Speaking From Behind The Fence

A few thoughts about Sunday’s daf, Sanhedrin 75.

(1) On a peshat level, I wonder at the meaning of Vayikra 20:14:

וְאִישׁ אֲשֶׁר יִקַּח אֶת־אִשָּׁה וְאֶת־אִמָּהּ זִמָּה הִוא בָּאֵשׁ יִשְׂרְפוּ אֹתוֹ וְאֶתְהֶן וְלֹא־תִהְיֶה זִמָּה בְּתוֹכְכֶם׃

A man who “takes” a woman and her mother; it is lewdness [a sinful plan]. They shall be burned in fire, he and [one of] them, and there will no longer be such lewdness [a sinful plan] among you.

Since it mentions executing both women, the case does not seem to be merely a man who sleeps singularly with his mother-in-law. It seems more like a lewd threesome, in which he takes both women to bed simultaneously. While sleeping with a single penuya is perhaps not legislated against, nor two penuyot, here engaging in this practice where the women are related (in a familial way) to one another would greatly exceed the typical boundary of immoral behavior, and so it is zima that he partook in, just as where in the cases in Vayikra 18, where he slept with a single woman, but has a familial relationship with her.

Meanwhile, Chazal take yikach as marriage, and specifically a marriage which is legally binding. Once kiddushin took hold on the one woman, it could not on her mother, which then leads to the kvetches in how one must interpret this verse.

(2) The daf is a good example of how the sugya developed over time. The Mishnah and braytot existed; Amoraim commented on them; then, the Stamma overlaid additional discussion.

So, I typically give the daf on Sunday. And I knew that when we reached this:

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

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.

it would not make any sense. There was too much background knowledge — a brayta recording a cryptic dispute between Rabbi Akiva and Rabbi Yishmael, and then overlaid on that, Abaye vs. Rava’s analysis of that dispute. But all of that was on daf 76b, and this was 75a. The Talmudic Narrator assumed the listening was already familiar with all that, when repeatedly bringing up Abaye-based and Rava-based analyses. So, we skipped ahead and first learned that other sugya (appearing right before the Mishnah.)

(3) In the case of the man who came down with a medical case of lust, we can wonder at the descending levels of what she might do for him, culminating in:

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.

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.

I suspect that conversing with him from behind a fence means doing so while she is naked. The idea being that his lustful thoughts would then be partly satisfied by this. This would be a step down from standing naked before him.

Otherwise, an earlier step down that the non-Jewish doctors might suggest would be that she converse with him (while of course clothed). Unless you say that this is just jumping to the end of the possibilities. And even that, they would not allow. I think my explanation makes more sense.

Otherwise, we need to grapple with what violation there is of mere speaking, even from behind a fence, such that even that would be pegam mishpacha or making daughters of Israel promiscuous. Though I suppose that it is because these mundane activities are done to fulfill someone’s lustful desires.

Someone suggested that the issue would be qol be’isha erva. OK. However, I think that that statement (as expressed by Shmuel) refers to a woman’s singing voice, not mere speech, and that its invocation in the polemic contest between Rav Nachman and Rav Yehuda as they struggled to assert which of the two was the true heir to Shmuel does not reflect the reality of Shmuel’s intent. In that instance, it was taken as even a greeting, and even a minor girl, and even via an intermediary.

But again, maybe if the very purpose was targeting this man’s lust, it would be true qol be’isha erva.

(4) Last year, I wrote about Ukvan bar Nechemiah the Exilarch.

In that article, I wrote about how this exilarch, who also went by the name Natan deTzutzita, was a penitent. The story of what he did, and repented from, it cannibalized from this behind-the-fence story.