the conjurer of magical spells does not act since he simply speaks, but here he attributes the same opinion to the opponents of R. Aqiba. he said, for Rebbi Aqiba the blasphemer does not act. But here he says, the blasphemer is acting in the opinion of Rebbi Aqiba. Rebbi La in the name of Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish: Two Tannaïm²⁴The inconsistency is not R. Simeon ben Laqish’s but is the Mishnah’s choice of representatives of the reputed teachings of R. Aqiba. Since R. Aqiba’s students were scattered by the Hadrianic persecutions and only a few survived, the divergence of traditions is easily explained. following the opinion of Rebbi Aqiba. One said, the blasphemer does not act, and the other said, the blasphemer does act.

It is written (Lev. 11:28): “They are impure for you”. Why does it say (Lev. 11:35) “they shall be impure for you”? One is for the prohibition of eating, the other for the prohibition of usufruct⁷⁵The argument is also found in Orlah 3:1 (fol. 63d), Pesaḥim 2:1 (fol. 28c), Baba Qama 7:10 (fol. 6a), Babli Pesaḥim 21b, Qiddušin 56b, Baba Qama41a, Ḥulin 114b. The formulation in the Babli is: R. Abbahu said, every place where it is stated “it should not be eaten, do not eat” implies both prohibition as food and of usufruct unless the Torah details the permission of usufruct as for cadavers (Deut. 14:21). One has to assume that “anything forbidden” mentioned here also means “anything forbidden as food.”. Anything forbidden by the Torah is forbidden for trade but everything whose prohibition is rabbinical is permitted for trade. But is there not the donkey⁷⁶Donkey meat is forbidden. The camel should have been mentioned first since it is mentioned explicitly as forbidden animal; donkey meat is forbidden by the general clause permitting only ruminants.? It is raised for work. Is there not the camel? It is raised for work. Rebbi Yehoshaiah traded in muries⁷⁷Brine possibly made with wine (cf. Demay Chapter 1, Note 156). The nature of the prohibition is discussed in Terumot 11:1 (fol. 47c); it is agreed that the prohibition is rabbinical., Rebbi Ḥuna traded in asafoetida⁷⁸It is not clear how and why asafoetida would be prohibited. The best explanation is that of Pene Moshe(Margalit) that medicines are neither food nor dyestuff and, hence, may be traded in the Sabbatical year..

Rebbi Ze‘ira, Rav Hamnuna in the name of Rav Ada bar Aḥawa: She cannot be executed unless she is an adolescent at the time of the execution. What is the reason? “They shall execute the adolescent at her father’s door¹²⁸Deut. 22:18–21..” But did not Rebbi Ḥiyya state^128aCf. Notes 46–49.: If she whored in her father’s house and [the husband] calumniated her after she became an adult, he is not flogged nor does he pay 100 tetradrachmas but either she or the witnesses are executed by stoning. A Mishnah disagrees with Rav Ada bar Aḥawa: “If he escaped after being sentenced and then his pubic hair grew fully.¹²⁹Mishnah Sanhedrin 8:6, speaking of the unruly son, Deut. 21:18–21, who can be judged only if he is an adolescent, in the 6 months after he grew two pubic hairs before the pubic hair is fully grown. If he was sentenced as an adolescent, he can be executed as an adult.” There, you can say “they shall execute the adolescent” who whored; can you say here “they shall execute him”, the son¹³⁰Deut. 22:21 says only “they shall stone him”, without indicating age.?

“Hits by the predatory”. That is the one who counsels the orphans to hide support from the widow¹⁴³In the Babli, 21b, this is an opinion of R. Joḥanan.. As the following: Rebbi Sabbatai’s widow was wasting the estate. The orphans came before Rebbi Eleazar. He said to them, what can one do for you; you are stupid¹⁴⁴This is a corruption in the Leiden and Rome mss. (from their common Vorlage). The text is better in the Geniza ms: אָמַר לוֹן וּמַה נֵיעֲבַד לְכוֹן אַלוֻךְ אִימָּה שַׁטְייָ מִדְּנַפְקוֹן אָֽמרִין ל׳ כְּתוֹבֵיהּ עִמְדוּ עַד נֵימַר לְכוֹן מַה אָמַר. “He said to them, what can I do for you, your charge is a senile mother. When they left, his scribe told them: stay here until I shall explain to you what he meant.”
Occupational names of the measure pĕ‘ôlāh have been recognized by L. Ginzburg in the Yerushalmi: קְרוֹבָה the liturgical poet, דְּרוֹשָׁה the preacher, כְּתוֹבָה the scribe; all masculine. In the Geniza texts published by M. A. Friedman, Jewish Marriage in Palestine, Tel Aviv and New York 1981, one finds four כתובא times and כתובה three times.. Some scribe came out and said to them: I shall tell you what he said: Behave as if you would sell¹⁴⁵The ketubah was a lien on the deceased’s real estate. The crooked counsel was that the heirs should loudly declare their intention to sell the real estate, which would force the widow eventually into lengthy court proceedings to recover her lien. The idea was to force the widow into demanding to be paid her ketubah, which immediately would terminate her right to support but would allow the heirs to somewhat drag their feet before paying up. The honorable thing would have been to offer the widow to pay her the ketubah in a lump sum, in the hope that she would accept the offer. Since then the initiative would be the heirs’, the widow’s support would have to be paid until the money was delivered in full. and she will demand her ketubah¹⁴⁶Greek φερνή “dowry”. and lose her support. In the evening she came before Rebbi Eleazar. He said, this one was hit by the predatory. It should come over me¹⁴⁷An oath formula, “such and such shall come over me if I intended that”. if I had intended that¹⁴⁸He disclaimed authorship of the counsel his (?) scribe had given in his name. It is not reported whether he reversed the transaction..

As it was stated⁸⁸Sifry Deut. 241; Tosephta Sanhedrin 10:10.: “Living married to a husband⁸⁹Deut. 22:22. While the man sleeping with a preliminarily married girl is stoned, the adulterer with a woman who had lived with her husband while preliminarily married is strangled; Sifry Deut. 241.,” that includes one who had received her husband in her father’s house while preliminarily married; the one who comes after him is strangled. Not only a regular intercourse but even perverse⁹⁰Perverse intercourse is one which leaves the woman a virgin but leads to sexual satisfaction.. Rebbi Abbahu in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan; it is necessary to mention perverse intercourse for if it were regular, why mention her husband⁹¹As is implicit in the text here and made explicit in the Babli, Qiddušin 9b, the preliminarily married girl who had perverse relations with her husband is no longer a virgin in criminal law but any other man can remove her status of virgin only by penetration.? As we have stated: If she was raped by two men, the first is stoned, the second strangled⁹²Speaking of the virgin preliminarily married girl Deut. 22:23–27. The second man sleeps with a married woman who is not a virgin, Deut. 22:22.. The preliminarily married adolescent girl. If ten men came upon her perversely and then one regularly, they are all stoned⁹³The same statement in slightly different formulations in the Babli, Qiddušin 9b, Sanhedrin 66b, Yerushalmi Qidduṡin 1:1 (fol. 58b); Tosephta Sanhedrin 10:9.. If they all come upon her regularly, the first is stoned and the remainder strangled. If ten men “touched” her⁹⁴Their penises touched her genitals without injuring the hymen; cf. Yebamot 4:2, Note 59. and then one penetrated, they are all stoned. If they all penetrated, the first is stoned and the remainder strangled. A single girl. If ten men came upon her perversely and then one regularly, they all pay the fine. If they all come upon her regularly, the first is stoned and the remainder is free⁹⁵They are freed from the biblically imposed fine of the rapist; they still can be sued for claims of diminution of value and suffering.. If she chose one of them, the others were freed from the prohibition⁹⁶This sentence clearly refers to the prior case that all the men raping her are liable for the fine. In that case, all of them are required to marry her and forbidden to divorce her. But since a woman cannot have more than one husband, she may choose one of them. The others then do not infringe on the prohibition to divorce her since they cannot marry her.. If she said, he⁹⁷Her first choice among the rapists. is impossible, she repeatedly chooses. If he was married to her sister, he already is freed⁹⁸A man raping his wife’s sister cannot marry her (Lev. 18:18). He pays but does not marry her.. If she died, he is freed. If he died, one does not force the levir⁹⁹If the childless rapist dies before he marries his victim, there is no obligation on the levir to marry her since the rape is no marriage; it only creates an obligation of marriage..

There¹²²Mishnah Sanhedrin 7:15; Tosephta 10:8. From “Rebbi Yasa” to the end of the Halakhah, the text is also in Sanhedrin 7:14; the readings from there are noted ן., we have stated: “He who comes to a preliminarily married adolescent is guilty¹²³To be stoned, Deut. 22:24. The penalty for adultery (if the act is observed by two independent witnesses) is death by strangling. only if she was an adolescent, virgin, preliminarily married, in her father’s house¹²⁴As the Babli explains (Sanhedrin66b), the law does not apply if the girl had been delivered to the husband’s emissaries to be brought to his place for the final wedding.. If two came upon her, the first is stoned and the second strangled¹²⁵Since she was no longer a virgin..” Rebbi Yasa in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan, Rebbi Ḥiyya in the name of Rebbi Eleazar: That is Rebbi Meïr’s. But following the rabbis even if she is a minor. What is Rebbi Meïr’s reason? “A lad” is written in the paragraph¹²⁶In the entire Pentateuch with the exception of Deut. 22:19, “girl” is written in the masculine form נער “a lad”. R. Meïr takes this as a restriction that the rules apply only to the adolescent in the strict sense. The rabbis take the spelling to mean that one deals with a girl that is not yet feminine, not yet sexually awakened. (Instead of postulating a unique Hebrew-Phoenician root נער III “youth”, the rabbis probably derive נער from the root עור “to awake”.). How do the rabbis explain “a lad”? Rebbi Abbahu said 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 adult¹²⁷Deut. 22:19; the case of the calumniator must deal also with the possibility that the wife is criminally responsible, as pointed out by R. Meïr. Therefore, נַעֲרָ in the context of sexual offenses must mean “underage and adolescent”.. 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 stoned¹²⁸Deut. 22:21. An underage person is not criminally responsible; the seduction of a minor is statutory rape. If the criminal sanctions do not apply, why should the rest of the rules apply to an underage girl?! What do the rabbis with this? Rebbi Abin said, explain it if he came to her as to a male¹²⁹The rapist is punished even if he uses the נַעֲרָ as if she were a נַעַר, without penetration..