Sanhedrin 094
|
BET MIDRASH VIRTUALI
of the Rabbinical Assembly in Israel
RABIN MISHNAH STUDY GROUP
|
|
|
הַבָּא עַל הָאֵם חַיָּב עָלֶיהָ מִשּׁוּם אֵם וּמִשּׁוּם אֵשֶׁת אָב. רַבִּי יְהוּדָה אוֹמֵר: אֵינוֹ חַיָּב אֶלָּא מִשּׁוּם הָאֵם בִּלְבָד. הַבָּא עַל אֵשֶׁת אָב חַיָּב עָלֶיהָ מִשּׁוּם אֵשֶׁת אָב וּמִשּׁוּם אֵשֶׁת אִישׁ, בֵּין בְּחַיֵּי אָבִיו בֵּין לְאַחַר מִיתַת אָבִיו, בֵּין מִן הָאֵרוּסִין בֵּין מִן הַנִּשּׂוּאִין. הַבָּא עַל כַּלָּתוֹ, חַיָּב עָלֶיהָ מִשּׁוּם כַּלָּתוֹ וּמִשּׁוּם אֵשֶׁת אִישׁ, בֵּין בְּחַיֵּי בְּנוֹ בֵּין לְאַחַר מִיתַת בְּנוֹ, בֵּין מִן הָאֵרוּסִין בֵּין מִן הַנִּשּׂוּאִין. הַבָא עַל הַזְּכוּר וְעַל הַבְּהֵמָה, וְהָאִשָׁה הַמְבִיאָה אֶת הַבְּהֵמָה – אִם אָדָם חָטָא, בְּהֵמָה מֶה חָטָאת? אֶלָּא לְפִי שֶׁבָּאת לָאָדָם תַּקָּלָה עַל יָדָהּ; לְפִכָךְ אָמַר הַכָּתוּב תִּסָּקֵל. דָּבָר אַחֵר, שֶׁלֹּא תְהֵא הַבְּהֵמָה עוֹבֶרֶת בַּשּׁוּק וְיֹאמְרוּ זוֹ הִיא שֶׁנִּסְקַל פְּלוֹנִי עַל יָדָהּ:
One who copulates with his mother is culpable both because of "mother" and because of "father's wife"; Rabbi Yehudah says that he is only culpable because of "mother". One who copulates with his father's wife is culpable both because of "father's wife" and because of "another man's spouse" – whether it is during the lifetime of his father or after his father's death, and regardless of whether it was after Erusin or after Kiddushin. One who copulates with a male, with an animal or a woman who copulates with an animal – even if the human has sinned what is the animal's sin? It is because it was involved with a human's downfall that the Torah says it must be stoned. Another reason: so that the animal shall not roam around the public area causing people to comment that "this is the animal that caused so-and-so to be stoned".
EXPLANATIONS:
1:
You will recall that at the beginning of our study of the previous mishnah I noted that in some editions what I have called Mishnah Four and Mishnah Five are treated as one mishnah. Indeed, our present mishnah is a natural continuation of the previous one. Mishnah Four listed the eighteen offences that incur the punishment of stoning. Our present mishnah adds a few comments here and there about some of them. Indeed, at one point it seems reasonably clear that Mishnah Five is "going through" Mishnah Four to check whether any comment is necessary: in "going through the list" it mentions "one who copulates with a male" but makes no comment at all, and was mentioned only in order to get to "with an animal". 2: DISCUSSION:
Naomi Graetz writes:
How do you relate to the fact that there is nothing in Leviticus and thus I assume in the mishnah about a father sleeping with his daughter? Most rabbis tend to overlook this, or if this is pointed out to them, say that the "intent" of the torah is to include it and "of course" it is a forbidden relationship de-oraita. I respond: It is not clear to me whether Naomi is commenting on the omission in the text of the Written Torah or whether the sages relate to this omission. I shall try to relate to both possibilities. It is a fact that in all the long list of prohibited copulations in Leviticus chapters 18 and 20 (which are part of the Torah reading for this Shabbat) the prohibition of copulating with one's daughter is not mentioned. I don't think that anyone would seriously consider that the silence of the Torah on this point is an indication of permission! Contrary to what Naomi surmises, copulation between father and daughter is specifically prohibited in the first mishnah of Chapter Nine of our present tractate. I will not go into all the details now since we shall do so when we eventually reach Chapter Nine. I shall just briefly relate that the Torah expressly prohibits copulation with one's grand-daughter [Leviticus 18:10]. The reasoning is that if the Torah had prohibited copulation with one's daughter it would not have been possible to deduce from that that copulation with one's grand-daughter is also prohibited; but when the Torah prohibits copulation with one's daughter's daughter it becomes rationally obvious that copulation with that same daughter is also prohibited. I presume that this is the "intent" that is referred to in Naomi's message. If Naomi's question was concerned with the omission in the text of the Written Torah and she is not convinced by the reasoning of the sages, I will hazard a guess or a surmise of my own (though this is not going to sound pleasant to modern susceptibilities). In ancient times a man's daughter was one of his most precious financial assets. She could bring in a good bride-price [Mohar] when he married her off and she could even stave off his own financial ruin if he sold her off as a handmaid [Exodus 21:7-11]. However, a very high value indeed was placed on a bride being virgo intacta at the time she was affianced, and a disappointed husband could bring the matter to court [Deuteronomy 22:13-21]. It thus seems incredible that a father would cause his own economic disaster by "spoiling the goods" that were his key to financial stability. This is just a guess, and of course, it is an argument that has flaws in it… Robert Kaiser was kind enough to forward to me the following article on the subject of child sacrifice to Molekh (that we mentioned in our last shiur). The article is by David Levene (Department of Classics, University of Durham):
As you indicate, the primary evidence comes not from the Middle East itself, but from Carthage, which was a Phoenician colony. Excavations at Carthage itself and at other Carthaginian cities have revealed a number of sacred precincts known as tophets; and here in total about 20,000 urns have been discovered (covering a period of something like 600 years). These urns contain animal remains, infant remains, or a mixture of the two: the animal remains preclude it from being a cemetery, and point to them instead being the remains of sacrifices. Added to this are iconographic representations actually depicting the sacrifice of infants, and a number of inscriptions (some admittedly relatively late) that appear to refer obliquely to a cultic child sacrifice called a m-l-k (like other Semitic languages, Punic script does not provide vowels). Putting this together, there is little doubt that child sacrifice was a common phenomenon in Carthaginian cities.
With this in mind, we can go back to our second major source of evidence, which is the Bible itself. There are numerous references in the Bible to child sacrifice as a Canaanite practice [e.g. Deuteronomy 12:31, 18:10, 2Kings 3:27, 16:3, 17:17, 17:31, 21:6, Isaiah 57:5, Jeremiah 7:31-2, 19:5-6, Ezekiel 16:20-21, 20:30-31, Psalm 106:36-8]. And several of these specifically refer to "molek" (Leviticus 18:21, 20:2-5, 2 Kings 23:10, Jeremiah 32:35). One might, of course, feel that this is hardly an impartial source, and that such references are part of an exaggerated Biblical polemic against Canaanite religion; but there are nevertheless excellent reasons for regarding them as reliable in this matter. One is the fact that these passages are not merely polemics against the Canaanites, but describe Israelites engaging in these practices, and contain very specific injunctions against them. But more important is the overlap with the Carthaginian evidence: the fact that we can independently know that a widespread group of people of Levantine origin engaged in child sacrifices called "m-l-k" enables us to corroborate the information in the Bible when it tells us about a similar cult with the same name. Apart from these main sources, there are other confirmations. For example, there are New Kingdom Egyptian temple reliefs showing Egyptian attacks on Canaanite cities: the inhabitants are depicted as sacrificing their children in response to the crisis. So much is essentially unproblematic. More difficult is knowing exactly how widespread such sacrifices were, and to which god they took place. A god with the name M-L-K was widely worshipped in the Middle East, and it seems most natural on the face of things to associate the practice of child sacrifice with his cult. However, there are certain problems with this. One is that in a large number of societies where we know that M-L-K was worshipped, there is absolutely no evidence to indicate that any child sacrifice took place. Another is that the Bible specifically refers to the m-l-k sacrifice being offered to other gods [Jeremiah 32:35; cf. also 2 Kings 17:31], though the gods here do have a m-l-k root as part of their names. It is true that the Bible does sometimes explicitly describe child sacrifices as being "l-m-l-k" [Leviticus 18:21, 20:2-4, 2 Kings 23:10], which could mean "to M-L-K" (which is how it was traditionally understood …) However, a good case can be made that this term refers only to the sacrifice, and not to the god at all – that "la-m-l-k" in such cases means "as a m-l-k sacrifice" (Leviticus 20:5, which refers to "ha-m-l-k" is especially relevant, as the "ha-" [="the"] would seem to imply a practice, not a name). Scholars are divided between these possibilities. |