Sanhedrin 75a

וְאִם אִיתָא, לָא לֵימָא לֵיהּ? הָא בְּצִנְעָה, הָא בְּפַרְהֶסְיָא.

And if it is so that a descendant of Noah is commanded about the sanctification of God’s name, he should not have said to him: “Go in peace.” The Gemara answers: This situation, where Elisha permitted Naaman’s conduct, happened in private. When Naaman bowed down in the house of Rimmon, he did not do so in the presence of ten Jews. Whereas that question that was raised is whether or not a descendant of Noah must sanctify God’s name in public, in the presence of ten Jews. Consequently, the question remains without a solution.

אָמַר רַב יְהוּדָה אָמַר רַב: מַעֲשֶׂה בְּאָדָם אֶחָד שֶׁנָּתַן עֵינָיו בְּאִשָּׁה אַחַת, וְהֶעֱלָה לִבּוֹ טִינָא. וּבָאוּ וְשָׁאֲלוּ לָרוֹפְאִים, וְאָמְרוּ: אֵין לוֹ תַּקָּנָה עַד שֶׁתִּבָּעֵל. אָמְרוּ חֲכָמִים: יָמוּת וְאַל תִּבָּעֵל לוֹ. תַּעֲמוֹד לְפָנָיו עֲרוּמָּה: יָמוּת וְאַל תַּעֲמוֹד לְפָנָיו עֲרוּמָּה. תְּסַפֵּר עִמּוֹ מֵאֲחוֹרֵי הַגָּדֵר: יָמוּת וְלֹא תְּסַפֵּר עִמּוֹ מֵאֲחוֹרֵי הַגָּדֵר.

§ Apropos the discussion of the obligation to allow oneself to be killed rather than engage in forbidden sexual intercourse, the Gemara notes that Rav Yehuda says that Rav says: There was an incident involving a certain man who set his eyes upon a certain woman and passion rose in his heart, to the point that he became deathly ill. And they came and asked doctors what was to be done with him. And the doctors said: He will have no cure until she engages in sexual intercourse with him. The Sages said: Let him die, and she may not engage in sexual intercourse with him. The doctors said: She should at least stand naked before him. The Sages said: Let him die, and she may not stand naked before him. The doctors suggested: The woman should at least converse with him behind a fence in a secluded area, so that he should derive a small amount of pleasure from the encounter. The Sages insisted: Let him die, and she may not converse with him behind a fence.

פְּלִיגִי בַּהּ רַבִּי יַעֲקֹב בַּר אִידֵּי וְרַבִּי שְׁמוּאֵל בַּר נַחְמָנִי: חַד אָמַר: אֵשֶׁת אִישׁ הָיְתָה, וְחַד אָמַר: פְּנוּיָה הָיְתָה. בִּשְׁלָמָא לְמַאן דְּאָמַר אֵשֶׁת אִישׁ הָיְתָה – שַׁפִּיר, אֶלָּא לְמַאן דְּאָמַר פְּנוּיָה הָיְתָה – מַאי כּוּלֵּי הַאי?

The Gemara comments: Rabbi Ya’akov bar Idi and Rabbi Shmuel bar Naḥmani disagree about this issue. One of them says: The woman in question was a married woman, and the other one says: She was unmarried. The Gemara tries to clarify the issue: Granted, according to the one who says that she was a married woman, the matter is properly understood. Since the case involved a severely prohibited forbidden relationship, the Sages did not allow any activity hinting at intimacy. But according to the one who says that she was unmarried, what is the reason for all this opposition? Why did the Sages say that the man must be allowed to die, rather than have the woman do as was requested?

רַב פָּפָּא אָמַר: מִשּׁוּם פְּגַם מִשְׁפָּחָה. רַב אַחָא בְּרֵיהּ דְּרַב אִיקָא אָמַר: כְּדֵי שֶׁלֹּא יְהוּ בְּנוֹת יִשְׂרָאֵל פְּרוּצוֹת בַּעֲרָיוֹת.

Rav Pappa says: This is due to the potential family flaw, i.e., harm to the family name, as it is not permitted to bring disgrace to the entire family in order to save the lovesick man. Rav Aḥa, son of Rav Ika, says: This is so that the daughters of Israel should not be promiscuous with regard to forbidden sexual relations. Were they to listen to the doctors’ recommendations, Jewish women might lose moral restraint.

וְלִינְסְבַהּ מִינְסָב? לָא מְיַיתְּבָה דַּעְתֵּיהּ, כִּדְרַבִּי יִצְחָק. דְּאָמַר רַבִּי יִצְחָק: מִיּוֹם שֶׁחָרַב בֵּית הַמִּקְדָּשׁ, נִיטְּלָה טַעַם בִּיאָה וְנִיתְּנָה לְעוֹבְרֵי עֲבֵירָה, שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר ״מַיִם גְּנוּבִים יִמְתָּקוּ וְלֶחֶם סְתָרִים יִנְעָם״.

The Gemara asks: But if the woman was unmarried, let the man marry her. The Gemara answers: His mind would not have been eased by marriage, in accordance with the statement of Rabbi Yitzḥak. As Rabbi Yitzḥak says: Since the day the Temple was destroyed, sexual pleasure was taken away from those who engage in permitted intercourse and given to transgressors, as it is stated: “Stolen waters are sweet, and bread eaten in secret is pleasant” (Proverbs 9:17). Therefore, the man could have been cured only by engaging in illicit sexual interaction.

הֲדַרַן עֲלָךְ בֵּן סוֹרֵר וּמוֹרֶה.

MISHNA: And these are the transgressors who are burned in the implementation of the court-imposed death penalty: One who engaged in intercourse with a woman and her daughter, and one who is the daughter of a priest and who committed adultery.

מַתְנִי׳ וְאֵלּוּ הֵן הַנִּשְׂרָפִין: הַבָּא עַל אִשָּׁה וּבִתָּהּ, וּבַת כֹּהֵן שֶׁזִּנְּתָה.

Included in the category of the prohibition of engaging in intercourse with a woman and her daughter and the resulting execution by burning, there are: His daughter, and the daughter of his daughter, and the daughter of his son. Likewise, the following are also included in this category: Intercourse with the daughter of his wife, even though she is not his daughter, and the daughter of her daughter, and the daughter of her son, as well as intercourse with his mother-in-law, and the mother of his mother-in-law, and the mother of his father-in-law. The prohibition and punishment apply both in cases where a man marries a woman and then engages in intercourse with her daughter, and in cases where a man marries a woman and then engages in intercourse with her mother.

יֵשׁ בִּכְלַל אִשָּׁה וּבִתָּהּ: בִּתּוֹ, וּבַת בִּתּוֹ, וּבַת בְּנוֹ, וּבַת אִשְׁתּוֹ, וּבַת בִּתָּהּ, וּבַת בְּנָהּ, חֲמוֹתוֹ, וְאֵם חֲמוֹתוֹ, וְאֵם חָמִיו.

GEMARA: The tanna does not teach the case of one who engaged in intercourse with a woman whose daughter he previously married. Rather, the tanna teaches the case of one who engaged in intercourse with a woman and her daughter. By inference, one may conclude that both the woman and her daughter are mentioned in the mishna for the purpose of establishing that there is a prohibition of intercourse with either of them, and when he engages in intercourse with the first of them he is liable to be executed. And who are these women? The reference is to his mother-in-law and the mother of his mother-in-law.

גְּמָ׳ הַבָּא עַל אִשָּׁה שֶׁנָּשָׂא בִּתָּהּ – לָא קָתָנֵי, אֶלָּא הַבָּא עַל אִשָּׁה וּבִתָּהּ. מִכְּלָל דְּתַרְוַיְיהוּ לְאִיסּוּרָא, וּמַאן נִינְהוּ? חֲמוֹתוֹ וְאֵם חֲמוֹתוֹ.

And the tanna teaches: Additional women are included in the category of the prohibition of and the punishment for engaging in intercourse with a woman and her daughter. By inference, one may conclude that with regard to both his mother-in-law and the mother of his mother-in-law, the prohibition and punishment are written explicitly in the Torah, and with regard to those additional women enumerated in the mishna, the prohibition and punishment are derived by means of interpretation.

וְקָתָנֵי: ״יֵשׁ בִּכְלַל אִשָּׁה וּבִתָּהּ״, מִכְּלָל דְּתַרְוַיְיהוּ כְּתִיבִי בְּהֶדְיָא, וְהָנָךְ מִדְּרָשָׁא אָתְיָא.

The Gemara comments: This works out well according to Abaye, who says that with regard to the dispute between Rabbi Yishmael and Rabbi Akiva cited later in the Gemara (76b), the difference between their opinions is only concerning the interpretation of the meaning of the verse, but there is no practical difference between their opinions. According to Abaye, whose opinion is expressed in the mishna? It is the opinion of Rabbi Akiva. Abaye explains that Rabbi Akiva maintains that the prohibition of engaging in intercourse with the mother of one’s mother-in-law is stated explicitly in the Torah.

הָנִיחָא לְאַבָּיֵי, דְּאָמַר: מַשְׁמָעוּת דּוֹרְשִׁין אִיכָּא בֵּינַיְיהוּ. מַתְנִיתִין מַנִּי? רַבִּי עֲקִיבָא הִיא.

But according to Rava, who says that the difference between their opinions is with regard to the prohibition of engaging in intercourse with one’s mother-in-law after the death of his wife, whose opinion is expressed in the mishna? The opinion of the tanna of the mishna corresponds neither to the opinion of Rabbi Akiva nor to the opinion of Rabbi Yishmael, as they both maintain that the prohibition of engaging in intercourse with the mother of one’s mother-in-law is not stated explicitly in the Torah. The Gemara answers: Rava could say to you: Emend the mishna and teach: One who engaged in intercourse with a woman whose daughter he previously married.

אֶלָּא לְרָבָא דְּאָמַר: חֲמוֹתוֹ לְאַחַר מִיתָה אִיכָּא בֵּינַיְיהוּ, מַתְנִיתִין מַנִּי? אָמַר לָךְ רָבָא: תְּנִי ״הַבָּא עַל אִשָּׁה שֶׁנָּשָׂא בִּתָּהּ״.

The mishna teaches: Included in the category of the prohibition of engaging in intercourse with a woman and her daughter and the resulting execution by burning, there are: His mother-in-law, and the mother of his mother-in-law, and the mother of his father-in-law. The Gemara comments: Abaye holds that everyone agrees that the prohibition of engaging in intercourse with one’s mother-in-law is stated explicitly in the Torah, and the tanna enumerates his mother-in-law together with relatives concerning whom the prohibition is derived by means of interpretation. Therefore, according to Abaye, since the tanna seeks to teach that the mother of his father-in-law is included in the prohibition, he teaches the halakha of his mother-in-law and the mother of his mother-in-law as well, despite the fact the prohibition of engaging in intercourse with one’s mother-in-law is stated explicitly in the Torah.

יֵשׁ בִּכְלַל אִשָּׁה וּבִתָּהּ: חֲמוֹתוֹ, וְאֵם חֲמוֹתוֹ, וְאֵם חָמִיו. לְאַבָּיֵי, אַיְּידֵי דְּקָא בָּעֵי לְמִיתְנֵא אֵם חָמִיו, תָּנֵי נָמֵי חֲמוֹתוֹ וְאֵם חֲמוֹתוֹ.

By contrast, Rava holds that the woman and her daughter mentioned in the first clause of the mishna are his wife and his mother-in-law. Therefore, according to Rava, since the tanna seeks to teach that the mother of his father-in-law and the mother of his mother-in-law are included in the prohibition, he teaches the halakha of his mother-in-law in the latter clause as well, despite the fact that it is stated explicitly in the Torah.

לְרָבָא, אַיְּידֵי דְּקָא בָּעֵי לְמִיתְנֵא אֵם חָמִיו וְאֵם חֲמוֹתוֹ, תָּנֵי נָמֵי חֲמוֹתוֹ.

§ The mishna enumerates several women with whom intercourse is forbidden who are included in the prohibition of engaging in intercourse with a woman and her daughter, which is punished by execution by burning. The Gemara asks: From where are these matters derived? They are derived as the Sages taught: “And if a man takes a woman and her mother, it is lewdness; they shall be burned with fire both him and them, and there shall be no lewdness among you” (Leviticus 20:14). I have derived only that this punishment applies to one who engages in intercourse with a woman and with her mother. From where is it derived that one who engages in intercourse with the daughter of the woman married to him, or with the daughter of her daughter, or with the daughter of her son, is also liable to be executed by burning?

מְנָהָנֵי מִילֵּי? דְּתָנוּ רַבָּנַן: ״אִישׁ אֲשֶׁר יִקַּח אֶת אִשָּׁה וְאֶת אִמָּהּ״ – אֵין לִי אֶלָּא אִשָּׁה וְאִמָּהּ. בַּת אִשָּׁה, וּבַת בִּתָּהּ, וּבַת בְּנָהּ מִנַּיִן?

The baraita continues: Lewdness is stated here, with regard to the punishment: “There shall be no lewdness among you” (Leviticus 20:14), and lewdness is stated there, with regard to the prohibition: “You shall not uncover the nakedness of a woman and her daughter; you shall not take her son’s daughter, or her daughter’s daughter, to uncover her nakedness; they are near kinswomen, it is lewdness” (Leviticus 18:17). It is derived by means of a verbal analogy that just as there the prohibition applies to the woman’s daughter, and the daughter of her daughter, and the daughter of her son, so too here, the punishment of burning applies to one who engages in intercourse with the woman’s daughter, and to the daughter of her daughter, and to the daughter of her son.

נֶאֱמַר כָּאן ״זִמָּה״, וְנֶאֱמַר לְהַלָּן ״זִמָּה״. מָה לְהַלָּן – בִּתָּהּ וּבַת בִּתָּהּ וּבַת בְּנָהּ, אַף כָּאן – בִּתָּהּ וּבַת בִּתָּהּ וּבַת בְּנָהּ.

The baraita continues: From where is it derived to render the status of males like that of females with regard to this punishment? Lewdness is stated here and lewdness is stated there. Just as there, the Torah renders the status of males like that of female relatives, so too here, the Torah renders the status of males like that of females.

מִנַּיִן לַעֲשׂוֹת זְכָרִים כִּנְקֵבוֹת? נֶאֱמַר כָּאן ״זִמָּה״, וְנֶאֱמַר לְהַלָּן ״זִמָּה״. מָה לְהַלָּן זְכָרִים כִּנְקֵבוֹת, אַף כָּאן זְכָרִים כִּנְקֵבוֹת.

From where is it derived to render the status of relatives below like the status of relatives above? Lewdness is stated here and lewdness is stated there. Just as there, the Torah renders the status of relatives below like that of relatives above, so too here, the Torah renders the status of relatives below like that of relatives above. And just as here, the Torah renders the status of relatives above like that of relatives below, so too there, the Torah renders the status of relatives above like that of relatives below.

מִנַּיִן לַעֲשׂוֹת לְמַטָּה כִּלְמַעְלָה? נֶאֱמַר כָּאן ״זִמָּה״, וְנֶאֱמַר לְהַלָּן ״זִמָּה״. מָה לְהַלָּן לְמַטָּה כִּלְמַעְלָה, אַף כָּאן לְמַטָּה כִּלְמַעְלָה. וּמָה כָּאן לְמַעְלָה כִּלְמַטָּה, אַף לְהַלָּן לְמַעְלָה כִּלְמַטָּה.

The Gemara proceeds to elaborate on the derivations cited in the baraita . The Master says: From where is it derived to render the status of males like that of females? The Gemara asks: What is the meaning of: The status of males like that of females? If we say that it means that one who engages in intercourse with the daughter of the son of his wife is executed by burning like one who engages in intercourse with the daughter of her daughter, the status of the daughter of her son and the daughter of her daughter are derived together in the first clause of the baraita , as both are written explicitly in the prohibition.

אָמַר מָר: מִנַּיִן לַעֲשׂוֹת זְכָרִים כִּנְקֵבוֹת. מַאי ״זְכָרִים כִּנְקֵבוֹת״? אִילֵּימָא בַּת בְּנָהּ כְּבַת בִּתָּהּ? בַּהֲדֵי הֲדָדֵי קָאָתְיָאן!

Rather, this clause in the baraita means that one who engages in intercourse with the mother of his father-in-law is executed by burning like one who engages in intercourse with the mother of his mother-in-law. The Gemara asks: Now, we have not yet established the halakha of one who engages in intercourse with the mother of his mother-in-law, and the baraita is seeking to derive the halakha of one who engages in intercourse with the mother of his father-in-law from the halakha of the mother of his mother-in-law?

אֶלָּא, אֵם חָמִיו כְּאֵם חֲמוֹתוֹ. הַשְׁתָּא, אֵם חֲמוֹתוֹ לָא קָמָה לַן, אֵם חָמִיו מִיהְדָּר עֲלַהּ?