Sanhedrin 151

מה להיא שכן אמה בשרפה תאמר בהוא שאמו בסקילה

[Thus]: Why is her case [i.e., his wife's maternal grandmother forbidden]? Because her mother is [forbidden] on pain of death by fire. But can you say the same in his case, seeing that his mother is forbidden on pain of stoning [only]? Further, his maternal grandmother is like her's: just as in the latter case no distinction is drawn between his wife's maternal grandmother and her [his wife's] daughter,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Incest with both being punishable by fire. ');">¹</span>

ועוד הוא כהיא מה היא לא חלקתה בה בין בתה לאם אמה אף הוא לא תחלוק בו בין בתו לאם אמו

so in the former, no distinction should be allowed between his own maternal grandmother and his daughter.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' So that incest with the former should be punished by burning, as with the latter. This however is impossible, for incest with one's grandmother cannot be more severely punished than with his mother, the penalty for which is only stoning, which on the present hypothesis is more lenient than burning. ');">²</span>

ולמאן דאמר סקילה חמורה מהאי קושיא לא נידונה

Whilst on the view that stoning is severer, the analogy cannot be made on account of this last difficulty.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Since according to this comparison incest with his maternal grandmother is punished by burning. But his maternal grandmother should also be compared to his mother, the punishment for which is stoning; hence the entire analogy falls to the ground. ');">³</span>

אי מה הוא כלתו אסורה אף היא כלתה אסורה

But if so,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' This raises a new difficulty, reverting to the statement (75b) that his relatives are compared to hers. ');">⁴</span>

אמר אביי אמר קרא אשת בנך היא משום אשת בנך אתה מחייבו ואי אתה מחייבו משום אשת בנה

just as his daughter-in-law is forbidden him, so is his wife's daughter-in-law forbidden him?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' I.e., the wife of her son by a previous husband. But this is not so. ');">⁵</span>

רבא אמר בין למ"ד דון מינה ומינה בין למאן דאמר דון מינה ואוקי באתרה לא אתיא

Abaye answered: The Writ saith, [Thou shalt not uncover the nakedness of thy daughter-in-law:] she is thy son's wife;<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Lev. XVIII, 15. ');">⁶</span>

למאן דאמר דון מינה ומינה מה הוא כלתו אסורה אף היא נמי כלתה אסורה ומינה מה הוא בסקילה אף היא נמי בסקילה

teaching, you can punish only for incest with his son's wife, but not with her [his wife's] son's wife. Raba said: Whether it be maintained, 'judge from it in its entirety,' or 'judge from it and place it on its own basis', this could not be deduced. For on the first view, [the deduction would proceed thus:] just as his daughter-in-law is forbidden him, so is her's forbidden him. [Then carrying through the analogy] 'in its entirety,'just as in his case [the penalty] is stoning,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' v. supra 53a. ');">⁷</span>

למ"ד סקילה חמורה איכא למיפרך מה להוא שכן אמו בסקילה תאמר בהיא שאמה בשרפה

so in her case is the penalty stoning. But if we regard stoning severer, this analogy can be refuted. [Thus]: Why is his [daughter-in-law forbidden]? Because his mother is forbidden him on pain of stoning: Can you then say the same of her daughter-in-law, seeing that incest with her mother incurs only death by fire?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Hence, since the prohibition of his relative, viz., his mother, is so severe, it is natural that it should extend in a downward direction too, whereas the prohibition of her relation, viz., her mother, being punished only by burning and consequently weaker, its extent may be more limited, and not embrace her daughter-in-law. ');">⁸</span>

ועוד בתה בשרפה וכלתה בסקילה הוא בעצמו יוכיח דבתו בשרפה וכלתו בסקילה

Moreover, her daughter is forbidden on pain of burning: shall her daughter-in-law be forbidden on pain of stoning?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Surely not! ');">⁹</span>

אלא מה הוא לא חלקת בו בין אמו לכלתו אף היא לא תחלוק בה בין אמה לכלתה ולמ"ד שרפה חמורה מהאי קושיא לא נידונין

[This is no difficulty, for] let his own case prove it: his own daughter is forbidden by fire, yet his daughter-in-law by stoning. But [refute the analogy thus:] just as in his case, thou drawest no distinction between his mother and his daughter-in-law, so in her's [his wife's], you can draw no distinction between her mother and her daughter-in-law.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Hence, incest with the latter should he punished by burning. But as has already been proved, stoning is the proper punishment; therefore the entire analogy is impossible. ');">¹⁰</span>

ולמ"ד דון מינה ואוקי באתרה מה הוא כלתו אסורה אף היא כלתה אסורה ואוקי באתרה התם הוא דבסקילה אבל הכא בשרפה כדאשכחן באמה

And on the view that burning is considered more severe, the analogy cannot be made because of this last difficulty.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Though the former two do not arise. ');">¹¹</span>

למ"ד סקילה חמורה איכא למיפרך מה להוא שכן אמו בסקילה תאמר בהיא שאמה בשרפה

Whilst on the view, 'judge from it and place it on its own basis,' [the deduction would proceed thus:] just as his daughter-in-law is forbidden him, so is her daughter-in-law forbidden; and place it on its own basis, thus: in the former case, [his daughter-in-law] the punishment is stoning; but in the latter, burning, the punishment we find for incest with her mother. But if stoning is severer, this can be refuted. [Thus]: Why is his daughter-in-law forbidden? Because his mother is forbidden him on pain of stoning. But can you say the same of her daughter-in-law, seeing that her mother is forbidden only on pain of burning! Moreover, just as in his case, you draw a distinction between his daughter [punished by burning] and his daughter-in-law [by stoning], so in her case, you should draw a distinction between her daughter and her daughter-in-law.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' I.e., Just as the punishment for his daughter-in-law is severer than for his daughter, viz., stoning instead of burning, so her daughter-in-law should be more stringently interdicted than her daughter, viz., by stoning, instead of burning. But if we compare her daughter-in-law to her mother, the punishment is burning. Hence the entire deduction is impossible. ');">¹²</span>

ועוד מה הוא חלקת בו בין בתו לכלתו אף היא תחלוק בה בין בתה לכלתה ולמ"ד נמי שרפה חמורה מהאי קושיא לא נידונין

And even on the view that burning is severer, the analogy cannot be made on account of this last difficulty.

בתו מאנוסתו מנין האמר אביי ק"ו על בת בתו ענוש על בתו לא כל שכן

Whence do we know that his daughter by a seduced woman [not his wife] is forbidden him?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' As explained by Abaye supra 75b. q.v. The difficulty arises because in Lev. XVIII, 10 q.v., which has been interpreted as referring to his illegitimate offspring, no mention is made of his own daughter. ');">¹³</span>

וכי עונשין מן הדין גלויי מילתא בעלמא הוא

— Abaye said:<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' V. next note. ');">¹⁴</span>

רבא אמר אמר לי ר' יצחק בר אבדימי אתיא הנה הנה אתיא זמה זמה

This may be proved by arguing from the minor to the major; if he is punished for incest with his daughter's daughter, surely he is punished for his own daughter!<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' [Thus Tosaf.; var lec., Did not Abaye say etc. i.e., 'what is the question'-surely Abaye has solved it.'] ');">¹⁵</span>

תני אבוה דרבי אבין לפי שלא למדנו לבתו מאנוסתו הוצרך הכתוב לומר (ויקרא כא, ט) ובת איש כהן

But can punishment be imposed as the result of an ad majus conclusion? — The argument merely illumines the prohibition.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' I.e., does not add the prohibition of another person, but shews that when Scripture (in Lev. XVIII, 10) interdicted his daughter's daughter, it meant that the daughter relationship in general is forbidden. ');">¹⁶</span>

אי מה בת כהן היא בשרפה ואין בועלה בשרפה אף בתו מאנוסתו היא בשרפה ואין בועלה בשרפה

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' in two.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' V. p. 342, n. 1; just as in Lev. XVIII, 17 the daughter is forbidden equally with the daughter's daughter, so in XVIII, 10. The punishment of burning is then deduced from Lev. XX, 14. ');">¹⁷</span>

אמר אביי אמר קרא (ויקרא כא, ט) את אביה היא מחללת מי שמחללת את אביה יצתה זו שאביה מחללה

The father of R. Abin learned: Because we have no express sanction [from Scripture that incest] with an illegitimate daughter [is punished by burning], therefore the Writ must say, And the daughter of a man [and] a priest, if she profane herself through her father, she profaneth him; she shall burnt with fire.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Lev. XXI, 9. 'A man' Is superfluous, and therefore teaches that even if she is only his daughter, not his wife's, this law holds good. By translating the rest of the verse as in the text, we deduce that an illegitimate daughter is burnt for incest with her father; and by regarding 'a man' as distinct from 'priest' (the latter being attached to the former with the copula 'and'), the deduction is made to refer to any illegitimate daughter, not only a priest's (v. Tosef. Sanh. XII). ');">¹⁸</span>

רבא אמר בשלמא התם אפיקתיה מדינא דבת כהן ואוקימתה אדינא דבת ישראל הכא אדינא דמאן מוקמת ליה אדינא דפנוייה מוקמת ליה

If so, just as in the case of a priest's [adulterous] daughter, only she is burnt, but not her paramour, so for incest with an illegitimate daughter, only she should be burnt, but not her paramour?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Seeing that the former is deduced from 'she shall be burnt with fire', whilst the verse is made to refer to incest too. ');">¹⁹</span>

אזהרה לבתו מאנוסתו מניין בשלמא לאביי ורבא מהיכא דנפקא להו עונש מהתם נפקא להו אזהרה

— Abaye answered: The Writ sayeth, she profaneth her father, teaching that this applies only to a case where she profaneth her father, excluded thus is this case,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Incest with one's illegitimate daughter. ');">²⁰</span>

אלא לדתני אבוה דרבי אבין מאי אמר רבי אילעא אמר קרא (ויקרא יט, כט) אל תחלל את בתך להזנותה

since her father profanes her,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Her case is excluded from the limitation implied in, she (and not her paramour) 'shall be burnt with fire': hence her paramour is likewise punished. ');">²¹</span>

מתקיף לה רבי יעקב אחוה דרב אחא בר יעקב האי אל תחלל את בתך להזנותה להכי הוא דאתא האי מיבעי ליה לכדתניא אל תחלל את בתך להזנותה יכול בכהן המשיא את בתו ללוי וישראל הכתוב מדבר ת"ל להזנותה בחילול שבזנות הכתוב מדבר במוסר את בתו שלא לשם אישות

Raba answered, In the former case<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' The seducer of a priest's adulterous daughter. ');">²²</span>

אם כן לימא קרא אל תחל מאי אל תחלל שמע מינה תרתי ואביי ורבא האי אל תחלל את בתך להזנותה מאי עבדי ליה אמר רבי מני זה המשיא את בתו לזקן

you rightly exclude him from the penalty of a priest's daughter, and assimilate him to an Israelite's daughter.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' I.e., punishing him by stoning instead of burning. For the limitation of 'she', though teaching that the special law of a priest's daughter does not apply to him, yet leaves him to be punished as the seducer of a married woman in general. ');">²³</span>

כדתניא אל תחלל את בתך להזנותה רבי אליעזר אומר זה המשיא את בתו לזקן ר"ע אומר זה המשהא בתו בוגרת

But in this case,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Incest with an illegitimate daughter. ');">²⁴</span>

אמר רב כהנא משום רבי עקיבא אין לך עני בישראל אלא רשע ערום והמשהא בתו בוגרת אטו המשהא בתו בוגרת לאו רשע ערום הוא

to whom will you assimilate him? to an unmarried woman?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' For if an incestuous paramour be excluded from the punishment of an adulterous woman, whether the daughter of a priest or an Israelite (since relationship is independent of these), his law can only be assimilated to that of an unmarried woman, whose unchastity is not punished at all. But surely it cannot be maintained that an illegitimate daughter is burnt for incest with her father, though her offence is a passive one, and less than the man's (v. supra 74b), whilst he goes scot free! Hence the limitation of 'she' cannot apply to this. ');">²⁵</span>

אמר אביי

Now, whence do we derive a formal prohibition of incest with an illegitimate daughter? This is in order according to Abaye and Raba: from the verse from which they deduce punishment, they also learn the prohibition.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Both being stated in the verses they employ for this purpose. ');">²⁶</span> But what of the deduction made by R. Abin's father?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Lev. XXI, 9 speaks only of punishment, but contains no prohibition. ');">²⁷</span> — R. Elai answered: The Writ sayeth, Do not profane thy daughter to cause her to be whore.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Lev. XIX, 29. This includes incest, and since 'daughter' in general is mentioned, it applies to an illegitimate one too. ');">²⁸</span> R. Jacob, the brother of R. Aha b. Jacob objected: Is this verse, Do not profane thy daughter to cause her to be a whore, employed for this purpose? But it is needed for that which has been taught: 'Do not profane thy daughter, to cause her to be a whore' I might think that this prohibits<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Lit., 'the Writ speaks of a priest etc.' ');">²⁹</span> a priest from marrying his daughter to a Levite or an Israelite:<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Since he thereby 'profanes her', in that she is not permitted to eat of terumah (v. Glos.) thereafter. ');">³⁰</span> therefore Scripture states, 'to cause her to be a whore', shewing that the reference is only to profanation by harlotry, thus prohibiting the giving over of one's daughter for sex purposes without marriage intention'? If so, Scripture should have said al tahel; why al tehallel? — That both may be deduced from it.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' The latter [H] is a heavier form, yet with the same meaning [H], the former. Being heavier, it has a wider application. ');">³¹</span> Now, how do Abaye and Raba utilize the verse, Do not profane thy daughter to cause her to be a whore? — R. Mani said: [According to them] this refers to one who marries his [young] daughter to an old man.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Since she cannot willingly accept him, she may be led to adultery. ');">³²</span> As it has been taught: Do not profane thy daughter to &nbsp; &nbsp; cause her to be a whore; R. Eliezer said: This refers to marrying one's [young] daughter to an old man. R. Akiba said: This refers to the delay in marrying off a daughter who is already a bogereth.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Having attained puberty, she may become unchaste if not married. Marriage, of course, was then at a far earlier age than now. ');">³³</span> R. Kahana said on R. Akiba's authority: The only poor in Israel is the subtly wicked and he who delays in marrying off his daughter, a bogereth.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' This is explained further on. ');">³⁴</span> But is not one who thus delays himself subtly wicked?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Why 'and he who delays etc.': the two are identical. His wickedness consists in that he keeps her unmarried, that he may profit by her labour whilst endangering her chastity. ');">³⁵</span> Abaye answered: