Sanhedrin

R. Nahman said in the name of Rabbah b. Abbuha in the name of Rab: The halachah is in accordance with the message sent by Rabin in the name of R. Jose b. Hanina. R. Joseph queried: [Do we need] to fix a halachah for [the days of] the Messiah?  — Abaye answered: If so, we should not study the laws of sacrifices, as they are also only for the Messianic era. But we say: Study and receive reward;  so in this case too, study and receive reward: [He replied:] This is what I mean: Why state a halachah? In the course of the discussion, was there given a ruling at all? Now, what statement of R. Ishmael was referred to?  — It has been taught: And the daughter of any priest, If she profanes herself by playing the whore:  Scripture here speaks of a maiden [na'arah] who is an arusah. You say so, but perhaps it also refers to a nesu'ah? — The Writ sayeth: And the man that committeth adultery with another man's wife, even he that committeth adultery with his neighbour's wife, the adulterer and the adulteress shall be put to death.  Now all are included in the terms 'adulterer' and 'adulteress', but the Writ excluded the daughter of an Israelite, teaching that she is stoned,  and the daughter of a priest, teaching that she is burnt. Just as the exception made for an Israelite's daughter refers to an arusah, but not a nesu'ah;  so also, when a priest's daughter was excepted, an arusah was so excepted, but not a nesu'ah. Further, false witnesses [in respect of the charge of adultery] and the paramour [of an adulterous woman] were [originally] included in the verse: [If a false witness rise up against any man to testify against him that which is wrong …] then ye shall do unto him, as he had thought to hove done unto his brother.  — Now, how can the words, as he had thought apply to a Paramour!  — But say thus: The punishment of her false witnesses Is included in the text referring to the death of her paramour,  because Scripture states: then ye shall do unto him, as he had thought to have done unto his brother; implying, but not unto his sister.  This is R. Ishmael's opinion. R. Akiba said: [A priest's daughter], whether an arusah or a nesu'ah, is excepted [from the punishment of strangulation,] but is punished with fire. 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. Thereupon R. Ishmael said unto him: If so, just as the second passage refers to a maiden [na'arah] who is an arusah, so this verse [treating of a priest's daughter] should be taken to refer to a maiden who is an arusah; [but if a nesu'ah, her punishment should be different]. R. Akiba replied: My brother, I interpret the and the daughter etc., when it would have been sufficient to say the daughter etc., as teaching the inclusion of a nesu'ah.  R. Ishmael said to him: Shall we except this woman [i.e., a nesu'ah from the punishment of strangulation] and impose [the severer penalty of] death by fire, because you interpret the superfluous 'waw' ['and']; if this superfluous wow indicates the inclusion of a nesu'ah, then include an unmarried woman too;  whilst if it implies the exclusion of an unmarried woman [since the Deuteronomic passage explicitly relates to a married woman], then exclude a nesu'ah too. And R. Akiba?  — [He holds that] the gezerah shawah serves the purpose to exclude an unmarried woman, whilst the superfluous 'waw' serves to indicate the inclusion of a nesu'ah. And R. Ishmael? — In raising the foregoing [objection] he thought that since R. Akiba had replied. 'I interpret the superfluous waw', it proved that he had withdrawn his deduction front the gezerah shawah.  Now, how does R. Ishmael interpret this superfluous waw? — As shewing that which was taught by the father of Samuel b. Abin: Since we find Scripture differentiating in male [priests] between the [physically] unblemished and the blemished,  I would think that a distinction must also be drawn in their daughters:  therefore Scripture writes a pleonastic 'waw' [to teach the inclusion of the daughter of a physically blemished priest].  And R. Akiba?  — He deduces this from the verse: [for the offerings of the Lord made by fire, and the bread of their God,] they [i.e. the priests] do offer: therefore they shall be holy.  And R. Ishmael? — He maintains that that verse could apply only to priests themselves,  but not to their daughters. Hence the necessity of the pleonastic 'waw'. Now how does R. Ishmael interpret