What did the doctors tell the man who became sick with infatuation for a certain woman?
What did ...
... they suggest when the Chachamim ruled 'Yehareg ve'Al Ya'avor' even to see her naked?
... the Rabbanan say to that?
Was the woman married?
According to those who hold that she was unmarried, Rav Papa attributes the Chachamim's strict ruling to P'gam Mishpachah. What does this mean?
The doctors told the man who became sick with infatuation for a certain woman - that he would only recover if he would be intimate with her.
When the Chachamim ruled 'Yehareg ve'Al Ya'avor' even to see her naked - they ...
... advised him to speak with her from behind a wall, and ...
... again they replied in the negative.
Whether she was married or not is subject to a Machlokes - Rebbi Ya'akov bar Idi and Rebbi Shmuel bar Nachmeni.
According to those who hold that she was not married, Rav Papa attributes the Chachamim stringent ruling to P'gam Mishpachah meaning that - the woman's family considered the whole thing an embarrassment and a sleight to their honor.
Rav Acha b'rei de'Rav Ika disagrees with Rav Papa. To what does he ascribe their stringent rulings?
What problem do we have according to those who maintain that she was unmarried?
And we answer with a statement of Rebbi Yitzchak. What did Rebbi Yitzchak say about 'the taste of Bi'ah'?
Shlomoh Hamelech made a similar statement in Mishlei, "Mayim Genuvim Yimtaku, ve'Lechem Sesarim Yena'ein". What does the latter half of the Pasuk mean?
Rav Acha b'rei de'Rav Ika disagrees with Rav Papa. According to him, the Chachamim's stringency was - to prevent a decline in the standard of Tzeniyus among the public.
The problem according to those who maintain that the woman was unmarried is - why he did not simply marry her.
And we answer with a statement of Rebbi Yitzchak, who said that - since the destruction of the Beis-Hamikdash, 'the taste of Bi'ah' was removed and given to sinners.
Shlomoh Hamelech made a similar statement in Mishlei "Mayim Genuvim Yimtaku, ve'Lechem Sesarim Yena'ein". The latter half of the Pasuk ('Secret bread is pleasant') means - that taking a woman in secret is pleasant (since bread is sometimes used as an analogy for a woman).
Who else, besides someone who marries a woman and her daughter (and its derivatives) receives Sereifah?
In which of the above cases is the adulterer ...
... too subject to S'reifah?
... not subject to S'reifah? To which Misah is he then sentenced?
The Mishnah lists ten cases that 'Ishah u'Bitah' incorporates. Which case, besides 'Ishah u'Bitah' (a woman and his daughter-in law) does the Torah in Kedoshim explicitly mention with regard to S'reifah?
Included in the list are his own daughter and any of his or his wife's granddaughters. Which final two cases does he mention together with Chamoso?
What if he raped the first woman, but did not marry her?
Besides someone who marries a woman and her daughter (and its derivatives) - a married bas Kohen who commits adultery receives S'reifah.
The adulterer ...
... too is subject to S'reifah in the former case, but ...
... not in the latter, where he is sentenced to Chenek.
The Mishnah lists ten cases that 'Ishah u'Bitah' incorporates. Besides "Ishah u'Bitah" (a woman and her daughter-in law) the Torah explicitly mentions "Chamoso" (a woman and her mother).
Included in the list are his own daughter and any of his or his wife's granddaughters. The final two cases that the Tana mentions together with Chamoso are - Eim Chamoso and Eim Chamiv.
The perpetuator is Chayav - irrespective of whether he married the first woman or whether he raped her.
What do we extrapolate from ...
... the Lashon of the Mishnah 'ha'Ba al Ishah u'Bitah' (rather then 'she'Nasa Bitah')? To whom is the Tana referring?
... the Seifa, which states 'Yesh bi'Chelal Ishah u'Bitah, Bito u'Bas Bito ... '?
According to Abaye (later in the Sugya), who learns that according to Rebbi Akiva, the Pasuk is speaking about 'Eim Chamoso', the author of our Mishnah is Rebbi Akiva. What does Rava (there) say? How does the Pasuk speak, according to both Rebbi Akiva and Rebbi Yishmael in his opinion?
What will then be the problem with our Mishnah according to Rava?
So how will Rava amend the Lashon of our Mishnah?
We extrapolate from ...
... the Lashon of the Mishnah 'ha'Ba al Ishah u'Bitah' (rather than 'ha'Ba al Ishah she'Nasa Bitah') - that the Tana does not mean a woman to whom he is permitted and her daughter, but to two women who are both Asur (namely, his mother-in-law and her mother.
... the Seifa, which states 'Yesh bi'Chelal Ishah u'Bitah, Bito u'Bas Bito ... ' that - both 'Ishah' and 'Bitah' in the Reisha refer to women whom the Torah forbids explicitly.
According to Abaye later in the Sugya, who learns that according to Rebbi Akiva, the Pasuk is speaking about 'Eim Chamoso', the author of our Mishnah is Rebbi Akiva. Rava there maintains that the Pasuk speaks, according to both Rebbi Akiva and Rebbi Yishmael (not about Eim Chamoso, but) about Chamoso, after his wife's death.
The problem with our Mishnah according to Rava is therefore - who is the autho of our Mishnah (which implies that Eim Chamoso is written explicitly?
Rava therefore amends the Lashon of our Mishnah to read - 'ha'Ba al Ishah she'Nasa Bitah'.
Seeing as the Pasuk explicitly mentions "Eim Chamoso" according to Abaye, and "Chamoso" according to Rava, why does the Tana insert ...
... 'Chamoso and Eim Chamoso' in the Seifa (which lists things that "Chamoso" incorporates), according to Abaye?
... 'Chamoso', according to Rava?
What does the Beraisa learn from the 'Gezeirah-Shavah "Zimah" (written by the Onesh in Kedoshim) "Zimah" (written by the Azharah in Acharei-Mos)?
In spite of the fact that the Pashuk explicitly mentions Eim Chamoso according to Abaye, and Chamoso according to Rava, the Tana inserts ...
... 'Chamoso and Eim Chamoso' in the Seifa (which lists things that "Chamoso" incorporates) according to Abaye - since he wants to mention Eim Chamiv.
... 'Chamoso', according to Rava - since he wants to mention 'Eim Chamiv and 'Eim Chamoso'.
The Beraisa learn from the 'Gezeirah-Shavah "Zimah" (written by the Onesh in Kedoshim) "Zimah" (written by the Azharah in Acharei-Mos) that - the Onesh (which mentions "Ishah ve'Imah") extends to "Ishah u'Bitah", and to "bas B'nah and bas Bitah" (which are not written there [in Kedoshim]).
The Beraisa learns from the same 'Gezeirah-Shavah' that 'Zecharim ki'Nekeivos'. Why can this not mean that ...
... Bas B'nah has the same Din as Bas Bitah?
... Eim Chamiv has the same Din as Eim Chamoso?
Abaye therefore explains that She'er ha'Ba mimenu has the same Din as She'er ha'Ba mimenah. What does he mean by that? Which relative is the Tana coming to include in the Din of incest?
Bearing in mind that the Pasuk (by the Azharah) which contains Zimah, writes "Ervas Ishah u'Bitah ... es bas B'nah ve'es bas Bitah ... ", what is the problem with the 'Gezeirah-Shavah'?
How does Rabah quoting Rav Yitzchak bar Avudimi, solve this problem, based on the other Pasuk written by the Azharah "Ervas bas Bincha O bas Bitcha ... ki Ervascha heinah" (even though it does not mention "Zimah")?
The Beraisa learns from the same 'Gezeirah-Shavah' that 'Zecharim ki'Nekeivos'. This cannot mean that ...
... Bas B'nah has the same Din as Bas Bitah - since both are written explicitly.
... Eim Chamiv has the same Din as Eim Chamoso - since we do yet know about Eim Chamoso, so how can the Tana inform us that Eim Chamiv has the same Din as her?
Abaye therefore explains that She'er ha'Ba mimenu has the same Din as She'er ha'Ba mimenah. What he means is - that his own daughter and granddaughters (who are born either to his son or to his daughter [which are not written explicitly]) are forbidden just like the daughter and granddaughters of the woman he raped (which are). Note, that this D'rashah really comes to include his daughter (which is not written at all, whereas his granddaughters are.
Bearing in mind that the Pasuk (by the Azharah) which contains Zimah, writes "Ervas Ishah u'Bitah ... es bas B'nah ve'es bas Bitah ... ", the problem with the 'Gezeirah-Shavah is - how can we incorporate 'She'er ha'Ba mimenu' from "Zimah", when the Pasuk containing "Zimah" (by the Azharah) only talks about 'She'er ha'Ba mimenah?
Rabah quoting Rav Yitzchak bar Avudimi, solves this problem, based on the other Pasuk written by the Azharah "Ervas bas Bincha O bas Bitcha ... ki Ervascha Heinah" (even though it does not mention "Zimah" - by learning a second 'Gezeirah-Shavah' "Heinah" (ki Ervascha Heinah, by the Azharah) "Heinah" ("Sha'arah Heinah Zimah hi", also by the Azharah). So we learn the one from the other via "Heinah" with regard to the Azharah, and the Onesh from the Azharah via "Zimah".
The Beraisa then goes on to learn 'le'Matah ki'Lema'alah', also from"Zimah" "Zimah". Why can this not mean that ...
... bas B'nah and bas Bitah have the same Din as Bitah?
... Eim Chamiv and Eim Chamoso have the same Din as Chamoso?
How do we therefore amend the Beraisa? What is the Tana coming to teach us?
Eim Chamiv and Eim Chamoso are not written at all however. Why is that a problem?
So Abaye interprets the Beraisa 'Minayin La'asos Lema'alah ki'Lematah'' (as if it was) in two stages (via the 'Gezeirah-Shavah'). How does he learn ...
... the first stage in respect of the Onesh?
... the second stage in respect of the Azharah?
The Beraisa then goes on to learn 'le'Matah ki'Lema'alah', also from"Zimah" "Zimah". This cannot mean that ...
... bas B'nah and bas Bitah have the same Din as Bitah - because they are both written explicitly.
... Eim Chamiv and Eim Chamoso have the same Din as Chamoso - because then the Tana should have said 'le'Ma'alah ki'Lematah'.
So we amend the Beraisa to read - 'le'Ma'alah ki'Lematah', and the Tana is indeed coming to teach us that Eim Chamiv and Eim Chamoso have the same Din as Chamoso.
Eim Chamiv and Eim Chamoso are not written at all however - a problem, because how can we then learn '"Zimah" "Zimah" (If they are not written, "Zimah" cannot be considered as if it is written by them).
So Abaye interprets the Beraisa 'Minayin La'asos Lema'alah ki'Lematah'' (as if it was) in two stages (via the 'Gezeirah-Shavah'). The Tana learns ...
... the first stage in respect of the Onesh - where he learns 'le'Ma'alah from le'Matah' with regard to the Onesh, where he derives the third generation upwards (Eim Chamiv and Eim Chamoso), which is not written, from the third generation downwards (bas B'no and Bas Bito), which are.
... the second stage with regard to the Azharah - where he learns le'Ma'alah (Chamoso itself, which is not written there) by comparing it to le'Matah, from the Onesh, where we learn le'Matah from le'Ma'alah (as we just explained).
But Abaye's explanation is based on an inverted Lashon (from 'le'Matah ki'Lema'alah' to 'le'Ma'alah le'Matah', as we just explained). Rav Ashi leaves the original Lashon intact. How does he explain 'le'Matah' with reference to Eim Chamiv and Eim Chamoso?
How does he resolve the Kashya we asked earlier 'u'Mah Hashta Inhu Lo Kesivah, Zimah didhu Kesivah'? If 'Ne'emar Ka'an Zimah ... ' does not refer to Eim Chamiv and Eim Chamoso, then what does it refer to?
Bearing in mind that one's wife's mother's mother is forbidden (and that we learned above 'She'er ha'Ba mimenu' from 'She'er ha'Ba mimenah'), what does Abaye learn from the Pasuk "Imcha hi"?
With which point does Rava disagree? Why is that?
But Abaye's explanation is based on an inverted Lashon (from 'le'Matah ki'Lema'alah' to 'le'Ma'alah le'Matah', as we just explained). Rav Ashi leaves the original Lashon intact. He explains 'le'Matah' with reference to Eim Chamiv and Eim Chamoso to mean that - it is a lesser Isur, because it is removed from the original Isur (even though this has no Halachic ramifications).
And he resolves the Kashya we asked earlier 'u'Mah Hashta Inhu Lo Kesivah, Zimah didhu Kesivah' - by explaining that 'Ne'emar Ka'an Zimah ... ' does not refer to Eim Chamiv and Eim Chamoso, but - to the Limud of Chamoso from Bito.
Bearing in mind that his wife's mother's mother is forbidden (and that we learned above 'She'er ha'Ba mimenu' from 'She'er ha'Ba mimenah'), Abaye learns from the Pasuk "Imcha hi" that - Eim Imo is precluded from the comparison of She'er ha'Ba mimenu to She'er ha'Ba mimenah' (and is permitted min ha'Torah).
Rava agrees with Abaye in principle (that Eim Imo is permitted), only in his opinion - it does not require a Pasuk (since there is no way that we could learn the Isur from She'er ha'Ba mimenah anyway, as we will now proceed to explain).
What is the definition of ...
... 'Don Minah u'Minah'?
... 'Don Minah ve'Uki be'Asra'?
What punishment will the sinner receive for Eim Imo if we hold 'Ne'emar Ka'an Zimah ... '?
Rava now explains that based on the principle 'Don Minah u'Minah', according to Rebbi Shimon who holds 'S'reifah Chamurah', this gives rise to three Pirchos: 1. How can we learn She'ero from She'er Ishto (le'Chumra), considering that his wife's mother is a Chiyuv S'reifah, whereas his own mother is only a Chiyuv S'kilah (which is intrinsically more lenient, according to him)? 2. How is it possible for Eim Imo (S'reifah) to be more stringent than Imo (S'kilah)? What is the third Pircha (based on the fact that just as we do not differentiate between Imah and Eim Imah, so too, should we not differentiate between Imo and Eim Imo)?
According to the Rabbanan, who hold 'S'kilah Chamurah', the first two Pirchos fall away. What will be the Pircha, according to them?
The definition of ...
... 'Don Minah u'Minah' is that - we learn not only the general rule from a 'Gezeirah-Shavah', but the details, too.
... 'Don Minah ve'Uki be'Asra' is that - we learn the general rule from the 'Gezeirah-Shavah', but not necessarily the details.
If we hold 'Ne'emar Ka'an Zimah ... ', the punishment the sinner will receive for Eim Imo is - S'reifah.
According to Rebbi Shimon who holds 'S'reifah Chamurah', this gives rise to three Pirchos: 1. How can we learn She'ero from She'er Ishto (le'Chumra), considering that his wife's mother is a Chiyuv S'reifah, whereas his own mother is only a Chiyuv S'kilah (a Kula)? 2. How is it possible for Eim Imo (S'kilah) yto be more stringent than Imo (S'kilah)? - 3. Just as we do not differentiate between Imah and Eim Imah, so too, should we not differentiate between Imo and Eim Imo - in which case, perhaps we should give both of them S'kilah (we cannot give them both S'reifah, since the Torah explicitly issues S'kilah for Imo); but if we did, we would no longer be adhering to the principle 'Don Minah u'Minah'?
According to the Rabbanan, who hold 'S'kilah Chamurah', the first two Pirchos fall away. The sole Pircha will therefore be - the third one, only based on the fact that we cannot give them both S'kilah, since we are learning from 'Hi', where Eim Imah, only receives S'reifah (so how can we give Eim Imo the more stringent S'kilah)?
Based on the principle 'Don Minah ve'Ukei be'Asra', the 'Gezeirah-Shavah' will also begin with 'Mah hi Eim Imah Asurah, Af hu Eim Imo Asurah'. How will it conclude?
There too, Rava asks two Pirchos, according to Rebbi Shimon: 1. The same as the first Kashya that we asked before. 2. Just like by She'er Ishto, Eim Imah has the same Din as Bitah (S'reifah), to too, should Eim Imo have the same Din as Bito (S'reifah, and not S'kilah, which is less stringent). What is the sole Kashya, according to the Chachamim of Rebbi Shimon?
Based on the principle 'Don Minah ve'Ukei be'Asra', the 'Gezeirah-Shavah' will also begin 'Mah hi Eim Imah Asurah, Af hu Eim Imo Asurah'. But it will conclude - 'Hasam hu de'bi'Sereifah, Aval Hacha bi'Sekilah'.
There too, Rava asks two Pirchos, according to Rebbi Shimon: 1. The same as the first Kashya that we asked before. 2. Just like by She'er Ishto, Eim Imah has the same Din as Bitah (S'reifah), to too, should Eim Imo have the same Din as Bito (S'reifah, and not S'kilah, which is less stringent). Whereas according to the Chachamim of Rebbi Shimon, the sole Kashya is - the latter one, only on the grounds that one cannot give S'kilah to Eim Imo, because it would be more stringent, whereas its source is Eim Imah, who receives S'reifah (which is less stringent).