Sanhedrin

Stoning is severer than strangulation, being the penalty of a blasphemer and idol worshipper, the extreme gravity of whose offence has already been stated. On the contrary, is not strangulation severer, since it is the penalty of one who smites his father or mother, the gravity of whose offence lies in the fact that their honour is likened etc.? — Since the Divine Law excluded an arusah, the daughter of an Israelite, from the penalty of a nesu'ah, the daughter of an Israelite, changing it from strangling to stoning,  it follows that stoning is severer. Stoning is severer than slaying, being the penalty of a blasphemer, etc. On the contrary, is not slaying severer than stoning, since it is the penalty of the inhabitants of a seduced city, the gravity of whose offence is proved by the fact that their property is destroyed? — Now consider, whose offence is greater: the seducer's or the seduced? Surely that of the seducer! Hence you may argue from a major to a minor premise. If stoning is severer than strangulation, though the latter be severer than slaying,  surely it is severer than slaying itself. Strangulation is severer than slaying, since it is the penalty of one who smites his father or mother, the gravity of whose offence has already been stated — On the contrary, is not slaying severer, since it is the penalty of the inhabitants of a seduced city, the enormity of whose crime is attested by the fact that their property is destroyed? — Now consider: whose offence is greater, the seducer's or the seduced? Surely the seducer's! And it has been taught: The seducers of a seduced city are punished by stoning. R. Simeon maintained: By strangulation. R. Johanan used to teach:  If a betrothed [i.e., an arusah] maiden  committed adultery, her punishment is stoning. R. Simeon said: It is burning. If she committed incestuous adultery with her father, her punishment is stoning. R. Simeon said: It is burning.  What does this shew? — That according to the Rabbis, only a nesu'ah, [if a priest's daughter] was excluded from the penalty of an Israelite's daughter by being burnt [instead of strangled], but not so an arusah — But according to R. Simeon, both an arusah and a nesu'ah, [if a priest's daughter] were thus excepted, by being burnt [instead of strangled]. Why so? — Because the Rabbis consider stoning to be severer, but R. Simeon holds burning to be severer; and from this is inferred that if a person incurred two death penalties, he is punished by the more severe. What statement of R. Simeon [shows that he holds that the priest's daughter, whether an arusah or nesu'ah, is punished by burning]? — It has been taught: R. Simeon said: Two general principles have been stated in respect of a priest's daughter.  Do these principles apply only to a priest's daughter, and not to an Israelite's daughter [surely not]?  — Say thus: In respect of a priest's daughter too. But then Scripture excluded a priest's daughter, a nesu'ah, from the penalty of an Israelite's daughter, a nesu'ah,' and an arusah, from the penalty of an Israelite's daughter, an arusah.  Now, just as when the scripture excluded the priest's daughter, a nesu'ah, from the penalty of an Israelite's daughter, a nesu'ah, it was in order to decree a severer punishment;  so also, when excluding the priest's daughter, an arusah, from the penalty of an Israelite's daughter, an arusah, it must have been in order to impose a greater punishment.  But false witnesses in respect of a nesu'ah, the daughter of a priest, are treated as though they had testified against an Israelite's daughter; likewise, if in respect of an arusah, who is a priest's daughter, they are punished just as though they had testified against an Israelite's daughter. Our Rabbis taught: And the daughter of any priest, if she profane herself:  I might think that this applies even to the profanation of the Sabbath,  — but the Writ states by playing the whore: thus Scripture speaks only of profanation through whoredom. I might think that this applies even to an unmarried woman. But her father is mentioned in this passage,  and her father is also mentioned elsewhere:  just as elsewhere the reference is to whoredom by one who is bound to a husband, so here too. But perhaps 'her father' is stated in order to exclude others?  — When Scripture states, She profaneth her father, it must apply to whoredom with others.  Hence, to what purpose do I put the phrase 'her father' [which, strictly speaking, is superfluous]? 'Her father' is mentioned in this passage, and 'her father' is also mentioned elsewhere; just as elsewhere the reference is to whoredom by one who is bound to a husband, so here too.  If so, just as the reference there is to a maiden  who is an arusah, so here too the reference is to a maiden who is an arusah: but if she is a maiden and a nesu'ah, or if she is a full-grown damsel  and an arusah, or a full-grown damsel and a nesu'ah, or even if she is aged, whence do we know [that the same law applies]? — The Writ states: 'And the daughter of any priest',  implying that the law holds good in all cases. 'The daughter of any priest':