Sanhedrin Daf 75 - Abizrayhu and Sereifa Relationships
Summary
- The text establishes a resolution to whether a *goy* is commanded in *kiddush* Hashem by analyzing נעמן in מלכים ב and concludes that any such obligation would apply only בפרהסיא and not בצינעא, with parameters of ten Jews per רש"י and, per ר"ן, ten *bnei Noach* who are כופרים בעבודה זרה. It asserts that while there is no mitzvah of *hokheach tokhiach* toward a non-Jew, encouraging an aveirah remains אסור due to *lifnei iver*. It presents a מעשה that demonstrates the stringency of אביזרייהו within *yehareg ve'al ya'avor* for *giluy arayot* and explains the refusal of progressively “lesser” allowances, with reasons even where she was a *penuyah* and the rejection of a marriage solution per רבי יצחק and “מים גנובים ימתקו.” It then opens “ואלו הן הנשרפין,” enumerating relationships included in אשה ובתה for חיוב שריפה and analyzes the לשון and מקראות, aligning the משנה with רבי עקיבא per אביי or emending לשון per רבה. It derives sources via גזירה שוה of “*zimah*” and “*henah*,” explains “מניין לעשות זכרים כנקבות” as equating his-side yichus to her-side yichus, explicates “מניין לעשות למטה כלמעלה” either as three generations up equaling three down (אביי) or “lower” in stringency equaling “upper” in stringency (רב אשי), and limits extensions such as one’s own grandmother by “*imekha hi*” and gezerah shavah rules of “*don minah u-minah*” and “*don minah ve’oki b’atrei*.”
- Rav Ada bar Ahava cites נעמן, who asked אלישע “לדבר הזה יסלח השם לעבדך” regarding prostration in בית רימון, and Elisha replied “לך לשלום,” which indicates that if a בן נח has an obligation in *kiddush* Hashem, it does not apply בצינעא. The text states that פרהסיא requires ten Jews from “ונקדשתי בתוך בני ישראל” per רש"י, while ר"ן defines פרהסיא for בני נח as the presence of ten כופרים בעבודה זרה, which was not the case in נעמן’s context. The account clarifies that נעמן’s *hishtachavah* occurred as he supported מלך ארם and that Elisha’s permission rested on the absence of פרהסיא.
- The text states that although “הוכח תוכיח את עמיתך” restricts *hokheach tokhiach* to Jews, Elisha’s “לך לשלום” would have been prohibited if a בן נח were violating *kiddush* Hashem, because encouraging an aveirah constitutes *lifnei iver* (רש"י; אדרת; רש"ש). It concludes that beyond enabling a transgressor, verbal encouragement (e.g., congratulating an intermarriage) is itself a violation of *lifnei iver*.
- Rav Yehuda in the name of Rav records a man who became lovesick for a woman; doctors prescribed ביאה as the only cure, yet חכמים ruled “ימות ואל תיבעל לו,” and they likewise forbade her standing naked before him or speaking with him מאחורי הגדר, establishing that even אביזרייהו are under *yehareg ve’al ya'avor*. The text presents a מחלוקת whether she was an *eshet ish* or a *penuyah* and explains, even if she was a *penuyah*, the issur stands due to *pegam mishpachah* (רב פפא) or to prevent “*bnot Yisrael prutzot ba’arayot*” (רב אחא בריה דרב איקא). It rejects marriage as a cure because “מיום שחרב בית המקדש ניטל טעם ביאה וניתנה לעוברי עבירה,” citing “מים גנובים ימתקו” (רבי יצחק).
- The text offers explanations for the doctors’ changing recommendations: חוות יאיר states they conceded to lesser options when the חכמים forbade their first plan; ערוך לנר labels their claims false and the illness nonexistent; עיון יעקב posits that only the first remedy was from the doctors while חכמים supplied the further cases to teach the broader issur; מצודות דוד distinguishes between a cure for חיי עולם and partial prolongation for חיי שעה.
- The text infers from this sugya and from פסחים דף כה that one must accept death rather than receive healing through עצי אשירה. בעלי התוספות (פסחים דף כה; עבודה זרה דף כז) and רא"ש (עבודה זרה) limit the prohibition to when the מין-doctor claims exclusive efficacy for עצי אשירה via occult forces; if any wood suffices and only אשירה wood is on hand, it is permitted. מנחת חינוך concludes that *avodah zarah* requires *yehareg ve’al ya'avor* only where the act fosters belief in the *avodah zarah*, and he reads רמב"ם accordingly for omitting the איסור of healing with עצי אשירה.
- The משנה states that חייבי שריפה include הבא על אשה ובתה and בת כהן שזינתה, and it enumerates within אשה ובתה: בתו ובת בתו and בת בנו from his *anusah*; בת אשתו, בת בתה, ובת בנה; and also *chamot*, *im chamoto*, and *im chamiv*. The text indicates that these relationships are within the חיוב שריפה framework established for אשה ובתה.
- The לשון “הבא על אשה ובתה” indicates that both women are under issur, which the text identifies as *chamot* and her mother, implying these two are explicit while the rest derive by דרשות. אביי attributes this to רבי עקיבא’s reading of “*atah’en*” as שתיהן, yielding חיוב for *chamot* and *im chamoto* in the פסוק, while רבי ישמעאל reads it as “אש הן” (one, in Greek), limiting the explicit חיוב to *chamot*. רבה understands their מחלוקת as about חיוב חמותו לאחר מיתת אשתו, where רבי ישמעאל holds חיוב even when only אחת מהן is alive, and רבי עקיבא requires שתיהן בעולם; thus, per רבה, the פסוק speaks only of *chamot*, and the text emends the משנה’s לשון to “הבא על אשה שנעשית בתה.” The repetition of *chamot* and *im chamoto* in the סיפא is explained as a structural necessity when adding *im chamiv*.
- A ברייתא derives from “ואיש אשר יקח את אשה ואת אמה… זִמָּה הִוא” the חיוב שריפה and extends via גזירה שוה “*zimah*–*zimah*” to בת אשה, בת בתה, ובת בנה. The text explains “מניין לעשות זכרים כנקבות” not as equating granddaughters laterally (which are already learned together) but as equating his-side קרובות to her-side קרובות: one learns his בתו, בת בתו, ובת בנו (from an *anusah*) to have the same דין as her בת אשתו, בת בתה, ובת בנה by coupling “*henah*–*henah*” with “*zimah*–*zimah*.” It notes that since “*zimah*” is not written on his side, “*henah*–*henah*” bridges the parshiyot, enabling “*zimah*–*zimah*” to carry the דין of שריפה to his-side קרובות.
- The text interprets “מניין לעשות למטה כלמעלה” in two ways. אביי reads it as equating three generations down to three generations up: from the explicit three “down” (בתה, בת בתה, בת בנה) with “*zimah*,” one learns three “up” for *chamot* to include *im chamoto* and *im chamiv*, and also transfers אזהרה and עונש across via the same גזירה שוה. רב אשי preserves the wording by defining “למטה” as “lower” in apparent stringency rather than generationally, thereby equating the “lower” case (*im chamoto*) with the “upper” case (*chamot*) through “*zimah*–*zimah*,” paralleling how the more distant granddaughter equals the daughter.
- The text addresses a potential extension that would ascribe the same דין to his grandmother once her grandmother is included and rejects it with “אמר קרא: אמך היא,” obligating for one’s mother but not for one’s grandmother (אביי). רבא adds that whether one applies *don minah u-minah* or *don minah ve’oki b’atrei*, the gezerah shavah will not yield an obligation for his grandmother, since either it would incorrectly assign שריפה by importing all details or it would relocate the חיוב into his-side parshah and produce an unwarranted סקילה.
Previous Page
Next Page
Daf Images are property of Vagshal and may not be reproduced.
Suggestions