Aligned sentence by sentence
, .
[The opening words continue the discussion of the previous chapter.] For their sins are not atoned until the flesh has decomposed, and the rites of mourning become incumbent only once the grave has been sealed, as we said: "from the moment the closing-stone (golel) is set in place."
, . . .
At that point they are not yet fit objects of mourning; and since they were rejected, they remain rejected.
[]
Mishnah 1
, .
The reason for their dispute concerning the four modes of execution—as to which is placed first and which later—is that in their enumeration they place the more severe death before the lighter one.
, .
The Sages and Rabbi Shimon disagree as to which of burning and stoning is the more severe, and likewise as to which of strangulation and beheading is the more severe.
.
The practical consequence of our knowing which death is the more severe is that one who has incurred two death penalties is judged by the more severe one, according to all opinions.
, .
As for his words *this is the procedure for those liable to stoning*, this points back to the description of that procedure given in the chapter preceding this one.
.
The law does not follow Rabbi Shimon.
[]
Mishnah 2
, , .
*The wick*: this is a substance twisted out of metals; they would carry out the burning by means of a strip of molten lead, since combustion within the body is what is termed "burning."
.
So too the tradition reports concerning the sons of Aaron that the exterior of their bodies was not consumed, and God said of them, "they shall bewail the burning" (Leviticus 10:6).
.
They acted thus out of compassion for the condemned person, since this is the quicker means to his death. God said, "you shall love your neighbor as yourself" (Leviticus 19:18):
.
just as a man, when he has incurred death, would choose for himself the easiest death and the one with the least suffering, so we should act toward our fellow.
. .
If he has incurred stoning, he is stoned with a single rock, as stated above; and if he has incurred burning, we burn him in the manner we have described.
, .
*A hard cloth within a soft one*: that a coarse, strong napkin be wrapped within a soft garment, so that the surface of his body not be injured at the moment of the strangulation.
, , .
The meaning of *it scorched his entrails* is that the heat sears his innards and burns them; and likewise they said of the bird, when it falls into the fire, "it dropped into the flame and its innards were scorched."
. . .
Some read the word with a *resh*, deriving it from "my entrails burned (ḥamarmaru)" (Lamentations 1:20). The law follows neither Rabbi Yehudah nor Rabbi Elazar son of Rabbi Tzadok.
[]
Mishnah 3
.
They said in the baraita: Rabbi Yehudah said to them, "I too know that it is a degrading death, but what can I do, since the Torah has said, 'and you shall not walk in their statutes' (Leviticus 18:3)?"
.
The Sages reply: since killing by the sword is written in the Torah, it is from the Torah that we have learned it, not from them.
, , , .
You already know that the witnesses are the ones who execute with their own hands, by whatever mode of death it be; for that matter is, to them, certain knowledge, since they apprehended it with their senses, whereas to us it is [secondhand] report, for we have no knowledge of it except through what we heard from them.
, .
Therefore God commanded that the witnesses themselves be the ones who carry out the procedure. This is a fine point.
.
The law does not follow Rabbi Yehudah.
[]
Mishnah 4
, , , , , .
Wherever the Torah says *their blood is upon them* (Leviticus 20:11–13 etc.), [the death is] by stoning. We have learned that one who lies with an animal is stoned from its saying, "he shall surely be put to death, and you shall kill the animal" (Leviticus 20:15); and it said of the inciter, "but you shall surely kill him" (Deuteronomy 13:10). Just as the inciter is stoned, so too is the animal; and "as is the death of the animal, so is the death of the one who lay with it."
, . , , . . .
It is also evident that one who brings a male upon himself is stoned—and this is the one they call "one penetrated by a male." Likewise a man who brings an animal upon himself is stoned—and this is called "one penetrated by an animal"—and it falls under His saying, "every one who lies with an animal" (Exodus 22:18). So too the woman who brings the animal upon herself, with no distinction whether she brings it upon herself in the natural manner or in an unnatural manner; and likewise one who comes upon the animal, whether in the natural manner or in an unnatural manner.
, , . .
It has seemed proper to me to set down here a great many principles concerning the matters of forbidden sexual relations—even though they are scattered across various places in the Mishnah, and I have explained each principle in its own place—but I gather them here so that they may all be in one place for whoever wishes to consult them. I shall also mention certain matters that have not been clarified in the Mishnah, so that the whole purpose may be complete.
, , . . .
I say first that whatever I say in this place concerning "the [legally] mature man," I intend thereby one who is thirteen years and one day old and has produced two [pubic] hairs, for this is the one who is of age according to the Law. Likewise a girl twelve years and one day old who has produced two hairs we call "mature." Anyone younger than this age, or of this age but who has not produced two hairs, we call a "minor" (male or female).
.
And whatever I say "renders him liable to the penalty" or "to the penalties," I intend thereby the infliction of lashes (JA *מלקות* — lashes, the standard corporal penalty for transgression of a negative commandment.) or one of the deaths imposed by the court.
. . , . , .
Having laid down these premises, I begin to set forth the principles I undertook to describe here. I say that in all forbidden relations there is no distinction between intercourse in the natural manner and intercourse in an unnatural manner. Intercourse "in the natural manner" is coming from the front; "unnatural" is coming from behind.
, , . , . , . .
Nor is there a distinction between "first contact" and "consummation," whether the first contact be in the natural manner or the unnatural manner, and likewise first contact with a male or first contact with an animal. "First contact" (meʿareh) denotes the one who inserts the whole of the corona; "consummation" is the insertion of the entire member. But the insertion of [only] part of the corona is on the level of "one who comes by way of the limbs."
, .
The emission of semen has no bearing whatsoever upon the imposition of the penalties; rather, from the moment the head of the member is inserted, the penalties are imposed upon them both, even if it is withdrawn at that moment.
, , , .
There is no distinction in any of the forbidden relations whether the man is above and the woman below, or the man below and the woman above—this is what they, peace be upon them, call "inverted lying"—and likewise all other positions, in whatever position they be: the penalties are imposed only by the insertion of the corona, however that occurs.
, , , , , .
If a man has connection with any forbidden relation by means of a non-erect organ, no penalty is imposed upon him, even if he emitted semen, for it is a matter disputed and not decided by the Talmud, and no penalty is imposed except in a clear matter free of doubt—though it is a forbidden act. This is what the Sages call "one who serves with a dead [organ]," meaning one who has connection with a flaccid member.
, .
As for one who has connection with a dead [i.e., deceased] forbidden relation, nothing whatever is imposed upon him by consensus—this is what they call "the deed of Herod."
, , , , .
One who comes "by way of the limbs" upon any of the forbidden relations, or kisses one of the forbidden relations, or embraces her, or touches one of her limbs seeking pleasure, with whatever limb of his body he touches—as do those who gratify themselves with the hand or the foot—this manner of debauchery they, peace be upon them, call "fornicating with hand or foot."
, , , , , .
Likewise dallying with one of the forbidden relations, jesting with her, and signaling with the eye seeking pleasure—all of these are forbidden, and the one who does them is given lashes. They all fall under two negative commandments mentioned in the Torah. One is His saying, "you shall not draw near to uncover nakedness" (Leviticus 18:6), as though He were saying, "avoid the things that lead to and facilitate the uncovering of nakedness"; thus they, peace be upon them, expounded it: "'you shall not draw near'—nor uncover nakedness."
, , , .
The second is His saying, "that you do not commit any of these abominable statutes" (Leviticus 18:30); and these things we have described, and their like, are termed "the abominable statutes." But the penalty of excommunication (karet) attaches only to the consummated intercourse described, as they said: "for the abominations themselves, karet."
, , , .
It is forbidden to inhale the scent of a [forbidden] woman's perfume, or to gratify the eye upon her form seeking pleasure—but for this no lashes are imposed; even though they said "you shall not fornicate, you shall not derive enjoyment of fornication," still there are no lashes [imposed merely] on the basis of an exegesis.
, .
It is permitted to look upon the bride at the time of the [marriage] blessing, even though she is a married woman and a forbidden relation; but after that it is not permitted to gaze upon her, unless he does not intend to fix her image [in his mind].
$ , , .
As for a woman who has no husband—one to whom she is not a forbidden relation may take enjoyment of her form by looking; there is nothing forbidden in this except as a matter of scrupulous piety and avoidance of the permitted lest one fall into the forbidden, for the virtuous abhor this even though it is permitted, out of fear that the woman may become a married woman and he persist in what he was upon before.
, . , . , .
So they explained Job's saying, "I made a covenant with my eyes; how then should I gaze upon a maiden?" (Job 31:1)—but it is not [strictly] forbidden. However, looking upon her to ascertain whether she is fair of form, that he may marry her, or ill of form, that he may not marry her, is required, and the Law has recommended it; the scrupulous among the observant rely upon this.
$ . , , , .
Marrying a woman who has no husband entails lashes, even though she is not disqualified for the priesthood and is not termed a harlot. As for connection with an unmarried woman "by way of the limbs," and the rest of what we mentioned for which lashes are imposed in the case of a [forbidden] relation, no lashes are imposed in the case of an unmarried woman, for the intercourse itself with her [entails] lashes, as we explained—though all of this is forbidden and is in no way permitted.
.
And lashes are imposed for secluding oneself with an unmarried woman, by rabbinic ordinance.
. .
Likewise with all the forbidden relations, it is not permitted for a man to seclude himself with one of them, except with a male or an animal, for they said: "Israel are not suspected of lying with a male or with an animal," for this pure people's appetite does not crave these two acts, which are outside the natural course.
, , , .
Whenever one secludes himself with a forbidden relation with whom seclusion is forbidden, or with an unmarried woman who is not a forbidden relation, they are both given lashes—except a married woman alone: one who secludes himself with her, even though that is forbidden, is not given lashes, neither she nor he, so as not to cast aspersion upon her children that they are mamzerim.
, . .
It is permitted for a man to seclude himself with his mother or his daughter alone; with any forbidden female relation other than these two, seclusion is forbidden. We have already explained the rules of seclusion in full at the end of [Tractate] Qiddushin.
, , .
Kissing a relative toward whom the natures of the people of the Law are not stirred, and in whom one takes no pleasure—such as a sister, a maternal aunt, a paternal aunt, a granddaughter, or a great-granddaughter—is highly repugnant and forbidden; but no lashes are imposed for it, provided one does not intend pleasure—though even so it is forbidden.
, , , .
One of the Sages, peace be upon them, would kiss the sleeves of his older sister, or her hand, when he returned from the study-house, but he refrained from this and desisted, and held that there was no proper basis for permitting it; and they said to him, "We say to the nazirite: 'Go round about, go round about; do not approach the vineyard.'"
, , .
Among the forbidden relations there is none with whom such [contact] is permitted except the mother with her son and the father with his daughter alone: the mother is permitted to kiss her son and handle him until he completes twelve years, and after that it is forbidden to her like the rest of the forbidden relations;
.
and likewise the father may kiss his daughter and handle her until she completes nine years, and after that she becomes forbidden to him.
, , , , , , , , , .
It is not permitted for a woman to wait upon a man before him, to hand him drink or food, or to wash his hands, or the like—whether she is advanced in age or a girl of three years and one day, free or bondmaid, of low or high station, virgin or non-virgin, a forbidden relation to him or not—except the mother and the daughter as we mentioned, without regard to age. This is their saying, "one may not be served by a woman at all," the reason for which is "lest one come to lustful thoughts"; but there are no lashes in this.
, , , , .
The Sages forbade lustful thought most severely, and kept far from its causes, and were emphatic in instilling dread and warning concerning one who deliberately arouses himself, and concerning one who emits semen in vain, and they made clear that all of this is forbidden—though they did not impose lashes for anything of this sort.
, , , , .
Likewise this base act that occurs among women, of a woman copulating with a woman, is a repugnant act, but there is no penalty for it, neither from the Torah nor by rabbinic ordinance; neither of them is termed a harlot, nor is she forbidden to her husband, nor disqualified for [marriage to] a priest. This is what the Sages call "women who rub against one another," derived from maslul, which is "the path."
.
And although there is no penalty for it, they reckoned this act among the depravities of the Egyptians and said, in explaining "the doings of the land of Egypt" (Leviticus 18:3): "What did they do? A man would wed a man, and a woman a woman, and a woman would be wed to two men."
, , .
It is permitted for a man to come upon his wife in an unnatural manner and by way of the limbs and however he wishes; and thus was the reply of one of the Sages to a woman who asked him about this—he said to her, "The Torah has permitted you to him."
, , .
Now one of the Sages sought to establish that there is something repugnant in a man's doing such acts with his wife, or taking enjoyment of her in the ways the common people do out of excessive appetite—such as the "inverted lying" we mentioned, and kissing places on the body, and the like—but they said, disagreeing with him, "The Sages say: whatever a man wishes to do with his wife, he may do," and the Talmud decided the law in this matter according to the Sages.
, , .
Yet, although all of this is permitted, as we mentioned, the scrupulous and pious avoid all these doglike practices and despise them, and they despise those who make these things their chief thought and object.
, , , , , .
For since it has been established that the aim of intercourse is the perpetuation of the species and not mere pleasure—pleasure having been placed in it only to move the animal toward the primary aim, namely procreation, the clear proof of which is the falling away of desire and the cessation of pleasure upon the emission of semen, since it is only toward this that the natures were stirred; for were the aim pleasure, the pleasure would endure as long as a man wished to take pleasure, and this is not so—
, , , .
the virtuous therefore aim only toward the aim of nature. The Sages commend this and hold it dear, and they call one who restricts himself thus "one who sanctifies himself at the time of intercourse," meaning one who aims only at expelling the [seminal] surplus; and they said that this benefits the children with purity, chastity, and good character.
, .
They greatly extolled one who, having a wife with manifest, evident defects of which he is unaware—on account of his thought's being occupied with what occupies the virtuous and pure—and who, at the time of his need of her, aims only at what nature aims at by the divine wisdom.
, .
This does not contradict what was said above, "whatever a man wishes to do with his wife, he may do," for the category of the permitted and the forbidden is distinct from the category of the repugnant, the recommended, the commendable, and what is undertaken by way of scrupulousness and earnest pursuit of chastity.
, . , .
The Sages forbid a man's having connection with his wife by lamplight, though there is no penalty for it. And they forbid a man's having connection with his wife in the marketplaces, or in gardens and orchards and the like—places in which no house is settled—and impose for this the "stripes of rebellion."
. , , , , , , .
They disapprove of intercourse by day. And excessive intercourse, and a multiplicity of wives, and marrying the daughter of an ignorant man (am ha-aretz) or marrying into his family, and marrying off a woman before twelve years, and the marriage of a young woman to an old man, or of an old woman to a youth—all of this is disapproved in the Law.
. , , , . , , .
I return now to completing the principles we are describing. If the mature man fornicated with a young girl: if she was three years and one day or more, the penalty is imposed upon him, but no penalty upon her unless she is mature. If a mature woman fornicated with a young boy: if he was nine years and one day or more, the penalty is imposed upon her, but no penalty upon him unless he is mature.
, , .
As for the mature man who comes upon a male or brings a male upon himself: if [the other] was nine years and one day or more, the man is executed, but the male [partner] is not executed unless he is mature.
, , .
A woman who brings the animal upon herself: if she was three years and one day or more, the animal is killed, but she is not killed unless she is mature; and if she was younger than this age, the animal is not killed.
, , , .
Likewise one who comes upon the animal, or is penetrated by the animal: if he was nine years and one day or more, the animal is killed, but there is no death penalty upon him unless he is mature. The age of the animal is not considered—young and old are alike, whether it was the one mounting or the one mounted, male or female.
, . .
Anyone less than nine years and one day—his act of intercourse is no [legal] intercourse, and it is as though he had done nothing as regards the penalty; though as for the forbidden character, it is forbidden, whether he was the one having connection or the one upon whom it was had, [but] there is no penalty for his intercourse. Likewise a girl less than three years and one day—her intercourse is no [legal] intercourse, neither with a human nor with an animal.
.
Among the things you must know is that a woman penetrated by an animal is not forbidden to her husband, even if he is a priest.
. , , .
We have already explained that the court imposes the penalties upon the mature man and the mature woman through witnesses and forewarning and all that has been clarified. But if the court did not know of it and did not punish them, or the evidence was not established, then their sins are recorded with Him, exalted be He, until the doer is punished for his deed as He knows [fit] and as His wisdom requires;
, .
yet it has come to us in our tradition that God does not punish with karet except after the age of twenty, with no distinction in this between males and females.
, . . .
Among the things you must know is that the wife of a man who is not mature is not [legally] a married woman, and likewise the wife of a deaf-mute or an imbecile, when she marries him while he is a deaf-mute or imbecile. But a minor girl, or a deaf-mute woman, who is the wife of an adult who married her off [in the case of the minor] through her father, is [legally] a married woman; whereas a deaf-mute or imbecile woman who married herself off is not [legally] a married woman as regards the death penalty or the offering.
, , .
You should also know that if a man fornicated with a woman and her mother, or with two sisters, or with another of her female relatives, this is on the level of one who fornicated with two unrelated women between whom there is no kinship—for those forbidden kinships in the Torah apply only when one of the two is his wife.
.
He is permitted to marry one of them after fornicating with them both, on the conditions we explained in the eleventh [chapter] of [Tractate] Yevamot.
.
And if a man fornicated with a kinswoman of his wife—such as her mother, her sister, her daughter, and the like—his wife does not become forbidden to him, even though he has incurred karet or death.
, .
As for the woman, if she fornicated of her own will she has become forbidden to her husband, even if she fornicated with a gentile; but if she was coerced she remains permitted to her husband, unless he is a priest.
, , , . .
This is what we saw fit to mention here of the secrets of forbidden relations and the like of them among the corruptions of intercourse—the disapproved, the forbidden, and the repugnant. The law does not follow Rabbi Yehudah.
[]
Mishnah 5
, , .
*That they not be loosened*: that the cutting not be undone; but to stitch it [closed] is permitted.
, .
The reason it suffices for [the second witness] to say "I too am like him" is so that the blasphemy of the [divine] Name not be repeated.
, .
As for his saying *and the third*, this is to inform you that "three are like two"—we require that the testimony of all of them be one [and the same].
.
The statement of Rabbi Yehoshua son of Qorḥah is correct.
[]
Mishnah 6
, .
His saying *one who serves it, etc.*, its construction is thus: "one who serves it in the manner in which it is served, and one who slaughters [to it], and one who burns incense, and one who pours libation, and one who prostrates himself—even not in its [customary] manner."
, , .
For these four kinds of worship—when one performs any one of them, he is liable, even if he did not worship it in the manner in which it is customarily worshipped; rather, he offers to it something other than its [usual] offering, or burns incense to it other than the incense with which it is worshipped.
, .
But for the rest of the [forms of] worship he is not liable until he worships it in the manner in which it is customarily worshipped—such as one who exposes himself to Peʿor, or throws a stone at Marqulis.
, .
And know that one who worships idolatry out of love or out of fear is exempt, but if he accepted it upon himself as a god he is liable.
, , .
*One who embraces*: that he embraces that image—the Targum of "and he embraced him" (Genesis 29:13) is "and he embraced him (gappef leh)."
, , , .
These [acts] of which he said that one transgresses a negative commandment—it is so, and it falls under His saying, "you shall not serve them" (Exodus 20:5); but he is not given lashes for them, since it is not an explicit prohibition. Lashes are imposed only upon one who vows by its name or upholds [a vow] by its name, concerning which the verse comes explicitly: "and the name of other gods you shall not mention," etc. (Exodus 23:13).
.
If one who exposes himself to Peʿor or throws a stone at Marqulis intended to degrade that object of worship and treat it with contempt, he is liable for a sin-offering.
, .
There is no distinction between throwing a stone at it or removing a stone from before it, for by both ways it is [in fact] worshipped.
[]
Mishnah 7
, .
This "passing over" is not a burning, as a very great multitude have supposed; rather, its true nature is that he kindles a fire and makes it blaze for that particular idol, which was known to be worshipped in this manner, and its name was Molekh.
, , .
Then he takes one of his sons and hands him to the one who attends to the service of that object of worship, and then passes him over the fire from one side to the other. When he has done this, stoning is imposed upon him.
.
Among its conditions is that he hand over and pass over only part of his offspring, for God's saying "of your seed" (Leviticus 18:21) [implies] "not all your seed."
, .
And if one performs such an act for an object of worship other than this one, no death penalty is imposed upon him, for this is solely "the worship of Molekh"—and this is what is distilled from the text of the Talmud.
, , , , .
As for "the master of an ʾov," a species of its kind is well known in the text of Scripture. And do not let "one who inquires of the dead" trouble you, for "one who inquires of the dead" performs no [ritual] act at all; rather, it is a sort of soothsaying, namely that he fasts and lodges in the cemeteries and utters words, and then sees in his sleep things that are, in their fancy, [real].
, .
The "master of an ʾov" mentioned in Scripture involves the taking up of certain operations; and of it there is a second kind, namely that he takes the skull of a human head from which the flesh has been stripped, and preserves it, and burns incense to it, and divines by it, and hears speech from it as one hears from the dead in the craft of the "master of an ʾov."
.
And all that you see of their saying "it speaks and is heard" in this matter is only a lying hearing produced by prolonging one's thought upon it, as commonly befalls people in lonely places and in solitude.
, , . , , .
*Yiddeʿoni*: they said, "he places a known bone in his mouth, and it speaks of itself," and "known (yadua)" is the name of a bird. And his saying here too "it speaks" is as we said; and likewise "it speaks from his armpit"—he imagines that he hears speech from beneath his armpit.
[]
Mishnah 8
, .
This mishnah follows Rabbi Aqiva, who holds that there is [such a thing as] a desecration of the Sabbath for whose willful violation one incurs karet and for whose inadvertent violation one [brings] a sin-offering, namely the prohibition of [Sabbath] boundaries—for the prohibition of boundaries, according to Rabbi Aqiva, is from the Torah.
, .
The Sages, however, say that the prohibition of boundaries is rabbinic, and so they do not call it a "desecration"; rather, they call a "desecration" only those labors for whose willful performance one incurs karet and for whose inadvertent performance one [brings] a sin-offering, as has been clarified in its place.
.
The law follows the Sages.
[]
Mishnah 9
.
We have already explained on several occasions that a "young woman (naʿarah)" is so termed from the time she produces two hairs, after the age of twelve, for a period of six months.
, , .
As for their saying "the first by stoning and the second by strangulation"—this is when the first came upon her in the natural manner; but if ten came upon her in an unnatural manner and she is still a virgin, all of them are by stoning.
[]
Mishnah 10
, , ,
His saying *this is a commoner who incites a commoner*: because an inciter who is a prophet—his death is by strangulation; and one who incites the public (these are the seducers of a "subverted city")—no ambush is laid against them.