Sanhedrin 75b — the Talmud in English

Abaye said: This is what he means

the tannai by saying “males like females”:

From where [do we know] to make the kinship

[of his daughter]

that comes from him

[namely, his son’s daughter and his daughter’s daughter, who are not from his wife but from his raped partner]

like the kinship

[the kinship of a daughter]

that comes from her

[from his wife, namely, his wife’s son’s daughter and his wife’s daughter’s daughter, when they are not his but only his wife’s], and to make them liable to burning, as we made the kinship that comes from her liable to burning, which we learned by a gzera shava? —

It is stated here “depravity,” and it is stated there “depravity,” and so on.

And the Gemara objects:

But concerning his kinship,

in the verse prohibiting the kinship of his daughter from his raped partner, and his son’s daughter and his daughter’s daughter,

“depravity” is not written in it!

Rava said: Rabbi Yitzhak bar Avudimi said to me: It comes [by a gzera shava]

“they are” and “they are.” First we learn by the gzera shava of “they are” and “they are.” For in the verse speaking of the kinship that comes from him [his daughter from his raped partner, his son’s daughter, and his daughter’s daughter], it says “they are your nakedness.” And in the verse speaking of the kinship that comes from her, it says “they are her kin.” It is thus as though “depravity” were also said concerning the kinship that comes from him. And now that “depravity” was also said concerning the kinship that comes from him, again

it comes

by a gzera shava of

“depravity, depravity,”

to teach from his mother-in-law liability to burning.

And now the Gemara comes to explain the second obscure matter in the beraita:

b.

The master said: From where [do we know] to make those below like those above.

And the Gemara asks:

What is “those below like those above”?

If you say

that the tannai’s intention is to say: from where do we derive liability to burning for

his son’s daughter and his daughter’s daughter like his daughter,

that is, from where do we know that the lower generations in “the kinship of his daughter” [his son’s daughter and his daughter’s daughter] have the status of burning, like those above, like his daughter, who precedes them in her kinship to him and is considered “above” in the order of kinship to him?

It is impossible to say this, for they all

come together!

They are all learned by the same single gzera shava from his mother-in-law, because they are all included in the same verse, in which “depravity” is written.

Rather,

perhaps you will say that the tannai’s intention is to say: from where do we derive liability to burning for

his father-in-law’s mother and his mother-in-law’s mother like his mother-in-law.

This too cannot be said! For

this,

is this called

“those below like those above”?

The order of the generations is from above and descends downward. If so, if the question is from where we know that his father-in-law’s mother and his mother-in-law’s mother are subject to burning like his mother-in-law,

it would be “those above like those below”!

And the Gemara answers: Indeed, this cannot be said; rather, we must reverse the beraita, and therefore

teach:

the beraita should be read as follows: From where do we know to make

those above

[his father-in-law’s mother and his mother-in-law’s mother]

like those below

[like his mother-in-law]?

But the Gemara objects:

If so,

what is the teaching that the tannai stated concerning this in the beraita:

“It is stated here ‘depravity,’ and it is stated there ‘depravity’”!?

And now, since they themselves were not written,

they themselves were not written in the verse, and you still have no source either for the warning or for the punishment concerning them.

Was their “depravity” written!?

If they themselves are not written in the Torah, how can it be said that “depravity” was written concerning them?

Abaye said: This is what he means

the tannai in the beraita:

From where [do we know] to make

prohibited

three generations above

one’s wife, namely, his father-in-law’s mother and his mother-in-law’s mother, who are considered the third generation above his wife,

like three generations below

one’s wife, such as his wife’s son’s daughter and his wife’s daughter’s daughter, which are the third generation below his wife, concerning whom both a warning and the punishment of burning were stated? —

It is stated below,

concerning his wife’s daughter,

“depravity”

[“they are her kin; it is depravity”]

and it is stated above,

concerning his mother-in-law, “When a man takes a woman and her mother,

depravity

is it.”

Just as below,

concerning his wife’s daughter, there is a warning and the punishment of burning

for three generations

below,

so above,

concerning his mother-in-law, there is the punishment of burning

for three generations,

above.

But all this teaching concerns the punishment of burning and not the warning itself, because the “depravity” written above, concerning his mother-in-law, was stated only with regard to the punishment of burning and not with regard to the warning.

Therefore, the beraita continues and states the third obscure law, and now the Gemara explains it:

c.

And concerning the punishment, he made those below like those above,

his daughter, his son’s daughter, and his daughter’s daughter, so that they would be subject to the punishment of burning,

like those above,

according to the law of his mother-in-law, who is subject to burning.

So too, concerning the warning, he made those above like those below,

his mother-in-law, his mother-in-law’s mother, and his father-in-law’s mother,

like those below,

so that they would be warned concerning all of them.

Rav Ashi said: Actually,

there is no need to reverse the wording of the baraita [in the second part]; rather, it must be altered

as it is taught:

Just as there, those below are like those above, so here too, those below are like those above.

And regarding what we objected—if his father-in-law’s mother and his mother-in-law’s mother, if you wish to make them like his mother-in-law, this is from above to below, since that is the order of the generations, and this is not “those below like those above”—one may say:

And what does “below” mean—

below in the prohibition.

For if his mother-in-law’s mother and his father-in-law’s mother are considered to be on a lower level of the severity of the prohibition, since they are more distant from him than his mother-in-law, we learn that nevertheless the law of those “below” is as severe as that of his mother-in-law, who is “above” in the level of the prohibition.

And Ulla explains the continuation of the baraita in accordance with Abaye.

Up to here, the Gemara explains the unclear wording of the baraita, and from here it continues to discuss on the basis of the words of the baraita.

If so,

lest you say: Since the baraita said that the other relatives on his side are to be compared with the other relatives on her side, then, accordingly, let us also say:

Just as she,

with regard to the prohibition of kinship on account of his wife,

if her mother

is forbidden, so too he,

with regard to the prohibition of kinship on his side,

if his mother is forbidden!

Abaye said: The verse says, “She is your mother.”

The word “she” comes to exclude and to say that only

because of his mother do you make him liable, but you do not make him liable because of his mother’s mother.

Rava said:

There is no need for the exclusion from “She is your mother”; rather, it is possible to answer that it is impossible to derive the prohibition of his mother’s mother by a gezerah shavah from the prohibition of her mother, because

whether according to the one who says, “derive from it and from it,”

who says that when one matter is learned from another by a gezerah shavah, it is learned from the teaching matter with regard to all its laws, and the law of the first matter is not applied to it at all—and according to this opinion, it would seemingly follow that one should be liable to burning for his mother’s mother just as for her mother—

or whether according to the one who says, “derive from it, and establish it in its place,”

who says that only the essential law is learned from the teaching matter, but the first matter must still be established according to its own law, and according to him only the prohibition of the warning for his mother’s mother can be learned from her mother, but not the liability to burning—

it does not come about!

It is impossible to derive it by a gezerah shavah.

For

according to the one who says, “derive from it and from it,”

we ought to derive by a gezerah shavah the law of his mother’s mother from that of her mother, both with regard to the warning and with regard to burning, as follows:

Derive from it:

Just as she,

his wife,

if her mother is forbidden—

so too he, his mother is forbidden.

And from it—

just as she is subject to burning, so too he is subject to burning

for his mother’s mother.

And this derivation may be refuted:

According to the one who says

that the death of

burning is more severe

than stoning,

there is room to refute

with three refutations:

a.

What is so about “she,”—

for her mother is subject to burning; can you say the same about “he,”—

for his mother is subject to stoning?

And it is impossible to learn a lenient matter from a stringent matter.

b.

Furthermore,

there is room to refute: Is it possible that

his mother is subject to stoning,

whereas

his mother’s mother

would be

subject to burning,

which is more severe than stoning?!

c.

Furthermore,

since we say, “derive from it and from it,” we ought to learn as follows:

Just as with regard to her, you did not distinguish between her mother and her mother’s mother

with regard to the punishment, and for both there is an equal liability, burning,

so too with regard to him, you shall not distinguish between his mother and his mother’s mother,

and for both there will be an equal liability, stoning.

And according to the one who says, “stoning is more severe,”

and according to him the first two refutations do not apply, nevertheless

this objection,

by virtue of the third objection,

is not discussed,

it is impossible to learn his mother’s mother from her mother.

And

if

according to the one who says, “derive from it and establish it in its place,”

the derivation must necessarily be only with regard to the warning, as follows:

Derive from it:

Just as her mother is forbidden—

so too he, his mother is forbidden,

and establish it in its place: there,

with regard to her mother,

she is subject to burning. But here,

with regard to his mother,

she is subject to stoning, as we find with regard to his mother [

that is, “establish it in its place”].

And Rava explains that according to this derivation it may be refuted as follows:

According to the one who says that burning is more severe

than stoning,

there is room to refute

with two refutations: