Sanhedrin

It has been taught in support of Raba; [And the man that lieth with his father's wife hath uncovered his father's nakedness: both of them shall surely be put to death,' their blood shall be upon them.]  The man excludes a minor; that lieth with his father's wife, implies whether she is his mother or not. Whence do I know that his mother who is not his father's wife [is also thus forbidden]? — From the verse, [he] hath uncovered his father's nakedness. For this is redundant,  in order that an analogy may be drawn therefrom and identity of meaning based on a gezerah shawah deduced.  [They] shall surely be put to death, by stoning. You say, by stoning; but perhaps it means by one of the other deaths decreed in the Torah? — The Writ saith here, their blood shall be upon them; and in the case of a necromancer or a wizard, the Writ saith likewise, their blood shall be upon them;  just as there, stoning is meant, so here too. Now, in this verse, we are informed of the penalty: whence do we know the formal prohibition?  — From the verse, The nakedness of thy father … shalt thou not uncover:  the nakedness of thy father means thy father's wife. You say so: but perhaps it has its literal meaning?  — It is here said, The nakedness of thy father … shalt thou not uncover; and elsewhere  it is said, [he] hath uncovered his father's nakedness: just as there the reference is to the opposite sex, so here too; and it implies his father's wife, whether his mother or not. Whence do we know [that this law applies to] his mother, even if she is not his father's wife? — From the verse, The nakedness of thy mother thou shalt not uncover. From this I learn only the formal prohibition, viz., that the Scripture interdicts his mother, though not his father's wife, just as his father's wife. Whence do I derive the punishment?  — It is here stated, the nakedness of thy father … thou shalt not uncover,' and It is said elsewhere, [he] hath uncovered his father's nakedness: just as the Writ assimilated his mother, when not his father's wife, to his mother who was also his father's wife, in respect of formal prohibition, so it assimilated her in respect of punishment. She is thy mother; this teaches, you must punish him in respect of her as a mother, but not as his father's wife.  But the Rabbis contend: the nakedness of thy father is literally meant. But is this not taught by the verse: Thou shalt not lie with mankind as with womankind?  — This teaches that a double penalty is incurred; and as Rah Judah said: If a heathen committed pederasty with his father or with his paternal uncle he incurs a double penalty. Raba said: This dictum of Rab Judah presumably refers to a Jew, the offence having been committed unwittingly, and the penalty mentioned being a sacrifice; whilst the designation 'heathen' is a euphemism.  For if you will say that he meant a heathen literally, what is his penalty? Death! Will you slay him twice? It has been taught likewise: He who commits pederasty with his father or with his paternal uncle incurs a twofold penalty. Some say that this does not agree with R. Judah [of the Mishnah].  But others maintain that this may agree even with R. Judah, and he deduces a twofold penalty by reasoning from the minor to the major, basing his argument upon the law pertaining to a paternal uncle, [thus:] If for a paternal uncle, who is but a relation of one's father, a twofold penalty is incurred,  how much more so is a double penalty incurred for pederasty with one's father. These two conflicting views are involved in the dispute of Raba and Abaye,  one maintaining that punishment is imposed as a result of a minor to a major conclusion, the other maintaining that It is not. Now, whence do the Rabbis derive a formal prohibition against a father's wife?  — From the verse, The nakedness of thy father's wife thou shalt not uncover.  And R. Judah? — He maintains that this verse interdicts her after his father's death. And the Rabbis? They maintain that this is derived from it is thy father's nakedness.  And R. Judah? — He utilises it to teach that he is punished in respect of her as his father's wife, but not as a married woman.  But we have learnt, ONE WHO COMMITS INCEST WITH HIS FATHER'S WIFE INCURS A PENALTY IN RESPECT OF HER BOTH AS HIS FATHER'S WIFE AND AS A MARRIED WOMAN. [HE IS GUILTY IN RESPECT OF THE FORMER] BOTH DURING HIS FATHER'S LIFETIME AND AFTER HIS DEATH; and R. Judah does not dispute it? — Abaye answered: He does dispute it in the Baraitha. Now, whence do the Rabbis derive punishment for incest with one's father's wife after the former's death? It is all well according to R. Judah, for he derives it by means of the gezerah shawah; but whence do the Rabbis derive it? They answer thus: [he] hath uncovered his father's nakedness,  which R. Judah utilises for a gezerah shawah, is rather to be employed as teaching punishment for incest with one's father's wife after his death. Now, whence do the Rabbis derive punishment for incest with one's mother who is not his father's wife?  — R. Shisha the son of R. Iddi said: The Writ saith, she is thy mother,  thereby teaching that one's mother, even if not his father's wife, is exactly as his father's wife. HE WHO COMMITS INCEST WITH HIS DAUGHTER-IN-LAW, etc. Why is he not also guilty in respect of her as his son's wife?  — Abaye answered: The Writ commences with his daughter-in-law, and concludes with his son's wife,  teaching that they are identical. GEMARA. Whence do I know that pederasty is punished by stoning? — Our Rabbis taught: [If a man lieth also with mankind, as the lyings of a woman,  both of them have committed on abomination: they shall surely be put to death; their blood shall be upon them,]  A man — excludes a minor; [that] lieth also with mankind — denotes whether an adult or a minor; as the lyings of a woman — this teaches that there are two modes of intimacy,  both of which are punished when committed incestuously. R. Ishmael said: This verse comes to throw light [upon pederasty] but receives illumination itself.  They shall surely be put to death: by stoning. You say, by stoning: but perhaps some other death decreed in the Torah is meant? — Their blood shall be upon them is stated here, and also in the case of one who has a familiar spirit or is a wizard:  just as there the reference is to stoning, so it is here too.