Sanhedrin 150

אמר אביי הכי קאמר מנין לעשות שאר הבא ממנו כשאר הבא ממנה נאמר כאן זמה ונאמר להלן זמה וכו' והא בשאר דידיה לא כתיבא ביה זמה

— Abaye said, This is what is meant: Whence do we know that his issue is as hers?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' I.e., that his daughter, his son's daughter, or daughter's daughter by a mistress are forbidden to him on pain of burning just as wife's daughter, her son's daughter, and her daughter's daughter. For Lev. XVIII, 17 (cited on p. 508 n. 5) refers to the offspring of marriage, not of seduction or outrage. On this interpretation, 'male' refers to his issue, 'female' to his wife's. ');">¹</span>

אמר רבא אמר לי רב יצחק בר אבודימי אתיא הנה הנה אתיא זמה זמה

The word 'zimmah' occurs here, and is also written elsewhere etc. But 'zimmah' is not written in connection with his issue?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' For that his issue is at all forbidden is derived not from Lev. XVIII, 17, but from Lev. XVIII, 10: The nakedness of thy son's daughter, or thy daughter's daughter, even their nakedness thou shalt not uncover: for their's (hennah [H]) is thine own nakedness ');">²</span>

אמר מר מנין לעשות למטה כלמעלה מאי למטה כלמעלה אילימא בת בנה ובת בתה כבתה בהדי הדדי קאתיין

Raba answered: R. Isaac b. Abudimi said unto me: We learn identity of law from the fact that 'hennah' [they] occurs in two related passages, and likewise 'zimmah' [wickedness] in two.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Supra 51a. In Lev. XVIII, 10 it is stated. The nakedness of thy son's daughter, or of thy daughter's daughter, even their nakedness thou shalt not uncover; for they (hennah) are thine own nakedness. Further, it is written (ibid. XVIII, 17): 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 (hennah) are her near kinswomen; it is wickedness (zimmah, [H]). Since hennah occurs in these two passages, they are identified with each other, and zimmah in the second passage, referring to her issue, is understood to be implicit in the first too, which refers to his issue. Then the first passage is further identified with Lev. XX, 14: And if a man take a wife and her mother, it is wickedness (zimmah): They shalt be burnt with fire: thus we derive burning for incest with his issue. ');">³</span>

אלא אם חמיו ואם חמותו כחמותו האי למטה כלמעלה למעלה כלמטה הואי תני למעלה כלמטה

The Master said: 'Whence do we know that the lower is as the upper?' What is meant by 'lower' and 'upper'? Shall we say that her son's daughter and her daughter's daughter ['lower'] are as her own daughter ['upper']?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' So that 'lower' and 'upper' refer to the order of generations: 'lower', the third generation in the downward direction, viz. her son's daughter and her daughter's daughter; 'upper', one generation above them, viz., her daughter. ');">⁴</span>

אי הכי נאמר כאן זמה ונאמר להלן זמה ומה השתא אינהי לא כתיבה זמה דידהו כתיבא

But are not [all three] simultaneously derived?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' As explained in that very passage. ');">⁵</span>

אמר אביי הכי קאמר מנין לעשות שלשה דורות למעלה כשלשה דורות למטה נאמר למטה זמה ונאמר למעלה זמה מה למטה שלשה דורות אף למעלה שלשה דורות

Again, if it means that his father-in-law's mother and his mother-in-law's mother are as his mother-in-law: then instead of 'the lower is as the upper', the Tanna should have said 'the upper is as the lower'?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' For the older generation is always referred to as the upper. ');">⁶</span>

ומה בעונש עשה למטה כלמעלה אף באזהרה נמי עשה למעלה כלמטה

— Read, 'the upper is as the lower'. If so, [how explain] wickedness [zimmah] is stated here, and also elsewhere'; seeing that their very prohibition is as yet unknown, how can 'zimmah' be written in connection therewith?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Cf. p. 509 n. 4. At this stage, no verse has been adduced at all to show that his father-in-law's mother or his mother-in-law's mother are forbidden. ');">⁷</span>

רב אשי אמר לעולם כדקתני ומאי למטה למטה באיסור

Abaye answered: This is its meaning: Whence do we know that the third generation above is treated as the third below?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' I.e., just as his daughter's daughter and his son's daughter (the third generation below) are forbidden, so likewise his father-in-law's mother and mother-in-law's mother, the third generation above. ');">⁸</span>

אי מה היא אם אמה אסורה אף הוא אם אמו אסורה

— The word 'zimmah' is written in connection with both the lower generation<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Lev. XVIII, 17. ');">⁹</span>

אמר אביי אמר קרא אמך היא משום אמו אתה מחייבו ואי אתה מחייבו משום אם אמו

and the upper;<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' lbid. XX, 14. ');">¹⁰</span>

רבא אמר בין למאן דאמר דון מינה ומינה ובין למאן דאמר דון מינה ואוקי באתרה לא אתיא

just as in the lower, the third generation is forbidden also,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' I.e., his son's daughter and daughter. ');">¹¹</span>

למ"ד דון מינה ומינה מה היא אם אמה אסורה אף הוא נמי אם אמו אסורה ומינה מה היא בשריפה אף הוא נמי בשריפה

so in the upper too;<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' I.e., though only the second generation is explicitly interdicted, viz., his mother-in-law, the third is included too, viz., his mother-in-law's mother and his father-in-law's mother. ');">¹²</span>

למ"ד שריפה חמורה איכא למיפרך מה להיא שכן אמה בשריפה תאמר בהוא שאמו בסקילה

and just as the lower is assimilated to the upper in respect of punishment, so is the upper to the lower in respect of formal prohibition.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' For in Lev. XVIII, 10, where the third lower generation is forbidden, nothing is said about punishment, which is derived from Lev. XX, 14, as stated above. On the other hand, in Lev. XX, 14, which is made to include the third generation above, though only explicitly stating the second, no formal prohibition is given. This in turn is derived from Lev. XVIII, 10. (Both are derived through the medium of Lev. XVIII, 17, the connecting link between the other two.) On Abaye's interpretation it is necessary to amend the Baraitha from 'and the lower is as the upper', to 'that the upper is as the lower etc.' ');">¹³</span>

ועוד אמו בסקילה אם אמו בשריפה

R. Ashi said: After all, it is as taught:<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' I.e., no emendation is necessary. ');">¹⁴</span>

ועוד מה היא לא חלקת בה בין אמה לאם אמה אף הוא נמי לא תחלוק בו בין אמו לאם אמו

What then is the meaning of 'lower'? Lower in [gravity of the] prohibition.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' I.e., 'the upper' or higher prohibition is that of his mother-in-law, his more immediate relation, whilst the prohibition of her mother, as also of his father-in-law's mother, is regarded as 'lower', i.e., weaker, as they are a generation further removed. Hence this is its meaning: Whence do we know that his mother-in-law's mother and his father-in-law's mother, whose relationships are lower (i.e., further removed, and consequently weaker) than his mother-in-law's, are treated as his mother-in-law? — It is derived from his wife's daughter: just as in the latter case, the 'lower' relation is as the 'upper' (stronger), i.e., his wife's daughter's daughter is as his wife's daughter, though more distant; so here too, his mother-in-law's mother is as she herself. This deduction is in respect of equal punishment. The second clause is explained by R. Ashi as Abaye, as referring to the prohibition. ');">¹⁵</span>

ולמ"ד סקילה חמורה מהאי קושיא לא נידונה

Now, if so,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' This reverts to the explanation of 'whence do we know that males are regarded as females', as meaning, 'whence do we know that his relations are regarded as hers?' ');">¹⁶</span>

ולמ"ד דון מינה ואוקי באתרה מה היא אם אמה אסורה אף הוא נמי אם אמו אסורה ואוקי באתרה התם הוא דבשריפה אבל הכא בסקילה כדאשכחן באמו

then just as her [i.e. his wife's] maternal grandmother is forbidden [to him], so is his maternal grandmother?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Whereas in Yeb. 21a the prohibition of the latter is regarded as Rabbinical only, whilst the former is Biblical. ');">¹⁷</span>

למ"ד שריפה חמורה איכא למיפרך

— Abaye answered: The Writ sayeth, [The nakedness of thy father, or the nakedness of thy mother, shalt thou not uncover'] she is thy mother — 18 teaching: thou canst punish for [incest with] his mother, but not with his mother's mother. Raba said: Whether we maintain, 'judge from it in its entirety', or<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Lit., 'whether according to the one (Tanna) who says&nbsp;… or whether according to the one who says etc.' ');">¹⁹</span> 'judge from it, and place it on its own basis', this could not be deduced.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' A verse is unnecessary, because his maternal grandmother could not be deduced from the gezerah shawah based on zimmah, whatever view be held on the scope of a gezerah shawah. There are two views on this. One is that the identity of law taught by a gezerah shawah must hold good in all respects, so that the case deduced is equal to the premise in all points; this is called 'judge from it and from (all) of it'. An opposing view is that the analogy holds good only in respect of the main question at issue, but that thereafter, the case deduced may diverge from its premise. This is called, 'judge from it, but place it on its own basis', i.e., confine the analogy to the main question, not to the subsidiary points. ');">²⁰</span> For on the view, 'judge from it in its entirety', [the deduction would proceed thus:] Just as her [his wife's] maternal grandmother is forbidden [to him], so is his maternal grandmother forbidden. [Then carrying the analogy] to its uttermost, just as in her case [i.e., incest with the former] is punished by fire so in his case [i.e., incest with the latter] is punished by fire. But on the view<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Lit., 'but according to the one Tanna who says that, etc.' ');">²¹</span> that burning is severer [than stoning]. This analogy can be refuted. [Thus:] Why is her case [forbidden]?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' I.e., the reason that his wife's maternal grandmother is forbidden on pain of burning. ');">²²</span> Because her [his wife's] mother is similarly forbidden.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Hence, since the prohibition of his wife's mother is so severe, it is natural that it should extend to her maternal grandmother too. ');">²³</span> But can you say the same in his case, seeing that his mother is forbidden [only] on pain of stoning!<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Surely not! Since the prohibition is weaker, its punishment being more lenient, its extent too may be more limited, and not include his maternal grandmother. ');">²⁴</span> Moreover, his mother is forbidden on pain of stoning: shall his mother's mother be forbidden on pain of burning!<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Surely there cannot be a severer punishment for the latter, a more distant relative, than for the former. Yet if the latter be derived at all by this gezerah shawah, the punishment must be burning, on this view that the analogy must be carried through on all points. ');">²⁵</span> Further, just as in her [his wife's] case, you have drawn no distinction between her mother and her mother's mother [both being forbidden on pain of burning], so in his, no distinction must be drawn between his mother and his mother's mother.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Just as incest with his mother is punished by stoning, so with his mother's mother. But making the analogy from another angle, the latter should be punished by burning, as has already been shewn. Hence, by a reductio ad absurdum, we are forced to dismiss the entire analogy. ');">²⁶</span> And on the view that stoning is severer, the analogy cannot be deduced because of this last difficulty.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Though the former two do not arise. ');">²⁷</span> Whilst on the view, 'judge from it and place it on its own basis,' [the deduction would proceed thus:] Just as her [his wife's] maternal grandmother is forbidden [to him], so is his maternal grandmother forbidden. But 'place it on its own basis', thus: in the former case the punishment is burning; but in the latter, stoning, the penalty which we find prescribed for incest with his mother. Now, on the view that burning is severer, this can be refuted,