You must say that the severity of the transgression of the subverter is greater. Since those who subverted the people of an idolatrous city are executed by stoning, this is evidently a more severe type of capital punishment than decapitation. And it is inferred a fortiori that if it is so that concerning strangulation, which is more severe than decapitation by the sword, nevertheless burning is more severe than it, is it not all the more so obvious that burning is more severe than decapitation by the sword, which is a more lenient type of execution compared to strangulation?

Stoning is considered more severe than strangulation, as it is meted out to one who blasphemes and to one who worships idols. And for what reason is the severity of these transgressions considered greater? As we said, it is because the transgressors undermine the fundamental tenets of Judaism.

The Gemara raises an objection: On the contrary; strangulation is more severe, as it is meted out to one who wounds his father or his mother. And for what reason is the severity of this transgression considered greater? Because the honor of one’s parents is compared to the honor of the Omnipresent.

The Gemara answers: Since the Merciful One singles out the case of the betrothed daughter of a non-priest who committed adultery from the category of a married Jewish woman who committed adultery, changing her punishment from execution by strangulation to execution by stoning, conclude from it that stoning is more severe.

Stoning is considered more severe than decapitation by the sword, as it is meted out to one who blasphemes and to one who worships idols. The Gemara raises an objection: On the contrary; decapitation by the sword is more severe, as it is meted out to the people of an idolatrous city. And for what reason is the severity of this case considered greater? Because their property is destroyed as well.

The Gemara answers that in response to this objection you should say: But the severity of which transgression is greater: The severity of the transgression of the subverter, or the severity of the transgression of the subverted? You must say that the severity of the transgression of the subverter is greater. Since those who subverted the people of an idolatrous city are executed by stoning, this punishment is evidently more severe than decapitation. And it is inferred a fortiori that if it is so that concerning strangulation, which is more severe than decapitation by the sword, nevertheless stoning is more severe than it, is it not all the more so obvious that stoning is more severe than decapitation by the sword, which is a more lenient type of execution compared to strangulation?

Strangulation is more severe than decapitation by the sword, as it is meted out to one who wounds his father or his mother. And for what reason is the severity of this transgression considered greater? As we said, because the honor of one’s parents is compared to the honor of the Omnipresent.

The Gemara raises an objection: On the contrary; decapitation by the sword is more severe, as it is meted out to the people of an idolatrous city. And for what reason is the severity of this transgression considered greater? Because their property is destroyed as well.

The Gemara answers that you should say in response to this objection: But the severity of which transgression is greater: The severity of the transgression of the subverter, or the severity of the transgression of the subverted? You must say that the severity of the transgression of the subverter is greater, and it is taught in a baraita: The subverters of an idolatrous city are executed by stoning. Rabbi Shimon says: By strangulation. Therefore, according to the opinion of Rabbi Shimon, it is clear that strangulation is a more severe type of capital punishment than decapitation.

§ Rabbi Yoḥanan was wont to say the following baraita: A betrothed young woman who is the daughter of a priest and who committed adultery is executed by stoning. Rabbi Shimon says: She is executed by burning. A betrothed young woman who is the daughter of a non-priest and who engaged in intercourse with her father is executed by stoning. Rabbi Shimon says: By burning.

The Gemara asks: What does this baraita teach us? The Gemara answers: It teaches us that according to the opinion of the Rabbis, the married daughter of a priest is singled out for burning, and not a betrothed one, who is executed by stoning. According to the opinion of Rabbi Shimon, the daughter of a priest, whether she is betrothed or married, is singled out for burning. And what is the reason for their respective opinions with regard to the punishment of the daughter of a priest? It is because according to the Rabbis stoning is more severe than burning, whereas according to Rabbi Shimon burning is more severe.

In addition to the case of the priest’s daughter who committed adultery, there is a practical difference between these two opinions, which is that one who was sentenced to two different court-imposed death penalties for two sins he committed is punished with the more severe of the two, and these tanna’im disagree as to which type of death penalty is more severe.

What is the source of the opinion of Rabbi Shimon that a priest’s betrothed daughter who committed adultery is executed by stoning? As it is taught in a baraita: Rabbi Shimon says: Two general halakhot are stated in the Torah with regard to the daughter of a priest, one rendering the betrothed daughter of a priest who committed adultery liable to be executed by stoning, and the other rendering the married daughter of a priest who committed adultery liable to be executed by strangulation.

The Gemara interrupts the baraita and asks: Are they stated only with regard to the daughter of a priest, and not with regard to the daughter of a non-priest? Aren’t these halakhot stated with regard to the daughter of a non-priest as well? Rather, emend the text and say: These two halakhot are stated with regard to the daughter of a priest as well.

The baraita continues: The verse: “And the daughter of a priest, when she profanes herself by playing the harlot, she profanes her father; she shall be burned with fire” (Leviticus 21:9), is stated with regard to both a betrothed woman and a married woman. And the verse thereby singles out the married daughter of a priest from the category of an ordinary married woman, whose punishment is execution by strangulation, and it singles out the betrothed daughter of a priest from the category of an ordinary betrothed woman, who is executed by stoning.

Therefore, just as when the verse singles out the married daughter of a priest from the category of a married woman it is to render her punishment more severe, so too, when the verse singles out the betrothed daughter of a priest from the category of a betrothed woman it is to render her punishment more severe. This indicates that burning is a more severe type of capital punishment than stoning.

The punishment for the conspiring witnesses concerning the married daughter of a priest, who testified falsely that she committed adultery, is included in the punishment for the conspiring witnesses concerning the married daughter of a non-priest, and the punishment for the conspiring witnesses concerning the betrothed daughter of a priest is included in the punishment for the conspiring witnesses concerning the betrothed daughter of a non-priest. The Torah is not more severe with them; the conspiring witnesses in the case of any married woman accused of committing adultery are strangled, and the conspiring witnesses in the case of any betrothed woman accused of committing adultery are stoned.

The Sages taught: The verse states: “And the daughter of a priest [ish kohen], when she profanes herself by playing the harlot, she profanes her father; she shall be burned with fire” (Leviticus 21:9). One might have thought that the expression “when she profanes [ki teḥel]” is referring even to one who desecrated [ḥillela] Shabbat; she too should be executed by burning. To counter this, the verse states: “By playing the harlot”; the verse is speaking of profanation through promiscuity.

One might have thought even if she is unmarried and she engaged in promiscuous intercourse she should be executed by burning. This is incorrect, as here it is stated: “Her father,” and there it is stated with regard to a betrothed woman who committed adultery: “Because she has done a depraved thing in Israel, to play the harlot in the house of her father” (Deuteronomy 22:21). Just as there, the reference is to the promiscuous intercourse of one who has a bond to a husband, so too here, the reference is to the promiscuous intercourse of one who has a bond to a husband.

Or perhaps one might have thought that the verse states “her father” only in order to exclude all men except her father, i.e., she is liable to be executed by burning only if she engaged in intercourse with her father. To counter this, when it states “she profanes,” indicating that it is she who profanes her father and not her father who profanes himself and her, all men are stated, i.e., included.

Therefore, how do I realize the meaning of the expression “she profanes her father”? What halakha does it teach? The baraita answers: Here it is stated: “Her father,” and there it is stated: “Her father.” Just as there, the reference is to the promiscuous intercourse of one who has a bond to a husband, so too here, the reference is to the promiscuous intercourse of one who has a bond to a husband.

The baraita asks: If the halakha of the priest’s daughter who committed adultery is compared, by means of a verbal analogy, to the halakha of a betrothed woman who committed adultery, then perhaps one should say that just as there the reference is specifically to a young woman, i.e., to one whose first signs of maturity appeared within the past half year, who is betrothed, so too here, in the case of the daughter of a priest, the reference is to a young woman who is betrothed. But if she is a young woman who is married, or a grown woman who is betrothed, or a grown woman who is married, or even if she grew old, and is not normally referred to as a daughter, from where is it derived that her punishment is execution by burning?

The verse states: “And the daughter of a priest,” in any case. It is derived from the conjunction “and,” represented by the letter vav, that this punishment applies to any woman who is the daughter of a priest.

The verse states: “The daughter of a priest.”