WHY IS A WIFE'S DAUGHTER-IN-LAW PERMITTED? [line 5]
Question: Since we equate his She'er with his wife's, her daughter-in-law should be forbidden!
Answer #1 (Abaye): "Eshes Bincha Hi" - he is liable for his daughter-in-law, but not for her daughter-in-law.
Answer #2 (Rava): We cannot learn her daughter-in-law from his, whether we say Dun Minah u'Minah, or Dun Minah v'Uki b'Asra;
If we say Dun Minah u'Minah, and we want to learn that her daughter-in-law is forbidden, the punishment must be stoning, just like for his;
According to Chachamim, stoning is more stringent. We cannot learn her She'er from his, because the Torah is more stringent about his mother (stoning) than hers (burning);
Also, her own daughter is punishable by burning. Her daughter-in-law cannot be more stringent (stoning)!
Rejection: This last objection is invalid. We find that his own daughter-in-law (stoning) is more stringent than his own daughter!
Rather, we have another objection. Just like we do not distinguish between his mother and daughter-in-law (both are stoned), we cannot distinguish between her mother (burning) and her daughter-in-law!
This last objection applies also according to R. Shimon, who says that burning is more stringent.
If we say Dun Minah v'Uki b'Asra, and we want to learn that her daughter-in-law is forbidden, just like his, we would say that the punishment is like that for her mother, burning;
According to Chachamim, stoning is more stringent. We cannot learn her She'er from his, because the Torah is more stringent about his mother than hers;
Also, just like we distinguish between his daughter (burning) and daughter-in-law (stoning), we must distinguish between her daughter and daughter-in-law (but both would be burned)!
This last objection applies also according to R. Shimon, who says that burning is more stringent.
A DAUGHTER NOT FROM HIS WIFE [line 23]
Question: What is the source for burning for a man who has Bi'ah with his daughter not from his wife? (The Torah explicitly mentions only his granddaughters!)
Answer #1 (Abaye): If he is burned for his granddaughter, and all the more so for his daughter!
Question: We do not punish due to a Kal va'Chomer!
Answer: This is not punishing due to a Kal va'Chomer. The Kal va'Chomer merely reveals that the daughter is She'er. (The granddaughter is forbidden only because she is She'er of the daughter!)
Answer #2 (Rava): We learn from Gezeros Shavos "Henah- Henah" and "Zimah-Zimah" (above 75b).
Answer #3 (R. Avin's father): The Torah did not explicitly punish for a man's daughter (not from his wife). Therefore, it says "u'Vas Ish Kohen...(Ki Sechel Liznos Es Aviha...ba'Esh Yisaref)."
Question: If so, just like a Bas Kohen is burned (for adultery), but the adulterer is (choked, and) not burned, likewise, if a man has Bi'ah with his daughter, she is burned, but he is not!
Answer (Abaye): "Es Aviha Hi Mechaleles" - when she (is Mezanah with someone else she) profanes her father, she is burned, and not the adulterer. When her father (has incest with her and) profanes her, both are burned.
Objection (Rava): Regarding a Bas Kohen, the verse excluded the adulterer from her law, so we punish him as if he had Bi'ah with a Bas Yisrael;
Here, if her father does not receive her punishment, he would not be punished at all (if she is single) for Bi'ah with a single girl (and this is unreasonable. Men and women are equated regarding punishments)!
Question: Where is a man warned about his daughter (not from his wife)?
Answer - part 1: The sources Abaye and Rava brought for burning also show that he is warned.
Answer - part 2 (R. Ila'i): R. Avin's father learns from "Al Techalel Es Bitcha Lehaznosah."
Question (R. Yakov, brother of Rav Acha bar Yakov): We need this verse to teach a different law!
(Beraisa) Suggestion: Perhaps "Al Techalel Es Bitcha Lehaznosah" warns a Kohen not to marry his daughter to a Levi or Yisrael (this profanes her from her Kedushah. It forbids her to eat Terumah)!
Rejection: "Al Techalel Es Bitcha Lehaznosah" discusses Chilul of Zenus, one who hands over his daughter for Bi'ah without Kidushin.
Answer: It could have said 'Al Techal.' "Al Techalel" (the extra 'Lamed') allows us to learn another law (like R. Ila'i).
Question: What second law do Abaye and Rava learn from "Techalel"?
Answer (R. Mani): It forbids marrying one's daughter to an old man (she will not be satisfied with him. She will be Mezanah.)
(Beraisa - R. Eliezer): "Al Techalel Es Bitcha Lehaznosah" forbids marrying off one's daughter to an old man;
R. Akiva says, it forbids delaying marrying her off until she is a Bogeres (she already lusts for Bi'ah, and she will be Mezanah. The Rashash asks why R. Mari assumes that Abaye and Rava hold like R. Eliezer, and not like R. Akiva. Perhaps R. Mari had not heard this Beraisa!
MARRYING OFF ONE'S CHILDREN [line before last]
(Rav Kahana citing R. Akiva): The poorest people in Yisrael (this will be explained) are a crafty Rasha and one who delays marrying off his daughter until she is a Bogeres.
Question: (Why are these considered two categories?) One who delays marrying off his daughter until she is a Bogeres is a crafty Rasha! (He does so in order that she will continue working for him, even though this causes her to be Mezanah.)
Answer (Abaye): Indeed, Rav Kahana means that a poor crafty Rasha is one who delays marrying off his daughter until she is a Bogeres.
(Rav Kahana citing R. Akiva): Beware of someone who counsels you in order to benefit himself.
(Rav Yehudah): "Lema'an Sefos ha'Ravah Es ha'Tzeme'ah" (joining the thirsty (desirous) and the satiated) refers to one who marries off his daughter to an old man, or marries an adult woman to his young son, or returns a lost object to a Nochri (he shows that he considers returning lost objects a 'proper' action, and not Hash-m's Mitzvah to bestow Chesed to Yisraelim who desire serving Him).
Question (Beraisa): "...Shalom Ohalecha...v'Lo Secheta" refers to one who loves his wife like himself, honors her more than himself, leads his children in the proper path, and marries them off shortly before adulthood (some explain - shortly before the usual time for marriage, 12 for girls, 18 for boys. This shows that it is praiseworthy to marry off boys when they are young!)
Answer: Rav Yehudah forbids marrying them off only when they are much younger than this.
(Beraisa): "Az Tikra va'Shem Ya'aneh" applies to one who loves his neighbors, draws his relatives close, marries his sister's daughter (he has a natural affinity for her, so he will surely love her), and one who lends to a poor person when he needs to borrow.
ARE BOTH OF THEM KILLED? [line 15]
(Beraisa - R. Yishmael): "(V'Ish Asher Yikach Es Ishah Es Imah...) Oso v'Es'hen" - (if a man 'took' a woman and her mother,) he and one of them (i.e. his mother-in-law) are killed;
R. Akiva says, he and both of them are killed.
Question: What do they argue about?
Answer #1 (Abaye): They agree about the Halachah. They argue about how do derive it.
R. Yishmael expounds that we burn 'Oso' (him) and 'Es'hen' (one of them, the mother-in-law). In Yevani, 'Heinah' means one.
The verse does not explicitly discuss the mother-in-law's mother. Rather, we expound it.
R. Akiva says, Es'hen refers to both of them, the mother-in-law and her mother.
Answer #2 (Rava): They argue about the Isur of a mother- in-law after the wife died:
R. Yishmael learns from "v'Es'hen" that even if only one of them is alive (i.e. his wife died), the mother-in-law is killed;
R. Akiva says that the mother-in-law is killed only if both of them are alive. If not, it is a mere Isur. (Rashi - the curse "Arur Shochev Im Chosanto" applies. Rambam - it is Chayavei Kerisus, but there is no Misah.)
THOSE THAT ARE BEHEADED [line 26]
(Mishnah): We behead a murderer, and people of an Ir ha'Nidachas.
If Reuven struck Shimon with a rock or iron, or was Metzamtzem him in (prevented him from leaving) water or a fire and he died, Reuven is killed;
If he pushed Shimon into water or a fire and Shimon could have left, but he died, Reuven is exempt.
If he incited a dog or snake to bite him, he is exempt;
R. Yehudah says, if he held a snake's head and pricked Shimon with the tooth, he is liable;
Chachamim say, he is exempt.
(Gemara - Shmuel) Question: Why does the Torah mention "Yad" regarding killing with a rock or wood, but not regarding iron?
Answer: Other things must be big enough to kill (if not, we will not attribute the death to the blow. 'Yad' alludes to the size to fill the hand.) Iron of any amount can kill.
(Mishnah): If Reuven was Metzamtzem him in water or a fire...
The Reisha (this clause) teaches a Chidush, and also the Seifa.
The Reisha teaches that even if Reuven did not push him in, since he causes that Shimon cannot leave, he is liable;
The Seifa teaches that even if Reuven pushed him in, since Shimon could have left, he is exempt.
LIABILITY FOR METZAMTZEM [line 44]
Question: What is the source that one is liable for Metzamtzem?
Answer (Shmuel): "Oh b'Eivah" includes Metzamtzem.
Levi was Metzamtzem Yehudah's animals in the sun. They died. Ravina obligated him to pay, and Rav Acha bar Rav exempted him.
Ravina obligated from a Kal va'Chomer:
Regarding a murderer, we only obligate if he killed intentionally and willingly, and not if he was Shogeg or Ones, yet Metzamtzem is liable. A damager pays whether he damaged Mezid or Shogeg, willingly or Ones, so all the more so he is liable for Metzamtzem!