Do not speak to your father in that manner, where you tell him directly that he is mistaken. Rather, raise the matter in a circumspect manner, as it is taught in a baraita: In a case where one’s father was violating Torah matters he should not say to him: Father, you violated Torah matters. Rather, he should say to him: Father, it is written so in the Torah. The Gemara asks: Ultimately, isn’t this formulation identical to that previous formulation? In both cases he embarrasses his father. Rather, say to him: Father, there is a verse written in the Torah and this is what it says. Tell him the halakha or the verse in a way in which it is not obvious that it relates to the action that his father performed.

MISHNA: One who is liable to be executed with two different court-imposed death penalties, as he violated two different capital transgressions, is sentenced to the more severe form of execution. If one violated one transgression for which he is liable to receive two death penalties, e.g., if one engaged in intercourse with his mother-in-law, who is also a married woman, he is sentenced to the more severe form of execution. Rabbi Yosei says: He is sentenced to the form of execution that he is liable to receive due to the first relationship that came upon him, i.e., if she was his mother-in-law before she was married, he is executed by burning; if she was married before she was his mother-in-law, he is punished by strangulation.

GEMARA: With regard to the ruling in the mishna that one who is liable to be executed with two different court-imposed death penalties is sentenced to the more severe form of execution the Gemara asks: Isn’t this obvious? Rather, would you say that he would profit from the fact that he violated a second capital transgression and would receive a more lenient punishment?

Rava says: With what are we dealing here? We are dealing with a case where he violated a relatively minor transgression punishable by a less severe form of execution, and his verdict was issued for the minor transgression, and he then violated a major transgression punishable by a more severe form of execution. It could enter your mind to say: Once his verdict was finalized for the minor transgression, the legal status of this individual is that of a dead man, and anything that he does thereafter is insignificant. To counter this, the tanna teaches us that he is liable to be punished for the subsequent transgression, and if it is punishable by a more severe form of execution, he is executed with that form of execution.

The father of Rav Yosef bar Ḥama asked of Rabba bar Natan: From where is this matter that the Sages stated derived: One who is liable to be executed with two different court-imposed death penalties is sentenced to the more severe form of execution? Rabba bar Natan answered: It is derived from a verse, as it is written: “And he begets a violent son, a shedder of blood, who does to a brother any of these. And he had not done any of these, for he has eaten upon the mountains and defiled his neighbor’s wife, has wronged the poor and needy, has taken by robbery, does not return collateral, and has lifted his eyes toward the idols, has committed abomination” (Ezekiel 18:10–12).

This is interpreted: “And he begets a violent son, a shedder of blood,” this is one who is liable to be executed by beheading with a sword; “defiled his neighbor’s wife,” this is engaging in intercourse with a married woman, for which one is liable to be executed by strangulation; “lifted his eyes toward the idols,” this is idol worship, for which one is liable to be executed by stoning. And it is written thereafter: “He shall be put to death, his blood shall be upon himself” (Ezekiel 18:13), which means that he is executed by stoning. It appears that one who violates several capital transgressions is executed with the most severe form of execution for which he is liable.

Rav Naḥman bar Yitzḥak objects to this: Say that all of the transgressions listed in the verse are punishable by stoning. How? “And he begets a violent son, a shedder of blood,” this is a wayward and rebellious son, who is executed by stoning; “defiled his neighbor’s wife,” this is engaging in intercourse with a betrothed young woman, for which one is executed by stoning; “lifted his eyes toward the idols,” this is idol worship, for which one is executed by stoning.

The Gemara answers: If so, according to that understanding of the verse, what is Ezekiel teaching us? According to the first understanding, a new halakha is derived from here; but according to the interpretation of Rav Naḥman bar Yitzḥak there is nothing novel. The Gemara rejects this contention: Perhaps it is the halakhot of the Torah that Ezekiel is reiterating, admonishing the people to fulfill the directives of the Torah. The Gemara answers: If it is so that this was Ezekiel’s intention, it would have been necessary for him to reiterate the halakhot in the manner that Moses our teacher reviewed it, employing the same language. The fact that Ezekiel diverged from Moses’ formulation indicates that he sought to teach a new halakha.

The Gemara cites a homiletic interpretation that Rav Aḥa, son of Rabbi Ḥanina, taught: What is the meaning of that which is written: “He did not eat upon the mountains, nor did he lift his eyes toward the idols of the house of Israel, nor did he defile his neighbor’s wife, nor did he approach a menstruating woman” (Ezekiel 18:6)? This cannot be understood literally, as refraining from performing these transgressions is not sufficient to characterize an individual as righteous. “He did not eat upon the mountains” is an allusion to the fact that he did not eat due to the merit of his fathers; rather, he relies on his own merit and righteousness. “Nor did he lift his eyes toward the idols of the house of Israel” is a reference to one who distances himself from anything similar to idol worship, to the extent that he did not walk with upright stature, typical of a haughty person, as haughtiness is typical of idolaters.

“Nor did he defile his neighbor’s wife” is an allusion to the fact that he did not infringe upon another’s trade, thereby compromising his livelihood. “Nor did he approach a menstruating woman” is an allusion to the fact that he did not benefit from the charity fund even if he was needy. And it is written with regard to one who refrains from these actions: “He is a righteous man, he shall live” (Ezekiel 18:9). The Gemara relates: When Rabban Gamliel would reach this verse: “And has kept all My statutes, and has performed them, he shall live” (Ezekiel 18:19), he would cry and say: It is one who performs all of them, who lives; one who performs one of them, no, he shall not live.

Rabbi Akiva said to Rabban Gamliel in an attempt to console him: If that is so, that the term “all” is understood in that manner, with regard to that which is written concerning the forbidden relatives enumerated in the Torah: “Do not become defiled with all of these” (Leviticus 18:24), would you also say that there too, one who is in violation of all of the prohibitions, yes, he is punished, but one who is in violation of one of them, no, he is not punished? Rather, clearly, “all of these” means in violation of one of all these; therefore, here too, the verse in Ezekiel: “And has kept all My statutes,” means that in fulfillment of one of all these one merits eternal life.

§ The mishna teaches: If one violated one transgression for which he is liable to receive two death penalties, he is sentenced to the more severe form of execution. Rabbi Yosei says: He is sentenced to the form of execution that he is liable to receive due to the first relationship that came upon him. It is taught in a baraita: How, i.e., in what circumstances, does Rabbi Yosei say that he is sentenced to the first relationship that came upon him? If this woman was a widow or a divorcée when she became his mother-in-law, and then she became a married woman and he engaged in intercourse with her, he is sentenced to execution by burning for engaging in intercourse with his mother-in-law. If before he married her daughter she was a married woman, and then she became his mother-in-law, and he engaged in intercourse with her, he is sentenced to execution by strangulation for engaging in intercourse with a married woman.

Rav Adda bar Ahava said to Rava: If this woman was a widow or a divorcée when she became his mother-in-law, and then she became a married woman and he engaged in intercourse with her, is he sentenced to execution by burning for engaging in intercourse with his mother-in-law?

Why is this the halakha? Let him be sentenced for violating the prohibition of a married woman as well, as Rabbi Abbahu says: Rabbi Yosei concedes in the case of an expanded prohibition. Rabbi Yosei holds that generally, a prohibition does not take effect where another prohibition already exists. Nevertheless, when the second transgression is an expanded prohibition, i.e., one that that incorporates additional people into the list of those for whom the items or individuals are forbidden, Rabbi Yosei concedes that since the second prohibition applies to others, it takes effect concerning the person included in the first prohibition as well. Here too, the prohibition of intercourse with a married woman is expanded, as it applies to everyone and is therefore more comprehensive than the prohibition of intercourse with his mother-in-law, which applies only to her sons-in-law. Therefore, according to Rabbi Yosei, he should be punished also for violating the prohibition of intercourse with a married woman.