(Rav Yehudah): A case occurred in which a man was eyeing a woman. He became sick due to desire for her. Doctors said that he will recover only if he has Bi'ah with her.

Rabanan: It is forbidden, even if he will die.

Doctors: Let her stand naked in front of him (perhaps this will help)!

Rabanan: It is forbidden, even if he will die.

Doctors: Let her talk with him in back of the fence.

Rabanan: It is forbidden, even if he will die.

(R. Yakov bar Idi or R. Shmuel bar Nachmani): She was married.

(The other of R. Yakov bar Idi and R. Shmuel bar Nachmani): She was single.

Question: According to the first opinion, we understand why Rabanan were so stringent;

However, if she was single, why were they so stringent?

Answer #1 (Rav Papa): It would have been embarrassing to her family.

Answer #2 (Rav Acha brei d'Rav Ika): Had they been lenient, this would have degraded the Kedushah of Bnos Yisrael (they would stand in front of men, and be allowed to have Bi'ah with them).

Question: Why didn't he marry her?

Answer: That would not have satisfied his desire.

(R. Yitzchak): After the Churban, full enjoyment of Bi'ah is only experienced when it is forbidden - "Mayim Genuvim Yimtaku."

(Mishnah): The following are burned:

A man who has Bi'ah with a woman and her daughter;

A Bas Kohen who is Mezanah.

'A man who has Bi'ah with a woman and her daughter' includes one who has Bi'ah with his daughter or granddaughter (from his son or daughter), or his wife's daughter or granddaughter, or his mother-in-law, or either grandmother of his wife.

(Gemara): (The Seifa of the Mishnah details other Arayos included in 'a woman and her daughter.' Presumably, 'a woman and her daughter' refers to the Ervah about which the Torah explicitly punishes by burning, i.e. a mother- in-law.)

Question: It does not say 'a man who has Bi'ah with a woman whose daughter he married', rather, 'with a woman and (or) her daughter', implying that neither of these is his wife, rather, both of them are forbidden;

What daughter and her mother are both forbidden to a man?

Answer: It refers to his mother-in-law and her mother. (He is burned for Bi'ah with his mother-in- law's mother or her daughter, i.e. his mother-in- law.)

Inference: The Mishnah holds that the other Arayos listed are included in 'a woman and her daughter.' This implies that the Torah specifies burning for 'a woman and her daughter', (i.e. his mother-in-law and her mother). We learn the other cases from Derashos.

Question: We understand this according to Abaye, who says that R. Akiva and R. Yishmael argue only about how to expound the laws. Our Mishnah is like R. Akiva (who says that the mother of the mother-in-law is explicit in the Torah).

However, Rava says that they argue about the punishment of a mother-in-law after the wife died, and no one says that the mother of the mother-in-law is explicit. If so, like whom is the Mishnah?

Answer: Rava's text of the Mishnah must say 'a man who has Bi'ah with a woman whose daughter he married.'

(Mishnah): 'A man who has Bi'ah with a woman and her daughter' includes... his mother-in-law and the mothers of his wife's mother and father.

According to Abaye, since we had to teach the mother of his wife's father, we also mentioned his mother-in-law and her mother (even though they are the 'woman and her daughter' we are learning from);

According to Rava, since we had to teach the mother of his wife's father and mother, it also mentioned his mother-in-law (even though this is the 'woman whose daughter he married' we are learning from).

Question: What is the source (that they are burned)?

Answer (Beraisa): "Ish Asher Yikach Ishah v'Es Imah" - this teaches only a mother-in-law;

Question: What is the source to include the daughter and granddaughters of his wife?

Answer: It says "Zimah" regarding (burning for Bi'ah with) a mother-in-law, and also regarding (Bi'ah with) his wife's daughter and granddaughters;

Just like here the punishment is burning, also there.

Question: What is the source to consider males like females? (This will be explained.)

Answer: It says "Zimah" here, and also there;

Just like there males are like females, also here,

Question: What is the source to equate (the generations) below like (the generations) above?

Answer: It says "Zimah" here, and also there;

Just like there below is like above, also here.

Question: What does it mean '(what is the source) to consider males like females?'

Suggestion: The daughter of his wife's son is like the daughter of his wife's daughter.

Rejection: The verse explicitly teaches both together. Obviously, the same law applies to them!

Answer #1: The mother of his wife's father is like the mother of his wife's mother.

Rejection: We did not yet show that the mother of his wife's mother is forbidden (until the next clause), we cannot use it to teach about the mother of his wife's father!

Answer #2 (Abaye): The Tana asks, what is the source to make a man's own She'er (daughter and granddaughters, i.e. that are not from his wife) like his wife's (daughter and granddaughters)? He answers, it says "Zimah" here, and also there...

Question: It does not say Zimah regarding a man's own She'er!

Version #1 - Rashi - Answer (Rava): First, we learn from a Gezeirah Shavah "Henah-Henah", that it is as if Zimah was written regarding his own She'er;

Then, we can learn burning from the Gezeirah Shavah "Zimah-Zimah."

Version #2 - Ramah - Answer #3 (Rava): We learn from a Gezeirah Shavah "Henah-Henah", that his daughter and granddaughters have the same law like his wife's;

We learn burning regarding his wife's daughter and granddaughters from the Gezeirah Shavah "Zimah- Zimah" from his mother-in-law. (End of Version #2)

Question: What does it mean '(what is the source) to equate (the generations) below like above?'

Suggestion: Daughters of a wife's son and daughter have the same law as the wife's daughter.

Rejection: The verse explicitly teaches them together!

Answer #1: The mothers of a wife's father and mother have the same law as the mother-in-law (regarding which burning was written).

Objection: That is equating above like below!

Suggestion: Indeed, the Beraisa should say 'what is the source to equate above like below'!

Rejection: The Beraisa answers 'it says "Zimah" here, and also there';

This cannot refer to a wife's grandmothers, for they are not written at all!

Answer #2 (Abaye): It asks, what is the source to equate three generations above (i.e. up to the wife's grandmothers) like three generations below (up to the wife's granddaughters)? (Abaye switches the Beraisa to say 'what is the source to equate above like below'?)

It answers, it says "Zimah" here, and also there;

Just like (three generations) below are forbidden, also above;

Just like the punishment above (for a mother- in-law is burning), also (three generations) below;

Just like the Torah writes a Lav (for three generations) below, also above is forbidden by a Lav. (Even regarding the mother-in-law, only the punishment is written, and not a Lav).

Answer #3 (Rav Ashi): Really, we equate below like above;

'Below' refers to the mothers of the wife's parents (they are more distant, a less severe Isur). 'Above' refers to the mother-in-law (she is closer, which is more severe).

(When it answers 'it says "Zimah" here, it refers to Zimah written regarding the mother-in-law; Zimah is also written 'there', regarding the wife's daughter and granddaughters;

Just like there, below (her granddaughters, which are more distant and hence less severe) is forbidden like above (her daughter), also here (the grandmothers are forbidden like the mother).)

Question: Since we equate his She'er to hers, his mother's mother should be forbidden!

Answer #1 (Abaye): "Imcha Hi" - he is liable for his mother, and not for his grandmother.

Answer #2 (Rava): We cannot learn his grandmother from hers, neither like the one who says Dun Minah u'Minah (when a matter is learned from another matter, we learn everything from the source), nor like the one who says Dun Minah v'Uki b'Asra (we only learn one law from the source, but other laws are like the matter being learned):

If we say Dun Minah u'Minah, and we want to learn that his grandmother is forbidden, just like hers, we must also learn that the punishment is burning, just like there;

According to R. Shimon, who says that burning is more stringent than stoning, we can refute this. The Torah is more stringent about his wife's relatives than his own (a mother-in-law is punishable by burning, but his own mother is only stoning);

Also, his own mother is punishable by stoning. His grandmother cannot be more stringent (burning)!

Also, just like the laws of his wife's mother and grandmother are the same, the laws of his own mother and grandmother should be the same!

This last objection applies also according to Chachamim, who say that stoning is more stringent than burning. Therefore, we cannot learn that his grandmother is forbidden.

If we say Dun Minah v'Uki b'Asra, and we want to learn that his grandmother is forbidden, just like hers, we would say that the punishment is like that for his mother, stoning;

According to R. Shimon, who says that burning is more stringent, we cannot learn his relatives from hers. The Torah is more stringent about his wife's relatives than his own (a mother-in-law is punishable by burning, his own mother is only stoning);

Also, this is unlike his wife's She'er. The same punishment applies to her daughter and her grandmother, but we would distinguish between his daughter (burning) and his grandmother (stoning)!

This last objection applies also according to Chachamim, who say that stoning is more stringent.