Sanhedrin

MISHNAH. FOUR DEATHS HAVE BEEN ENTRUSTED TO BETH DIN: STONING, BURNING, SLAYING [BY THE SWORD] AND STRANGULATION.R. SIMEON ENUMERATED THEM THUS: BURNING, STONING, STRANGULATION AND SLAYING.  THAT IS THE MANNER OF STONING. GEMARA. Raba said in the name of R. Sehora in the name of Rab: Whatever the Sages taught by number is in no particular order, excepting the [Mishnah of] the seven substances. For we learnt: Seven substances are applied to the stain, viz., tasteless saliva,  the liquid exuded by crushed beans, urine, natron,lye,  Cimolian earth  and ashleg.  Now, the latter clause [of that Mishnah] states: If they were not applied in this order, or if they were all applied simultaneously,  the test is inconclusive. R. Papa the Elder said in Rab's name: The same [exception] applies to 'FOUR DEATHS etc'; for, since R. Simeon disputes the order, it is to be inferred that it is exact. But the other?  — He does not refer to cases [where the order] is disputed. R. Papa said: The order of Service on the Day of Atonement is also exactly taught, for we learnt: All the rites of the Day of Atonement which are prescribed in a particular order, if one was performed out of its turn, it is invalid. But the other?  — That law is merely one of added stringency.  R. Huna, the son of R. Joshua said: The order of the Tamid  is also exact, for in connection therewith we have learnt: This is the order of the Tamid.  But the other?  — That [Mishnah] merely teaches that the precept of the Tamid is best carried out in this order. [Now reverting to Raba's statement] this ['whatever etc.'] is intended to exclude the precept of halizah  [from the need of a particular order in its procedure], for we have learnt: the precept of halizah is thus carried out: — He [the deceased man's brother] and his sister-in-law come before Beth din, who counsel him in a manner fitting for him,  as it is written. Then the elders of his city shall call him, and speak unto him.  Then she declares: My husband's brother refuseth etc.,  whilst he states: I like not to take her.The members of Beth din thereupon announce in Hebrew:  Then shall his brother's wife come unto him in the presence of the elders, and remove his shoe from off his foot, and spit in his sight  — the spittle was to be visible to the judges — Then shall she answer and say, So shall it be done unto that man etc. … And his name shall be called in Israel etc. Now Rab Judah said: The precept of halizah is carried out thus: [First] she declares [My husband's brother refuseth etc.]; then he declares [I like not to take her]; then she removes his shoe and spits in his presence, and then she again declares [So shall it be done etc.]. But we pondered thereon: What does Rab Judah teach us? Is this not stated in the Mishnah? — Rab Judah teaches us this: The precept is best carried out thus; but if the order was changed, it does not matter. It has been taught likewise: Whether the halizah was performed before the spitting or the reverse, the ceremony is efficacious. Raba's statement above is also intended to exclude that which we learnt: The High Priest officiates [in the Temple] wearing eight garments, but the ordinary priest wears only four, viz., tunic, breeches, mitre and girdle; to which the High Priest adds the breast plate, ephod, robe  and head plate. Now it has been taught: Whence do we know that nothing must be donned before the breeches? From the verse: [He shall put on the holy linen tunic,] and the linen breeches shall [already] be upon his flesh.  But why does the Tanna give precedence [in this enumeration] to the tunic? — Because it is given precedence in Scripture;  and why does Scripture do this? — Because it prefers to state first that which covers the whole body. STONING, BURNING, etc. Stoning is severer than burning, since thus the blasphemer  and the idol-worshipper are executed.  Wherein lies the particular enormity of these offences? — Because they constitute an attack upon the fundamental belief of Judaism.  On the contrary, is not burning more severe, since that is the punishment of a priest's adulterous daughter; and wherein lies the greater enormity of her offence: in that she profanes her father?