Ask A Question on the daf

Previous daf

1) DISTANCING ONE'S SELF FROM PROHIBITED RELATIONS

(a) (Rav Yehudah): A case occurred, a man was eyeing a woman, he became sick on account of desire for her. Doctors said that his only cure is if he will have relations with her.

1. Rabanan: It is forbidden, even if he will die.
2. Doctors: Let her stand naked in front of him (perhaps this will help)!
3. Rabanan: It is forbidden, even if he will die.
4. Doctors: Let her talk with him in back of the fence.
5. Rabanan: It is forbidden, even if he will die.

(b) (R. Yakov bar Idi or R. Shmuel bar Nachmani): She was married.
(c) (The other of R. Yakov bar Idi and R. Shmuel bar Nachmani): She was single.
(d) Question: According to the first opinion, we understand why Rabanan were so stringent;

1. But if she was single, why were they so stringent?

(e) Answer #1 (Rav Papa): It would have been embarrassing to her family.
(f) Answer #2 (Rav Acha brei d'Rav Ika): Had they been lenient, this would have degraded the Kedushah of Benos Yisrael (they would stand in front of men, and be allowed to have relations with them).
(g) Question: Why didn't he marry her?
(h) Answer: That would not have satisfied his desire.

1. (R. Yitzchak): After the Churban, full enjoyment of relations is only experienced when it is forbidden - "Mayim Genuvim Yimtaku".

2) SINS PUNISHABLE WITH "SEREIFAH"

(a) (Mishnah): The following are burned:

1. A man who has relations with a woman and her daughter;
2. A Bas Kohen that was Mezanah.

(b) 'A man who has relations with a woman and her daughter' includes one who has relations with his daughter or granddaughter (from his son or daughter), or his wife's daughter or granddaughter, or his mother-in-law, or either grandmother of his wife.
(c) (Gemara): (The last clause of the Mishnah details other Arayos included in 'a woman and her daughter' - presumably, 'a woman and her daughter' refers to the Ervah about which the Torah explicitly punishes by burning, i.e. a mother-in-law.)

1. Question: It does not say 'A man who has relations with a woman whose daughter he married', rather, 'with a woman and her daughter', implying that neither of these is his wife, rather, both of them are forbidden;

i. What daughter and her mother are both forbidden to a man?

2. Answer: It refers to his mother-in-law and her mother.

(d) Inference: The Mishnah considers the other Arayos listed to be included in 'a woman and her daughter' - this implies that the Torah specifies burning for 'a woman and her daughter', (which we established to refer to his mother-in-law and her mother), we learn the other cases from Derashos.
(e) Question: We understand this according to Abaye, who says that R. Akiva and R. Yishmael only argue about how to expound the laws - our Mishnah is like R. Akiva (who says that the mother of the mother-in-law is explicit in the Torah).

1. But according to Rava, who says that they argue about the punishment of a mother-in-law after the wife died, no one says that the mother of the mother-in-law is explicit - as whom is the Mishnah?

(f) Answer: Rava's text of the Mishnah must say 'A man who has relations with a woman whose daughter he married'.
(g) (Mishnah): 'A man who has relations with a woman and her daughter' includes...his mother-in-law and the mothers of his wife's mother and father.
(h) According to Abaye, since we had to teach the mother of his wife's father, we also mentioned his mother-in-law and her mother (even though they are the 'woman and her daughter' we are learning from);
(i) According to Rava, since we had to teach the mother of his wife's father and mother, it also mentioned his mother-in-law (even though this is the 'woman whose daughter he married' we are learning from).

(a) Question: What is the source (that they are burned)?
(b) Answer (Beraisa): "Ish Asher Yikach Ishah v'Es Imah" - this only teaches a mother-in-law;

1. Question: What is the source to include the daughter and granddaughters of his wife?
2. Answer: It says "Zimah" regarding (burning for relations with) a mother-in-law, and also regarding (relations with) his wife's daughter and granddaughters;

i. Just like here the punishment is burning, also there.

3. Question: What is the source to consider males like females? (This will be explained.)
4. Answer: It says "Zimah" here, and also there;

i. Just like there males are like females, also here,

5. Question: What is the source to equate (the generations) below like (the generations) above?
6. Answer: It says "Zimah" here, and also there;

i. Just like there below is like above, also here.

(c) Question: What does it mean '(What is the source) to consider males like females?'

1. Suggestion: The daughter of his wife's son is like the daughter of his wife's daughter.
2. Rejection: The verse explicitly teaches both together, obviously the same law applies to them!

(d) Answer #1: The mother of his wife's father is like the mother of his wife's mother.
(e) Rejection: We did not yet show that the mother of his wife's mother is forbidden (until the next clause), we cannot use it to teach about the mother of his wife's father!

(f) Answer #2 (Abaye): The Tana asks, what is the source to make a man's own She'er (daughter and granddaughters, i.e. that are not from his wife) like his wife's (daughter and granddaughters)? He answers, it says "Zimah" here, and also there...
(g) Question: It does not say Zimah by a man's own She'er!
(h) Version #1 - Rashi - Answer (Rava): First, we learn from a Gezeirah Shavah "Henah-Henah", that it is as if Zimah was written by his own She'er;

1. Then, we can learn burning from the Gezeirah Shavah "Zimah-Zimah".

(i) Version #2 - Ramah - Answer #3 (Rava): We learn from a Gezeirah Shavah "Henah-Henah", that his daughter and granddaughters have the same law like his wife's;

1. We learn burning regarding his wife's daughter and granddaughters from the Gezeirah Shavah "Zimah-Zimah" from his mother-in-law. (End of Version #2)

(j) Question: What does it mean '(What is the source) to equate (the generations) below like above?'

1. Suggestion: Daughters of a wife's son and daughter have the same law as the wife's daughter.
2. Rejection: The verse explicitly teaches them together!

(k) Answer #1: The mothers of a wife's father and mother have the same law as the mother-in-law (regarding which burning was written).
(l) Objection: That is equating *above* like *below*!

1. Suggestion: Indeed, the Beraisa should say 'What is the source to equate above like below'!
2. Rejection: The Beraisa answers 'It says "Zimah" here, and also there';

i. A wife's grandmothers are not written at all, it could not say Zimah regarding them!

(m) Answer #2 (Abaye): It asks, what is the source to equate three generations above (i.e. up to the wife's grandmothers) like three generations below (up to the wife's granddaughters)? (Abaye switches the Beraisa to say 'What is the source to equate above like below'?)

1. It answers, it says "Zimah" here, and also there;

i. Just like (three generations) below are forbidden, also above;
ii. Just like the punishment above (for a mother-in-law is burning), also (three generations) below;
iii. Just like the Torah writes a Lav (for three generations) below, also above is forbidden by a Lav (even regarding the mother-in-law, only the punishment is written, not a Lav).

(n) Answer #3 (Rav Ashi): Really, we equate below like above;

1. 'Below' refers to the mothers of the wife's parents (they are more distant, a less severe prohibition), 'above' refers to the mother-in-law (she is closer, which is more severe).
2. (When it answers 'It says "Zimah" here, it refers to Zimah written regarding the mother-in-law; Zimah is also written 'there', regarding the wife's daughter and granddaughters;

i. Just like there, below (her granddaughters, which are more distant and hence less severe) is forbidden like above (her daughter), also here (the grandmothers are forbidden like the mother).)

(a) Question: Since we equate his She'er to hers, his mother's mother should be forbidden!
(b) Answer #1 (Abaye): "Imcha Hi" - he is liable for his mother, not for his grandmother.
(c) Answer #2 (Rava): We cannot learn his grandmother from hers, neither according to the opinion that Dun Minah u'Minah (when a matter is learned from another matter, we learn everything from the source), nor according to the opinion Dun Minah v'Uki b'Asra (we only learn one law from the source, other laws are according to the law of the matter being learned):

1. If we say Dun Minah u'Minah, and we want to learn that his grandmother is forbidden, just like hers, we *must* also learn that the punishment is burning, just like there;

i. According to R. Shimon, who says that burning is more stringent than stoning, we can refute this - the Torah is more stringent about his wife's relatives than his own (a mother-in-law is punishable by burning, his own mother is only stoning);
ii. Also, his own mother is punishable by stoning, his grandmother cannot be more stringent (burning)!
iii. Also, just like the laws of his wife's mother and grandmother are the same, the laws of his own mother and grandmother should be the same!
iv. This last objection also applies according to Chachamim, who say that stoning is more stringent than burning, and prevents learning that his grandmother is forbidden.

2. If we say Dun Minah v'Uki b'Asra, and we want to learn that his grandmother is forbidden, just like hers, we would say that the punishment is like that for his mother, stoning;

i. According to R. Shimon, who says that burning is more stringent, we cannot learn his relatives from hers - the Torah is more stringent about his wife's relatives than his own (a mother-in-law is punishable by burning, his own mother is only stoning);
ii. Also, this is not similar to his wife's She'er - the same punishment applies to her daughter and her grandmother, but we are distinguishing between his daughter (burning) and his grandmother (stoning)!
iii. This last objection also applies according to Chachamim, who say that stoning is more stringent.