1)

(a)Rava extrapolates from the Pasuk "Ki es Kol ha'To'evos ha'El" - that these cases of incest are serious sins - and that there are other sins that are less serious (i.e. Sheniyos).

(b)Rebbi Levi learns from the fact that the Torah writes "El" by Arayos and "Eleh" by the sin of Midos ("Ki To'avas Hash-m Elokecha Kol Oseh Eleh ... " - that the sin of Midos is worse than that of incest.

(c)'The sin of Midos' - refers to false weights and measures.

(d)We reconcile Rava, who considers Arayos a serious sins, with Rebbi Levi - by explaining that the sin of incest is serious, but that of Midos is more serious still.

2)

(a)The Torah writes "Eleh" by Arayos, too ("mi'Kol ha'To'evos ha'Eleh v'Nichresu") - to preclude Midos from Kares.

(b)The sin of Midos is worse than that of Arayos - inasmuch as it is not possible to repair it (because someone who steals from the community cannot possibly know the identity from all the people from whom he stole); whereas someone who is guilty of incest just needs to desist from sinning, and his Teshuvah will be accepted (provided he has not had children from his illicit relationships).

(c)Using the money that he stole for public service may well be as close to Teshuvah as one can get - but real Teshuvah can only be achieved by returning the stolen article to the person from whom one stole.

(d)Rav Yehudah learns that the Pasuk "v'Izen, v'Chiker, Tiken Meshalim Harbeh" - hints at Sheniyos, because, just like the handles ('Oznayim') of a box enable one to hold the box and prevent it from falling, so too, do the Sheniyos, prevent people from transgressing the Isur of Arayos.

3)

(a)Rav Oshaya learns the same thing from the Pasuk in Mishlei "Par'ehu (enlarge the Isur) Al Ta'avor Bo, S'tei m'Alav va'Avor". Rav Ashi explains this with a parable - of a person guarding his orchard. As long as he guards it from the outside ("S'tei m'Alav" 'Go away from it'), the entire orchard is guarded; whereas were he to guard it from the inside, what is in front of him is guarded, but whatever is behind him is not.

(b)Rav Ashi's parable is a joke however - because there, at least what is in front of him is be guarded; but if not for the Sheniyos nothing would be guarded at all (i.e. one would contravene the Isur of incest itself).

4)

(a)Rav Kahana learns Sheniyos from the Pasuk "u'Shemartem es Mishmarti" (written by the Arayos) - 'Asu Mishmeres l'Mishmarti'. Abaye asks on this on the grounds that, in that case, Sheniyos ought are d'Oraisa!

(b)Rav Yosef tries to answer this - by explaining that Sheniyos are really d'Oraisa, but the Rabanan explained them.

(c)We reject this answer however, on the grounds - that the Rabanan explained all of the Torah (yet we do not refer to all their D'rashos as d'Rabanan).

(d)So we finally conclude - that Sheniyos are really mi'de'Rabanan, and that the Pasuk is merely an Asmachta.

5)

(a)The Beraisa lists eight Sheniyos: His mother's mother, his father's mother, his father's father's wife and his mother's father's wife. His father's maternal brother's wife, his mother's paternal brother's wife - his son's daughter-in-law and his daughter's daughter-in-law.

(b)Chazal decreed on his mother's mother on account of his mother, and on his father's father's wife on account of his father's wife. And they decreed on ...

1. ... his father's mother - on account of his mother's mother.

2. ... his mother's father's wife - on account of his father's father's wife.

(c)These two are not a 'Gezeirah li'Gezeirah' - because in the former case, one refers to both mother's as 'grandmother', and in the latter case, to both husbands as 'grandfather', and will easily come to confuse the one with the other.

(d)They decreed on ...

1. ... his father's maternal brother's wife - on account of his father's paternal brother's wife.

2. ... his mother's paternal brother's wife - on account of his father's maternal brother's wife.

3. ... his son's daughter-in-law - on account of his own daughter-in-law.

4. ... his daughter's daughter-in-law - on account of his son's daughter-in-law.

6)

(a)His father-in-law's wife is permitted to him (provided she is not his mother-in-law), and so is his step-son's wife - and his step-son is likewise permitted to marry his wife and his daughter.

(b)His step-son's wife says to him - 'I am permitted to you, but my daughter (his own daughter-in-law) is not'; a particularly surprising statement, considering that the latter is a Torah prohibition.

(c)The Tana did not tell us the same thing about his father-in-law's wife, who is permitted to him, even though her daughter (his wife's sister) is forbidden - because this is not always true, seeing as she will become permitted should his wife die.

7)

(a)Most of the Sheniyos extend all the way up (e.g. mother's mother's mother and father's father's father's wife) or down (e.g. the daughter-in-law of his son's son's son). Rav knew three of the four that do not; his father's maternal brother's wife, his mother's paternal brother's wife - and his daughter-in-law (which we will soon emend to Kalas Bito).

(b)The reason for the distinction between these four and the others is - because there is no case of Ervah d'Oraisa in the generations of these four.

(c)Kalas Bno extends all the way down, and Kalas Bito does not - for the same reason (because in the generations of Kalas Bno there is an Ervah d'Oraisa [by Bno], whereas in the generations of Kalaso, there is not.

8)

(a)Ze'iri supplies us with the fourth case that does not extend all the way up. The Siman to remember it is 'one generation above Rav', and - it is his mother's father's wife.

(b)Rav does not include this case - because, he maintains, if she would be permitted, people would confuse her with his father's father's wife and permit her too.

(c)Ze'iri is not concerned that one may confuse the two cases - because people tend to frequent their father's relatives often, but not their mother's (though this may not be the custom nowadays).

9)

(a)'Kalaso', which Rav includes as the third of the cases that do not extend downwards, is obviously a mistake - because it is an Ervah d'Oraisa, and not a Sheniyah.

(b)The attempted emendment to 'Kalas Bno' is not acceptable either, because the Beraisa specifically includes Kalas Bno among those that do extend downwards. So we emend Rav's 'Kalaso' - to 'Kalas Bito'.

(c)Based on a statement that he heard from Rebbi Ami, Rav Chisda explained why Kalas Bno extends downwards, whereas Kalas Bito does not. Rebbi Ami said - 'Lo Asru Kalah Ela Mipnei Kalah' ...

(d)... which Rav Chisda explains to mean - that Chazal only forbade Kalas Bito on account of Kalas Bno (but not intrinsically).

10)

(a)When Rav Chisda first heard Rebbi Ami's statement, he was in a quandary - because the astrologers told him that he would be a Chacham, and he did not know whether they meant a Talmid-Chacham or a Rebbe of children. If they meant the former, then he would be able to explain Rebbi Ami's statement himself, but if they meant the latter, then he would have to ask the Talmidei-Chachamim.

(b)It became resolved - when he subsequently discovered the explanation on his own.

(c)Abaye pointed out to Rava the example of Kalasah d'Bei bar Tzisa'i - who had two daughters-in-law, one, Kalas Bno the other, Kalas Bito, and if the latter were to be permitted, they would permit the former, too. It seems that he, Rav Papa and Rav Ashi (who pointed out the same thing in various families), were pointing out - that it is only someone who has a Kalas Bno as well, to whom Kalas Bito is forbidden.

11)

(a)One's father's maternal brother's wife and one's mother's paternal brother's wife are among the Sheniyos. How about his mother's maternal brother's wife, we ask - is she permitted, seeing as there is no 'Tzad Av' there, or perhaps she is included in the case of one's mother's paternal brother's wife? (It is unclear however, why we do not then query the fact that the Tana omits her from the Beraisa, as we will ask later on the Amud on a similar case.)

(b)Rava rejects Rav Safra's contention that this case would only be forbidden on account of his mother's paternal brother's wife, and would therefore be a 'Gezeirah li'Gezeirah', which Chazal do not generally decree - on the basis that many of the cases listed in the Beraisa are only forbidden because of their similarity to other Sheniyos, yet Chazal did include them in their decree, as we shall now see.

12)

(a)His father's mother, his mother's father's wife and his mother's brother's wife have in common - the fact that all of them are a 'Gezeirah li'Gezeirah': His father's mother is a decree on account of his mother's mother (who is herself only a decree on account of his mother) [both of whom are forbidden because they too, are referred to as 'grandmother']; his mother's father's wife is a decree on account of his father's father's wife (who is a decree on account of his father's wife) [both of whom are forbidden because there too, they are referred to as 'grandfather']; and his mother's paternal brother's wife is a decree on account of his father's maternal brother's wife (who is herself a decree on account of his father's paternal brother's wife) [both of whom are forbidden because they too, are referred to as 'aunt'].

(b)When Rav Yehudah bar Shilo came from Eretz Yisrael - he cited the principle that whenever the female is an Ervah, they decreed on the equivalent male's wife.

(c)Consequently - since his mother's maternal sister is an Ervah (as we will conclude in 'ha'Ba al Yevimto'), his mother's maternal brother's wife is a Sheniyah.

(d)We forbid his mother's maternal brother's wife on the basis of this principle - because she became his aunt through one Kidushin, but not his father-in-law's wife, his mother-in-law's son's wife, his stepson's wife and his stepson's son's wife (despite the fact that all of the male equivalents in those cases are Arayos; mother-in-law, sister-in-law [through his mother-in-law or father-in-law], wife's daughter and granddaughter, respectively), who are more distant - because they all became relatives through two Kidushin.

13)

(a)Rav Mesharshaya from Tusnaya asked Rav Papi whether the wife of one's father's father's brother and the sister of one's father's father are included in the Sheniyos. Despite the fact that, one generation below (the father's paternal brother's wife and his father's sister) are Arayos, they might not be included - because the relationship is more distant (see Rashash).

(b)On the other hand, even if they are Sheniyos, the Tana omits them from the list - because there are other cases that have been omitted too (and omitting at least two cases from a Mishnah is justifiable, whereas one, is not).

14)

(a)Ameimar - specifically permits the wife of his father's father's brother and his father's father's sister.

(b)Rav Hillel queried Ameimar from the sixteen Sheniyos that he saw listed in Mar Brei d'Ravina's house. Considering that Rebbi Chiya had a list of six Sheniyos that are not listed in the original Beraisa of eight - surely the remaining two must be his father's father's brother and his father's father sister (which are then Sheniyos)!

(c)We refute the counter-argument (that even if we were to include these two in the sixteen Sheniyos of Mar Brei d'Ravina, there would still not be sixteen [but seventeen], because of his mother's brother's wife, whom we included above in the list of Sheniyos) is not valid - due to the fact that the two under discussion are considered as one (seeing as they are both called aunts and one level below each of them is an Ervah).

(d)And we refute the fact that in any event, they are included in Mar B'rei d'Ravina's list l'Isur - inasmuch as the list is not authentic, seeing as Mar b'rei d'Ravina' name did not appear on it, and just as one would not rely on such a list l'Kula, one cannot rely on it l'Chumra either.