Sanhedrin 75

ואם איתא לא לימא ליה הא בצנעה הא בפרהסיא

And if it is so that a descendant of Noah is commanded about the sanctification of God’s name, he should not have said to him: “Go in peace.” The Gemara answers: This situation, where Elisha permitted Naaman’s 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’s name in public, in the presence of ten Jews. Consequently, the question remains without a solution.

אמר רב יהודה אמר רב מעשה באדם אחד שנתן עיניו באשה אחת והעלה לבו טינא ובאו ושאלו לרופאים ואמרו אין לו תקנה עד שתבעל אמרו חכמים ימות ואל תבעל לו תעמוד לפניו ערומה ימות ואל תעמוד לפניו ערומה תספר עמו מאחורי הגדר ימות ולא תספר עמו מאחורי הגדר

§ 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.

פליגי בה רבי יעקב בר אידי ורבי שמואל בר נחמני חד אמר אשת איש היתה וחד אמר פנויה היתה בשלמא למאן דאמר אשת איש היתה שפיר אלא למאן דאמר פנויה היתה מאי כולי האי

The Gemara comments: Rabbi Ya’akov bar Idi and Rabbi Shmuel bar Naḥmani 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?

רב פפא אמר משום פגם משפחה רב אחא בריה דרב איקא אמר כדי שלא יהו בנות ישראל פרוצות בעריות

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 Aḥa, 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’ recommendations, Jewish women might lose moral restraint.

ולינסבה מינסב לא מייתבה דעתיה כדרבי יצחק דאמר רבי יצחק מיום שחרב בית המקדש ניטלה טעם ביאה וניתנה לעוברי עבירה שנאמר מים גנובים ימתקו ולחם סתרים ינעם

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 Yitzḥak. As Rabbi Yitzḥak 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: “Stolen waters are sweet, and bread eaten in secret is pleasant” (Proverbs 9:17). Therefore, the man could have been cured only by engaging in illicit sexual interaction.

הדרן עלך בן סורר ומורה

מתני׳ ואלו הן הנשרפין הבא על אשה ובתה ובת כהן שזנתה

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.

יש בכלל אשה ובתה בתו ובת בתו ובת בנו ובת אשתו ובת בתה ובת בנה חמותו ואם חמותו ואם חמיו

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.

גמ׳ הבא על אשה שנשא בתה לא קתני אלא הבא על אשה ובתה מכלל דתרוייהו לאיסורא ומאן נינהו חמותו ואם חמותו

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.

וקתני יש בכלל אשה ובתה מכלל דתרוייהו כתיבי בהדיא והנך מדרשא אתיא

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.

הניחא לאביי דאמר משמעות דורשין איכא בינייהו מתניתין מני רבי עקיבא היא

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’s mother-in-law is stated explicitly in the Torah.

אלא לרבא דאמר חמותו לאחר מיתה איכא בינייהו מתניתין מני אמר לך רבא תני הבא על אשה שנשא בתה

But according to Rava, who says that the difference between their opinions is with regard to the prohibition of engaging in intercourse with one’s 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’s 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.

יש בכלל אשה ובתה חמותו ואם חמותו ואם חמיו לאביי איידי דקא בעי למיתנא אם חמיו תני נמי חמותו ואם חמותו

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’s 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’s mother-in-law is stated explicitly in the Torah.

לרבא איידי דקא בעי למיתנא אם חמיו ואם חמותו תני נמי חמותו

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.

מנהני מילי דתנו רבנן ׳איש אשר יקח את אשה ואת אמה׳ אין לי אלא אשה ואמה בת אשה ובת בתה ובת בנה מנין

§ 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: “And 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” (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?

נאמר כאן ׳זמה׳ ונאמר להלן ׳זמה׳ מה להלן בתה ובת בתה ובת בנה אף כאן בתה ובת בתה ובת בנה

The baraita continues: Lewdness is stated here, with regard to the punishment: “There shall be no lewdness among you” (Leviticus 20:14), and lewdness is stated there, with regard to the prohibition: “You shall not uncover the nakedness of a woman and her daughter; you shall not take her son’s daughter, or her daughter’s daughter, to uncover her nakedness; they are near kinswomen, it is lewdness” (Leviticus 18:17). It is derived by means of a verbal analogy that just as there the prohibition applies to the woman’s 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’s daughter, and to the daughter of her daughter, and to the daughter of her son.

מנין לעשות זכרים כנקבות נאמר כאן ׳זמה׳ ונאמר להלן ׳זמה׳ מה להלן זכרים כנקבות אף כאן זכרים כנקבות

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.

מנין לעשות למטה כלמעלה נאמר כאן ׳זמה׳ ונאמר להלן ׳זמה׳ מה להלן למטה כלמעלה אף כאן למטה כלמעלה ומה כאן למעלה כלמטה אף להלן למעלה כלמטה

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.

אמר מר מנין לעשות זכרים כנקבות מאי זכרים כנקבות אילימא בת בנה כבת בתה בהדי הדדי קאתיאן

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.

אלא אם חמיו כאם חמותו השתא אם חמותו לא קמה לן אם חמיו מיהדר עלה

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?

אמר אביי הכי קאמר מנין לעשות שאר הבא ממנו כשאר הבא ממנה נאמר כאן זמה ונאמר להלן זמה וכו׳ והא בשאר דידיה לא כתיבא ביה זמה

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’s 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’t it so that with regard to a relative from his family the term lewdness is not written, as the verse states: “The nakedness of your son’s daughter, or of your daughter’s daughter, their nakedness you shall not expose; for theirs is your own nakedness” (Leviticus 18:10)?

אמר רבא אמר לי רב יצחק בר אבודימי אתיא הנה הנה אתיא זמה זמה

Rava says: Rav Yitzḥak 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: “The nakedness of your son’s daughter, or of your daughter’s daughter, their nakedness you shall not expose; for theirs [henna] is your own nakedness” (Leviticus 18:10), and the word “henna” written with regard to her relative: “You shall not uncover the nakedness of a woman and her daughter; you shall not take her son’s daughter, or her daughter’s daughter, to uncover her nakedness; they [henna] are near kinswomen; it is lewdness” (Leviticus 18:17). Additionally, it is derived from a verbal analogy between the word “lewdness” (Leviticus 18:17) and the word “lewdness” in the verse: “And 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” (Leviticus 20:14).

אמר מר מנין לעשות למטה כלמעלה מאי למטה כלמעלה אילימא בת בנה ובת בתה כבתה בהדי הדדי קאתיין

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).

אלא אם חמיו ואם חמותו כחמותו האי למטה כלמעלה למעלה כלמטה הואי תני למעלה כלמטה

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.

אי הכי נאמר כאן ׳זמה׳ ונאמר להלן ׳זמה׳ ומה השתא אינהי לא כתיבא זמה דידהו כתיבא

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?

אמר אביי הכי קאמר מנין לעשות שלשה דורות למעלה כשלשה דורות למטה נאמר למטה זמה ונאמר למעלה זמה מה למטה שלשה דורות אף למעלה שלשה דורות

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.

ומה בעונש עשה למטה כלמעלה אף באזהרה נמי עשה למעלה כלמטה

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.

רב אשי אמר לעולם כדקתני ומאי למטה למטה באיסור

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.

אי מה היא אם אמה אסורה אף הוא אם אמו אסורה

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?

אמר אביי אמר קרא אמך היא משום אמו אתה מחייבו ואי אתה מחייבו משום אם אמו

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: “The nakedness of your father and the nakedness of your mother you shall not expose; she is your mother, you shall not expose her nakedness” (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.

רבא אמר בין למאן דאמר דון מינה ומינה ובין למאן דאמר דון מינה ואוקי באתרה לא אתיא

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.

למאן דאמר דון מינה ומינה מה היא אם אמה אסורה אף הוא נמי אם אמו אסורה ומינה מה היא בשריפה אף הוא נמי בשריפה

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.

למאן דאמר שריפה חמורה איכא למיפרך מה להיא שכן אמה בשריפה תאמר בהוא שאמו בסקילה

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?

ועוד אמו בסקילה אם אמו בשריפה

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?

ועוד מה היא לא חלקת בה בין אמה לאם אמה אף הוא נמי לא תחלוק בו בין אמו לאם אמו

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.

ולמאן דאמר סקילה חמורה מהאי קושיא לא נידונה

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.

ולמאן דאמר דון מינה ואוקי באתרה מה היא אם אמה אסורה אף הוא נמי אם אמו אסורה ואוקי באתרה התם הוא דבשריפה אבל הכא בסקילה כדאשכחן באמו

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.

למאן דאמר שריפה חמורה איכא למיפרך

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: