Sanhedrin Daf 76 סַנהֶדרִין דַף 76

The Gemara asks for the source to apply שריפה to relations with בתו מאנוסתו – his daughter from [a woman he violated], i.e., not from his wife. Abaye says it is a kal vachomer: על בת בתו ענוש – for his daughter’s daughter he is punished (with שריפה); על בתו לא כל שכן – it is not certainly so for his daughter herself? The Gemara objects: וכי עונשין מן הדין – Do we punish based on a kal vachomer?! It answers: גלויי מילתא בעלמא הוא – it is merely revealing a law already included in a known law, not deriving a new one. Since his daughter’s daughter is only related to him through his daughter, his daughter’s prohibition is implicit in his granddaughter’s prohibition. Rava disagrees, and derives this law from a gezeirah shavah (הנה הנה זמה זמה), teaching that just as his wife’s daughter has the same prohibition and שריפה as her granddaughter, his own daughter’s laws also match his granddaughter’s. A Baraisa darshens the superfluous "איש" of "ובת איש כהן" – and the daughter of a man who is a Kohen, to mean a man’s daughter (not from marriage), interpreting the next phrase as "כי תחל לזנות את אביה" – who profanes herself through relations with her father, which is punished with שריפה.

Rav said: המשיא את בתו לזקן – one who marries his young daughter to an old man, והמשיא אשה לבנו קטן – or marries off his minor son, והמחזיר אבידה לכותי – or returns a lost object to an idolator, the passuk says about him: למען ספות הרוה את הצמאה – so that the quenched be attached to the thirsty, לא יאבה ה' סלח לו – Hashem will not be willing to forgive him. Rashi explains that he is pairing someone with little desire for relations (an old man or minor) with a wife who is “thirsty” for them, leading her to sin. Similarly, one who returns a lost object to an idolator equates the “quenched” (i.e., idolators) with the “thirsty” (i.e., Jews who thirst to fulfill Hashem’s will), and indicates that his returning of lost items is not because of the commandment. Rav is challenged from a Baraisa, which praises one who marries off his children (as minors) close to their physical maturity (in addition to one who loves his wife like himself, honors her more than himself, and who guides his children on the straight path)!? The Gemara answers that marrying them off close to maturity is different, since they will soon desire relations.

The next Mishnah states that הרג – beheading is administered to a murderer and the people of an עיר הנדחת. If one held someone down under water or in a fire and prevented him from escaping and he died, the murderer is liable, even if he did not initially place the victim there. If he could have escaped and did not, the murderer is exempt, even if he did push the victim there. Shmuel says the source for liability for preventing escape from a lethal element is from the passuk: "או באיבה" – or with enmity, where the word “or” indicates לרבות את המצמצם – to include one who confines someone to exposure to a lethal element. A man once confined someone’s animal in the sun, and it died. Ravina ruled he is liable to pay for damages, based on a kal vachomer from murder. If a murder, which is only liable when intentional, is still liable in a case of מצמצם, then damages, for which someone is liable even when they were unintentional, should certainly be liable for מצמצם!? Rav Acha bar Rav exempted him from damages, because the above passuk concludes "רוצח הוא" – he is a murderer, implying that only for murder is one responsible for מצמצם, and not damages.