Chagigah 11b (יא:) — the Talmud in English

And we explain:

It is necessary

only for

the

prohibition of

his daughter from a woman he had raped [who was born to him without his marrying her mother], for she too is a forbidden relation, like his daughter from a wife—both with regard to the fact that she is forbidden to him and with regard to making him liable for her,

who was born to him without his marrying her mother]. She too is a forbidden relation, like his daughter from a wife: both because she is forbidden to him and because he is liable for violating this prohibition,

as it is not written explicitly

in the Torah.

And from where do we learn the law concerning his daughter from a woman he had raped?

For Rava said: Rabbi

Yitzḥak bar Rabbi Avdimi said to me: It is derived

by means of a gzera shava:

It is written concerning his daughter and his granddaughter from a wife: “You shall not uncover the nakedness of a woman and her daughter. You shall not take a woman’s son’s daughter or her daughter’s daughter to uncover her nakedness. They are her relatives; it is lewdness.”

And it is written concerning his granddaughter from a woman he had raped: “You shall not uncover the nakedness of your son’s daughter or your daughter’s daughter, for they are your nakedness.”

And it is written concerning one’s mother-in-law: “A man who takes a woman and her mother—it is lewdness; they shall burn him and them in fire.”

And

it is derived

first by means of a gzera shava:

“henah” [the term stated concerning his granddaughter from a woman he had raped] from

[the expression concerning his granddaughter by a woman with whom he had relations without marrying her] from

“henah” [the term stated concerning his granddaughter from a wife], in order to teach the prohibition of his daughter from a woman he had raped by means of a gzera shava, as follows: Just as with regard to the “henah” stated concerning the son’s daughter and daughter’s daughter from a marriage, Scripture there equated the law of his daughter from his wife with the law of his granddaughter and his son’s daughter [as it is written: “You shall not uncover the nakedness of a woman and her daughter”],

so too, with regard to the “henah” stated concerning the son’s daughter and daughter’s daughter from rape, Scripture there prohibited his daughter from a woman he had raped, just as it prohibited his son’s daughter and daughter’s daughter.

[Although only the son’s daughter and daughter’s daughter from rape are stated explicitly in the Torah.]

And once we have learned by means of the gzera shava of “henah,” “henah,” that the case of rape is derived from the case of marriage, the “lewdness” stated with regard to marriage is considered as though it were written also with regard to rape. And since that is so:

It is derived

again by means of a gzera shava:

“zimmah” [which we say is considered as though it were written with regard to rape] from

“depravity"

“zimmah”

stated with regard to one’s mother-in-law, in order to teach that the punishment for his daughter from a woman he had raped is burning, as in the case of one’s mother-in-law.

We learned at the end of the Mishna, and

these are the very foundations of the Torah:

This implies that only those laws that are stated explicitly are the very foundations of the Torah. Therefore, we raise a difficulty:

Is it so that

these

[that are stated explicitly],

yes,

and indeed they are the very foundations of the Torah, whereas

those

[whose Torah laws are not stated so explicitly]

are not

the very foundations of the Torah? And we explain:

Rather, say: They

[those that are stated explicitly],

and they

[those that are not stated explicitly]—all

are the very foundations of the Torah

are the very foundations of the Torah

.

We have completed [the study of] you, chapter “All Are Obligated.”

Mishna:

One may not expound on forbidden sexual relationships before

a group of

three

people, meaning two people who listen together with one person who expounds [this is the initial understanding in the Gemara, and it will be explained there].

Nor

may one expound

on the Work of Creation before

a group of

two,

one who listens and one who expounds.

Nor

may one expound

on the

Work of

the Chariot before a single individual, unless he was

that individual

wise and able to understand on his own,

as the Gemara explains.

Anyone who gazes at four things

listed below,

it would have been better for him as though he had never entered the world [it is better and would have been good for him had he not entered the world. Rashi], and these are they:

a. One who gazes at

what is above

the firmament above the heads of the living creatures.

b. One who gazes at

what is below

the living creatures.

c. One who gazes at

what is before,

outside the partition of the firmament, toward the east.

d.

And

one who gazes at

what is behind,

toward the west.

And anyone who does not care for the honor of his Creator

[as the Gemara explains] –

it would have been better for him had he not entered the world.

Gemara:

We learned in the Mishna: One may not expound on the Work of the Chariot before a single individual, unless he was wise and able to understand on his own:

And we raise a difficulty:

You said at the beginning: nor on the Work of the Chariot before a single individual.

The Mishna must necessarily be referring to someone who is wise and able to understand on his own, since by prohibiting him from expounding by himself without a teacher, you are prohibiting him.

And

if

you then said: unless he was wise and able to understand on his own,

does this not mean that he may expound by himself?!

And we answer: The Mishna does not include the one who expounds himself; rather,

this is what it is saying:

One may not expound on forbidden sexual relationships before three

apart from the one who expounds; rather, only before fewer than three listeners;

nor on the Work of Creation before two,

apart from the one who expounds; rather, before only a single individual;

nor on the Work of the Chariot

even

before a

single

student, unless he was

that single student

wise and able to understand on his own,

so that he would not need to ask a teacher when he has doubts, since it is not proper to explain these matters explicitly.

We learned in the Mishna:

One may not expound on forbidden sexual relationships before three

[that is, before three people]:

And we explain:

What is the reason?

If you say it is because it is written: “Each man, to all the flesh of his flesh

‘Each man’”

means

two

men.

“Of his flesh”

means

one

additional man.

And the Merciful One said,

with regard to expounding the verse publicly:

“You shall not approach to uncover nakedness

[the “approach” mentioned here also hints that they should not draw near to one another in order to expound these verses together as a group of three].

This interpretation is impossible.

For

if that is so,

with regard to

that which is written: “Each man who

curses his God,” and

as it is likewise written:

“Each man who gives any of his offspring to Molekh,”

shall

this also

be interpreted in this manner, with “each man” understood as two men?!

Rather,

necessarily,

those expressions [“each man” stated concerning blessing God and concerning Molekh]

are needed

in order

to include gentiles,

meaning

that

they too

are warned against blessing the Name and against idolatry, just as

the

Israelites.

And since this is so,

this too – “each man” stated concerning forbidden sexual relationships –

stated concerning forbidden sexual relations —

is needed to include gentiles,

meaning

that they are warned against forbidden sexual relationships just as the Israelites.

Rather,

perhaps you may say: We learn from here that one may not expound on forbidden sexual relationships before three,

from that which is written: “You shall safeguard My safeguard

‘You shall safeguard’”

means

two

men;

“My safeguard”

means one more

one

man, and the Torah says that a safeguard must be made

“so that you do not perform the practices of the abominations”,

and this safeguard includes the prohibition against expounding together on matters of forbidden sexual relationships.

This too is impossible. For:

If that is so,

concerning

that which is written: “You shall safeguard the Shabbat,” and it is further written:

and it is also written:

“You shall safeguard the mitzvot,” and it is further written:

and it is also written:

“You shall safeguard the safeguard of the Sanctuary” –

shall

this too

be interpreted in this manner?!

Rather, Rav Ashi said: What is the meaning of “One may not expound on forbidden sexual relationships before three” –

one may not expound on the “secrets of forbidden sexual relationships” before three!

[Forbidden sexual relationships that are not explicitly stated, such as his daughter born from a woman raped by him, his father-in-law’s mother, and his mother-in-law’s mother, which are derived through exposition, Rashi]

What is the reason?

It is a logical consideration!

For

when two sit before their teacher, one conducts a discussion with his teacher, while the other inclines his ear to the study [two students sitting before their teacher: when one debates a matter with the teacher, the other inclines his ear to hear their words].

But when

three

students sit,

one conducts a discussion with his teacher, while the other two conduct a discussion with each other [sometimes, when one conducts a discussion with the teacher, the other two conduct a discussion among themselves].

And

as a result,

they do not know what their teacher is saying

to that student,

and they may come to permit a forbidden sexual relationship [at that time they do not incline their ears to what the teacher says to that student, and there is concern that they may come to permit forbidden sexual relationships].

And we raise an objection:

If that is so,

then concerning

the entire Torah as well

it should be said that one may not expound before three, for the same reason?!

And we answer:

Forbidden sexual relationships are different.

As the Master said: Robbery and forbidden sexual relationships –

a person’s soul

is

fond of them and desires them,

and there is concern that they may err in their studies and come to permit matters of forbidden sexual relationships.

But we still raise an objection:

If that is so, concerning matters of

robbery

as well, since a person’s soul is fond of them and desires them, should the teacher not expound before three students, lest they err and come to permit matters of robbery?!

since a person’s soul desires it and yearns for it, the teacher should not expound before three students, lest they err and come to permit matters of robbery!?

And we answer:

With regard to forbidden sexual relationships, whether in his presence or not in his presence,

the inclination is stronger,

its power intensifying and increasing even during study.

But

robbery,

only when the opportunity for robbery is present

before

the person

is the inclination stronger;

but

but when it is not in his presence,

during his study,

the inclination is not stronger.

Therefore, he will not come to permit the prohibition against robbery during his study, since it is not before him.

We learned in the Mishna:

One may not expound,

nor on the Work of Creation before two

[that is, before two people]:

And we explain:

From where are these matters derived,

that two may not ask a teacher about the Work of Creation?

As the Sages taught:

It is written: “For ask now regarding the former days that were before you, from the day when God created man upon the earth, and from one end of heaven to the other end of heaven. Has anything ever been like this great thing, or has anything like it ever been heard?”

And we expound:

“For ask now regarding the former days”,

you have learned that only

one individual may ask!

Since “ask” is stated in the singular,

two may not ask

about the former days.

One might have thought that a person may ask

what existed

before the world was created?

The verse states: “For ask now:

from the day when God created man upon the earth”!

You may not ask about what preceded the day on which man was created.

One might have thought,

since the verse prohibits asking about what preceded the creation of man, which occurred on the sixth day of the Work of Creation, that

a person may not ask about the six days of Creation

that preceded the creation of man?

The verse states: “For ask now

‘concerning the earlier days

regarding the former days that were before you.”

This indicates that one may ask beginning from the first day.

One might have thought that a person may ask: What is above and what is below, what is before and what is behind?

The verse states: “For ask now,

from one end of heaven to the other end of heaven.”

You have therefore learned that only

from one end of heaven to the other end of heaven

may one indeed

ask, and one may not ask: What is above?

What is below?

What is before?

What is behind?