Sanhedrin 149

ואם איתא לא לימא ליה הא בצנעה הא בפרהסיא

Now, if it be so [that a Noachide is bidden to sanctify the Divine Name], he should not have said this?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' For thereby he tacitly concurred in Naaman's proposal. ');">¹</span>

אמר רב יהודה אמר רב מעשה באדם אחד שנתן עיניו באשה אחת והעלה לבו טינא ובאו ושאלו לרופאים ואמרו אין לו תקנה עד שתבעל אמרו חכמים ימות ואל תבעל לו תעמוד לפניו ערומה ימות ואל תעמוד לפניו ערומה תספר עמו מאחורי הגדר ימות ולא תספר עמו מאחורי הגדר

— The one is private, the other public.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Naaman was to simulate idolatry in the Temple of Rimmon, where no Jews were present. This, according to the statement on 74b, is transgression in private. The problem however is whether he must publicly sanctify the Divine Name, i.e. in the presence of Jews. ');">²</span>

פליגי בה ר' יעקב בר אידי ור' שמואל בר נחמני חד אמר אשת איש היתה וחד אמר פנויה היתה בשלמא למאן דאמר אשת איש היתה שפיר אלא למ"ד פנויה היתה מאי כולי האי

Rab Judah said in Rab's name: A man once conceived a passion for a certain woman,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Lit., 'set his eyes on a certain woman.' ');">³</span>

רב פפא אמר משום פגם משפחה רב אחא בריה דרב איקא אמר כדי שלא יהו בנות ישראל פרוצות בעריות

and his heart was consumed by his burning desire [his life being endangered thereby]. When the doctors were consulted, they said, 'His only cure is that she shall submit.' Thereupon the Sages said: 'Let him die rather than that she should yield.' Then [said the doctors]; 'let her stand nude before him;' [they answered] 'sooner let him die'. 'Then', said the doctors, 'let her converse with him from behind a fence'. 'Let him die,' the Sages replied 'rather than she should converse with him from behind a fence.' Now R. Jacob b. Idi and R. Samuel b. Nahmani dispute therein. One said that she was a married woman; the other that she was unmarried. Now, this is intelligible on the view, that she was a married woman, but on the latter, that she was unmarried, why such severity? — R. Papa said: Because of the disgrace to her family. R. Aha the son of R. Ika said: That the daughters of Israel may not be immorally dissolute. Then why not marry her? — Marriage would not assuage his passion, even as R. Isaac said: Since the destruction of the Temple, sexual pleasure has been taken [from those who practise it lawfully] and given to sinners, as it is written, <i>Stolen waters are sweet, and bread eaten in secret is pleasant</i>.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Prov. IX, 17. ');">⁴</span>

ולינסבה מינסב לא מייתבה דעתיה כדר' יצחק דא"ר יצחק מיום שחרב בית המקדש ניטלה טעם ביאה וניתנה לעוברי עבירה שנאמר (משלי ט, יז) מים גנובים ימתקו ולחם סתרים ינעם:

<b><i>MISHNAH</i></b>. THE FOLLOWING ARE BURNT: HE WHO COMMITS INCEST WITH A WOMAN AND HER DAUGHTER, AND A PRIEST'S ADULTEROUS DAUGHTER. THERE IS INCLUDED IN A WOMAN AND HER DAUGHTER' HIS OWN DAUGHTER, HIS DAUGHTER'S DAUGHTER, HIS SON'S DAUGHTER, HIS WIFE'S DAUGHTER AND THE DAUGHTER OF HER DAUGHTER OR SON, HIS MOTHER-IN-LAW, HER MOTHER, AND HIS FATHER-IN-LAW'S MOTHER.

<br><br><big><strong>הדרן עלך בן סורר ומורה</strong></big><br><br>

<b><i>GEMARA</i></b>. The Mishnah does not state, 'He who commits incest with a woman whose daughter he has married', but 'HE WHO COMMITS INCEST WITH A WOMAN AND HER DAUGHTER'; this proves that both are forbidden. Who are they then? His mother-in-law and her mother. Then the Mishnah further states, THERE IS INCLUDED IN 'A WOMAN AND HER DAUGHTER'; this proves that the first are explicit and the others derived.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' The statement that a number of other women are included in the first cannot be literal, for in fact the meaning of 'a woman and her daughter' cannot be extended to include, e.g., his own daughter or his son's daughter. Hence it must mean that 'a woman and her daughter' are explicitly stated in the Bible, whilst the others are included as derivations from these two. Now since the wording of the Mishnah shows that both the first two are forbidden and that the only relation explicitly forbidden on pain of burning is his mother-in-law, it follows that 'a woman and her daughter' must mean his mother-in-law ('daughter') and her mother. And these are regarded as explicitly forbidden. ');">⁵</span>

מתני׳ <big><strong>ואלו</strong></big> הן הנשרפין הבא על אשה ובתה ובת כהן שזנתה

Now this agrees with Abaye,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' V. infra 76b. ');">⁶</span>

יש בכלל אשה ובתה בתו ובת בתו ובת בנו ובת אשתו ובת בתה ובת בנה חמותו ואם חמותו ואם חמיו:

who maintains that they<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' R. Akiba and R. Ishmael. ');">⁷</span>

<big><strong>גמ׳</strong></big> הבא על אשה שנשא בתה לא קתני אלא הבא על אשה ובתה מכלל דתרוייהו לאיסורא ומאן נינהו חמותו ואם חמותו

differ as to the text from which the law is derived; hence the Mishnah is taught in accordance with R. Akiba's view.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Who holds that the mother of his mother-in-law is explicitly prohibited. ');">⁸</span>

וקתני יש בכלל אשה ובתה מכלל דתרוייהו כתיבי בהדיא והנך מדרשא אתיא

But on Raba's view, that they differ about his mother-in-law after [his wife's] death,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' But as to his mother-in-law's mother there is a common agreement that the prohibition is only derived and not explicitly stated. ');">⁹</span>

הניחא לאביי דאמר משמעות דורשין איכא בינייהו מתניתין מני רבי עקיבא היא

with whom does the Mishnah agree? — Raba can answer you: Read [in the Mishnah] He who commits incest with a woman whose daughter he has married.

אלא לרבא דאמר חמותו לאחר מיתה איכא בינייהו מתניתין מני אמר לך רבא תני הבא על אשה שנשא בתה:

THERE IS INCLUDED IN 'A WOMAN AND HER DAUGHTER HIS MOTHER-IN-LAW, HER MOTHER, AND HIS FATHER-IN-LAW'S MOTHER.

יש בכלל אשה ובתה חמותו ואם חמותו ואם חמיו: לאביי איידי דקא בעי למיתנא אם חמיו תני נמי חמותו ואם חמותו

In Abaye's view,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' That burning for the first two is explicitly decreed, so that they cannot be included in 'a woman etc.' but are identical therewith. ');">¹⁰</span>

לרבא איידי דקא בעי למיתנא אם חמיו ואם חמותו תני נמי חמותו

since the Mishnah desires to state — HIS FATHER-IN-LAW'S MOTHER, it adds HIS MOTHER-IN-LAW AND HER MOTHER. On Raba's view,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' That only his mother-in-law is explicitly forbidden on pain of death by fire, but not her mother. ');">¹¹</span>

מנהני מילי דת"ר (ויקרא כ, יד) איש אשר יקח את אשה ואת אמה אין לי אלא אשה ואמה בת אשה ובת בתה ובת בנה מנין

because the Mishnah must teach 'HIS FATHER-IN-LAW'S MOTHER', and 'HIS MOTHER-IN-LAW'S MOTHER', 'HIS MOTHER-IN-LAW' too is mentioned.

נאמר כאן זמה ונאמר להלן זמה מה להלן בתה ובת בתה ובת בנה אף כאן בתה ובת בתה ובת בנה

Whence do we know this? — For our Rabbis taught: <i>And if a man take a woman and her mother</i> [<i>it is wickedness: they shall be burnt with fire, both he and they</i>.]<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Lev. XX, 14. ');">¹²</span>

מנין לעשות זכרים כנקבות נאמר כאן זמה ונאמר להלן זמה מה להלן זכרים כנקבות אף כאן זכרים כנקבות

This law refers only to a woman and her mother. Whence do I derive it for a woman and her daughter, or her daughter's daughter, or her son's daughter? The word zimmah [wickedness] occurs here, and is also written elsewhere:<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Thou shalt not uncover the nakedness of a woman and her daughter, neither shalt thou take her son's daughter, or her daughter's daughter, to uncover her nakedness; for they are her near kinswomen; it is wickedness, [H] (Lev. XVIII, 17). ');">¹³</span>

מנין לעשות למטה כלמעלה נאמר כאן זמה ונאמר להלן זמה מה להלן למטה כלמעלה אף כאן למטה כלמעלה ומה כאן למעלה כלמטה אף להלן למעלה כלמטה

Just as there, her daughter, her daughter's daughter and her son's daughter [are meant by zimmah], so here too her daughter, her daughter's daughter, and her son's daughter [are included in the punishment of burning decreed for incest with them]. Whence do we know that males are as females? 'Wickedness' [zimmah] is stated here, and also elsewhere; just as there, males are as females, so here too. Whence do we know that the lower is as the upper? 'Wickedness' [zimmah] is stated here, and also elsewhere: just as there, the lower is as the upper, so here too; and just as here the upper is as the lower, so there too.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' This is explained in the Gemara. ');">¹⁴</span>

אמר מר מנין לעשות זכרים כנקבות מאי זכרים כנקבות אילימא בת בנה כבת בתה בהדי הדדי קאתיאן

The Master said: 'Whence do we know that males are as females?' What is meant by this? Shall we say that her son's daughter is equally forbidden as her daughter's daughter?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' The meaning being, the issue of males is prohibited just as that of females. ');">¹⁵</span>

אלא אם חמיו כאם חמותו השתא אם חמותו לא קמה לן אם חמיו מיהדר עלה

But these are simultaneously derived!<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' From the gezarah shawah of zimmah. ');">¹⁶</span> Again, if it means that his father-in-law's mother is as his mother-in-law's mother:<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Thus teaching that incest with both is punished by fire. ');">¹⁷</span> but seeing that the latter is as yet unproven, why demonstrate that the former is equal thereto?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' At this stage, nothing has been adduced to shew that incest with his mother-in-law's mother is thus punished, for 'a woman' has been translated literally. Consequently, only his mother-in-law is forbidden in this verse. ');">¹⁸</span>