Actually, Rabbi Eliezer’s statement is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yishmael, and this is what he is saying: The expression: With her father, means under her father’s authority, i.e., she is still betrothed, and she is executed by burning if she commits adultery. And the expression: With her father-in-law, means that after getting married, she engages in intercourse with her father-in-law, and she is therefore executed by stoning. And if she commits adultery with any other man after getting married, she is executed by strangulation, like any other married woman.

Rava says: What is different between the wording of the two clauses of Rabbi Eliezer’s statement that allows for them to be understood differently? Either explain this one and that one literally, i.e., that she engages in intercourse with her father or father-in-law, or explain this one and that one as referring to the authority of the father or father-in-law.

Rather, Rava says: Actually, Rabbi Eliezer’s statement is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Shimon that burning is more severe than stoning, and Rabbi Eliezer holds that the halakha of the married daughter of a priest is comparable to that of the betrothed one. Just as with regard to the betrothed daughter of a priest we raise her punishment by one level vis-à-vis the betrothed daughter of a non-priest, from stoning to burning, so too, with regard to the married daughter of a priest, we raise her punishment by one level vis-à-vis the married daughter of a non-priest, from strangulation to stoning.

Rav Ḥanina objects to this explanation: Doesn’t Rabbi Shimon himself say that both in this case and in that case, i.e., whether she is betrothed or married, the daughter of a priest is executed by burning? His opinion cannot be interpreted contrary to his own statement.

Rather, Ravina says: Actually, Rabbi Eliezer’s statement is in accordance with the opinion of the Rabbis, that the married daughter of a priest is executed by burning and the betrothed daughter of a priest is executed by stoning. And reverse the wording of Rabbi Eliezer’s statement as follows: When she is with her father, i.e., when she is betrothed, she is executed by stoning, and when she is with her father-in-law, i.e., when she is married, she is executed by burning. And the fact that the tanna states the phrase: With her father, instead of simply stating that she is betrothed, is because he was merely drawn to the common usage, i.e., the wording of the verse, and employed it.

Rav Naḥman says that Rabba bar Avuh says that Rav says: The halakha in this matter is in accordance with the explanation that Ravin sent in the name of Rabbi Yosei, son of Rabbi Ḥanina. Rav Yosef said in response: Does one issue a halakha for the messianic period? Since the destruction of the Temple, courts do not have the authority to adjudicate capital cases (see 52b), and this authority will be restored only once the Temple is rebuilt, in the messianic period. Therefore, what is the purpose of stating the halakha in this matter when it is not currently relevant?

Abaye said to him: If that is so, let the tanna not teach all the halakhot of the slaughter of sacrificial animals, i.e., tractate Zevaḥim, as it is entirely a halakha for the messianic period. Rather, one studies these halakhot due to the principle of: Study Torah and receive reward, i.e., one is rewarded for the study of Torah regardless of its practical applicability. Here too, study Torah and receive reward.

Rav Yosef responded: This is what I meant to say: Why do I need the halakha with regard to this subject to be stated? Is a halakha stated in the discussion of Rabbi Eliezer’s statement? The statements of the amora’im are merely explanations of how to understand the wording of Rabbi Eliezer’s statement, but there is no difference between them with regard to the halakha.

§ The Gemara discusses the opinion of Rabbi Yishmael that the betrothed daughter of a priest who committed adultery is executed by burning, whereas the married daughter of a priest who committed adultery is executed by strangulation. What is the source for the opinion of Rabbi Yishmael? It is as it is taught in a baraita: With regard to the verse: “And the daughter of a priest, when she profanes herself by playing the harlot” (Leviticus 21:9), the verse is speaking of a young woman who is betrothed.

Do you say that it is referring only to a young woman who is betrothed, or that it is referring even to a married woman? The verse states: “And a man who commits adultery with another man’s wife, he who commits adultery with his neighbor’s wife, both the adulterer and the adulteress shall be put to death” (Leviticus 20:10). All adulterers were included in the category of: “The adulterer and the adulteress,” and were executed by strangulation, until the verse singled out the betrothed daughter of a non-priest for execution by stoning and the daughter of a priest for execution by burning. It is therefore derived that just as when the verse singles out the daughter of a non-priest for stoning the Torah states that the reference is to a woman who is betrothed and not married, so too, when the verse singles out the daughter of a priest for burning it is referring to a woman who is betrothed and not married.

The baraita continues: The conspiring witnesses concerning the daughter of a priest, and the paramour of the daughter of a priest, are included in the verse: “And you shall do to him as he conspired to do to his brother” (Deuteronomy 19:19).

The Gemara interjects and asks: What reason is there for the punishment of “as he conspired” to be applied with regard to her paramour? Rather, the baraita should be read: Her conspiring witnesses are included in the death penalty of her paramour, i.e., they are executed by strangulation, which they sought to impose upon her paramour. They are not executed by burning, which is the death penalty that they sought to impose upon her.

This is because it is stated: “And you shall do to him as he conspired to do to his brother,” which is interpreted to mean: “To his brother,” but not to his sister. This is the statement of Rabbi Yishmael.

Rabbi Akiva says: Both the betrothed and the married daughter of a priest are singled out for execution by burning. One might have thought that even an unmarried daughter of a priest who engaged in promiscuous intercourse 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: “Her father” (Deuteronomy 22:21). It is derived through a verbal analogy that just as below, 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.

Rabbi Yishmael said to him: If the halakha of a priest’s daughter who committed adultery is compared to the halakha of a betrothed woman who committed adultery, then it can be inferred that just as there the reference is specifically to a young woman who is betrothed, so too here, the reference is to a young woman who is betrothed. This serves as a proof for the opinion of Rabbi Yishmael, which is that only the betrothed daughter of a priest is executed by burning.

Rabbi Akiva said to him: Yishmael, my brother, I derive it from the fact that the verse could have stated: “The daughter of a priest,” but instead states: “And the daughter of a priest,” with the conjunction “and,” that married daughters of priests are also included in this punishment.

Rabbi Yishmael said to him: And because you derive this from the difference between the term “the daughter” and the term “and the daughter,” we should take this married daughter of a priest out to be executed by burning? This derivation of yours is inconsistent, because if the conjunction “and” indicates the inclusion of the married daughter of a priest, then it should include the unmarried daughter of a priest too. And if it indicates the exclusion of an unmarried one, exclude the married one as well.

The Gemara asks: And how would Rabbi Akiva respond? The Gemara answers: According to Rabbi Akiva, the verbal analogy between the halakha of the daughter of a priest and the halakha of a betrothed woman serves to exclude the case of an unmarried daughter of a priest from execution by burning, and the distinction between the terms “the daughter” and “and the daughter” serves to include the case of a married woman.

And Rabbi Yishmael challenged Rabbi Akiva’s opinion because he thought that since Rabbi Akiva had said to him that a married woman is included due to the distinction between “the daughter” and “and the daughter,” it was possible to conclude from it that Rabbi Akiva had retracted his derivation from the verbal analogy, which would have included a married woman, and instead derived the halakha only from the conjunction “and” in the term “and the daughter.” But in fact, Rabbi Akiva combined this derivation with the verbal analogy.

The Gemara asks: And as for Rabbi Yishmael, what does he derive from this distinction between “the daughter” and “and the daughter”? The Gemara answers: He requires it for that which the father of Shmuel bar Avin taught in a baraita: Since we find that the verse differentiates with regard to male priests between unblemished priests and blemished priests, as only unblemished priests may perform the Temple service, one might have thought we should differentiate between their daughters as well, and rule that the daughter of a blemished priest should not be sentenced to execution by burning for adultery. Therefore, instead of stating: “The daughter,” the verse states: “And the daughter,” to include the daughter of a blemished priest.

The Gemara asks: And from where does Rabbi Akiva derive this? The Gemara answers: He derives it from the verse: “They shall be holy to their God, and not profane the name of their God; for the offerings of the Lord, the bread of their Lord, they offer; and they shall be holy” (Leviticus 21:6). From the phrase “And they shall be holy” it is derived that all priests are considered holy, even if they cannot bring offerings in the Temple. Consequently, there is no difference in this regard between the daughter of a blemished priest and the daughter of an unblemished priest.

The Gemara asks: And why does Rabbi Yishmael not derive this halakha from this verse? The Gemara answers: Rabbi Yishmael would say: If it were to be derived from that verse, I would say that this matter applies with regard to the priests themselves, who are considered holy even if they are blemished, but not with regard to their daughters. Therefore, the term “and the daughter” teaches us that the halakha with regard to the daughters of blemished priests is just like the halakha with regard to the daughters of unblemished priests.

The Gemara asks: And as for Rabbi Yishmael,