The following is obvious. If someone less than 20 years old brought two hairs, he is made an adult retroactively. (CHASAM SOFER Teshuvah 3:14:2 - we discuss a Safek Seris. We assume that he was an adult immediately after 13, just the hairs delayed due to the changes in his body (Simanei Seris).

If someone above 20 years old brought two hairs, from now and onwards he is an adult.

What do [Amora'im] argue about? They argue about one who is 20. Shmuel says, he is made an adult retroactively. Rav says, from now and onwards he is an adult.

Question: A Beraisa argues with both of them! A Seris cannot become a Ben Sorer u'Moreh, because he does not have a beard surrounding (his Ervah);

They should warn him, lest he bring two hairs within three months! (We said that less than 20, he is made an adult retroactively!)

Answer: This is like the opinion that we do not accept warning amidst Safek. (He cannot be punished, for the warning is invalid.)

Question (against Shmuel - Mishnah): A boy nine years old and one day has the same law as a 20-year old who did not bring two hairs;

Just like you say that a boy from nine years and one day until 12 years and one day who brought two hairs, retroactively he did not becomes an adult, likewise a 20 year old who brought two hairs, from now and onwards he becomes an adult!

Question: How can Shmuel answer this?

Answer: It refers to shortly after 20 years (but before 20, he becomes an adult retroactively).

(Mishnah): One may marry a relative (mother, grandmother, daughter, granddaughter and sister) of a woman that he raped or enticed. One who rapes or entices the relative of his wife is Chayav (Kares);

A man may marry a woman that his father or son raped or enticed;

R. Yehudah forbids a woman that his father raped or enticed.

(Gemara): Our Mishnah means that one may marry after he raped or enticed [the relative. "Al" connotes that he is still with the one that he raped or enticed, i.e. he married her, but this is not the case.)

If one raped a woman, he is permitted to her mother. If one enticed a woman, he is permitted to her daughter.

Note: Often the Gemara mentions only rape, or enticement. In all these laws, there is no difference between them.

If one raped or enticed on (i.e. the relative of) a Nesu'ah, he is liable.

(R. Yochanan): This refers to the way of Nisu'in (i.e. it was not in the way of rape or enticement. However, not only Nisu'in forbids, rather, even Kidushin. We explained this like MEICHAL HA'MAYIM.)

If one married a woman and afterwards raped her mother, he is liable. If one married a woman and afterwards enticed her daughter, he is liable.

(Mishnah): If one slaughtered an animal, and afterwards [slaughtered] its daughter's daughter, and afterwards he slaughtered its daughter, he is lashed 40 lashes;

Sumchus says in the name of R. Meir, he receives 80 lashes. (The last that he slaughtered is the daughter of an animal slaughtered today, and the mother of an animal slaughtered today.)

(R. Lazar): Sumchus and R. Yochanan ben Nuri said the same Chidush;

(Mishnah - R. Yochanan ben Nuri): One who has Bi'ah with his mother-in-law is liable for his mother-in-law, the mother of his mother-in-law, and the mother of his father-in-law (if she is all of these);

Chachamim (to R. Yochanan ben Nuri): All of them are one Shem (Isur, so he is liable only once).

(R. Yudah bar Pazi citing R. Yochanan): Sumchus agrees about the first case (if he slaughtered two children of an animal, and afterwards the mother, he is liable only once).

A Beraisa was found that says that also [the first case], Tana'im argue about it.

Question: What is the reason of R. Yochanan ben Nuri?

Answer: Just like a woman and her daughter and her daughter's daughter are two Lavim (a separate "Lo Sikach" is written for each), also a woman and her daughter's daughter and her son's daughter are two Lavim (even though it says "Lo Sikach" once for both of them).

Question: What is Rabanan's reason?

Answer: Just like [a woman and] her daughter's daughter and her son's daughter are one Lav, also a woman and her daughter's daughter and her son's daughter are one Lav.

It says "v'Ish Asher Yikach Es Ishah v'Es Imah Zimah Hi" - regarding all other Arayos it says Shechivah, and here it says Lekichah, to teach that one is not liable for the second unless the first is connected (married) to him.

Suggestion: Perhaps [the Torah forbids] only [when also the second] is through Nisu'in!

Rejection: We already said that there is no Kidushin with Arayos.

Question: It says "Lo Yikach Ish Es Eshes Aviv v'Lo Yegaleh Kenaf Aviv" (Lekichah connotes Kidushin, even though there is Kares and Misah for Eshes Av)!

Answer: This teaches that he was permitted to her before she married his father. (If she was forbidden beforehand, Ein Isur Chal Al Isur, and she would not be forbidden due to Eshes Av - BEN ARYEH.)

Question: It says "v'Ish Asher Yikach Es Eshes Achiv Nidah Hi"!

Answer #1: This teaches that he was permitted to her before she married his brother.

Answer #2: This can be understood (he can marry her) through Yibum.

Question: It says "v'Ishah El Achosah Lo Sikach Litzror"!

Answer: This teaches that he was permitted to her before he married her sister brother.

Answer #2: This can be understood (he can marry her) after death of her sister.

Question: It says "v'Ish Asher Yikach Es Achoso Bas Aviv Oh Vas Imo v'Ra'ah Es Ervasah v'Hi Sir'eh Es Ervaso Chesed Hu"!

Answer (R. Avin): You should not say, Kayin married his sister, and Hevel married his sister (so this shows that it is permitted)! Chesed Hu - I (Hash-m) did Chesed with the first ones in order that the world will be built from them - "Amarti Olam Chesed Yibaneh."

Question: It says "Almanah u'Gerushah v'Chalalah Zonah Es Eleh Lo Yikach"! (According to R. Akiva, there is no Kidushin with Chayavei Lavim!)

Answer: It comes to teach that if he was Mekadesh her, Kidushin takes effect on her.

Note: The Bavli (Kesuvos 29b) learns this from "v'Lo Yechalel", but the Yerushalmi never brings this Drashah.

R. Chunah learned all of them (there is Sereifah for his wife's mother, grandmothers, daughter and granddaughters) from this verse - "Ervas Ishah u'Vitah Lo Segaleh [...Zimah Hi]." We learn from a Gezeirah Shavah Zimah-Zimah (with "v'Ish Asher Yikach Es Ishah v'Es Imah Zimah Hi");

Just like below (descendants of his wife), the Isur is [up to] three generations (counting from her, i.e. her granddaughters), also above, it is three generations (her grandmothers);

Just like below, there is a Lo Sa'aseh, also above there is a Lo Sa'aseh;

Just like above, the Isur is through Nisu'in (if one raped or enticed a woman, there is no Isur to marry her mother or grandmother), also below it is through Nisu'in;

Just like above, [the punishment is] Sereifah (death through burning), also below it is Sereifah.

Just like below, the daughter of a male (her son) is like the daughter of a female (her daughter), also above, the mother of a male (his father-in-law) is like the mother of a female (his mother-in-law).

Question: According to R. Meir - R. Meir says that a Gezeirah Shavah (we learn all the laws like) the place that you come from (Dun Minah u'Minah) what is the source for the third generation above, that there is Sereifah? (The Torah taught burning for a mother-in-law, but not for a mother of a mother-in-law or of a father-in-law.)

Question: According to Rabanan, that they say that a Gezeirah Shavah (teaches only one matter, and everything else) is like is said the matter being learned (Dun Minah v'Uki b'Asra). What is the source for the third generation above, that there is a Lav? (The Torah taught a Lav only for one's wife's daughter and granddaughters, but not for her mother and grandmothers.)

Question: Both according to R. Meir and Rabanan, what is the source for the third generation below, that there is Sereifah?

Answer: Since it is written Zimah-Zimah for a Gezeirah Shavah, it is as if all of them are written here and all of them are written here (i.e. as if a Lav and Sereifah are written both above and below).

Question: This teaches his daughter's daughter from [his wife, i.e. through] Nisu'in. [It also includes her granddaughter from another man. What is the source for] one's daughter's daughter from rape?

Answer - Question: It says "Ervas Bas Bincha Oh Vas Bitcha" - what is the case?

If it is [a granddaughter] from Nisu'in, this was already taught!

Answer: If it is not needed for Nisu'in, use it to teach about rape.

Question: This teaches a warning. What is the source for a punishment?

Answer (R. Shmuel bar Rav Yitzchak): We learn Henah [written about one's granddaughter] from Henah [written about one's wife's granddaughter], and Zimah [written about one's wife's granddaughter] from Zimah [written about one's wife's grandmothers].

Question: This is like R. Akiva [who holds that what is learned from a Gezeirah Shavah can teach through another Gezeirah Shavah]. According to R. Yishmael [who disagrees, what is the source]?

Answer (Beraisa - R. Yishmael): We learn Henah from Es'hen [written about a mother-in-law. He expounds it like "Es Achas MeHen."]

Question: This teaches his daughter's daughter. What is the source for his daughter?

Answer #1 (Rav): If he is commanded about his daughter's daughter, all the more so about his daughter! If he is punished for his daughter's daughter, all the more so for his daughter!

Question (to R. Avahu): [If one had Bi'ah with] his daughter's daughter from Nisu'in and his daughter's daughter from rape [in one Helam, is he is liable once or twice]?

Aonswer (R. Avahu): The entire Shem of a daughter's daughter is one (he is liable only once).

Question (to R. Avahu): If one had Bi'ah with a woman, that he [already] married her daughter, her daughter's daughter and her sons' daughter, is he is liable for her for a woman, her daughter, her daughter's daughter and her sons' daughter?

Answer (R. Avahu): "Sha'arah Henah Zimah Hi" - all of them are due to Zimah (he is liable only once).

Question (R. Chagai, to R. Yosi): Why don't we say [that he is liable at least twice, for two Lavim are written] - Bitcha Lo Segaleh Bas Bitcha Lo Segaleh?

Answer (R. Yosi): Had it written 'Ervas Ishah u'Vas Bitah Lo Segaleh', [indeed,] we would say Bitcha Lo Segaleh Bas Bitcha Lo Segaleh. (However, the Torah wrote Lo Sikach and Lo Segaleh. Lo Sikach is needed to teach that he is liable only if the first was married to him. It is not extra to teach a second Lav.)

(R. Avahu citing R. Lazar citing R. Hoshayah): If there are two Lavim and one Kares, the Lavim divide the Kerisos (if one transgressed both b'Shogeg, he is liable two Chata'os).

Question: What is the source for this?

Answer: "Al Besar Adam Lo Yisach u'VMaskunto Lo Sa'asu Kamohu", and it says "Ish Asher Yirkach Kamohu" - these are two Lavim and one Kares. The Lavim divide the Kerisos.

Question: (Above, Rav said that if he is commanded about and punished for his daughter's daughter, all the more so he is commanded about and punished for his daughter.) According to R. Yishmael, that R. Yishmael says that we learn [Isur] from a Kal v'Chomer, but we do not punish based on a Kal v'Chomer, what is the source (that there is Sereifah for one's daughter through rape)?

Answer: It is like Chizkiyah taught [it should have said] 'u'Vas Ish Kohen Ki Techel Liznos' - why does it say "['u'Vas] Ish [Kohen]"? This includes one who has Bi'ah with his daughter from rape, that there is Sereifah for her.

(R. Yosi bei R. Bun): We learn even the warning (Lav) from there - "Al Techalel Es Bitcha" (do not profane your daughter, i.e. through having Bi'ah with her).

Question: What is R. Yehudah's reason [to forbid Anusas Aviv]?

Answer: "Lo Yikach Ish Es Eshes Aviv" refers to Eshes Aviv. "V'Lo Yegaleh Kenaf Aviv" refers to one who his father raped.

Question: How do Rabanan expound Kenaf Aviv?

Answer: There (in Bavel) they said, and we do not know who said it - it is a wing close to his father (Eshes Av).

Question: Without this ("Kenaf Aviv") is he not liable for Eshes Av?!

Answer (R. Heila): This is for warning. If witnesses warned due to Eshes Av, he is lashed. If they warned due to Kenaf Av, he is lashed.

R. Yehudah agrees about lashes (that one is not lashed for Anusas Aviv. MEICHAL HA'MAYIM - the Yerushalmi holds that one is not lashed for something learned from Semuchim). R. Yehudah agrees about Korban (that he is not Chayav Korban b'Shogeg). R. Yehudah agrees about other Onsim that he is exempt (if any other relative of Ploni raped a woman, this does not forbid her to Ploni).

R. Yehudah agrees that if he was Mekadesh (Anusas Aviv), that Kidushin takes effect on her.

Question (R. Chagai, to R. Yosi): Is the child a Mamzer according to R. Yehudah? (The Isur of a Mamzer is written nearby!)

Answer (R. Yosi): "Lo Yavo Patzu'a Daka u'Chrus Shafchah" interrupts the matter (between Kenaf Aviv and Mamzer. Therefore, the child is not a Mamzer.)

Question: It interrupts also between Eshes Av [and Mamzer. Will you say that the child of Eshes Ish is not a Mamzer?! Eshes Ish has Kares and Misah!]

Answer: Eshes Av is in the Klal of all Arayos. It left the Klal (was repeated here) to teach about all Arayos for (i.e. that the child is a) Mamzer.

Question: We should say that Eshes Av leaves [the Klal] to teach about all Arayos for Mamzer, and Anusas [Aviv] leaves to teach about all [relatives of Ploni] who raped, to forbid [her to Ploni]!

Answer (R. Yosi): Eshes Av was in the Klal of all Arayos. It left the Klal to teach about all Arayos for Mamzer. Can you say that Anusas [Aviv] was in a Klal, and left to teach about all Onsim to forbid?!

Question: Eshes Av should leave [the Klal] to teach about every [Ervah through marriage, it is forbidden also through] rape!

Answer: If she is Eshes Av, she is not Anusah. If she is Anusah, she is not Eshes Av. (Since they are separate, one does not teach about the other.)