Previous daf

1)

(a) Rava learns from the Pasuk "Ki es Kol ha'To'eivos ha'Eil" - implying that these cases of incest are serious sins - and that there are other sins that are less (Sh'niyos).

(b) Rebbi Levi learns from the fact that the Torah writes "Eil" by Arayos and "Eileh" by the sin of Midos ("Ki To'avas Hashem Elokecha Kol Oseh Eileh ... " - that the sin of Midos is worse than that of incest.

(c) The sin of Midos - refers to false weights and measures.

(d) Rava, who considers Arayos a serious sins, can well agree with the D'rashah of Rebbi Levi - because we can say that the sin of incest is serious, but that of Midos is more serious still.

(a) The Torah writes "Eileh" by Arayos, too ("mi'Kol ha'To'eivos ha'Eileh ve'Nichresu") - to preclude Midos from Kareis.

(b) The sin of Midos is worse than that of Arayos - inasmuch as it is not possible to repair it (because someone who steals from the community cannot possibly know from whom he stole); whereas someone who is guilty of incest just needs to desist from sinning, and his Teshuvah will be accepted (provided he has not had children from his illicit relationships).

(c) Using the money that he stole for public service - is the next best thing to returning what he stole - but real Teshuvah can only be achieved by returning the stolen article to the person from whom one stole.

(d) Rav Yehudah learns that the Pasuk "*ve'Izein*, ve'Chiker, Tikein Meshalim Harbeh" - hints at Sh'niyos, because, just like the handles ('Oznayim') of a box enable one to hold the box and prevent it from falling, so too, do the Sh'niyos, prevent the Isur of Arayos from 'falling by the wayside'.

(a) Rav Oshaya learns the same thing from the Pasuk in Mishlei "Par'eihu (make the Isur bigger) Al Ta'avor Bo, S'tei mei'Alav va'Avor". Rav Ashi explains this with a parable - of a person guarding his orchard. As long as he guards it from the outside ("S'tei mei'Alav" 'Go away from it'), the entire orchard is guarded; whereas were he to guard it from the inside, what is in front of him is guarded, but not what is behind him.

(b) Rav Ashi's parable is a joke however - because there, at least what is in front of him would be guarded; but if not for the Sh'niyos nothing would be guarded (one would contravene the Isur of incest itself).

(c) Rav Kahana learns Sh'niyos from the Pasuk "u'Sh'martem es Mishmarti" (written by the Arayos) - 'Asu Mishmeres le'Mishmarti'. Rav Yosef tries to answer Abaye's Kashya, that, in that case, Sh'niyos would be d'Oraysa - by explaining that Sh'niyos is really d'Oraysa, but the Rabbanan explained them.

(d) We reject this on the grounds that the Rabbanan explained all of the Torah (yet we do not refer to all their D'rashos as de'Rabbanan). So we finally conclude - that Sh'niyos are really mi'de'Rabbanan, and that the Pasuk is merely an Asmachta.

(a) Our Mishnah lists eight Sh'niyos: His mother's mother, his father's mother, his father's father's wife and his mother's father's wife. His father's maternal brother's wife, his mother's paternal brother's wife - his son's daughter-in-law and his daughter's daughter-in-law.

(b) Chazal decreed on his mother's mother, on account of his mother, and on his father's father's wife on account of his father's wife. They decreed on ...

1. ... his father's mother - on account of his mother's mother.
2. ... his mother's father's wife - on account of his father's father's wife.

(c) These two are not a 'Gezeirah li'Gezeirah' - because in the former case, one refers to both mother's as 'grandmother', and in the latter case, to both husbands as 'grandfather', and will easily come to confuse the one with the other. (d) They decreed on ...

1. ... his father's maternal brother's wife - on account of his father's paternal brother's wife.
2. ... his mother's paternal brother's wife - on account of his father's maternal brother's wife.
3. ... his son's daughter-in-law - on account of his own daughter-in-law.
4. ... his daughter's daughter-in-law - on account of his son's daughter-in-law.

(a) His father-in-law's wife is permitted to him (provided she is not his mother-in-law), and so is his step-son's wife - and his step-son is permitted to marry his wife and his daughter.

(b) His step-son's wife says to him - 'I am permitted to you, but my daughter (his own daughter-in-law) is not'; a particularly surprising statement, considering that the latter is forbidden to him *min ha'Torah*.

(c) The Tana did not tell us the same thing about his father-in-law's wife, who is permitted to him, even though her daughter is forbidden - because this is not always true, seeing as she will become permitted should his wife die.

(a) Most of the Sh'niyos extend all the way up (e.g. mother's mother's mother and father's father's father's wife) or down (e.g. Kalas B'no). Rav knew three of the four that do not; his father's maternal brother's wife, his mother's paternal brother's wife - and his daughter-in-law.

(b) The reason for the distinction between these four and the others is - because there is no case of Ervah d'Oraysa in the generations of these four.

(c) Kalas B'no extends all the way down, and Kalas Bito does not - for the same reason (because in the generations of Kalas B'no there is an Ervah d'Oraysa [by B'no], whereas in the generations of Kalas Bito, there is not.

(a) Ze'iri supplies us with the fourth case that does not extend all the way up. The Siman to remember it is 'one generation above Rav' - it is his mother's father's wife.

(b) Rav declines to include this case - because, he maintains, if she would be permitted, people would confuse her with his father's father's wife and permit her too.

(c) Ze'iri is not concerned that one may confuse the two cases - because people tend to frequent their father's relatives often, but not their mother's (though this may not be the custom nowadays).

8)

(a) 'Kalaso', which Rav includes as the third of the cases that do not extend downwards, is obviously a mistake - because it is an Ervah d'Oraysa, and not a Sh'niyah.

(b) The attempted amendment to 'Kalas B'no' is not acceptable either, because of the Beraisa, which specifically includes Kalas B'no among those that *do* extend downwards. So we amend 'Kalaso' of Rav - to 'Kalas Bito'.

(c) Based on a statement that he heard from Rebbi Ami, Rav Chisda explained why Kalas B'no extends downwards, whereas Kalas Bito does not. Rebbi Ami said - 'Lo Asru Kalah Ela Mipnei Kalah', which Rav Chisda explained to mean that Chazal only forbade Kalas Bito on account of Kalas B'no (but not intrinsically - as we explained in 6c.).

(a) When Rav Chisda first heard Rebbi Ami's statement, he was in a quandary - because the astrologers told him that he would be a Chacham, and he did not know whether they meant a Talmid-Chacham or a Rebbe of children. If they meant the former, then he would be able to explain Rebbi Ami's statement himself, but if they meant the latter, then he would have to ask the Talmidei-Chachamim. When he later discovered the explanation on his own, his quandary was resolved.

(b) Abaye pointed out to Rava the example of Kalasah de'Bei bar Tzisa'i - who had two daughters-in-law, a Kalas B'no and a Kalas Bito, and if the latter were to be permitted, they would permit the former, too. It seems that he and the other Amora'im who pointed out the same thing in various families, maintain that it is only when someone has a Kalas B'no as well, that Kalas Bito is forbidden.

(c) His father's maternal brother's wife and his mother's *paternal* brother's wife are among the Sh'niyos. How about his mother's *maternal* brother's wife, we ask - is she permitted, seeing as there is no 'Tzad Av' there, or perhaps she is included in the case of his mother's *paternal* brother's wife? (It is unclear however, why the Gemara does not ask why, should she be forbidden, the Tana omitted her from the Beraisa, as it asks later on the Amud on a different case?)

(d) Rava rejects Rav Safra's contention that this case would only be forbidden on account of his mother's paternal brother's wife, and would therefore be a 'Gezeirah li'Gezeirah' which Chazal did not generally decree - on the basis that many of the cases listed in the Beraisa are only forbidden because of their similarity to other Sh'niyos, yet Chazal did include them in their decree, as we shall now see.

(a) His father's mother, his mother's father's wife and his mother's brother's wife have in common - the fact that all of them are a 'Gezeirah on a Gezeirah': His father's mother is a decree on account of his mother's mother (who is herself only a decree on account of his mother) [both of whom are forbidden because they too, are referred to as 'grandmother']; his mother's father's wife is a decree on account of his father's father's wife (who is a decree on account of his father's wife) [both of whom are forbidden because too, are referred to as 'grandfather']; and his mother's paternal brother's wife is a decree on account of his father's maternal brother's wife (who is herself a decree on account of his father's paternal brother's wife) [both of whom are forbidden because they too, are referred to as 'aunt'].

(b) When Rav Yehudah bar Shiloh came from Eretz Yisrael - he cited the principle that whenever the female is an Ervah, they decreed on the equivalent male's wife.

(c) Consequently - since his mother's maternal sister is an Ervah (as we shall conclude in 'ha'Ba al Yevimto'), his mother's maternal brother's wife is a Sh'niyah.

(d) We forbid his mother's maternal brother's wife on the basis of that principle - because she became his aunt through *one* Kidushin, but not his father-in-law's wife, his mother-in-law's son's wife, his stepson's wife and his stepson's son's wife (despite the fact that all of the male equivalents in those cases are Arayos - mother-in-law, sister-in-law [through his mother-in-law or father-in-law], wife's daughter and granddaughter, respectively) - who are more distant became they all became relatives through *two* Kidushin.

(a) Rav Mesharshaya from Tusnaya asked Rav Papi whether the wife of one's father's father's brother and the sister of one's father's father are included in the Sh'niyos. Despite the fact that, one generation below (the father's paternal brother's wife and his father's sister) are Arayos, they might not be included - because the relationship is more distant (see Rashash).

(b) Even if they *are* Sh'niyos, the Tana will have omitted them from the list - because there are other cases that have been omitted too (omitting at least *two* different cases from a Mishnah is justifiable, *one*, is not).

(a) Ameimar specifically permitted the wife of the generations above his father's father's brother and the sister of his father's father.

(b) We ask on Ameimar from the sixteen Sh'niyos of Mar Brei de'Ravina. Considering that Rebbi Chiya has a list of six Sh'niyos that are not listed in the original Beraisa of eight - surely the remaining two must be his father's father's brother and the sister of his father's father?

(c) The counter -argument (that even if we were to include these two in the sixteen Sh'niyos of Mar Brei de'Ravina, there would still not be sixteen [but seventeen], because of his mother's brother's wife, whom we included above in the list of Sh'niyos) is not valid - due to the fact that the two under discussion are considered as one (seeing as they are both called aunts and one level below each of them is an Ervah).

(d) The fact that they are included in Mar B'rei de'Ravina's list le'Isur does not prove anything - because whether they appear on a list of Mar B'rei de'Ravina permitting them, or on a list of his forbidding them, is his name stamped on the list? (The answer appears to be that Ameimar is perfectly entitled to argue with Mar B'rei de'Ravina, but the Lashon does not imply this).