That poor bat Kohen TB Sanhedrin 51

Today’s daf TB Sanhedrin 51 is difficult on many different levels. A bat Kohen is the daughter of a priest. Because her family lineage has a higher level of holiness, she will receive a more severe death penalty for the crime of adultery. An adulterous non-bat Kohen receives the penalty of strangulation (khenek-חֶנֶק) if she is married and stoning (skila-סְקִילָה ) if she is betrothed.

The verse concerning the bat Kohen is ambiguous. “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) Is the daughter of the priest in this verse single, betrothed, or married? The verse is analyzed with gezerot shava to come to the conclusion that the woman in the verse must be a betrothed woman. The Gemara presents a three-way tannaitic makhloket, disagreement.

The sages learn that a betrothed bat Kohen receives the death penalty of stoning and a married bat Kohen receives the death penalty of burning. (serayfa-שְׂרֵיפָה)

Rabbi Shimon learns that both the betrothed bat Kohen and married bat Kohen receive the penalty of burning.

Rabbi Yishmael learns that a betrothed bat Kohen receives the death penalty of burning and a married bat Kohen receives the death penalty of strangulation.

Rabbi Eliezer says a very cryptic statement which needs clarification. “Rabbi Eliezer says: If she is with her father she is executed by burning, and if she is with her father-in-law, she is executed by stoning.” (Sefaria.org translation) The Gemara concludes “Rather, the expression: With her father, means under her father’s authority, i.e., she is still betrothed and not married yet, and the expression: With her father-in-law, means under her father-in-law’s authority, i.e., she is married.” (Sefaria.org translation)

The Gemara wants to know whether Rabbi Eliezer’s opinion is in accordance with the sages, Rabbi Shimon, or Rabbi Yishmael. Five different attempts tried to ascertain which opinion does Rabbi Eliezer is congruent with. “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. (Rabbi Eliezer is in accordance with the sages-gg)”

“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?” (Sefaria.org translation)

After studying this daf, we can identify with Rav Yosef’s point.  This whole sugiya is really irrelevant to our modern lives. Not only has the death penalty been suspended for 2000 years, many of us understand the death penalty as being cruel and unusual and should be banned.

Abaye answers Rav Yosef’s objection. “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.” (Sefaria.org translation) This is one explanation of the phrase Torah leshma-תורה לשמה, Torah for its own sake. No matter what, the study of Torah is always a worthwhile endeavor.