POINT BY POINT SUMMARY
Prepared by Rabbi P. Feldman
of Kollel Iyun Hadaf, Yerushalayim
Rosh Kollel: Rabbi Mordecai Kornfeld
Ask A Question on the daf
Previous daf Sanhedrin 53
1) THE UNSPECIFIED MISOS
(a) Question: According to Rebbi's explanation of R. Yonason,
we have a source for (a second Misah unnoticeable on the
body, i.e.) choking;
2) THOSE WHO ARE STONED
1. But according to R. Yoshiyah, how do we know that
choking is one of the Misos Beis Din ("Mos Yumas"
should refer to the lightest of the three explicit
in the Torah, i.e. beheading!)?
(b) Answer (Rava): A tradition from Moshe from Sinai teaches
that there are four Misos Beis Din.
(c) Question: What does R. Yonason mean by 'even though it is
not the lightest'?
(d) Answer: He holds that beheading is lighter, like R.
(e) Question (R. Zeira): Most transgressions punishable by
stoning do not say this explicitly, we learn from (one
who conjures up the dead with) Ov or Yid'oni;
1. Which Gezerah Shavah do we learn from - "Mos
Yumasu-Mos Yumasu", or "Demeihem Bam-Demeihem Bam"?
(f) Answer (Abaye): We learn from (the Gezerah Shavah of)
"Demeihem" - if we would learn from that of "Mos Yumasu",
what would we learn from "Demeihem"?
(g) Question: If we learn from "Demeihem", what do we learn
from "Mos Yumasu"?
(h) Answer (Beraisa): "Mos Yumas ha'Makeh Rotze'ach Hu" - one
might have thought, we can only give the Misah he
1. Question: What is the source to kill him any other
way if we cannot give the proper Misah?
(i) Question (Rav Acha mi'Difti): What difficulty did R.
Zeira foresee if we would learn from "Mos Yumasu"?
2. Answer: "Mos Yumas ha'Makeh" - the verb is doubled
to teach this.
1. Suggestion: He thought, we should learn that
adulterers (by which it also says "Mos Yumasu") are
stoned (when she is Nesu'ah, but the Halachah is,
they are choked).
(j) Answer (Ravina): He was bothered, how would we learn the
other cases of stoning (from "Mos Yumas" from Ov and
Yid'oni) - since we can learn "Mos Yumasu" from adultery
(with a Nesu'ah), we should learn (choking,) the lighter
2. Rejection: Since the Torah teaches that a Mekudeshes
Na'arah is stoned, we cannot say that a Nesu'ah is
also stoned (if so, there was no need to teach
stoning regarding a Mekudeshes Na'arah, this is also
3. Suggestion: He thought, we should learn that one who
wounds a parent (about which it says "Mos Yumas") is
stoned (but the Halachah is, he is choked).
4. Rejection: Since we can learn "Mos Yumasu" from
adultery (with a Nesu'ah, punishable by choking),
surely we learn (choking,) the lighter Misah!
(a) (Mishnah): The following are stoned:
1. A man who had relations with his mother (unless
specified, she always gets the same Misah as him),
his father's wife, his daughter-in-law, another man,
an animal, a woman who had relations with an animal;
(b) If one had relations with his mother and she is his
father's wife, he is liable for both transgressions (this
will be explained);
2. A blasphemer, an idolater, one who conjures up the
dead with Ov or Yid'oni, one who is Mechalel
Shabbos, one who curses a parent, one who has
relations with a Mekudeshes Na'arah, one who entices
(an individual) to serve idolatry, one who entices a
city to serve idolatry, a witch, a Ben Sorer
(c) R. Yehudah says, he is only liable for relations with his
(d) If one had relations with his father's wife, he is liable
for this and (if she is currently married) for adultery
with a married woman, whether or not his father is alive,
whether she was Mekudeshes or Nesu'ah to his father;
(e) If one had relations with his daughter-in-law, he is
liable for this and (if she is currently married) for
adultery with a married woman, whether or not his son is
alive, whether she was Mekudeshes or Nesu'ah to his son.
(f) (Gemara - Beraisa - R. Yehudah): If his mother was unfit
to marry his father, he is only liable for relations with
his mother. (This argues with the Tana of our Mishnah,
who says that R. Yehudah never obligates for both.)
(g) Question: What does it mean 'if she was unfit to marry
1. Suggestion: She was forbidden to him by a
transgression of Kares or Misah.
(h) Answer: She was forbidden to him by a Lav; R. Yehudah
holds like R. Akiva, who says that there cannot be
Kidushin with Chayavei Lavin.
2. Rejection: If so, Chachamim would agree, for she
cannot be Mekudeshes to his father!
(i) Question (R. Oshiya - Mishnah): If a Yevamah falls to a
Yavam forbidden to her on account of Mitzvah or Kedushah
(these will be explained), she does Chalitzah, not Yibum;
3) WHY R. YEHUDAH EXEMPTS
1. 'Mitzvah' refers to Sheniyos (Arayos mid'Rabanan) -
they are called (prohibitions of) Mitzvah, because
it is a Mitzvah to obey Chachamim (who decreed about
(j) Answer: R. Yehudah only came to argue with Chachamim
about their terminology (what should be called
prohibitions of Mitzvah and Kedushah), he also argues
regarding Chalitzah of Chayavei Lavin, but did not
2. 'Kedushah' refers to prohibitions of Kohanim (a
widow married to a Kohen Gadol, a divorcee or
Chalutzah married a regular Kohen) - they are called
Kedushah on account of "Kedoshim Yihyu".
3. (Beraisa - R. Yehudah): 'Mitzvah' refers to
prohibitions of Kohanim (they are called Mitzvah,
because it says at the end of Sefer Va'Yikra "Elu
4. 'Kedushah' refers to Sheniyos mid'Rabanan (one grows
in Kedushah by refraining from things the Torah
5. Summation of question: R. Yehudah agrees that
Chalitzah is required regarding Chayavei Lavin of
Kohanim - if he held that there is no Kidushin with
Chayavei Lavin, they are like Chayavei Kares, there
would be no need for Chalitzah!
(k) R. Yitzchak taught a Beraisa similar to our Mishnah: R.
Yehudah says, (in all cases) he is only liable for
relations with his mother.
(a) Question: What is his reason?
(b) Answer #1 (Abaye): "Imcha Hi" - one (who had relations
with his mother) is only liable for his mother, not for
his father's wife.
(c) Objection #1: If so, we should also expound "Ervas Eshes
Avicha...Ervas Avicha Hi" one who had relations with his
father's wife is only liable for his father's wife, not
for his mother!
1. From these two verses, one is not be liable for
relations with his mother if she was married to his
father, but he would be liable if she was never
married to him, or for relations with a wife of his
father who is not his mother!
(d) Objection #2: Why don't Chachamim expound similarly?
1. Rather, they expound "Imcha Hi" as Rav Shisha brei
d'Rav Idi does (below, 64A) - also R. Yehudah needs
it for Rav Shisha's law!
(e) Answer #2 (Rav Acha brei d'Rav Ika): "Ervasah" (singular)
- you are liable only for one Ervah (even if she is
forbidden to you for two reasons).
(f) Objection: If so "Ervas Kalascha...Eshes Bincha Hi Lo
Segale Ervasah", we should also expound, you are liable
only for one Ervah;
1. (Mishnah): One who had relations with his
daughter-in-law is liable for his daughter-in-law
and (if she is married) for relations with a married
(g) Answer #3 (Rava): R. Yehudah holds that "Ervas Avicha"
(earlier in the verse "Imcha Hi" refers to your father's
wife (we learn from a Gezerah Shavah to "Ervas Eshes
Avicha...Ervas Avicha Hi"), it teaches that you are
liable for her whether or not she is your mother.
2. R. Yehudah does not argue!
3. Rather, we must say that because she is one person,
the singular 'Ervasah' applies, even though one is
liable twice - the same applies to 'Ervasah' in the
verse "Imcha Hi"!
(h) Question: What is the source for his mother if she is not
his father's wife?
(i) Answer: "Ervas Imcha Lo Segale";
1. The verse continues "Imcha Hi" - (if she is also
your father's wife) you are liable for relations
with your mother, not for relations with your