Knowingly engaging in forbidden sex incurs the death penalty. But can you engage in two sexual crimes through one act of intercourse? According to today’s daf, the answer is yes. Rav Yehuda describes how this might happen:
A gentile who engages in intercourse with his father is liable for committing two transgressions.
Intercourse between a father and son violates two biblical prohibitions: sex with a parent and homosexual intercourse. A surprising aspect of this teaching is the suggestion that Jewish courts have the authority to impose the death penalty on someone who is not Jewish. Also strange: the notion that non-Jews are responsible for upholding Jewish law. Rava explains:
It stands to reason that the statement of Rav Yehuda is with regard to a Jew who does this unwittingly. And the statement that the person is liable for committing two transgressions concerns their liability to bring an offering. And even though the fact remains that he said gentile, it is a euphemism.
According to Rava, Rav Yehuda isn’t talking about a non-Jew at all. Rather, he is talking about a Jewish man who unwittingly has intercourse with his father. (It’s difficult to imagine how such an accident might come about, but let’s go with it for now.) As Rava sees it, a Jew who engages in this kind of sex unintentionally is not subject to the death penalty (which is reserved for intentional violations) but is liable for sacrificial atonement. In this case, Rav Yehuda rules, because it’s a double transgression, two sacrifices are required.
But if Rav Yehuda was talking about a Jew, why did he explicitly say gentile? According to Rava, Rav Yehuda employed a euphemism to avoid the implication that it is even possible for a Jewish person to intentionally sleep with his father.
The Talmud explains Rava’s logic: If we were to understand Rav Yehuda’s language literally, the non-Jew would be subject to two death penalties, one for each crime. Since it is not possible to put someone to death twice, this teaching serves no practical purpose and Rav Yehuda would not have taught it. Therefore, Rava concludes, Rav Yehuda must be dealing with unintentional crimes, which obligates the offender to bring a sacrifice. Since only Jews can bring sacrifices, Rav Yehuda must be talking about a Jew.
Euphemisms are an established tradition in Hebrew literature. The Bible employs them from time-to-time, from coyly referring to genitals as “feet” to Job’s wife’s famous suggestion that her husband should “bless” (rather than curse) God so that he will die, putting an end to his suffering. Rava’s interpretation of Rav Yehuda’s statement solves the problem of how rabbis would enforce Jewish law for non-Jews — the answer is: they can’t. But the notion that Rav Yehuda points his finger at non-Jews, even euphemistically, is troubling and makes this a difficult passage to read. The rabbis suffered a great deal at the hands of non-Jews, and knew that the outside world did not always adhere to their values. Yet this contempt for non-Jews that sometimes appears in their writings is uncomfortable for us. We’ll address this trope in greater detail in about four months when we study Tractate Avodah Zarah, which deals with idolatry and Jewish relations with non-Jews.
Read all of Sanhedrin 54 on Sefaria.
This piece originally appeared in a My Jewish Learning Daf Yomi email newsletter sent on February 9, 2025. If you are interested in receiving the newsletter, sign up here.
Help us keep Jewish knowledge accessible to millions of people around the world.
Your donation to My Jewish Learning fuels endless journeys of Jewish discovery. With your help, My Jewish Learning can continue to provide nonstop opportunities for learning, connection and growth.
