Previous daf

1)

(a) Abaye extrapolates from the Pasuk "Eishes Bincha Hi" - that only one's own daughter-in-law is forbidden, but not that of one's wife.

(b) Using the same style as before, Rava refutes the need for such a D'rashah, with two Pirchos. Firstly, if we hold 'Don Minah u'Minah' and assuming that Sekilah is more stringent, we could not learn from Kalaso, that Kalasah should be Asur and receive Sekilah, because *her* mother receives only Sereifah, whereas *his* mother receives Sekilah. We refute the Pircha 'Bitah bi'Sereifah, ve'Kalasah bi'Sekilah?' on the grounds that - seeing as that is also the case with regard to *his* daughter and daughter-in-law and respectively, that would be no problem.

(c) The second Pircha will be - that just as the Torah does not distinguish between *his* mother and daughter-in-law (both receive Sekilah), so too, should it not distinguish between *her* mother and daughter-in-law (who should therefore receive Sereifah [which in turn, will not conform with 'Don Minah u'Minah']).

(d) And the same Kashya will apply, assuming that Sereifah is more stringent - i.e. since his wife's mother receives Sereifah, so should her daughter-in-law.

(a) If we hold 'Don Minah ve'Uki be'Asra' (Kalaso bi'Sekilah, Aval Kalasa bi'Sereifah) and assuming that Sekilah is more stringent, Rava asks two Pirchos: The first is that we cannot learn *her* daughter-in-law from *his*, since *his* mother receives (the stricter) Sekilah, whereas *her's* receives only Sereifah. The second Pircha is - that just as the Torah differentiates between *his* daughter and daughter-in-law, to give the former Sereifah, and the latter, Sekilah, so too, should we differentiate between *her* daughter and her daughter-in-law, to give the latter Sekilah (which in turn, will not conform with 'Don Minah ve'Uki be'Asra').

(b) And assuming that Sereifah is more stringent, the Pircha will be (as the latter Pircha that we just cited).

(a) Bearing in mind that the Pasuk of Anusah mentions only granddaughter and not daughter, we ask from where we know that Bito me'Anusaso is forbidden. Abaye answers - from a 'Kal va'Chomer' from bas Bito.

(b) We refute the Kashya 've'Chi Onshin min ha'Din' - by referring to it as a 'Giluy Milsa' (a clarification) rather than a full-scale 'Kal va'Chomer', due to the fact that a granddaughter incorporates a daughter, and is therefore stronger than a regular 'Kal va'Chomer'.

(c) This differs from a paternal and maternal sister, whom we decline to derive from a half-sister, because it is considered 'Onshin min ha'Din' - inasmuch as, , a granddaughter is not just obvious, but physically a direct derivative of a daughter (which a sister is not), and it therefore stands to reason that if the former is forbidden, so is the latter.

(d) Rava, quoting Rebbi Yitzchak bar Avudimi, learns - 'Bito ke'Bas Bito from "Heinah" "Heinah", written by the Azharah, and the punishments from "Zimah" "Zimah".

(a) Avuhah de'Rebbi Avin learns from the Pasuk ... "u'bas *Ish* Kohen Ki Seichel li'Zenos ... ba'Eish Tisaref" - the Azharah for Bito me'Anusaso.

(b) A man who commits adultery with a bas Kohen who is married receives - Chenek.

(c) Abaye (based on Avuhah de'Rebbi Avin's D'rashah), therefore learns from "es Avihah Hi Mechaleles" that someone who commits adultery with Bito me'Anusaso - receives the same punishment as his daughter (Sereifah).

(d) Once again, Rava argues that no D'rashah is needed for this Halachah - because there is neither any reason to give him Chenek, nor to absolve him as if she was a regular Penuyah (seeing as he committed incest). Consequently, the only possibility is to apply the principle that both parties receive the same punishment.

(a) Abaye and Rava (who learn Bito me'Anusaso from a 'Kal va'Chomer' and from a 'Gezeirah-Shavah' respectively), learn the Azharah from the same source as the punishment.

(b) Tani Avuhah de'Rebbi Avin learns it from the Pasuk "Al Techalel es Bitcha le'Haznosah". We reconcile this with the Beraisa, which uses the same Pasuk (from the use of the word "le'Haznosah") to preclude any Isur for a Kohen to marry off his daughter to a Levi or a Yisrael - by making a dual D'rashah from the word "Techalel" (which could just as well have been written "Tachel" [with one 'Lamed']).

(c) We might have thought that the Torah does forbid a Kohen to marry off his daughter to a Levi or a Yisrael - since she does in fact, become disqualified from eating Terumah, at least for as long as she is married to him), which might have been considered a 'Chilul'.

(d) Abaye and Rava then learn from "Al Techalel es Bitcha ... " - that a man should not 'desecrate' his young daughter by marrying her off to an old man (thereby encouraging her to commit adultery with younger men), like the opinion of Rebbi Eliezer in the Beraisa.

(a) As we just mentioned, the above D'rashah is that of Rebbi Eliezer. Rebbi Akiva (who probably agrees with Rebbi Eliezer) adds - 'Zeh ha'Mashhe Bito Bogeres'.

(b) Rav Kahana quoting Rebbi Akiva states 'Ein Lecha Ani be'Yisrael Ela Rasha Arum, ve'ha'Mashhe Bito Bogeres'. The problem with this dual statement - that 'Mashhe Bito Bogeres' is incorporated in 'Rasha Arum'.

(c) So Abaye amends it to read - 'Eizehu Rasha Arum, Zeh ha'Mashhe es Bito B ogeres'.

(d) The connection with poverty is - that the father's delay is probably due to the fact that he is short of money, and is trying to save himself having to purchase a maidservant (at the expense of his unfortunate daughter).

7)

(a) Rav Kahana quoting Rebbi Akiva also says 'Hevi Zahir min ha'Yo'atzech l'Fi Darko' by which he means - that one should beware of people whose 'good' advice is intented for their own benefit, rather than for the person who consults them.

(b) When Rav Yehudah Amar Rav applies the Pasuk "Lema'an S'fos ha'Ravah es ha'Tzemei'ah" to someone who marries off his young daughter to an old man - he means that by so doing, he joins someone who is satiated (and who does not want intimacy), with someone who is thirsty (for it), a recipe for disaster.

(c) Similarly, he cites the reverse case - of someone who takes a wife who is of age (who is thirsty for intimacy) for his son who is a Katan (who is devoid of thirst).

(a) He concludes his list with someone who returns a lost article to a Nochri, which also fits the description "Lema'an S'fos ha'Ravah es ha'Tzemei'ah" - inasmuch as a Yisrael is thirsty for Mitzvos, whereas a Nochri is satiated (and not too keen).

(b) The reason for this is - because by returning lost articles to all and sundry, one demonstrates that one is not returning them because it is a Mitzvah, but out of personal motivation. Presumably, this does not include a case that involves Kidush Hashem.

(a) Discussing the Pasuk in Iyov "ve'Yada'at ki Sh'lom Ohalech u'Fakadta Navech ve'Lo Secheta", the Beraisa includes someone who loves his wife like himself, and honors her more than himself - by which he means that he buys her ornaments.

(b) The Tana adds two more cases to his list; one of them is someone who guides his sons and daughters along the right path, the other - someone who marries them off just before they become of age.

(c) We reconcile this with Rav Yehudah Amar Rav, who spoke derogatively about someone who marries off his son when he is a Katan - by differentiating between a complete Katan and one who is on the verge of becoming a Gadol.

(a) The Tana describes "P'ros la'Ra'ev Lachmecha", as lending a Sela to a poor man in need, and incorporates in "u'mi'Besarcha al Tis'alem", bringing close one's relatives. The Tana also includes someone who loves (is kind to) his neighbors - on the basis of the Pasuk in Mishlei "Tov Shachein Karov me'Ach Rachok"?

(b) The third case the Tana adds to this list is - someone who marries his niece (his sister's daughter).

(c) The reward promised by the Pasuk for all of these is - "Az Tikra va'Hashem Ya'aneh".

(a) In explaining the Pasuk "ba'Eish Yisrefu Oso ve'Es'hen", Rebbi Yishmael says 'Oso ve'es Achas Meihen', by which he means 'that besides himself, only one of the two women mentioned there (''Ishah u'Bitah") is Chayav Sereifah. This is because he interprets 'Meihen' as a derivative of the ancient Greek word 'Hina', which means 'one'.

(b) Rebbi Akiva says 'Oso ve'es Sh'teihen'. The problem with this is - why the woman he married first, who after all, is his legal wife, should be Chayav

(c) Abaye therefore explains 'Mashma'os Dorshin Ika Benaihu', by which he means - that the Tana'im do indeed argue over the meaning of "Es'hen", as we explained. Rebbi Yishmael learns as we explained, whereas according to Rebbi Akiva, the two women with whom he committed incest were his mother-in-law and his mother-in-law's mother (both of whom are forbidden because of incest).

(d) Abaye describes the Machlokes as 'Mashma'os Dorshin' - because they do not argue le'Halachah, since Rebbi Yishmael obligates Eim Chamoso from another source.

(e) According to Rava, both Tana'im agree that Eim Chamoso is not mentioned in this Pasuk, and the basis of their Machlokes is - whether Chamoso remains forbidden after the death of one's wife (Rebbi Yishmael, who explains "Es'hen" to mean that his wife is no longer alive when he 'marries' her mother), or not (Rebbi Akiva, who interprets "Es'hen" to mean that they are both alive, because if his wife had died, his mother-in-law would not be Chayav Sereifah, though she would still be forbidden).

(a) The two cases that receive Sayaf are - a murderer and the inhabitants of an Ir ha'Nidachas.

(b) Our Mishnah rules that if Reuven murdered Shimon with a stone or with metal - he is Chayav.

(c) The Tana rules that if Reuven incited a dog or a snake against Shimon, and Shimon was subsequently attacked and injured or killed by them - he is Patur (because it is only G'rama [an indirect cause]).

(d) And if Reuven actually picked up a snake and held it against Shimon, and the snake then bit him ...

1. ... according to Rebbi Yehudah - he is Chayav.
2. ... according to the Chachamim - he is Patur.

(a) Shmuel, as well as Rebbi in a Beraisa, ascribe the Torah's omission of the word "Yad" by metal (in Mas'ei in the Parshah of murderers) - to the fact that metal is lethal, irrespective of its size, in which case, it does need to fill the hand, like a stone does.

(b) We qualify this Chumra however - confining it to a case where the murderer kills by piercing (like with a sword); but in a case where he strikes with a piece of metal, it requires a Shiur just like other materials.

(c) We comment on our Mishnah, which metes out the death-sentence to Reuven who holds Shimon's head under water if he cannot raise it, and exempts him for pushing Shimon into the water, if he is able to get out (but doesn't) - that the Reisha teaches us the Chidush, that even though he did not push him into the water, he is nevertheless Chayav; whereas the Seifa teaches us that he is Patur, even though he did.

(d) Shmuel learns from the Pasuk there "O be'Eivah" - that a Metzamtzem (someone who prevents a drowning man from raising his head out of the water) is Chayav (even though he did nothing to directly cause the man's death, but only prevented him from emerging, making it a case of G'rama).