Ask A Question on the daf

Previous daf

1) THE UNSPECIFIED MISOS

(a) Question: According to Rebbi's explanation of R. Yonason, we have a source for (a second Misah unnoticeable on the body, i.e.) choking;

1. But according to R. Yoshiyah, how do we know that choking is one of the Misos Beis Din ("Mos Yumas" should refer to the lightest of the three explicit in the Torah, i.e. beheading!)?

(b) Answer (Rava): A tradition from Moshe from Sinai teaches that there are four Misos Beis Din.
(c) Question: What does R. Yonason mean by 'even though it is not the lightest'?
(d) Answer: He holds that beheading is lighter, like R. Shimon.
(e) Question (R. Zeira): Most transgressions punishable by stoning do not say this explicitly, we learn from (one who conjures up the dead with) Ov or Yid'oni;

1. Which Gezerah Shavah do we learn from - "Mos Yumasu-Mos Yumasu", or "Demeihem Bam-Demeihem Bam"?

(f) Answer (Abaye): We learn from (the Gezerah Shavah of) "Demeihem" - if we would learn from that of "Mos Yumasu", what would we learn from "Demeihem"?
(g) Question: If we learn from "Demeihem", what do we learn from "Mos Yumasu"?
(h) Answer (Beraisa): "Mos Yumas ha'Makeh Rotze'ach Hu" - one might have thought, we can only give the Misah he deserves;

1. Question: What is the source to kill him any other way if we cannot give the proper Misah?
2. Answer: "Mos Yumas ha'Makeh" - the verb is doubled to teach this.

(i) Question (Rav Acha mi'Difti): What difficulty did R. Zeira foresee if we would learn from "Mos Yumasu"?

1. Suggestion: He thought, we should learn that adulterers (by which it also says "Mos Yumasu") are stoned (when she is Nesu'ah, but the Halachah is, they are choked).
2. Rejection: Since the Torah teaches that a Mekudeshes Na'arah is stoned, we cannot say that a Nesu'ah is also stoned (if so, there was no need to teach stoning regarding a Mekudeshes Na'arah, this is also adultery)!
3. Suggestion: He thought, we should learn that one who wounds a parent (about which it says "Mos Yumas") is stoned (but the Halachah is, he is choked).
4. Rejection: Since we can learn "Mos Yumasu" from adultery (with a Nesu'ah, punishable by choking), surely we learn (choking,) the lighter Misah!

(j) Answer (Ravina): He was bothered, how would we learn the other cases of stoning (from "Mos Yumas" from Ov and Yid'oni) - since we can learn "Mos Yumasu" from adultery (with a Nesu'ah), we should learn (choking,) the lighter Misah!

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

1. A man who had relations with his mother (unless specified, she always gets the same Misah as him), his father's wife, his daughter-in-law, another man, an animal, a woman who had relations with an animal;
2. A blasphemer, an idolater, one who conjures up the dead with Ov or Yid'oni, one who is Mechalel Shabbos, one who curses a parent, one who has relations with a Mekudeshes Na'arah, one who entices (an individual) to serve idolatry, one who entices a city to serve idolatry, a witch, a Ben Sorer u'Moreh.

(b) If one had relations with his mother and she is his father's wife, he is liable for both transgressions (this will be explained);
(c) R. Yehudah says, he is only liable for relations with his mother.
(d) If one had relations with his father's wife, he is liable for this and (if she is currently married) for adultery with a married woman, whether or not his father is alive, whether she was Mekudeshes or Nesu'ah to his father;
(e) If one had relations with his daughter-in-law, he is liable for this and (if she is currently married) for adultery with a married woman, whether or not his son is alive, whether she was Mekudeshes or Nesu'ah to his son.
(f) (Gemara - Beraisa - R. Yehudah): If his mother was unfit to marry his father, he is only liable for relations with his mother. (This argues with the Tana of our Mishnah, who says that R. Yehudah never obligates for both.)
(g) Question: What does it mean 'if she was unfit to marry his father'?

1. Suggestion: She was forbidden to him by a transgression of Kares or Misah.
2. Rejection: If so, Chachamim would agree, for she cannot be Mekudeshes to his father!

(h) Answer: She was forbidden to him by a Lav; R. Yehudah holds like R. Akiva, who says that there cannot be Kidushin with Chayavei Lavin.
(i) Question (R. Oshiya - Mishnah): If a Yevamah falls to a Yavam forbidden to her on account of Mitzvah or Kedushah (these will be explained), she does Chalitzah, not Yibum;

1. 'Mitzvah' refers to Sheniyos (Arayos mid'Rabanan) - they are called (prohibitions of) Mitzvah, because it is a Mitzvah to obey Chachamim (who decreed about them):
2. 'Kedushah' refers to prohibitions of Kohanim (a widow married to a Kohen Gadol, a divorcee or Chalutzah married a regular Kohen) - they are called Kedushah on account of "Kedoshim Yihyu".
3. (Beraisa - R. Yehudah): 'Mitzvah' refers to prohibitions of Kohanim (they are called Mitzvah, because it says at the end of Sefer Va'Yikra "Elu ha'Mitzvos";
4. 'Kedushah' refers to Sheniyos mid'Rabanan (one grows in Kedushah by refraining from things the Torah permitted).
5. Summation of question: R. Yehudah agrees that Chalitzah is required regarding Chayavei Lavin of Kohanim - if he held that there is no Kidushin with Chayavei Lavin, they are like Chayavei Kares, there would be no need for Chalitzah!

(j) Answer: R. Yehudah only came to argue with Chachamim about their terminology (what should be called prohibitions of Mitzvah and Kedushah), he also argues regarding Chalitzah of Chayavei Lavin, but did not mention this.
(k) R. Yitzchak taught a Beraisa similar to our Mishnah: R. Yehudah says, (in all cases) he is only liable for relations with his mother.

(a) Question: What is his reason?
(b) Answer #1 (Abaye): "Imcha Hi" - one (who had relations with his mother) is only liable for his mother, not for his father's wife.
(c) Objection #1: If so, we should also expound "Ervas Eshes Avicha...Ervas Avicha Hi" one who had relations with his father's wife is only liable for his father's wife, not for his mother!

1. From these two verses, one is not be liable for relations with his mother if she was married to his father, but he would be liable if she was never married to him, or for relations with a wife of his father who is not his mother!

(d) Objection #2: Why don't Chachamim expound similarly?

1. Rather, they expound "Imcha Hi" as Rav Shisha brei d'Rav Idi does (below, 64A) - also R. Yehudah needs it for Rav Shisha's law!

(e) Answer #2 (Rav Acha brei d'Rav Ika): "Ervasah" (singular) - you are liable only for one Ervah (even if she is forbidden to you for two reasons).
(f) Objection: If so "Ervas Kalascha...Eshes Bincha Hi Lo Segale Ervasah", we should also expound, you are liable only for one Ervah;

1. (Mishnah): One who had relations with his daughter-in-law is liable for his daughter-in-law and (if she is married) for relations with a married woman.
2. R. Yehudah does not argue!
3. Rather, we must say that because she is one person, the singular 'Ervasah' applies, even though one is liable twice - the same applies to 'Ervasah' in the verse "Imcha Hi"!

(g) Answer #3 (Rava): R. Yehudah holds that "Ervas Avicha" (earlier in the verse "Imcha Hi" refers to your father's wife (we learn from a Gezerah Shavah to "Ervas Eshes Avicha...Ervas Avicha Hi"), it teaches that you are liable for her whether or not she is your mother.
(h) Question: What is the source for his mother if she is not his father's wife?
(i) Answer: "Ervas Imcha Lo Segale";

1. The verse continues "Imcha Hi" - (if she is also your father's wife) you are liable for relations with your mother, not for relations with your father's wife.