Previous daf

1)

(a) The doctors told the man who became sick with infatuation for a certain woman - that he would only recover if he were to be intimate with her.

(b) When the Chachamim ruled 'Yehareg ve'Al Ya'avor' even to see her naked - they

1. ... advised him to speak with her from behind a wall ...
2. ... whilst the Rabban repeated the same ruling for the third time.

(c) Rebbi Ya'akov bar Idi and Rebbi Shmuel bar Nachmeni argue over whether she was married or not.

(d) According to those who hold that she was not, Rav Papa ascribes the Chachamim stringent ruling to P'gam Mishpachah - meaning that the woman's family considered the whole thing an embarassment and a sleight to their honor.

(a) Rav Acha B'reih de'Rav Ika disagrees with Rav Papa. According to him, the Rabbanan were so strict - in order to prevent a decline in the standard of decency among the public.

(b) We ask why, if she was unmarried, the man did not simply marry the woman. And we answer with a statement of Rebbi Yitzchak, who said - that since the destruction of the Beis-Hamikdash, 'the taste of Bi'ah' was removed and given to sinners.

(c) Shlomoh Hamelech made a similar statement in Mishlei, when he said - "Mayim Genuvim Yimtaku, *ve'Lechem Sesarim Yena'ein*", meaning that taking a womanin secret is pleasant.

3)

(a) Besides someone who marries a woman and her daughter (and its derivatives) - a bas Kohen receives Sereifah.

(b) The Bo'el in the first case(s) - receives Sereifah too, but not in the second (where is sentenced to Chenek).

(c) Ishah u'Bitah incorporates a woman and her granddaughter, and - a. a woman and her mother, and b. a woman and her grandmother.

(d) Neither does it make any difference whether he is married to the first woman or whether he raped her.

(a) We extrapolate from ...

1. ... the Seifa, which states 'Yesh bi'Chelal Ishah u'Bitah, Bito u'Bas Bito ... ' - that both 'Ishah' and 'Bitah' in the Reisha refer to women whom the Torah forbids (and not just to his regular wife and her daughter.
2. ... the Lashon of the Mishnah 'ha'Ba al Ishah u'Bitah' (and not 'ha'Ba al Ishah she'Nasa Bitah') - that (to answer the problem) the Tana cannot mean 'Ishah': his mother-in-law) 'u'Bitah': her daughter.

(b) According to Abaye (later in the Sugya), who learns that according to Rebbi Akiva, the Pasuk is speaking about 'Eim Chamoso', the author of our Mishnah is Rebbi Akiva, and 'Ishah u'Bitah' refers to his mother-in-law's mother and his mother-in-law. In Rava's opinion (later in the Sugya), the Pasuk speaks, according to both Rebbi Akiva and Rebbi Yishmael (not about Eim Chamoso, but) about Chamoso, after his wife's death.

(c) The problem with our Mishnah, according to Rava is therefore - to whom does 'Ishto' refer?

(d) So Rava amends the Lashon of our Mishnah to - 'ha'Ba al Ishah she'Nasa Bitah'.

(a) In spite of the fact that the Pasuk explicitly mentions Eim Chamoso according to Abaye, and Chamoso according to Rava, the Tana inserts ...

1. ... 'Chamoso ve'Eim Chamoso' in the Seifa (which lists things that "Chamoso" incorporates) according to Abaye - because of 'Eim Chamiv' (Aydi de'Ba'i le'Misni ... ').
2. ... 'Chamoso', according to Rava - 'Aydi de'Ba'i le'Misni 'Eim Chamiv ve'Eim Chamoso'.

(b) The Beraisa learn from the 'Gezeirah-Shavah "Zimah" (written by the Onesh in Kedoshim) "Zimah" (written by the Azharah in Acharei-Mos) - that the Onesh (which mentions "Ishah ve'Imah") extends to "Ishah u'Bitah", and to "bas B'nah and bas Bitah" (which are not written there).

(a) The Beraisa continues to learn that 'Zecharim ki'Nekeivos' from the same 'Gezeirah-Shavah'. This cannot mean that ...

1. ... Bas B'nah has the same Din as Bas Bitah - since both are written explicitly.
2. ... Eim Chamiv has the same Din as Eim Chamoso - since we do yet know about Eim Chamoso, so how can the Tana inform us that Eim Chamiv has the same Sin as her?

(b) What the Tana therefore means, says Abaye, is that She'er ha'Ba Mimenu has the same Din as She'er ha'Ba Mimenah. What he means is - that his own daughter and granddaughters (born to either his son or his daughter [which are not written explicitly]) are forbidden just like the daughter and granddaughters of the woman he raped (which are). Note, that this D'rashah really comes to include his daughter (which is not written at all, whereas his granddaughters are.

(c) Bearing in mind that the Pasuk (by the Azharah) which contains Zimah, writes "Ervas Ishah u'Bitah ... es bas B'nah ve'es bas Bitah ... ", the problem with the 'Gezeirah-Shavah is - how can we incorporate 'She'er ha'Ba *Mimenu*' from "Zimah", when the Pasuk containing "Zimah" (by the Azharah) only talks about 'She'er ha'Ba *Mimenah*?

(d) Rabah quoting Rav Yitzchak bar Avudimi, solves this problem, based on the other Pasuk written by the Azharah "Ervas bas Bincha O bas Bitcha ... ki Ervascha Heinah" (even though it does not contain "Zimah" - by learning a second 'Gezeirah-Shavah' "Heinah" (ki Ervascha Heinah, by the Azharah) "Heinah" ("Sha'arah Heinah Zimah Hi", also by the Azharah). So we learn the one from the other via "Heinah" with regard to the Azharah, and the Onesh from the Azharah via "Zimah".

7)

(a) The Beraisa then goes on to learn 'le'Matah ki'Lema'alah', also from"Zimah" "Zimah". This cannot mean that ...

1. ... bas B'nah and bas Bitah have the same Din as Bitah - because they are both written explicitly.
2. ... Eim Chamiv and Eim Chamoso have the same Din as Chamoso - because then the Tana should have said 'le'Ma'alah ki'Lematah'.

(b) So we amend the Beraisa to read 'le'Ma'alah ki'Lematah', and the Tana is indeed coming to tell us that Eim Chamiv and Eim Chamoso have the same Din as Chamoso.

(c) Eim Chamiv and Eim Chamoso - are not actually written at all.

(d) So Abaye interprets the Beraisa 'Minayin La'asos le'Matah ki'Lema'alah' (as if it was) in two stages (via the 'Gezeirah-Shavah'). The Tana learns ...

1. ... the first stage in respect of the Onesh - where he learns 'le'Ma'alah from le'Matah', in respect of the Onesh, where he derives the third generation upwards (Eim Chamiv and Eim Chamoso), which is not written, from the third generation downwards (bas B'no and Bas Bito), which are.
2. ... the second stage in respect of the Azharah - where he learns le'Ma'alah (Chamoso itself, which is not written there) by comparing it to le'Matah, from the Onesh, where we learn le'Matah from le'Ma'alah (as we just explained).

(a) But Abaye's explanation is based on an inverted Lashon (from 'le'Matah ki'Lema'alah' to 'le'Ma'alah le'Matah', as we just explained). Rav Ashi leaves the Lashon intact. He explains 'le'Matah' with reference to Eim Chamiv and Eim Chamoso to mean that it is a lesser Isur, because it is removed from the original Isur (even though this has no Halachic ramifications).

(b) And he resolves the Kashya we asked earlier 'u'Mah Hashta Inhu Lo Kesivah, Zimah Didhu Kesivah' - by explaining that 'Ne'emar Ka'an Zimah ... ' does not refer to Eim Chamiv and Eim Chamoso, but - to the Limud of Chamoso from Bito.

(c) Bearing in mind that his wife's mother's mother is forbidden (and that we learned above 'She'er ha'Ba Mimenu' from 'She'er ha'Ba Mimenah'), Abaye learns from the Pasuk "Imcha Hi" - that Eim Imo is precluded from the comparison of She'er ha'Ba Mimenu to She'er ha'Ba Mimenah' (and is permitted min ha'Torah).

(d) Rava agrees with Abaye in principle (that Eim Imo is permitted), only in his opinion - this Heter does not require a Pasuk (since there is no way that we could learn the Isur from She'er ha'Ba Mimenah anyway, as we will now proceed to explain).

(a) The definition of ...

1. ... 'Don Minah u'Minah' is - that we learn not only the general rule from a 'Gezeirah-Shavah', but the details too.
2. ... 'Don Minah ve'Uki be'Asra' is - that we learn the general rules from the 'Gezeirah-Shavah', but not necessarily the details.

(b) If we held 'Ne'emar Ka'an Zimah ... ', the punishment he would receive for Eim Imo would be - Sereifah.

(c) According to Rebbi Shimon who holds 'Sereifah Chamurah', this would give rise to three Pirchos: 1. How can we learn She'ero from She'er Ishto (le'Chumra), considering that his wife's mother is a Chiyuv Sereifah, whereas his own mother is only a Chiyuv Sekilah (a Kula)? 2. How is it possible for Eim Imo (Sekilah) should be more stringent than Imo (Sekilah)? - 3. Just like we do not differentiate between Imah and Eim Imah, so too, should we not differentiate between Imo and Eim Imo - in which case, perhaps we should give both of them Sekilah (we cannot give them both Sereifah, since the Torah explicitly sentences him to Sekilah for Imo); but if we did, we would no longer be adhering to the principle 'Don Minah u'Minah'.

(d) According to the Rabbanan, who hold 'Sekilah Chamurah', the first two Pirchos fall away. The sole Pircha will therefore be - the third Pircha, only based on the fact that we cannot give them both Sekilah, since we are learning from 'Hi', where Eim Imah, only receives Sereifah (so how can we give Eim Imo the more stringent Sekilah).

(a) Based on the principle 'Don Minah ve'Ukei be'Asra', the 'Gezeirah-Shavah' would also begin 'Mah Hi Eim Imah Asurah, Af Hu Eim Imo Asurah'. But it would conclude - 'Hasam Hu de'bi'Sereifah, Aval Hacha bi'Sekilah'.

(b) There too, Rava asks two Pirchos, according to Rebbi Shimon: 1. The same as the first Kashya that we asked before. 2. Just like by She'er Ishto, Eim Imah has the same Din as Bitah (Sereifah), to too, should Eim Imo have the same Din as Bito (Sereifah, and not Sekilah, which is less stringent). According to the Chachamim of Rebbi Shimon, the sole Kashya is - the latter one, only on the grounds that one could not give Sekilah to Eim Imo, because it would be *more* stringent, and its source is Eim Imah, who receives Sereifah (which is less stringent).