1) (Vayikra 10:6) "And the soul that turns to the ovoth and to the yidonim to stray after them": Why is this written? From (Vayikra 20:27) "And a man or a woman an ov or a yidoni … with stones shall they stone them," we hear the punishment. Whence do we derive the exhortation? From (Vayikra 19:31) "Do not turn to the ovoth and to the yidonim." We hear the punishment and the exhortation, but we have not heard kareth (cutting-off). It is, therefore, written "And the soul that turns to the ovoth and to the yidonim … I shall cut him off from the midst of his people." 2) (Vayikra 20:7) "And you shall sanctify yourselves and you shall be holy": This is the holiness of separation from idolatry. You say that it is the holiness of separation from idolatry, but perhaps it is the holiness of (performing) all of the mitzvoth! — "Holy shall you be" (Vayikra 19:2) already speaks of the holiness of all the mitzvoth. "And you shall sanctify yourselves and you shall be holy," then, must refer to the holiness of separation from idolatry. (Vayikra 19:7) "For I am the L–rd your G d": I am the Judge, exacting (punishment) and trusted to reward. 3) (Vayikra 20:8) "And you shall heed My statutes and do them": This tells me only of what Scripture specifies. Whence do I derive (the necessity of observance of) the other inferences of the section? From (Vayikra 20:8) "And you shall heed My statutes and do them." 4) (Vayikra 20:8) "I am the L–rd who makes you holy": Just as I am holy, so, you be holy." 5) (Vayikra 20:9) "For a man, a man": What is the intent of this? To include a daughter, a tumtum, and a hermaphrodite. "who curses his father and his mother shall be put to death": This tells me only of his father and his mother. Whence do I derive the same for (one who curses) his mother without (cursing) his father, or his father without his mother? From "He has cursed his father and his mother," in any event. These are the words of R. Yoshiyah. R. Yonathan says: ("His father and his mother) implies both together or each by itself unless Scripture explicitly states "together" (as it does in the case of kilaim). 6) "For a man, a man, who curses his father and his mother": by the Name (i.e., the tetragrammaton). — You say: by the Name. But perhaps (it means even) by epithet. It is, therefore, written (Vayikra 24:16) "If he blasphemes the Name, he shall die." Let it not be written "the Name," (for in that context it is obvious). (It must be written, then,) for the purpose of including one who curses his father and mother, that he is not liable until he curses them by the Name. These are the words of R. Achi b. Yoshiah. R. Chanina b. Iddi says: Since Scripture states "Swear" and "Do not swear," "Curse" and "Do not curse," just as "Curse" is by the Name, so, "Do not curse" is by the Name. 7) "he shall be put to death" by stoning. You say by stoning, but perhaps it is by one of the other death penalties in the Torah. It is, therefore, written "his blood is in him," and elsewhere (Vayikra 24:27), (in respect to ov and yidoni) "Their blood is in them." Just as there, by stoning; here, too, by stoning. We have heard the punishment, but we have not heard the exhortation; it is, therefore, written (Shemoth 22:27) "Elohim you shall not curse." If his father is a judge, he is included in "Elohim you shall not curse," and if he is a prince (nassi), he is included in (Shemoth 22:27) "and a prince in your people you shall not revile." If he is neither a judge nor a prince, it is to be derived by induction (binyan av) through both, viz.: Judge is not like prince and prince is not like judge. Their common denominator is that they are "in your people," and you are exhorted against cursing them. Your father, too, is "in your people," and you are exhorted against cursing him. 8) (Vayikra 20:10) ("And a man who lives with another man's wife, who lives with the wife of his neighbor — they shall be put to death, the adulterer and the adulteress.") "And a man": to exclude a minor. "who lives with another man's wife": to exclude the wife of a minor. "who lives with the wife of his neighbor": to exclude the wife of others (i.e., idolators). "shall be put to death": by strangulation. You say by strangulation, but perhaps it is by one of the other death penalties in the Torah. Would you say that? Go and see every unqualified "death" in the Torah — you are not permitted to draw it out towards severity, but towards leniency, (and strangulation is the most lenient of the death penalties). These are the words of R. Yoshiah. R. Yonathan says: Not because it is the most lenient, but because it is written unqualified, and every "death" written unqualified is strangulation. Rebbi says (in explanation of R. Yonathan): "Death" is written in respect to death at the hands of Heaven, and "death" is written in respect to death at the hands of man. Just as death at the hands of Heaven leaves no visible trace, so, death at the hands of man leaves no visible trace — whence they said: The procedure for strangulation: They would steep him in waste matter until his hips, place a hard cloth in a soft one, tie it around his neck, and one would pull from one side and one from the other, until his soul expired. We have heard the punishment. Whence is the exhortation derived? From (Shemoth 20:13) "You shall not commit adultery" — both the man and the woman. 9) (Vayikra 20:11) ("And a man who lies with his father's wife, he has revealed the nakedness of his father. Both of them shall be put to death; their blood is in them.") "And a man": to exclude a minor. "who lies with his father's wife": This implies both his father's wife who is his mother and his father's wife who is not his mother. Whence do we derive (for inclusion) his mother who is not his father's wife, (as when his father raped a woman, who gave birth to him)? From "he has revealed the nakedness of his father," which is superfluous for (purposes of) comparison and the derivation of an identity (gezeirah shavah [below]). "Both of them shall be put to death": by stoning. You say by stoning, but perhaps it is by one of the other death penalties in the Torah! It is, therefore, written "their blood is in them" and, elsewhere (Vayikra 20:27) "their blood is in them." Just as the penalty there is stoning; here, too, it is stoning. We have heard the punishment, but we have not heard the exhortation. It is, therefore, written (Vayikra 18:7) "The nakedness of your father and the nakedness of your mother you shall not reveal." "the nakedness of your father" — this is your father's wife. You say that it is your father's wife, but perhaps it is your father's nakedness, literally, (i.e., sodomy)! — You reason (otherwise), viz.: It is written here (Vayikra 18:7) "the nakedness of your father," and elsewhere (Vayikra 20:11) "he has revealed the nakedness of his father." Just as "the nakedness of his father there refers to the wife of your father, so "the nakedness of your father" here (Vayikra 18:7) refers to the wife of your father, and it implies both the wife of his father who is his mother and the wife of his father who is not his mother. Whence is derived (for inclusion) his mother who is not the wife of his father, (but a woman he ravished)? From (Vayikra 18:7) "the nakedness of your mother you shall not reveal." This tells me only of the exhortations. Whence are the punishments derived? You derive it by induction, viz.: It is written here (Vayikra 18:7) of the nakedness of his father, and it is written elsewhere (Vayikra 10:11) of the nakedness of his father. Just as in the latter instance, his mother who is not the wife of his father, (but a woman he ravished) is equated with his father's wife, in the former instance, too, she is equated with his father's wife, (and this is the "gezeirah shavah" referred to above). (Vayikra 18:7) "she is your mother": You make him liable for (only one sin-offering, by reason of her being) his mother, and you do not make him liable for (another sin-offering, by reason of her being) his father's wife. 10) (Vayikra 20:12) ("And if a man lies with his daughter-in-law, both of them shall be put to death. They have wrought corruption; their blood is in them.") "And a man if he lies with his daughter-in-law … they have wrought corruption": in that they have "twisted the cord" (of procreation, both father and son lying with the same woman). They shall be put to death": by stoning. You say it is by stoning, but perhaps it is by one of the other death penalties in the Torah! It is, therefore, written "their blood is in them," and, elsewhere (Vayikra 20:27) "their blood is in them." Just as the penalty there is stoning; here, too, it is stoning. We have heard the exhortation, but we have not heard the punishment; it is, therefore, written (Vayikra 18:15) "The nakedness of your daughter-in-law you shall not reveal." If "your daughter-in-law," I would think even a maidservant or a gentile woman; it is, therefore, written (Vayikra 18:15) "She is the wife of your son." Scripture speaks only of a woman with whom there is "wifehood" with your son — to exclude a maidservant and a gentile woman, where this does not obtain. 11) (Vayikra 20:13) ("And if a man lies with a male, the lyings of a woman, an abomination has been wrought by both of them. They shall be put to death; their blood is in them.") "a man": to exclude a minor. "who lies with a male": Even a minor is implied. "the lyings of a woman": R. Yishmael says: This comes to teach (something about lying with a male) and ends up being taught (something about lying with a female) — that there are two lyings with a woman (for liability, normative and non-normative). "they shall be put to death": by stoning. You say by stoning, but perhaps it is by one of the other death penalties in the Torah; it is, therefore, written "their blood is in them." Just as "their blood is in them" elsewhere (Vayikra 20:27) is by stoning, so, here. We have heard the punishment, but we have not heard the exhortation; it is, therefore, written (Vayikra 18:22) "And with a male you shall not lie the lyings of a woman." This is an exhortation only against the active participant. Whence is derived the exhortation against the passive participant? From (Devarim 23:18) "There shall be no harlot from the sons of Israel," and (I Kings 14:24) "And also a harlot (masculine) was in the land; they did according to all the abominations of the nations." (and homosexuality, specifically, is called "abomination.") R. Akiva says (In) "And with a male you shall not lie (tishkav) the lyings of a woman," ("tishkav") can (also) be read as "tishachev" ("be lain with"). R. Chanina b. Iddi says: (A man's) lying with a male and with an animal were included in all of the arayoth (illicit relations). Why did Scripture single them out to call them "abominations"? To teach: Just as these are ervah, deliberate transgression of which is liable to kareth, and unwitting transgression, to a sin-offering, and because of which the Canaanites were exiled, so (for) every ervah which is thus liable, the Canaanites were exiled. 12) (Vayikra 20:14) ("And if a man takes a woman and her mother, it is lewdness (zimah). In fire they shall be burned, he and they, and there shall not be lewdness in your midst.") "And a man": to exclude a minor. "if he takes a woman and her mother": In all instances (of ervah), "lying" is written, and here "taking" is written, to teach that he is liable (for ervah) only by way of (previous) taking (in marriage) — whence they ruled: One may marry (the close kin) of a woman that he has forced or seduced; but one who forces or seduces (the close kin) or a woman he has married is liable. 13) "a woman and her mother": This tells me only of a woman and her mother. Whence do I derive (for inclusion) her daughter, the daughter of her daughter, and the daughter of her son? It is written here "zimah," and elsewhere (Vayikra 18:17) "zimah." Just as there, her daughter, her daughter's daughter, and her son's daughter, so, her. 14) Whence is it derived that males re like females (in this regard; i.e., that his progeny outside of wedlock (his daughter, his daughter's daughter and his son's daughter) are like hers (the progeny of his wife by marriage [see above])? It is written "zimah" here, and elsewhere (Vayikra 18:17) — Just as there, males are like females (in this regard), so, here. And whence is it derived that the lower (i.e., more distant kin — his father-in-law's mother and his mother-in-law's mother) are as the higher (i.e., closer kin — his mother-in-law — in this regard)? It is written here "zimah," and elsewhere (Vayikra 18:17) "zimah" — Just as there, the lower (i.e., her daughter's daughter and her son's daughter) are as the higher (i.e., her own daughter), so, here. 15) "in fire shall they be burned, he and ethhen" — (acronym of) "eth achath mehen" ("one of them, i.e., even if only one of them [wife and mother-in-law] is alive, she [evidently, the mother-in-law] is to be burned.) These are the words of R. Yishmael. R. Akiva says: he and both of them (i.e., only if both of them are alive is she [his mother-in-law] to be burned.) We have heard the punishment, but not the exhortation; it is, therefore, written (Vayikra 18:17) "The nakedness of a woman and her daughter you shall not reveal."
Sifra Kedoshim Chapter 10
Tap any verse to see what it echoes — and start a chain or echo from it.