Please ensure Javascript is enabled for purposes of website accessibility Skip to content

Today's Daf Yomi

September 29, 2017 | 讟壮 讘转砖专讬 转砖注状讞

  • This month's learning is sponsored by Joanna Rom and Steven Goldberg in loving memory of Steve's mother Shirley "Nana" Goldberg (Sura Tema bat Chaim v'Hanka)

Sanhedrin 75

Study Guide Sanhedrin 75. Who is liable to get burned?聽 The derivation of all these cases are discussed in the gemara – which are explicit in the Torah and which are derived?

讜讗诐 讗讬转讗 诇讗 诇讬诪讗 诇讬讛 讛讗 讘爪谞注讛 讛讗 讘驻专讛住讬讗

And if it is so that a descendant of Noah is commanded about the sanctification of God鈥檚 name, he should not have said to him: 鈥淕o in peace.鈥 The Gemara answers: This situation, where Elisha permitted Naaman鈥檚 conduct, happened in private. When Naaman bowed down in the house of Rimmon, he did not do so in the presence of ten Jews. Whereas that question that was raised is whether or not a descendant of Noah must sanctify God鈥檚 name in public, in the presence of ten Jews. Consequently, the question remains without a solution.

讗诪专 专讘 讬讛讜讚讛 讗诪专 专讘 诪注砖讛 讘讗讚诐 讗讞讚 砖谞转谉 注讬谞讬讜 讘讗砖讛 讗讞转 讜讛注诇讛 诇讘讜 讟讬谞讗 讜讘讗讜 讜砖讗诇讜 诇专讜驻讗讬诐 讜讗诪专讜 讗讬谉 诇讜 转拽谞讛 注讚 砖转讘注诇 讗诪专讜 讞讻诪讬诐 讬诪讜转 讜讗诇 转讘注诇 诇讜 转注诪讜讚 诇驻谞讬讜 注专讜诪讛 讬诪讜转 讜讗诇 转注诪讜讚 诇驻谞讬讜 注专讜诪讛 转住驻专 注诪讜 诪讗讞讜专讬 讛讙讚专 讬诪讜转 讜诇讗 转住驻专 注诪讜 诪讗讞讜专讬 讛讙讚专

搂 Apropos the discussion of the obligation to allow oneself to be killed rather than engage in forbidden sexual intercourse, the Gemara notes that Rav Yehuda says that Rav says: There was an incident involving a certain man who set his eyes upon a certain woman and passion rose in his heart, to the point that he became deathly ill. And they came and asked doctors what was to be done with him. And the doctors said: He will have no cure until she engages in sexual intercourse with him. The Sages said: Let him die, and she may not engage in sexual intercourse with him. The doctors said: She should at least stand naked before him. The Sages said: Let him die, and she may not stand naked before him. The doctors suggested: The woman should at least converse with him behind a fence in a secluded area, so that he should derive a small amount of pleasure from the encounter. The Sages insisted: Let him die, and she may not converse with him behind a fence.

驻诇讬讙讬 讘讛 专讘讬 讬注拽讘 讘专 讗讬讚讬 讜专讘讬 砖诪讜讗诇 讘专 谞讞诪谞讬 讞讚 讗诪专 讗砖转 讗讬砖 讛讬转讛 讜讞讚 讗诪专 驻谞讜讬讛 讛讬转讛 讘砖诇诪讗 诇诪讗谉 讚讗诪专 讗砖转 讗讬砖 讛讬转讛 砖驻讬专 讗诇讗 诇诪讗谉 讚讗诪专 驻谞讜讬讛 讛讬转讛 诪讗讬 讻讜诇讬 讛讗讬

The Gemara comments: Rabbi Ya鈥檃kov bar Idi and Rabbi Shmuel bar Na岣ani disagree about this issue. One of them says: The woman in question was a married woman, and the other one says: She was unmarried. The Gemara tries to clarify the issue: Granted, according to the one who says that she was a married woman, the matter is properly understood. Since the case involved a severely prohibited forbidden relationship, the Sages did not allow any activity hinting at intimacy. But according to the one who says that she was unmarried, what is the reason for all this opposition? Why did the Sages say that the man must be allowed to die, rather than have the woman do as was requested?

专讘 驻驻讗 讗诪专 诪砖讜诐 驻讙诐 诪砖驻讞讛 专讘 讗讞讗 讘专讬讛 讚专讘 讗讬拽讗 讗诪专 讻讚讬 砖诇讗 讬讛讜 讘谞讜转 讬砖专讗诇 驻专讜爪讜转 讘注专讬讜转

Rav Pappa says: This is due to the potential family flaw, i.e., harm to the family name, as it is not permitted to bring disgrace to the entire family in order to save the lovesick man. Rav A岣, son of Rav Ika, says: This is so that the daughters of Israel should not be promiscuous with regard to forbidden sexual relations. Were they to listen to the doctors鈥 recommendations, Jewish women might lose moral restraint.

讜诇讬谞住讘讛 诪讬谞住讘 诇讗 诪讬讬转讘讛 讚注转讬讛 讻讚专讘讬 讬爪讞拽 讚讗诪专 专讘讬 讬爪讞拽 诪讬讜诐 砖讞专讘 讘讬转 讛诪拽讚砖 谞讬讟诇讛 讟注诐 讘讬讗讛 讜谞讬转谞讛 诇注讜讘专讬 注讘讬专讛 砖谞讗诪专 诪讬诐 讙谞讜讘讬诐 讬诪转拽讜 讜诇讞诐 住转专讬诐 讬谞注诐

The Gemara asks: But if the woman was unmarried, let the man marry her. The Gemara answers: His mind would not have been eased by marriage, in accordance with the statement of Rabbi Yitz岣k. As Rabbi Yitz岣k says: Since the day the Temple was destroyed, sexual pleasure was taken away from those who engage in permitted intercourse and given to transgressors, as it is stated: 鈥淪tolen waters are sweet, and bread eaten in secret is pleasant鈥 (Proverbs 9:17). Therefore, the man could have been cured only by engaging in illicit sexual interaction.

讛讚专谉 注诇讱 讘谉 住讜专专 讜诪讜专讛

 

诪转谞讬壮 讜讗诇讜 讛谉 讛谞砖专驻讬谉 讛讘讗 注诇 讗砖讛 讜讘转讛 讜讘转 讻讛谉 砖讝谞转讛

MISHNA: And these are the transgressors who are burned in the implementation of the court-imposed death penalty: One who engaged in intercourse with a woman and her daughter, and one who is the daughter of a priest and who committed adultery.

讬砖 讘讻诇诇 讗砖讛 讜讘转讛 讘转讜 讜讘转 讘转讜 讜讘转 讘谞讜 讜讘转 讗砖转讜 讜讘转 讘转讛 讜讘转 讘谞讛 讞诪讜转讜 讜讗诐 讞诪讜转讜 讜讗诐 讞诪讬讜

Included in the category of the prohibition of engaging in intercourse with a woman and her daughter and the resulting execution by burning, there are: His daughter, and the daughter of his daughter, and the daughter of his son. Likewise, the following are also included in this category: Intercourse with the daughter of his wife, even though she is not his daughter, and the daughter of her daughter, and the daughter of her son, as well as intercourse with his mother-in-law, and the mother of his mother-in-law, and the mother of his father-in-law. The prohibition and punishment apply both in cases where a man marries a woman and then engages in intercourse with her daughter, and in cases where a man marries a woman and then engages in intercourse with her mother.

讙诪壮 讛讘讗 注诇 讗砖讛 砖谞砖讗 讘转讛 诇讗 拽转谞讬 讗诇讗 讛讘讗 注诇 讗砖讛 讜讘转讛 诪讻诇诇 讚转专讜讬讬讛讜 诇讗讬住讜专讗 讜诪讗谉 谞讬谞讛讜 讞诪讜转讜 讜讗诐 讞诪讜转讜

GEMARA: The tanna does not teach the case of one who engaged in intercourse with a woman whose daughter he previously married. Rather, the tanna teaches the case of one who engaged in intercourse with a woman and her daughter. By inference, one may conclude that both the woman and her daughter are mentioned in the mishna for the purpose of establishing that there is a prohibition of intercourse with either of them, and when he engages in intercourse with the first of them he is liable to be executed. And who are these women? The reference is to his mother-in-law and the mother of his mother-in-law.

讜拽转谞讬 讬砖 讘讻诇诇 讗砖讛 讜讘转讛 诪讻诇诇 讚转专讜讬讬讛讜 讻转讬讘讬 讘讛讚讬讗 讜讛谞讱 诪讚专砖讗 讗转讬讗

And the tanna teaches: Additional women are included in the category of the prohibition of and the punishment for engaging in intercourse with a woman and her daughter. By inference, one may conclude that with regard to both his mother-in-law and the mother of his mother-in-law, the prohibition and punishment are written explicitly in the Torah, and with regard to those additional women enumerated in the mishna, the prohibition and punishment are derived by means of interpretation.

讛谞讬讞讗 诇讗讘讬讬 讚讗诪专 诪砖诪注讜转 讚讜专砖讬谉 讗讬讻讗 讘讬谞讬讬讛讜 诪转谞讬转讬谉 诪谞讬 专讘讬 注拽讬讘讗 讛讬讗

The Gemara comments: This works out well according to Abaye, who says that with regard to the dispute between Rabbi Yishmael and Rabbi Akiva cited later in the Gemara (76b), the difference between their opinions is only concerning the interpretation of the meaning of the verse, but there is no practical difference between their opinions. According to Abaye, whose opinion is expressed in the mishna? It is the opinion of Rabbi Akiva. Abaye explains that Rabbi Akiva maintains that the prohibition of engaging in intercourse with the mother of one鈥檚 mother-in-law is stated explicitly in the Torah.

讗诇讗 诇专讘讗 讚讗诪专 讞诪讜转讜 诇讗讞专 诪讬转讛 讗讬讻讗 讘讬谞讬讬讛讜 诪转谞讬转讬谉 诪谞讬 讗诪专 诇讱 专讘讗 转谞讬 讛讘讗 注诇 讗砖讛 砖谞砖讗 讘转讛

But according to Rava, who says that the difference between their opinions is with regard to the prohibition of engaging in intercourse with one鈥檚 mother-in-law after the death of his wife, whose opinion is expressed in the mishna? The opinion of the tanna of the mishna corresponds neither to the opinion of Rabbi Akiva nor to the opinion of Rabbi Yishmael, as they both maintain that the prohibition of engaging in intercourse with the mother of one鈥檚 mother-in-law is not stated explicitly in the Torah. The Gemara answers: Rava could say to you: Emend the mishna and teach: One who engaged in intercourse with a woman whose daughter he previously married.

讬砖 讘讻诇诇 讗砖讛 讜讘转讛 讞诪讜转讜 讜讗诐 讞诪讜转讜 讜讗诐 讞诪讬讜 诇讗讘讬讬 讗讬讬讚讬 讚拽讗 讘注讬 诇诪讬转谞讗 讗诐 讞诪讬讜 转谞讬 谞诪讬 讞诪讜转讜 讜讗诐 讞诪讜转讜

The mishna teaches: Included in the category of the prohibition of engaging in intercourse with a woman and her daughter and the resulting execution by burning, there are: His mother-in-law, and the mother of his mother-in-law, and the mother of his father-in-law. The Gemara comments: Abaye holds that everyone agrees that the prohibition of engaging in intercourse with one鈥檚 mother-in-law is stated explicitly in the Torah, and the tanna enumerates his mother-in-law together with relatives concerning whom the prohibition is derived by means of interpretation. Therefore, according to Abaye, since the tanna seeks to teach that the mother of his father-in-law is included in the prohibition, he teaches the halakha of his mother-in-law and the mother of his mother-in-law as well, despite the fact the prohibition of engaging in intercourse with one鈥檚 mother-in-law is stated explicitly in the Torah.

诇专讘讗 讗讬讬讚讬 讚拽讗 讘注讬 诇诪讬转谞讗 讗诐 讞诪讬讜 讜讗诐 讞诪讜转讜 转谞讬 谞诪讬 讞诪讜转讜

By contrast, Rava holds that the woman and her daughter mentioned in the first clause of the mishna are his wife and his mother-in-law. Therefore, according to Rava, since the tanna seeks to teach that the mother of his father-in-law and the mother of his mother-in-law are included in the prohibition, he teaches the halakha of his mother-in-law in the latter clause as well, despite the fact that it is stated explicitly in the Torah.

诪谞讛谞讬 诪讬诇讬 讚转谞讜 专讘谞谉 壮讗讬砖 讗砖专 讬拽讞 讗转 讗砖讛 讜讗转 讗诪讛壮 讗讬谉 诇讬 讗诇讗 讗砖讛 讜讗诪讛 讘转 讗砖讛 讜讘转 讘转讛 讜讘转 讘谞讛 诪谞讬谉

搂 The mishna enumerates several women with whom intercourse is forbidden who are included in the prohibition of engaging in intercourse with a woman and her daughter, which is punished by execution by burning. The Gemara asks: From where are these matters derived? They are derived as the Sages taught: 鈥淎nd if a man takes a woman and her mother, it is lewdness; they shall be burned with fire both him and them, and there shall be no lewdness among you鈥 (Leviticus 20:14). I have derived only that this punishment applies to one who engages in intercourse with a woman and with her mother. From where is it derived that one who engages in intercourse with the daughter of the woman married to him, or with the daughter of her daughter, or with the daughter of her son, is also liable to be executed by burning?

谞讗诪专 讻讗谉 壮讝诪讛壮 讜谞讗诪专 诇讛诇谉 壮讝诪讛壮 诪讛 诇讛诇谉 讘转讛 讜讘转 讘转讛 讜讘转 讘谞讛 讗祝 讻讗谉 讘转讛 讜讘转 讘转讛 讜讘转 讘谞讛

The baraita continues: Lewdness is stated here, with regard to the punishment: 鈥淭here shall be no lewdness among you鈥 (Leviticus 20:14), and lewdness is stated there, with regard to the prohibition: 鈥淵ou shall not uncover the nakedness of a woman and her daughter; you shall not take her son鈥檚 daughter, or her daughter鈥檚 daughter, to uncover her nakedness; they are near kinswomen, it is lewdness鈥 (Leviticus 18:17). It is derived by means of a verbal analogy that just as there the prohibition applies to the woman鈥檚 daughter, and the daughter of her daughter, and the daughter of her son, so too here, the punishment of burning applies to one who engages in intercourse with the woman鈥檚 daughter, and to the daughter of her daughter, and to the daughter of her son.

诪谞讬谉 诇注砖讜转 讝讻专讬诐 讻谞拽讘讜转 谞讗诪专 讻讗谉 壮讝诪讛壮 讜谞讗诪专 诇讛诇谉 壮讝诪讛壮 诪讛 诇讛诇谉 讝讻专讬诐 讻谞拽讘讜转 讗祝 讻讗谉 讝讻专讬诐 讻谞拽讘讜转

The baraita continues: From where is it derived to render the status of males like that of females with regard to this punishment? Lewdness is stated here and lewdness is stated there. Just as there, the Torah renders the status of males like that of female relatives, so too here, the Torah renders the status of males like that of females.

诪谞讬谉 诇注砖讜转 诇诪讟讛 讻诇诪注诇讛 谞讗诪专 讻讗谉 壮讝诪讛壮 讜谞讗诪专 诇讛诇谉 壮讝诪讛壮 诪讛 诇讛诇谉 诇诪讟讛 讻诇诪注诇讛 讗祝 讻讗谉 诇诪讟讛 讻诇诪注诇讛 讜诪讛 讻讗谉 诇诪注诇讛 讻诇诪讟讛 讗祝 诇讛诇谉 诇诪注诇讛 讻诇诪讟讛

From where is it derived to render the status of relatives below like the status of relatives above? Lewdness is stated here and lewdness is stated there. Just as there, the Torah renders the status of relatives below like that of relatives above, so too here, the Torah renders the status of relatives below like that of relatives above. And just as here, the Torah renders the status of relatives above like that of relatives below, so too there, the Torah renders the status of relatives above like that of relatives below.

讗诪专 诪专 诪谞讬谉 诇注砖讜转 讝讻专讬诐 讻谞拽讘讜转 诪讗讬 讝讻专讬诐 讻谞拽讘讜转 讗讬诇讬诪讗 讘转 讘谞讛 讻讘转 讘转讛 讘讛讚讬 讛讚讚讬 拽讗转讬讗谉

The Gemara proceeds to elaborate on the derivations cited in the baraita. The Master says: From where is it derived to render the status of males like that of females? The Gemara asks: What is the meaning of: The status of males like that of females? If we say that it means that one who engages in intercourse with the daughter of the son of his wife is executed by burning like one who engages in intercourse with the daughter of her daughter, the status of the daughter of her son and the daughter of her daughter are derived together in the first clause of the baraita, as both are written explicitly in the prohibition.

讗诇讗 讗诐 讞诪讬讜 讻讗诐 讞诪讜转讜 讛砖转讗 讗诐 讞诪讜转讜 诇讗 拽诪讛 诇谉 讗诐 讞诪讬讜 诪讬讛讚专 注诇讛

Rather, this clause in the baraita means that one who engages in intercourse with the mother of his father-in-law is executed by burning like one who engages in intercourse with the mother of his mother-in-law. The Gemara asks: Now, we have not yet established the halakha of one who engages in intercourse with the mother of his mother-in-law, and the baraita is seeking to derive the halakha of one who engages in intercourse with the mother of his father-in-law from the halakha of the mother of his mother-in-law?

讗诪专 讗讘讬讬 讛讻讬 拽讗诪专 诪谞讬谉 诇注砖讜转 砖讗专 讛讘讗 诪诪谞讜 讻砖讗专 讛讘讗 诪诪谞讛 谞讗诪专 讻讗谉 讝诪讛 讜谞讗诪专 诇讛诇谉 讝诪讛 讜讻讜壮 讜讛讗 讘砖讗专 讚讬讚讬讛 诇讗 讻转讬讘讗 讘讬讛 讝诪讛

Abaye says: This is what the baraita is saying. From where is it derived to render a relative who comes from his family, e.g., the daughter of his daughter and the daughter of his son, like a relative who comes from her family, e.g., the daughter of his wife and the daughter of his wife鈥檚 daughter? Lewdness is stated here and lewdness is stated there. Just as there, the Torah renders the status of male relatives like that of female relatives, so too here, the Torah renders the status of males like that of females. The Gemara asks: But isn鈥檛 it so that with regard to a relative from his family the term lewdness is not written, as the verse states: 鈥淭he nakedness of your son鈥檚 daughter, or of your daughter鈥檚 daughter, their nakedness you shall not expose; for theirs is your own nakedness鈥 (Leviticus 18:10)?

讗诪专 专讘讗 讗诪专 诇讬 专讘 讬爪讞拽 讘专 讗讘讜讚讬诪讬 讗转讬讗 讛谞讛 讛谞讛 讗转讬讗 讝诪讛 讝诪讛

Rava says: Rav Yitz岣k bar Avudimi said to me: The equation of his relative to her relative is derived by means of a verbal analogy between the word henna written with regard to his relative: 鈥淭he nakedness of your son鈥檚 daughter, or of your daughter鈥檚 daughter, their nakedness you shall not expose; for theirs [henna] is your own nakedness鈥 (Leviticus 18:10), and the word henna written with regard to her relative: 鈥淵ou shall not uncover the nakedness of a woman and her daughter; you shall not take her son鈥檚 daughter, or her daughter鈥檚 daughter, to uncover her nakedness; they [henna] are near kinswomen; it is lewdness鈥 (Leviticus 18:17). Additionally, it is derived from a verbal analogy between the word 鈥渓ewdness鈥 (Leviticus 18:17) and the word 鈥渓ewdness鈥 in the verse: 鈥淎nd if a man takes a woman and her mother, it is lewdness; they shall be burned with fire both him and them, and there shall be no lewdness among you鈥 (Leviticus 20:14).

讗诪专 诪专 诪谞讬谉 诇注砖讜转 诇诪讟讛 讻诇诪注诇讛 诪讗讬 诇诪讟讛 讻诇诪注诇讛 讗讬诇讬诪讗 讘转 讘谞讛 讜讘转 讘转讛 讻讘转讛 讘讛讚讬 讛讚讚讬 拽讗转讬讬谉

The Master says: From where is it derived to render the status of a relative below like the status of a relative above? The Gemara asks: What is the meaning of: The status of a relative below like the status of a relative above? If we say this means that the status of second-generation relative, i.e., the daughter of the son of his wife and the daughter of her daughter is like the status of first-generation relative, i.e., her daughter, this is difficult, as they are derived together, as all of them are mentioned in the same verse (see Leviticus 18:17).

讗诇讗 讗诐 讞诪讬讜 讜讗诐 讞诪讜转讜 讻讞诪讜转讜 讛讗讬 诇诪讟讛 讻诇诪注诇讛 诇诪注诇讛 讻诇诪讟讛 讛讜讗讬 转谞讬 诇诪注诇讛 讻诇诪讟讛

Rather, it means that the status of the mother of his father-in-law and the mother of his mother-in-law is like that of his mother-in-law. The Gemara challenges: If so, is this an example of: A relative below is like the status of a relative above? On the contrary, it is an example of: A relative above is like the status of a relative below. The Gemara responds: Emend the baraita and teach: The status of a relative from the generation above is like the status of a relative from the generation below them.

讗讬 讛讻讬 谞讗诪专 讻讗谉 壮讝诪讛壮 讜谞讗诪专 诇讛诇谉 壮讝诪讛壮 讜诪讛 讛砖转讗 讗讬谞讛讬 诇讗 讻转讬讘讗 讝诪讛 讚讬讚讛讜 讻转讬讘讗

The Gemara asks: If so, as for the continuation of the baraita: Lewdness is stated here, with regard to the prohibition, and lewdness is stated there, with regard to the punishment, now, if the mother of his father-in-law and the mother of his mother-in-law are not written in the Torah and are derived through interpretation, is the term lewdness written concerning them?

讗诪专 讗讘讬讬 讛讻讬 拽讗诪专 诪谞讬谉 诇注砖讜转 砖诇砖讛 讚讜专讜转 诇诪注诇讛 讻砖诇砖讛 讚讜专讜转 诇诪讟讛 谞讗诪专 诇诪讟讛 讝诪讛 讜谞讗诪专 诇诪注诇讛 讝诪讛 诪讛 诇诪讟讛 砖诇砖讛 讚讜专讜转 讗祝 诇诪注诇讛 砖诇砖讛 讚讜专讜转

Abaye says: This is what the baraita is saying: From where is it derived to render the status of a relative for three generations above, his wife, his mother-in-law, and the mother of his mother-in-law, like the status of a relative for three generations below, his wife, his daughter, and the daughter of his daughter? Lewdness is stated with regard to relatives below, the offspring of his wife (Leviticus 18:17), and lewdness is stated with regard to relatives above, the ancestors of his wife (Leviticus 20:14). Just as with regard to relatives below, one is liable for engaging in intercourse with three generations of women, so too with regard to relatives above, one is liable for engaging in intercourse with three generations of women.

讜诪讛 讘注讜谞砖 注砖讛 诇诪讟讛 讻诇诪注诇讛 讗祝 讘讗讝讛专讛 谞诪讬 注砖讛 诇诪注诇讛 讻诇诪讟讛

And just as with regard to punishment, the verse rendered the status of relatives below like that of relatives above, so too, with regard to the prohibition, the verse rendered the status of relatives above like that of relatives below.

专讘 讗砖讬 讗诪专 诇注讜诇诐 讻讚拽转谞讬 讜诪讗讬 诇诪讟讛 诇诪讟讛 讘讗讬住讜专

Rav Ashi says: Actually, it is not necessary to emend the baraita, and the baraita may be interpreted as it is taught. And what is the meaning of the term below? The reference is to below in terms of the prohibition, i.e., below refers to more distant relatives, e.g., the mother of his mother-in-law, with regard to whom the prohibition is less severe, and above refers to closer relatives, e.g., his mother-in-law, with regard to whom the prohibition is more severe.

讗讬 诪讛 讛讬讗 讗诐 讗诪讛 讗住讜专讛 讗祝 讛讜讗 讗诐 讗诪讜 讗住讜专讛

Based on that interpretation of the baraita, the Gemara asks: If so, why not say: Just as the mother of the mother of his wife is forbidden to him, so too the mother of his mother is forbidden to him, and say that he would be liable to be executed by burning?

讗诪专 讗讘讬讬 讗诪专 拽专讗 讗诪讱 讛讬讗 诪砖讜诐 讗诪讜 讗转讛 诪讞讬讬讘讜 讜讗讬 讗转讛 诪讞讬讬讘讜 诪砖讜诐 讗诐 讗诪讜

Abaye says that it is not possible that one is liable to be burned for engaging in intercourse with the mother of his mother, as the verse states: 鈥淭he nakedness of your father and the nakedness of your mother you shall not expose; she is your mother, you shall not expose her nakedness鈥 (Leviticus 18:7). Infer from this: Due to his intercourse with his mother you deem him liable to be executed, but you do not deem him liable to be executed due to his intercourse with the mother of his mother.

专讘讗 讗诪专 讘讬谉 诇诪讗谉 讚讗诪专 讚讜谉 诪讬谞讛 讜诪讬谞讛 讜讘讬谉 诇诪讗谉 讚讗诪专 讚讜谉 诪讬谞讛 讜讗讜拽讬 讘讗转专讛 诇讗 讗转讬讗

Rava says: Both according to the one who says with regard to the method of derivation by means of a verbal analogy: Infer the halakha from it, i.e., from the source of the verbal analogy, and derive the details from it, i.e., from that source, and according to the one who says: Infer the halakha from it but interpret the halakha according to its own place, i.e., the derived halakha is subject to the principles that govern that which is derived by means of the verbal analogy, it is not derived that one is liable to be burned for engaging in intercourse with the mother of his mother.

诇诪讗谉 讚讗诪专 讚讜谉 诪讬谞讛 讜诪讬谞讛 诪讛 讛讬讗 讗诐 讗诪讛 讗住讜专讛 讗祝 讛讜讗 谞诪讬 讗诐 讗诪讜 讗住讜专讛 讜诪讬谞讛 诪讛 讛讬讗 讘砖专讬驻讛 讗祝 讛讜讗 谞诪讬 讘砖专讬驻讛

The Gemara elaborates: According to the one who says: Infer the halakha from it and derive the details from it, one might infer: Just as with regard to relatives of his wife, the mother of her mother is forbidden to him, so too with regard to his relatives, the mother of his mother is forbidden to him. And derive again from it: Just as with regard to relatives of his wife, he is liable to be executed by burning due to his intercourse with the mother of her mother, so too with regard to his relatives, he is also liable to be executed by burning due to his intercourse with the mother of his mother.

诇诪讗谉 讚讗诪专 砖专讬驻讛 讞诪讜专讛 讗讬讻讗 诇诪讬驻专讱 诪讛 诇讛讬讗 砖讻谉 讗诪讛 讘砖专讬驻讛 转讗诪专 讘讛讜讗 砖讗诪讜 讘住拽讬诇讛

The Gemara proceeds to explain why one cannot derive that one is liable to be burned for engaging in intercourse with the mother of his mother. According to the one who says: Execution by burning is more severe than execution by stoning, the inference from the halakha of relatives of his wife can be refuted as follows: What is notable about her relatives, where he is liable to be burned for engaging in intercourse with the mother of her mother? They are notable in that one who engages in intercourse with the mother of his wife is liable to be executed by the more severe punishment of burning, not the less severe, more common, punishment of stoning. Will you then say that the same halakha should apply with regard to his relatives, where one who engages in intercourse with his mother is liable to be executed by the less severe punishment of stoning?

讜注讜讚 讗诪讜 讘住拽讬诇讛 讗诐 讗诪讜 讘砖专讬驻讛

And furthermore, as one who engages in intercourse with his mother is executed by the less severe punishment of stoning, is it possible that one who engages in intercourse with the mother of his mother, a more distant relative, is executed by the more severe punishment of burning?

讜注讜讚 诪讛 讛讬讗 诇讗 讞诇拽转 讘讛 讘讬谉 讗诪讛 诇讗诐 讗诪讛 讗祝 讛讜讗 谞诪讬 诇讗 转讞诇讜拽 讘讜 讘讬谉 讗诪讜 诇讗诐 讗诪讜

And furthermore, just as with regard to her relatives, you did not distinguish between her mother and the mother of her mother, and one who engages in intercourse with either is executed by burning, so too with regard to his relatives, you should not distinguish between his mother and the mother of his mother. Since one who engages in intercourse with his mother is punished by stoning, not burning, it follows that one who engages in intercourse with the mother of his mother is punished by stoning, not burning.

讜诇诪讗谉 讚讗诪专 住拽讬诇讛 讞诪讜专讛 诪讛讗讬 拽讜砖讬讗 诇讗 谞讬讚讜谞讛

And according to the one who says that stoning is more severe than burning, although the first two refutations of the derivation, based on the fact that execution by burning is more severe, are not relevant, due to this third difficulty, this halakha is not derived. Just as with regard to her relatives, you did not distinguish between her mother and the mother of her mother, so too with regard to his relatives, you should not distinguish between his mother and the mother of his mother.

讜诇诪讗谉 讚讗诪专 讚讜谉 诪讬谞讛 讜讗讜拽讬 讘讗转专讛 诪讛 讛讬讗 讗诐 讗诪讛 讗住讜专讛 讗祝 讛讜讗 谞诪讬 讗诐 讗诪讜 讗住讜专讛 讜讗讜拽讬 讘讗转专讛 讛转诐 讛讜讗 讚讘砖专讬驻讛 讗讘诇 讛讻讗 讘住拽讬诇讛 讻讚讗砖讻讞谉 讘讗诪讜

And according to the one who says: Infer the halakha from it but interpret the halakha according to its own place, one might infer: Just as with regard to relatives of his wife, the mother of her mother is forbidden to him, so too with regard to his relatives, the mother of his mother is forbidden to him. And interpret the halakha according to its own place: It is there, with regard to the relatives of his wife, that one who engages in intercourse with the mother of her mother is executed by burning; but here, with regard to his relatives, one who engages in intercourse with the mother of his mother is executed by stoning, as we found that this is the punishment with regard to one who engages in intercourse with his mother.

诇诪讗谉 讚讗诪专 砖专讬驻讛 讞诪讜专讛 讗讬讻讗 诇诪讬驻专讱

The Gemara explains why the derivation with regard to the prohibition is not valid. According to the one who says that execution by burning is more severe than execution by stoning, the derivation can be refuted:

  • This month's learning is sponsored by Joanna Rom and Steven Goldberg in loving memory of Steve's mother Shirley "Nana" Goldberg (Sura Tema bat Chaim v'Hanka)

Want to explore more about the Daf?

See insights from our partners, contributors and community of women learners

Sorry, there aren't any posts in this category yet. We're adding more soon!

Sanhedrin 75

The William Davidson Talmud | Powered by Sefaria

Sanhedrin 75

讜讗诐 讗讬转讗 诇讗 诇讬诪讗 诇讬讛 讛讗 讘爪谞注讛 讛讗 讘驻专讛住讬讗

And if it is so that a descendant of Noah is commanded about the sanctification of God鈥檚 name, he should not have said to him: 鈥淕o in peace.鈥 The Gemara answers: This situation, where Elisha permitted Naaman鈥檚 conduct, happened in private. When Naaman bowed down in the house of Rimmon, he did not do so in the presence of ten Jews. Whereas that question that was raised is whether or not a descendant of Noah must sanctify God鈥檚 name in public, in the presence of ten Jews. Consequently, the question remains without a solution.

讗诪专 专讘 讬讛讜讚讛 讗诪专 专讘 诪注砖讛 讘讗讚诐 讗讞讚 砖谞转谉 注讬谞讬讜 讘讗砖讛 讗讞转 讜讛注诇讛 诇讘讜 讟讬谞讗 讜讘讗讜 讜砖讗诇讜 诇专讜驻讗讬诐 讜讗诪专讜 讗讬谉 诇讜 转拽谞讛 注讚 砖转讘注诇 讗诪专讜 讞讻诪讬诐 讬诪讜转 讜讗诇 转讘注诇 诇讜 转注诪讜讚 诇驻谞讬讜 注专讜诪讛 讬诪讜转 讜讗诇 转注诪讜讚 诇驻谞讬讜 注专讜诪讛 转住驻专 注诪讜 诪讗讞讜专讬 讛讙讚专 讬诪讜转 讜诇讗 转住驻专 注诪讜 诪讗讞讜专讬 讛讙讚专

搂 Apropos the discussion of the obligation to allow oneself to be killed rather than engage in forbidden sexual intercourse, the Gemara notes that Rav Yehuda says that Rav says: There was an incident involving a certain man who set his eyes upon a certain woman and passion rose in his heart, to the point that he became deathly ill. And they came and asked doctors what was to be done with him. And the doctors said: He will have no cure until she engages in sexual intercourse with him. The Sages said: Let him die, and she may not engage in sexual intercourse with him. The doctors said: She should at least stand naked before him. The Sages said: Let him die, and she may not stand naked before him. The doctors suggested: The woman should at least converse with him behind a fence in a secluded area, so that he should derive a small amount of pleasure from the encounter. The Sages insisted: Let him die, and she may not converse with him behind a fence.

驻诇讬讙讬 讘讛 专讘讬 讬注拽讘 讘专 讗讬讚讬 讜专讘讬 砖诪讜讗诇 讘专 谞讞诪谞讬 讞讚 讗诪专 讗砖转 讗讬砖 讛讬转讛 讜讞讚 讗诪专 驻谞讜讬讛 讛讬转讛 讘砖诇诪讗 诇诪讗谉 讚讗诪专 讗砖转 讗讬砖 讛讬转讛 砖驻讬专 讗诇讗 诇诪讗谉 讚讗诪专 驻谞讜讬讛 讛讬转讛 诪讗讬 讻讜诇讬 讛讗讬

The Gemara comments: Rabbi Ya鈥檃kov bar Idi and Rabbi Shmuel bar Na岣ani disagree about this issue. One of them says: The woman in question was a married woman, and the other one says: She was unmarried. The Gemara tries to clarify the issue: Granted, according to the one who says that she was a married woman, the matter is properly understood. Since the case involved a severely prohibited forbidden relationship, the Sages did not allow any activity hinting at intimacy. But according to the one who says that she was unmarried, what is the reason for all this opposition? Why did the Sages say that the man must be allowed to die, rather than have the woman do as was requested?

专讘 驻驻讗 讗诪专 诪砖讜诐 驻讙诐 诪砖驻讞讛 专讘 讗讞讗 讘专讬讛 讚专讘 讗讬拽讗 讗诪专 讻讚讬 砖诇讗 讬讛讜 讘谞讜转 讬砖专讗诇 驻专讜爪讜转 讘注专讬讜转

Rav Pappa says: This is due to the potential family flaw, i.e., harm to the family name, as it is not permitted to bring disgrace to the entire family in order to save the lovesick man. Rav A岣, son of Rav Ika, says: This is so that the daughters of Israel should not be promiscuous with regard to forbidden sexual relations. Were they to listen to the doctors鈥 recommendations, Jewish women might lose moral restraint.

讜诇讬谞住讘讛 诪讬谞住讘 诇讗 诪讬讬转讘讛 讚注转讬讛 讻讚专讘讬 讬爪讞拽 讚讗诪专 专讘讬 讬爪讞拽 诪讬讜诐 砖讞专讘 讘讬转 讛诪拽讚砖 谞讬讟诇讛 讟注诐 讘讬讗讛 讜谞讬转谞讛 诇注讜讘专讬 注讘讬专讛 砖谞讗诪专 诪讬诐 讙谞讜讘讬诐 讬诪转拽讜 讜诇讞诐 住转专讬诐 讬谞注诐

The Gemara asks: But if the woman was unmarried, let the man marry her. The Gemara answers: His mind would not have been eased by marriage, in accordance with the statement of Rabbi Yitz岣k. As Rabbi Yitz岣k says: Since the day the Temple was destroyed, sexual pleasure was taken away from those who engage in permitted intercourse and given to transgressors, as it is stated: 鈥淪tolen waters are sweet, and bread eaten in secret is pleasant鈥 (Proverbs 9:17). Therefore, the man could have been cured only by engaging in illicit sexual interaction.

讛讚专谉 注诇讱 讘谉 住讜专专 讜诪讜专讛

 

诪转谞讬壮 讜讗诇讜 讛谉 讛谞砖专驻讬谉 讛讘讗 注诇 讗砖讛 讜讘转讛 讜讘转 讻讛谉 砖讝谞转讛

MISHNA: And these are the transgressors who are burned in the implementation of the court-imposed death penalty: One who engaged in intercourse with a woman and her daughter, and one who is the daughter of a priest and who committed adultery.

讬砖 讘讻诇诇 讗砖讛 讜讘转讛 讘转讜 讜讘转 讘转讜 讜讘转 讘谞讜 讜讘转 讗砖转讜 讜讘转 讘转讛 讜讘转 讘谞讛 讞诪讜转讜 讜讗诐 讞诪讜转讜 讜讗诐 讞诪讬讜

Included in the category of the prohibition of engaging in intercourse with a woman and her daughter and the resulting execution by burning, there are: His daughter, and the daughter of his daughter, and the daughter of his son. Likewise, the following are also included in this category: Intercourse with the daughter of his wife, even though she is not his daughter, and the daughter of her daughter, and the daughter of her son, as well as intercourse with his mother-in-law, and the mother of his mother-in-law, and the mother of his father-in-law. The prohibition and punishment apply both in cases where a man marries a woman and then engages in intercourse with her daughter, and in cases where a man marries a woman and then engages in intercourse with her mother.

讙诪壮 讛讘讗 注诇 讗砖讛 砖谞砖讗 讘转讛 诇讗 拽转谞讬 讗诇讗 讛讘讗 注诇 讗砖讛 讜讘转讛 诪讻诇诇 讚转专讜讬讬讛讜 诇讗讬住讜专讗 讜诪讗谉 谞讬谞讛讜 讞诪讜转讜 讜讗诐 讞诪讜转讜

GEMARA: The tanna does not teach the case of one who engaged in intercourse with a woman whose daughter he previously married. Rather, the tanna teaches the case of one who engaged in intercourse with a woman and her daughter. By inference, one may conclude that both the woman and her daughter are mentioned in the mishna for the purpose of establishing that there is a prohibition of intercourse with either of them, and when he engages in intercourse with the first of them he is liable to be executed. And who are these women? The reference is to his mother-in-law and the mother of his mother-in-law.

讜拽转谞讬 讬砖 讘讻诇诇 讗砖讛 讜讘转讛 诪讻诇诇 讚转专讜讬讬讛讜 讻转讬讘讬 讘讛讚讬讗 讜讛谞讱 诪讚专砖讗 讗转讬讗

And the tanna teaches: Additional women are included in the category of the prohibition of and the punishment for engaging in intercourse with a woman and her daughter. By inference, one may conclude that with regard to both his mother-in-law and the mother of his mother-in-law, the prohibition and punishment are written explicitly in the Torah, and with regard to those additional women enumerated in the mishna, the prohibition and punishment are derived by means of interpretation.

讛谞讬讞讗 诇讗讘讬讬 讚讗诪专 诪砖诪注讜转 讚讜专砖讬谉 讗讬讻讗 讘讬谞讬讬讛讜 诪转谞讬转讬谉 诪谞讬 专讘讬 注拽讬讘讗 讛讬讗

The Gemara comments: This works out well according to Abaye, who says that with regard to the dispute between Rabbi Yishmael and Rabbi Akiva cited later in the Gemara (76b), the difference between their opinions is only concerning the interpretation of the meaning of the verse, but there is no practical difference between their opinions. According to Abaye, whose opinion is expressed in the mishna? It is the opinion of Rabbi Akiva. Abaye explains that Rabbi Akiva maintains that the prohibition of engaging in intercourse with the mother of one鈥檚 mother-in-law is stated explicitly in the Torah.

讗诇讗 诇专讘讗 讚讗诪专 讞诪讜转讜 诇讗讞专 诪讬转讛 讗讬讻讗 讘讬谞讬讬讛讜 诪转谞讬转讬谉 诪谞讬 讗诪专 诇讱 专讘讗 转谞讬 讛讘讗 注诇 讗砖讛 砖谞砖讗 讘转讛

But according to Rava, who says that the difference between their opinions is with regard to the prohibition of engaging in intercourse with one鈥檚 mother-in-law after the death of his wife, whose opinion is expressed in the mishna? The opinion of the tanna of the mishna corresponds neither to the opinion of Rabbi Akiva nor to the opinion of Rabbi Yishmael, as they both maintain that the prohibition of engaging in intercourse with the mother of one鈥檚 mother-in-law is not stated explicitly in the Torah. The Gemara answers: Rava could say to you: Emend the mishna and teach: One who engaged in intercourse with a woman whose daughter he previously married.

讬砖 讘讻诇诇 讗砖讛 讜讘转讛 讞诪讜转讜 讜讗诐 讞诪讜转讜 讜讗诐 讞诪讬讜 诇讗讘讬讬 讗讬讬讚讬 讚拽讗 讘注讬 诇诪讬转谞讗 讗诐 讞诪讬讜 转谞讬 谞诪讬 讞诪讜转讜 讜讗诐 讞诪讜转讜

The mishna teaches: Included in the category of the prohibition of engaging in intercourse with a woman and her daughter and the resulting execution by burning, there are: His mother-in-law, and the mother of his mother-in-law, and the mother of his father-in-law. The Gemara comments: Abaye holds that everyone agrees that the prohibition of engaging in intercourse with one鈥檚 mother-in-law is stated explicitly in the Torah, and the tanna enumerates his mother-in-law together with relatives concerning whom the prohibition is derived by means of interpretation. Therefore, according to Abaye, since the tanna seeks to teach that the mother of his father-in-law is included in the prohibition, he teaches the halakha of his mother-in-law and the mother of his mother-in-law as well, despite the fact the prohibition of engaging in intercourse with one鈥檚 mother-in-law is stated explicitly in the Torah.

诇专讘讗 讗讬讬讚讬 讚拽讗 讘注讬 诇诪讬转谞讗 讗诐 讞诪讬讜 讜讗诐 讞诪讜转讜 转谞讬 谞诪讬 讞诪讜转讜

By contrast, Rava holds that the woman and her daughter mentioned in the first clause of the mishna are his wife and his mother-in-law. Therefore, according to Rava, since the tanna seeks to teach that the mother of his father-in-law and the mother of his mother-in-law are included in the prohibition, he teaches the halakha of his mother-in-law in the latter clause as well, despite the fact that it is stated explicitly in the Torah.

诪谞讛谞讬 诪讬诇讬 讚转谞讜 专讘谞谉 壮讗讬砖 讗砖专 讬拽讞 讗转 讗砖讛 讜讗转 讗诪讛壮 讗讬谉 诇讬 讗诇讗 讗砖讛 讜讗诪讛 讘转 讗砖讛 讜讘转 讘转讛 讜讘转 讘谞讛 诪谞讬谉

搂 The mishna enumerates several women with whom intercourse is forbidden who are included in the prohibition of engaging in intercourse with a woman and her daughter, which is punished by execution by burning. The Gemara asks: From where are these matters derived? They are derived as the Sages taught: 鈥淎nd if a man takes a woman and her mother, it is lewdness; they shall be burned with fire both him and them, and there shall be no lewdness among you鈥 (Leviticus 20:14). I have derived only that this punishment applies to one who engages in intercourse with a woman and with her mother. From where is it derived that one who engages in intercourse with the daughter of the woman married to him, or with the daughter of her daughter, or with the daughter of her son, is also liable to be executed by burning?

谞讗诪专 讻讗谉 壮讝诪讛壮 讜谞讗诪专 诇讛诇谉 壮讝诪讛壮 诪讛 诇讛诇谉 讘转讛 讜讘转 讘转讛 讜讘转 讘谞讛 讗祝 讻讗谉 讘转讛 讜讘转 讘转讛 讜讘转 讘谞讛

The baraita continues: Lewdness is stated here, with regard to the punishment: 鈥淭here shall be no lewdness among you鈥 (Leviticus 20:14), and lewdness is stated there, with regard to the prohibition: 鈥淵ou shall not uncover the nakedness of a woman and her daughter; you shall not take her son鈥檚 daughter, or her daughter鈥檚 daughter, to uncover her nakedness; they are near kinswomen, it is lewdness鈥 (Leviticus 18:17). It is derived by means of a verbal analogy that just as there the prohibition applies to the woman鈥檚 daughter, and the daughter of her daughter, and the daughter of her son, so too here, the punishment of burning applies to one who engages in intercourse with the woman鈥檚 daughter, and to the daughter of her daughter, and to the daughter of her son.

诪谞讬谉 诇注砖讜转 讝讻专讬诐 讻谞拽讘讜转 谞讗诪专 讻讗谉 壮讝诪讛壮 讜谞讗诪专 诇讛诇谉 壮讝诪讛壮 诪讛 诇讛诇谉 讝讻专讬诐 讻谞拽讘讜转 讗祝 讻讗谉 讝讻专讬诐 讻谞拽讘讜转

The baraita continues: From where is it derived to render the status of males like that of females with regard to this punishment? Lewdness is stated here and lewdness is stated there. Just as there, the Torah renders the status of males like that of female relatives, so too here, the Torah renders the status of males like that of females.

诪谞讬谉 诇注砖讜转 诇诪讟讛 讻诇诪注诇讛 谞讗诪专 讻讗谉 壮讝诪讛壮 讜谞讗诪专 诇讛诇谉 壮讝诪讛壮 诪讛 诇讛诇谉 诇诪讟讛 讻诇诪注诇讛 讗祝 讻讗谉 诇诪讟讛 讻诇诪注诇讛 讜诪讛 讻讗谉 诇诪注诇讛 讻诇诪讟讛 讗祝 诇讛诇谉 诇诪注诇讛 讻诇诪讟讛

From where is it derived to render the status of relatives below like the status of relatives above? Lewdness is stated here and lewdness is stated there. Just as there, the Torah renders the status of relatives below like that of relatives above, so too here, the Torah renders the status of relatives below like that of relatives above. And just as here, the Torah renders the status of relatives above like that of relatives below, so too there, the Torah renders the status of relatives above like that of relatives below.

讗诪专 诪专 诪谞讬谉 诇注砖讜转 讝讻专讬诐 讻谞拽讘讜转 诪讗讬 讝讻专讬诐 讻谞拽讘讜转 讗讬诇讬诪讗 讘转 讘谞讛 讻讘转 讘转讛 讘讛讚讬 讛讚讚讬 拽讗转讬讗谉

The Gemara proceeds to elaborate on the derivations cited in the baraita. The Master says: From where is it derived to render the status of males like that of females? The Gemara asks: What is the meaning of: The status of males like that of females? If we say that it means that one who engages in intercourse with the daughter of the son of his wife is executed by burning like one who engages in intercourse with the daughter of her daughter, the status of the daughter of her son and the daughter of her daughter are derived together in the first clause of the baraita, as both are written explicitly in the prohibition.

讗诇讗 讗诐 讞诪讬讜 讻讗诐 讞诪讜转讜 讛砖转讗 讗诐 讞诪讜转讜 诇讗 拽诪讛 诇谉 讗诐 讞诪讬讜 诪讬讛讚专 注诇讛

Rather, this clause in the baraita means that one who engages in intercourse with the mother of his father-in-law is executed by burning like one who engages in intercourse with the mother of his mother-in-law. The Gemara asks: Now, we have not yet established the halakha of one who engages in intercourse with the mother of his mother-in-law, and the baraita is seeking to derive the halakha of one who engages in intercourse with the mother of his father-in-law from the halakha of the mother of his mother-in-law?

讗诪专 讗讘讬讬 讛讻讬 拽讗诪专 诪谞讬谉 诇注砖讜转 砖讗专 讛讘讗 诪诪谞讜 讻砖讗专 讛讘讗 诪诪谞讛 谞讗诪专 讻讗谉 讝诪讛 讜谞讗诪专 诇讛诇谉 讝诪讛 讜讻讜壮 讜讛讗 讘砖讗专 讚讬讚讬讛 诇讗 讻转讬讘讗 讘讬讛 讝诪讛

Abaye says: This is what the baraita is saying. From where is it derived to render a relative who comes from his family, e.g., the daughter of his daughter and the daughter of his son, like a relative who comes from her family, e.g., the daughter of his wife and the daughter of his wife鈥檚 daughter? Lewdness is stated here and lewdness is stated there. Just as there, the Torah renders the status of male relatives like that of female relatives, so too here, the Torah renders the status of males like that of females. The Gemara asks: But isn鈥檛 it so that with regard to a relative from his family the term lewdness is not written, as the verse states: 鈥淭he nakedness of your son鈥檚 daughter, or of your daughter鈥檚 daughter, their nakedness you shall not expose; for theirs is your own nakedness鈥 (Leviticus 18:10)?

讗诪专 专讘讗 讗诪专 诇讬 专讘 讬爪讞拽 讘专 讗讘讜讚讬诪讬 讗转讬讗 讛谞讛 讛谞讛 讗转讬讗 讝诪讛 讝诪讛

Rava says: Rav Yitz岣k bar Avudimi said to me: The equation of his relative to her relative is derived by means of a verbal analogy between the word henna written with regard to his relative: 鈥淭he nakedness of your son鈥檚 daughter, or of your daughter鈥檚 daughter, their nakedness you shall not expose; for theirs [henna] is your own nakedness鈥 (Leviticus 18:10), and the word henna written with regard to her relative: 鈥淵ou shall not uncover the nakedness of a woman and her daughter; you shall not take her son鈥檚 daughter, or her daughter鈥檚 daughter, to uncover her nakedness; they [henna] are near kinswomen; it is lewdness鈥 (Leviticus 18:17). Additionally, it is derived from a verbal analogy between the word 鈥渓ewdness鈥 (Leviticus 18:17) and the word 鈥渓ewdness鈥 in the verse: 鈥淎nd if a man takes a woman and her mother, it is lewdness; they shall be burned with fire both him and them, and there shall be no lewdness among you鈥 (Leviticus 20:14).

讗诪专 诪专 诪谞讬谉 诇注砖讜转 诇诪讟讛 讻诇诪注诇讛 诪讗讬 诇诪讟讛 讻诇诪注诇讛 讗讬诇讬诪讗 讘转 讘谞讛 讜讘转 讘转讛 讻讘转讛 讘讛讚讬 讛讚讚讬 拽讗转讬讬谉

The Master says: From where is it derived to render the status of a relative below like the status of a relative above? The Gemara asks: What is the meaning of: The status of a relative below like the status of a relative above? If we say this means that the status of second-generation relative, i.e., the daughter of the son of his wife and the daughter of her daughter is like the status of first-generation relative, i.e., her daughter, this is difficult, as they are derived together, as all of them are mentioned in the same verse (see Leviticus 18:17).

讗诇讗 讗诐 讞诪讬讜 讜讗诐 讞诪讜转讜 讻讞诪讜转讜 讛讗讬 诇诪讟讛 讻诇诪注诇讛 诇诪注诇讛 讻诇诪讟讛 讛讜讗讬 转谞讬 诇诪注诇讛 讻诇诪讟讛

Rather, it means that the status of the mother of his father-in-law and the mother of his mother-in-law is like that of his mother-in-law. The Gemara challenges: If so, is this an example of: A relative below is like the status of a relative above? On the contrary, it is an example of: A relative above is like the status of a relative below. The Gemara responds: Emend the baraita and teach: The status of a relative from the generation above is like the status of a relative from the generation below them.

讗讬 讛讻讬 谞讗诪专 讻讗谉 壮讝诪讛壮 讜谞讗诪专 诇讛诇谉 壮讝诪讛壮 讜诪讛 讛砖转讗 讗讬谞讛讬 诇讗 讻转讬讘讗 讝诪讛 讚讬讚讛讜 讻转讬讘讗

The Gemara asks: If so, as for the continuation of the baraita: Lewdness is stated here, with regard to the prohibition, and lewdness is stated there, with regard to the punishment, now, if the mother of his father-in-law and the mother of his mother-in-law are not written in the Torah and are derived through interpretation, is the term lewdness written concerning them?

讗诪专 讗讘讬讬 讛讻讬 拽讗诪专 诪谞讬谉 诇注砖讜转 砖诇砖讛 讚讜专讜转 诇诪注诇讛 讻砖诇砖讛 讚讜专讜转 诇诪讟讛 谞讗诪专 诇诪讟讛 讝诪讛 讜谞讗诪专 诇诪注诇讛 讝诪讛 诪讛 诇诪讟讛 砖诇砖讛 讚讜专讜转 讗祝 诇诪注诇讛 砖诇砖讛 讚讜专讜转

Abaye says: This is what the baraita is saying: From where is it derived to render the status of a relative for three generations above, his wife, his mother-in-law, and the mother of his mother-in-law, like the status of a relative for three generations below, his wife, his daughter, and the daughter of his daughter? Lewdness is stated with regard to relatives below, the offspring of his wife (Leviticus 18:17), and lewdness is stated with regard to relatives above, the ancestors of his wife (Leviticus 20:14). Just as with regard to relatives below, one is liable for engaging in intercourse with three generations of women, so too with regard to relatives above, one is liable for engaging in intercourse with three generations of women.

讜诪讛 讘注讜谞砖 注砖讛 诇诪讟讛 讻诇诪注诇讛 讗祝 讘讗讝讛专讛 谞诪讬 注砖讛 诇诪注诇讛 讻诇诪讟讛

And just as with regard to punishment, the verse rendered the status of relatives below like that of relatives above, so too, with regard to the prohibition, the verse rendered the status of relatives above like that of relatives below.

专讘 讗砖讬 讗诪专 诇注讜诇诐 讻讚拽转谞讬 讜诪讗讬 诇诪讟讛 诇诪讟讛 讘讗讬住讜专

Rav Ashi says: Actually, it is not necessary to emend the baraita, and the baraita may be interpreted as it is taught. And what is the meaning of the term below? The reference is to below in terms of the prohibition, i.e., below refers to more distant relatives, e.g., the mother of his mother-in-law, with regard to whom the prohibition is less severe, and above refers to closer relatives, e.g., his mother-in-law, with regard to whom the prohibition is more severe.

讗讬 诪讛 讛讬讗 讗诐 讗诪讛 讗住讜专讛 讗祝 讛讜讗 讗诐 讗诪讜 讗住讜专讛

Based on that interpretation of the baraita, the Gemara asks: If so, why not say: Just as the mother of the mother of his wife is forbidden to him, so too the mother of his mother is forbidden to him, and say that he would be liable to be executed by burning?

讗诪专 讗讘讬讬 讗诪专 拽专讗 讗诪讱 讛讬讗 诪砖讜诐 讗诪讜 讗转讛 诪讞讬讬讘讜 讜讗讬 讗转讛 诪讞讬讬讘讜 诪砖讜诐 讗诐 讗诪讜

Abaye says that it is not possible that one is liable to be burned for engaging in intercourse with the mother of his mother, as the verse states: 鈥淭he nakedness of your father and the nakedness of your mother you shall not expose; she is your mother, you shall not expose her nakedness鈥 (Leviticus 18:7). Infer from this: Due to his intercourse with his mother you deem him liable to be executed, but you do not deem him liable to be executed due to his intercourse with the mother of his mother.

专讘讗 讗诪专 讘讬谉 诇诪讗谉 讚讗诪专 讚讜谉 诪讬谞讛 讜诪讬谞讛 讜讘讬谉 诇诪讗谉 讚讗诪专 讚讜谉 诪讬谞讛 讜讗讜拽讬 讘讗转专讛 诇讗 讗转讬讗

Rava says: Both according to the one who says with regard to the method of derivation by means of a verbal analogy: Infer the halakha from it, i.e., from the source of the verbal analogy, and derive the details from it, i.e., from that source, and according to the one who says: Infer the halakha from it but interpret the halakha according to its own place, i.e., the derived halakha is subject to the principles that govern that which is derived by means of the verbal analogy, it is not derived that one is liable to be burned for engaging in intercourse with the mother of his mother.

诇诪讗谉 讚讗诪专 讚讜谉 诪讬谞讛 讜诪讬谞讛 诪讛 讛讬讗 讗诐 讗诪讛 讗住讜专讛 讗祝 讛讜讗 谞诪讬 讗诐 讗诪讜 讗住讜专讛 讜诪讬谞讛 诪讛 讛讬讗 讘砖专讬驻讛 讗祝 讛讜讗 谞诪讬 讘砖专讬驻讛

The Gemara elaborates: According to the one who says: Infer the halakha from it and derive the details from it, one might infer: Just as with regard to relatives of his wife, the mother of her mother is forbidden to him, so too with regard to his relatives, the mother of his mother is forbidden to him. And derive again from it: Just as with regard to relatives of his wife, he is liable to be executed by burning due to his intercourse with the mother of her mother, so too with regard to his relatives, he is also liable to be executed by burning due to his intercourse with the mother of his mother.

诇诪讗谉 讚讗诪专 砖专讬驻讛 讞诪讜专讛 讗讬讻讗 诇诪讬驻专讱 诪讛 诇讛讬讗 砖讻谉 讗诪讛 讘砖专讬驻讛 转讗诪专 讘讛讜讗 砖讗诪讜 讘住拽讬诇讛

The Gemara proceeds to explain why one cannot derive that one is liable to be burned for engaging in intercourse with the mother of his mother. According to the one who says: Execution by burning is more severe than execution by stoning, the inference from the halakha of relatives of his wife can be refuted as follows: What is notable about her relatives, where he is liable to be burned for engaging in intercourse with the mother of her mother? They are notable in that one who engages in intercourse with the mother of his wife is liable to be executed by the more severe punishment of burning, not the less severe, more common, punishment of stoning. Will you then say that the same halakha should apply with regard to his relatives, where one who engages in intercourse with his mother is liable to be executed by the less severe punishment of stoning?

讜注讜讚 讗诪讜 讘住拽讬诇讛 讗诐 讗诪讜 讘砖专讬驻讛

And furthermore, as one who engages in intercourse with his mother is executed by the less severe punishment of stoning, is it possible that one who engages in intercourse with the mother of his mother, a more distant relative, is executed by the more severe punishment of burning?

讜注讜讚 诪讛 讛讬讗 诇讗 讞诇拽转 讘讛 讘讬谉 讗诪讛 诇讗诐 讗诪讛 讗祝 讛讜讗 谞诪讬 诇讗 转讞诇讜拽 讘讜 讘讬谉 讗诪讜 诇讗诐 讗诪讜

And furthermore, just as with regard to her relatives, you did not distinguish between her mother and the mother of her mother, and one who engages in intercourse with either is executed by burning, so too with regard to his relatives, you should not distinguish between his mother and the mother of his mother. Since one who engages in intercourse with his mother is punished by stoning, not burning, it follows that one who engages in intercourse with the mother of his mother is punished by stoning, not burning.

讜诇诪讗谉 讚讗诪专 住拽讬诇讛 讞诪讜专讛 诪讛讗讬 拽讜砖讬讗 诇讗 谞讬讚讜谞讛

And according to the one who says that stoning is more severe than burning, although the first two refutations of the derivation, based on the fact that execution by burning is more severe, are not relevant, due to this third difficulty, this halakha is not derived. Just as with regard to her relatives, you did not distinguish between her mother and the mother of her mother, so too with regard to his relatives, you should not distinguish between his mother and the mother of his mother.

讜诇诪讗谉 讚讗诪专 讚讜谉 诪讬谞讛 讜讗讜拽讬 讘讗转专讛 诪讛 讛讬讗 讗诐 讗诪讛 讗住讜专讛 讗祝 讛讜讗 谞诪讬 讗诐 讗诪讜 讗住讜专讛 讜讗讜拽讬 讘讗转专讛 讛转诐 讛讜讗 讚讘砖专讬驻讛 讗讘诇 讛讻讗 讘住拽讬诇讛 讻讚讗砖讻讞谉 讘讗诪讜

And according to the one who says: Infer the halakha from it but interpret the halakha according to its own place, one might infer: Just as with regard to relatives of his wife, the mother of her mother is forbidden to him, so too with regard to his relatives, the mother of his mother is forbidden to him. And interpret the halakha according to its own place: It is there, with regard to the relatives of his wife, that one who engages in intercourse with the mother of her mother is executed by burning; but here, with regard to his relatives, one who engages in intercourse with the mother of his mother is executed by stoning, as we found that this is the punishment with regard to one who engages in intercourse with his mother.

诇诪讗谉 讚讗诪专 砖专讬驻讛 讞诪讜专讛 讗讬讻讗 诇诪讬驻专讱

The Gemara explains why the derivation with regard to the prohibition is not valid. According to the one who says that execution by burning is more severe than execution by stoning, the derivation can be refuted:

Scroll To Top