Question (to R. Avahu): One who had Bi'ah with a woman and she gave birth to a daughter, and he had Bi'ah with her, and she gave birth to a daughter, and he had Bi'ah with her, is he liable for her for Ishah and Bitah and Vas Bitah?

Answer (R. Avahu): "She'erah Henah Zimah Hi" - they are all due to Zimah (he is liable only once).

Question (R. Chagai, to R. Yosi): Why don't we say that [he is liable twice because there are two Lavim - 'Bitecha Lo Segaleh, Bas Bitah Lo Sikach'!

Answer (R. Yosi): Had the verse written 'Ervas Ishah u'Vas Bitah Lo Segaleh', we would say 'Bitecha Lo Segaleh Bas Bitah Lo Segaleh.' These are two Lavim and one Kares. The Lavim divide the Kares (to obligate for each! However, now that the verse concludes "Lo Sikach", there is only one Lav, and Lo Sikach teaches that it is through Nisu'in. We explained like RIDVAZ.)

What is the source [that Lavim divide Kares]? It says [about Shemen ha'Mishchah] "Al Besar Adam Lo Yisach uv'Maskunto Lo Sa'asu Kamohu...", and it says "Ish Asher Yirkach Kamohu..." This teaches that two Lavim and one Kares, the Lavim divide the Kares.

What is R. Yehudah's reason [to forbid Anusas Aviv, a man whom his father raped]? "Lo Yikach Ish Es Eshes Aviv v'Lo Yegaleh Es Kenaf Aviv" - [the latter] is Anusas Aviv.

Question: What do Rabanan learn from "Kenaf"?

Answer: There (in Bavel) they say, but we are not sure in the name of whom, a Kenaf next to his father. (Eshes Aviv).

Question: [Even without the verse] is he not liable for her for Eshes Aviv?!

Answer (R. Heila): It is for warning - if they warned him for Eshes Aviv he is Lokeh (liable, and if they warned him) for Kenaf Aviv he is Lokeh.

R. Yehudah agrees about lashes. R. Yehudah agrees about Korban (he is not lashed for Anusas Aviv, and does not bring a Korban for her). R. Yehudah agrees that if he was Mekadesh her, Kidushin takes effect on her.

Question (R. Chagai, to R. Yosi): Is the child a Mamzer according to R. Yehudah?

Answer (R. Yosi): "Lo Yavo Patzu'a Daka u'Chrus Shafchah bi'Kehal Hash-m" interrupts (between the verse of Anusas Aviv and the verse of Mamzer, to teach that it does not make a Mamzer).

Question: We should say that it interrupted regarding Eshes Av (which is in the same verse with Anusas Aviv, to teach that it does not make a Mamzer)!

Answer: Eshes Av was in the Klal of all the Arayos, and it left the Klal to teach about all the Arayos [of Kares, that they make] a Mamzer!

Question: We should say Anusah left [the Klal] to teach about all Anusim (of other relatives), to forbid them!

Answer: Eshes Av was in the Klal of all the Arayos, and it left the Klal to teach about all the Arayos, for Mamzer. Can you say that Anusah was in the Klal, and left its Klal to teach about all Onsim?!

Question: Eshes Av should leave the Klal to teach about [Mamzer from all Arayos of Kares, and an Isur for] Anusah!

Answer: If she is Eshes Av, she is not Anusah. If she is Anusah, she is not Eshes Av! (They are totally different, so one cannot teach about the other.)

(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 Heshich a snake to (held its head and brought its teeth to bite) `Shimon, he is liable. Chachamim exempt.

(Gemara): It says "Im b'Even Yad Asher Yamus Bah Hikahu va'Yamos Mos Yumas Rotze'ach Hu Mos Yumas ha'Rotze'ach; Oh bi'Chli Etz Yad Asher Yamus Bah Hikahu va'Yamos Mos Yumas Rotze'ach Hu Mos Yumas ha'Rotze'ach." [Asher Yamus Bah teaches that] the rock must be [big] enough to kill. The wood must be proper to kill;

When it comes to iron, it does not say 'she'Yamus Bo', and not 'she'Lo Yamus Bo.' Rather, even a small fork can get inserted in his Veshet (foodpipe) and kill him.

If Reuven placed Shimon where a horse will run into him [and Shimon cannot move], or where an arrow or spear [will strike him], if he stood him up in the cold, or put bad water on him, if he removed the roof above him and rain fell on him and killed him, if he opened a stream of water on him and the water came and washed him away... (PNEI MOSHE - he is liable. HAGAHOS R. DINAR - the Beraisa omitted the Pesak, whether or not he is liable; it is not clear what the Pesak is. In the Bavli (77a), Rava and R. Zeira argue about one who uncovered the roof over someone, and the cold came in and killed him - PF.)