Talmud - Sanhedrin 49b סנהדרין מ״ט ב׳

MISHNA: Four types of the death penalty were given over to the court, with which those who committed certain transgressions are executed. They are, in descending order of severity: Stoning, burning, killing by decapitation, and strangulation. Rabbi Shimon says: They are, in descending order of severity: Burning, stoning, strangulation, and killing. This execution, described in the previous chapter, is referring to the mitzva of those who are stoned, i.e., to the process of execution by stoning.

GEMARA: Rava says that Rav Seḥora says that Rav Huna says: Wherever the Sages taught a halakha by means of a list, there is no significance to the order of their list, except for in the mishna that discusses the seven abrasive substances, where the order is significant.

As we learned in a mishna (Nidda 61b): One applies seven abrasive substances to the stain found on a woman’s clothing in order to find out whether the stain is from menstrual blood, and therefore ritually impure, or whether it is another type of stain, and therefore pure. These substances are: Bland spittle, which is the spittle of someone who has not yet tasted anything in the morning; moisture of grits, which is the spittle of one who has chewed the grits of beans; urine; natron; lye [borit]; Kimolian earth [kimuleya]; and potash. If the stain disappears as a result of the application of all of these substances, the stain is considered to have been from blood.

And it is taught in the latter clause of that mishna that the order of the substances is essential, as it states: If one applied them not in the order prescribed for them, or applied all seven of them at once, he has done nothing; the laundering has not been effective.

Rav Pappa the elder says in the name of Rav: The four types of the death penalty are also taught in order. This is apparent from the fact that Rabbi Shimon disagrees with the first order; conclude from it that it is taught in an exact order. The Gemara adds: And the other Sage, Rav Huna, does not include this mishna among those in which the order is significant, as he is not speaking of mishnayot where there is a dispute with regard to the correct order.

Rav Pappa says: The order of the service in the Temple on the Day of Atonement, Yom Kippur, is also taught in its proper order, as we learned in a mishna (Yoma 60a): With regard to all actions performed in the context of the service of Yom Kippur, which are stated in the Mishna, as in the Torah, in order, the halakha is: If the High Priest performed one action before another, i.e., if he diverged from the order that is written, it is as though he has done nothing.

And the other Sage, Rav Huna, does not include this mishna because that is merely a stringency. Although a change in the order invalidates the Yom Kippur service, this is not due to the importance of some rites relative to others, but because this order was established by the Torah.

Rav Huna, son of Rav Yehoshua, says: The order of the daily offering, described in the mishna at the end of tractate Tamid (33b), is also essential; as it is taught with regard to it: This is the order of the daily offering, indicating that it should be performed in exactly that order. And the other Sage, Rav Huna, does not include this mishna, as that requirement is merely for the mitzva. In other words, it is preferable that the offering be sacrificed in that order, but it is not disqualified if one deviates from that order.

And Rav Huna’s principle excludes the mitzva of the ritual through which a man whose married brother dies childless [yavam] frees his late brother’s wife [yevama] of her levirate bonds [ḥalitza]; i.e., it teaches that the order of that ceremony is not essential. As we learned in a mishna (Yevamot 106b): The mitzva of ḥalitza is performed in this manner: The yavam and his yevama come before the court, and the judges of the court offer him advice that is appropriate for him as to whether to enter levirate marriage or to perform ḥalitza, as it is stated: “And the elders of his city shall call him and speak to him” (Deuteronomy 25:8).

And if they decide to perform ḥalitza, she says: “My brother-in-law refused to establish a name for his brother in Israel, he did not wish to consummate the levirate marriage” (Deuteronomy 25:7), and afterward he says: “I do not wish to take her” (Deuteronomy 25:8). And they would say these statements in the sacred tongue, Hebrew.

The verse states: “His yevama shall approach him, before the elders, and remove his shoe from on his foot and spit before him” (Deuteronomy 25:9). Accordingly, she removes his shoe and she spits before him a quantity of spittle that is visible to the judges. “And she shall respond and say: So shall it be done to the man who does not build his brother’s house. And his name shall be called in Israel: The house of he who had his shoe removed” (Deuteronomy 25:9–10).

And Rav Yehuda says that this is the correct order for the mitzva of ḥalitza: She recites the sentence beginning with “My brother-in-law refused” (Deuteronomy 25:7), and afterward he recites “I do not wish to take her” (Deuteronomy 25:8). Then she removes the shoe, and spits, and recites: “So shall it be done to the man who does not build his brother’s house” (Deuteronomy 25:9).

And we discussed it: What is Rav Yehuda teaching us? This is already stated in the mishna. The answer is that this is what Rav Yehuda teaches us: It is a mitzva to perform ḥalitza like this, i.e., this is the proper order, but if one switched the order we have no problem with it; the ḥalitza is still valid, as the order of the ritual is not essential. This is also taught in a baraita: Whether one performed the removal of the shoe before the spitting, or the spitting before the removal of the shoe, what she did is done, i.e., the ḥalitza is valid.

And Rav Huna’s principle also excludes that which we learned in a mishna (Yoma 71b): The High Priest serves, i.e., performs the Temple service, wearing eight garments, and the ordinary priest performs the Temple service wearing four. An ordinary priest performs the Temple service in a tunic, in trousers, in a mitre, and in a belt. The High Priest adds another four garments beyond those worn by the ordinary priest: A breastplate, and an ephod, and a robe, and a frontplate. The order listed in this mishna indicates that the tunic was put on first.

And it is taught in a baraita: From where is it derived that nothing precedes the donning of the trousers when the priest dresses? As it is stated: “He shall wear a sacred tunic of linen; and trousers of linen shall be on his flesh” (Leviticus 16:4). This indicates that the trousers come first, as they are worn directly on the flesh, proving that the list in the mishna is not in accordance with the order in which the priests dressed.

The Gemara asks: But if so, what is the reason the tanna mentions the tunic first? The Gemara answers: Because the verse mentions it first. The Gemara asks: And what is the reason the verse mentions it first? The Gemara answers: Because it covers his entire body, the Torah prefers to mention it first.

§ The mishna states the types of the death penalty in descending order of severity: Stoning, burning, killing by decapitation, and strangulation. The Gemara discusses the basis for this order. Stoning is considered more severe than burning, as stoning is meted out to one who blasphemes, i.e., one who curses God, and to one who worships idols. For what reason is the severity of these transgressions considered greater than others? Because the transgressor undermines the fundamental tenets of Judaism.

The Gemara raises an objection: On the contrary; burning is more severe than stoning, as it is meted out to a priest’s daughter who committed adultery (see Leviticus 21:9). And for what reason is the severity of this transgression considered greater than others? Because through her sin she profanes not only herself but her father as well.

Traduction : The William Davidson digital edition of the Koren Noé Talmud, with commentary by Rabbi Adin Even-Israel Steinsaltz.

Sanhedrin 49b examines the four court-imposed death penalties and debates whether their listed order carries legal significance, citing menstrual stain testing as precedent.