Chagigah 11b — the Talmud in English

And we explain:

It is necessary

only

for

the erva of

his daughter born to him through rape [who was born to him without his marrying her mother], which is also an erva, like his daughter from marriage, 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,

which is not written explicitly

in the Torah.

And from where do we learn the law of his daughter born through rape?

For Rava said: Rabbi

Isaac son of Rabbi Abdimi said to me: It is derived

by means of a gezeira shava:

It is written concerning his daughter and his daughter’s daughter from marriage: “The nakedness of a woman and her daughter you shall not uncover. The daughter of her son and the daughter of her daughter you shall not take, to uncover her nakedness. Their kinship—they are; it is lewdness.”

And it is written concerning his daughter’s daughter born through rape: “The nakedness of the daughter of your son or the daughter of your daughter you shall not uncover, their nakedness, for your nakedness

they are.”

And it is written concerning his 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 gezeira shava,

“they are” [the expression stated concerning his daughter’s daughter born through rape] from

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

“they are” [the expression stated concerning his daughter’s daughter from marriage], in order to teach the prohibition of his daughter born through rape by means of a gezeira shava, as follows: just as with regard to “they are,” stated concerning the daughter of his son and the daughter of his daughter from marriage, Scripture there compared the law of his daughter from his wife to the law of his daughter’s daughter and his son’s daughter [as it is written: “The nakedness of a woman and her daughter you shall not uncover”],

[the expression concerning his granddaughter from a wife], in order to teach the prohibition of his daughter by a woman with whom he had relations without marrying her through an inference based on identical wording. This is as follows: Just as, in the expression “these” concerning his son’s daughter and his daughter’s daughter from a wife, the verse there compared the law of his daughter from his wife to the law of his granddaughter [as it is written: “You shall not uncover the nakedness of a woman and her daughter”],

so too, with regard to “they are,” stated concerning the daughter of his son and the daughter of his daughter born through rape, Scripture there prohibited his daughter born through rape just as it prohibited his daughter’s daughter and his son’s daughter.

[Although only the daughter of the son and the daughter of the daughter born through rape are explicit in the Torah].

And once we have learned by means of the gezeira shava “they are, they are” that rape is derived from marriage, the “lewdness” stated concerning marriage is considered as though it were also written concerning rape, and since that is so:

It is derived

further by means of a gezeira shava,

“lewdness” [which we say is as though it were written concerning rape] from

[which we say is as though it were written concerning relations without marriage] from

“lewdness”

stated concerning his mother-in-law, in order to teach that the punishment for his daughter born through rape is burning, as with his mother-in-law.

We learned at the end of the Mishna, and

these are the very essentials of Torah:

And it implies that only those laws that are explicit are the very essentials of Torah; therefore, we raise an objection:

But

these [the explicit ones],

[the laws that are stated explicitly],

yes, they indeed are the very essentials of Torah, whereas

indeed are the very foundations of the Torah, whereas

those [whose Torah laws are not so explicit]

[whose laws are not stated so explicitly]

no, they are not the very essentials of Torah?! And we explain:

the very foundations of the Torah? And we answer:

Rather, say: they [the explicit ones],

[the laws that are stated explicitly]

and they [the non-explicit ones]—all of them

[those that are not stated explicitly]—all

are the very essentials of Torah

they are.

We have completed you, chapter “All Are Obligated.”

Mishna:

One does not expound on forbidden sexual relations with

a group of

three

people, who are two people listening together with one person who expounds [so it might have seemed to be understood in the Gemara, and it will be explained there].

Nor

does one expound

on the act of Creation with

a group of

two,

one listening and one expounding.

Nor

does one expound

on

the act of

the Chariot, individually, unless he was

that individual

wise and understands of his own knowledge,

and it is explained in the Gemara.

Whoever gazes at four things

that follow,

it would have been better for him as though he had not come into the world [better and good would it have been for him if he had not come into the world. Rashi], and these are:

A. Whoever gazes at

what is above

the firmament that is above the heads of the living creatures.

B. Whoever gazes at

what is below

the living creatures.

C. Whoever gazes at

what is before,

outside the partition of the firmament toward the east.

D.

And

whoever gazes at

what is behind,

toward the west.

And anyone who has no concern for the honor of his Maker

it is explained in the Gemara —

it would have been better for him not to have come into the world.

Gemara:

We learned in the Mishna: One does not expound on the Chariot individually, unless he was wise and understands of his own knowledge:

And we ask:

You said at the beginning: nor on the Chariot individually.

And necessarily the Mishna is dealing with one who is wise and understands of his own knowledge, for without a teacher you prohibit him, so that he should not expound by himself.

And

if

you then again said: unless he was wise and understands of his own knowledge,

then he can expound by himself?!

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

this is what it says:

One does not expound on forbidden sexual relations for three

apart from the one who expounds, but only for fewer than three listeners;

nor on the act of Creation for two,

apart from the one who expounds, but only for one individual;

nor on the Chariot

even

for a

single

individual student, unless he was

that single student

wise and understands of his own knowledge,

so that he will not need to ask a teacher where he is uncertain, for it is not proper conduct to explain it explicitly.

We learned in the Mishna:

One does not expound on forbidden sexual relations with three [that is: for three]:

And we explain:

And we explain:

What is the reason?

If you say it is because it is written: “Every man, every man, to all the flesh of his kin”.

“Every man, every man”

implies

two,

two people.

“The flesh of his kin”

implies

one,

one additional person.

And the Merciful One said,

with regard to expounding the verse in public:

“You shall not come near to uncover nakedness”.

And the “coming near” stated here also hints that they should not come near one another in order to expound these verses together as three people.

This cannot be explained in this way.

For:

If so,

that which

is written: “Every man, every man who

curses his God”,

and likewise it is written:

“Every man, every man who gives of his offspring to Molekh”,

would

this also

be interpreted “every man, every man” in this manner?!

Rather,

necessarily,

those [“every man, every man” stated regarding cursing God and Molekh]

is needed

in order

to include the gentiles,

to say

that

they too

are warned concerning blessing the Name and concerning idolatry, like

the

Israelites.

And since this is so,

this also — “every man, every man”

stated concerning forbidden sexual relations —

is needed to include the gentiles,

to say

that they are warned concerning forbidden sexual relations like the Israelites.

Rather,

perhaps you will say: From here we learn that one does not expound on forbidden sexual relations with three,

from what is written: “And you shall safeguard My safeguard”,

“and you shall safeguard”

implies

two

people,

“My safeguard”

implies in addition

one

person, and the Torah said that one must make a safeguard

“so as not to perform the practices of the abominations”,

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

This too is impossible. For:

If so,

that which

is written: “And you shall safeguard the Shabbat”,

and it is further written:

“And you shall safeguard the matzot”,

and it is further written:

“And you shall safeguard the safeguard of the holy place” —

would

this also

be interpreted in this manner?!

Rather, Rav Ashi said: What is “one does not expound on forbidden sexual relations with three” —

one does not expound on the “secrets of forbidden sexual relations” with three!

Forbidden sexual relations that are not explicit, such as his daughter from a woman whom he raped, his father-in-law’s mother, and his mother-in-law’s mother, which are learned by exposition, Rashi]

What is the reason?

It is logical!

For

when two sit before their teacher, one discusses and debates with his teacher, while the other inclines his ear to the learning [two students sitting before their teacher: when one discusses and debates with the teacher concerning some matter, the other inclines his ear to hear their words].

But when

three

three students sit,

one discusses and debates with his teacher, while those other two discuss and debate with one another [sometimes, when one discusses and debates with the teacher, the other two discuss and debate among themselves].

And

as a result

they do not know what their teacher is saying

to that student,

and they come to permit a prohibition of forbidden sexual relations [at that time they do not incline their ears to the matters that the teacher says to that student, and there is concern lest they come to permit prohibitions of forbidden sexual relations].

And we challenge this:

If so,

also in

the entire Torah

let it be said that one does not expound with three, for the same reason!?

And we answer:

Forbidden sexual relations are different.

For the Master said: Robbery and forbidden sexual relations —

his soul

of a person

desires them and yearns for them,

and there is concern that they will err in their learning and permit matters of forbidden sexual relations.

And we still challenge:

If so,

concerning matters of

robbery also,

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

And we answer:

With forbidden sexual relations, both in his presence and not in his presence —

his inclination is stronger,

the power of the inclination grows and increases, even at the time of learning.

But

robbery,

only when the opportunity for robbery is found

in his presence

of the person

is his inclination stronger,

but

when it is not in his presence,

at the time of his learning,

his inclination is not stronger.

And therefore he will not come to permit the prohibition of robbery at the time of his learning, since it is not before him.

We learned in the Mishna:

One does not expound,

nor on the act of Creation with two [that is: for two]:

And we explain:

What is the source of these words

from where are these words

that two may not ask a teacher concerning the act of Creation?

For the Sages taught:

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

And we expound:

“For ask now of the former days”,

behold you have learned: only

one individual asks!

Since “ask” is stated in the singular,

and two may not ask

concerning the former days.

One might have thought that a person may ask

what existed

before the world was created?

The verse says: “For ask now:

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

And you may not ask about before the day on which man was created.

One might have thought,

since the verse prohibits asking about before the creation of man, which was on the sixth day of the act of Creation, therefore:

a person may not ask concerning the six days of Creation

that preceded the creation of man?

The verse says: “For ask now

“of the former days

that were before you.”

Behold it implies that from the first day you may ask.

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 says: “For ask now,

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

Behold you have learned that only

from one end of the heavens to the other end of the heavens

indeed

you may ask, but you may not ask: What is above?

What is below?

What is before?

What is behind?