§ It is taught in a baraita in accordance with the opinion of Rava: With regard to the verse: “And the man who lies with his father’s wife, he has uncovered his father’s nakedness; both of them shall be put to death, their blood shall be upon them” (Leviticus 20:11), the term: “The man,” excludes a minor.

The phrase “who lies with his father’s wife” indicates that he is liable to receive capital punishment whether she is his father’s wife who is his mother or whether she is his father’s wife who is not his mother. From where is it derived that he is liable in a case where she is his mother who is not his father’s wife? The verse states: “He has uncovered his father’s nakedness.” Although this phrase does not relate directly to the case of one’s mother who is not his father’s wife, the halakha in this case is derived from this phrase as it is free, i.e., the phrase is superfluous in this context, and is evidently included in the verse in order to compare between the two cases and learn a verbal analogy from it, as the baraita will elaborate below.

From the phrase “both of them shall be put to death” it is derived that they are executed by stoning. The baraita asks: Do you say that that they are executed by stoning, or is it rather by one of all the other types of the death penalty that are stated in the Torah? The baraita answers: It is stated here: “Their blood shall be upon them,” and it is stated with regard to a necromancer and a sorcerer: “Their blood shall be upon them” (Leviticus 20:27). Just as there the verse states that a necromancer and a sorcerer are executed by stoning, so too here, with regard to one who engages in intercourse with his father’s wife, the transgressors are executed by stoning.

The baraita asks: We have learned the punishment for one who engages in intercourse with his father’s wife. From where is the prohibition against doing this act derived? The baraita answers: The verse states: “The nakedness of your father and the nakedness of your mother you shall not uncover” (Leviticus 18:7); the phrase “the nakedness of your father” is referring to your father’s wife.

The baraita asks: Do you say that the reference is to your father’s wife, or is it rather referring to the nakedness of your father literally, i.e., to homosexual intercourse with one’s father? The baraita answers: It is stated here: “The nakedness of your father…you shall not uncover,” and it is stated there, in the verse that describes the punishment: “And the man who lies with his father’s wife, he has uncovered his father’s nakedness” (Leviticus 20:11). Just as there, the verse is speaking of marriage, i.e., it is not referring to the father himself but to his wife, so too here, the verse is speaking of marriage, i.e., his father’s wife.

And the verse indicates that one’s father’s wife is forbidden to him whether she is his father’s wife who is his mother or whether she is his father’s wife who is not his mother. From where is it derived that she is forbidden to him in a case where she is his mother who is not his father’s wife? The verse states: “The nakedness of your mother you shall not uncover” (Leviticus 18:7).

The baraita asks: I have derived only with regard to the prohibition that the verse renders the halakha of his mother who is not his father’s wife like that of his mother who is his father’s wife. But with regard to the punishment, from where do I derive that they share the same halakha?

The baraita answers, expounding on the verbal analogy it mentioned earlier: It is stated here, in the verse that describes the prohibition: “The nakedness of your father…you shall not uncover” (Leviticus 18:7), and it is stated there, in the verse that describes the punishment: “He has uncovered his father’s nakedness” (Leviticus 20:11). It is derived from this verbal analogy that just as with regard to the prohibition, the verse renders his mother who is not his father’s wife like his mother who is his father’s wife, i.e., both are forbidden, so too, with regard to the punishment, the verse renders his mother who is not his father’s wife like his mother who is his father’s wife.

It is derived from the phrase: “She is your mother” (Leviticus 18:7), that you render him liable due to the prohibition against engaging in intercourse with his mother, but you do not render him liable due to the prohibition against engaging in intercourse with his father’s wife. The baraita ends here. Since the halakhot in the collection of baraitot where this baraita appears, Torat Kohanim, are in accordance with the opinions of Rabbi Yehuda, the baraita supports the opinion of Rava, who explains the opinion of Rabbi Yehuda in this manner.

The Gemara discusses the baraita, asking: And how do the Rabbis, who disagree with Rabbi Yehuda, interpret the phrase “the nakedness of your father”? The Gemara answers: They hold that this phrase is meant literally, i.e., that it is referring to homosexual intercourse. They do not accept the verbal analogy from which Rabbi Yehuda derives that the reference is to intercourse with one’s father’s wife.

The Gemara asks: Isn’t this prohibition against homosexual intercourse with one’s father derived from the verse: “And you shall not lie with a male as with a woman; it is an abomination” (Leviticus 18:22)? The Gemara answers: The prohibition is stated specifically with regard to one’s father in order to render him liable to bring two sin-offerings for unwittingly engaging in intercourse with his father.

And it is in accordance with the statement of Rav Yehuda, as Rav Yehuda says: A gentile who engages in intercourse with his father is liable for committing two transgressions. Likewise, one who engages in intercourse with his father’s brother is liable for committing two transgressions.

Rava says: It stands to reason that the statement of Rav Yehuda is with regard to a Jew who does this unwittingly. And the statement that he is liable for committing two transgressions concerns his liability to bring an offering, i.e., he is liable to bring two sin-offerings. And even though the fact remains that he said gentile, it is a euphemism, as he did not want to attribute such a sin to a Jew. As if it enters your mind that the reference is literally to a gentile, the statement that he is liable for committing two transgressions is meaningless; what is his punishment for such a transgression? It is death. Could you kill him twice? Rather, it must be referring to a Jew who acted unwittingly.

This halakha is also taught in a baraita: One who engages in intercourse with his father is liable for committing two transgressions. One who engages in intercourse with his father’s brother is liable for committing two transgressions, as it is stated: “You shall not uncover the nakedness of your father’s brother” (Leviticus 18:14).

Some say that this is not in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yehuda, as in his opinion there is no special prohibition against homosexual intercourse with one’s father. He interprets the verse: “The nakedness of your father…you shall not uncover” as referring to one’s father’s wife. Accordingly, one who engages in homosexual intercourse with his father or with his father’s brother is liable only due to the general prohibition against homosexual intercourse.

And some say: You may even say that the baraita is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yehuda, and that he derives that there is a specific prohibition against homosexual intercourse with one’s father by an a fortiori inference from the prohibition concerning one’s father’s brother. And the inference is as follows: If for intercourse with one’s father’s brother, who is merely his father’s relative, one is liable for committing two transgressions, for intercourse with his father, is it not clear all the more so that he should be liable for committing two transgressions?

And the Sages who provide these two interpretations of Rabbi Yehuda’s opinion disagree with regard to the issue that is the subject of the dispute between Abaye and Rava. One Sage, he of the second interpretation, holds that one administers punishment based on an a fortiori inference. Even with regard to a prohibition that is derived a fortiori, one who transgresses it is liable. And one Sage, he of the first interpretation, holds that one does not administer punishment based on an a fortiori inference.

The Gemara asks: And with regard to the Rabbis, who disagree with the opinion of Rabbi Yehuda, from where do they derive the prohibition of intercourse with one’s father’s wife? The Gemara answers: They derive it from the verse: “The nakedness of your father’s wife you shall not uncover; it is your father’s nakedness” (Leviticus 18:8).

The Gemara asks: And what does Rabbi Yehuda derive from this verse, since he derives the prohibition from the verse: “The nakedness of your father…you shall not uncover”? The Gemara answers: That verse is necessary for the prohibition of one’s father’s wife after his father’s death; even though his father is dead, his father’s wife remains forbidden to him.

The Gemara asks: And from where do the Rabbis derive that halakha? The Gemara answers: That halakha is derived from the last clause of the verse: “It is your father’s nakedness.”

The Gemara asks: And what does Rabbi Yehuda derive from that clause? The Gemara answers: That clause is necessary to teach the halakha that if one engages in intercourse with his father’s wife, you render him liable due to the prohibition against engaging in intercourse with his father’s wife, but you do not render him liable due to the prohibition against engaging in intercourse with a married woman.

The Gemara asks: But didn’t we learn in the mishna: One who engages in intercourse with his father’s wife is liable to bring two offerings, one due to the fact that she is his father’s wife and one due to the fact that she is a married woman, and he is liable due to the former prohibition both during his father’s lifetime and after his father’s death? The Gemara notes: And Rabbi Yehuda does not dispute this. So how can it be suggested that in Rabbi Yehuda’s opinion, one who engages in intercourse with his father’s wife is not liable for engaging in intercourse with a married woman?

Abaye says: He disputes this ruling in a baraita. Although it is not mentioned in the mishna that Rabbi Yehuda disputes this ruling, it mentioned in a different source.

The Gemara asks: And as for the Rabbis, from where do they derive the punishment for one who engages in intercourse with his father’s wife after his father’s death? Granted, according to Rabbi Yehuda, it is derived by means of a verbal analogy. But from where do the Rabbis, who do not accept the verbal analogy, derive it?

The Gemara answers: The Rabbis can say to you that it is derived as follows: With regard to that phrase, “he has uncovered his father’s nakedness,” from which Rabbi Yehuda derives a verbal analogy, they derive from it the punishment for one who engages in intercourse with his father’s wife after his father’s death.

The Gemara asks: And as for the Rabbis, from where do they derive the punishment for one who engages in intercourse with his mother who is not his father’s wife? Rav Sheisha, son of Rav Idi, says: The verse states: “She is your mother” (Leviticus 18:7). The verse renders the halakha of his mother who is not his father’s wife like that of his mother who is his father’s wife.

The mishna teaches with regard to one who engages in intercourse with his daughter-in-law that he is liable both due to the fact that she is his daughter-in-law and due to the fact that she is a married woman. The Gemara asks: And let him also be liable due to engaging in intercourse with his son’s wife, as it is stated in the verse: “You shall not uncover the nakedness of your daughter-in-law; she is your son’s wife, you shall not uncover her nakedness” (Leviticus 18:15). Abaye says: The verse begins with his daughter-in-law and ends with his son’s wife, to tell you that these are not two prohibitions; rather, his daughter-in-law [kallato] is his son’s wife. They are one and the same.

MISHNA: A man who engages in intercourse with a male or with an animal, and a woman who engages in intercourse with an animal, are executed by stoning. The animal is likewise stoned to death. The mishna asks: If the person sinned by doing this, how did the animal sin? Rather, because a calamity was caused to a person by it, therefore the verse states that it should be stoned, so that it does not cause another to sin. Alternatively, it is so that this animal will not pass through the marketplace, and those who see it will say: This is the animal because of which so-and-so was stoned, and its existence would shame his memory.

GEMARA: From where do we derive the prohibition and punishment for homosexual intercourse with a male? It is as the Sages taught in a baraita with regard to the verse: “And if a man lies with a male as with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination; they shall be put to death, their blood shall be upon them” (Leviticus 20:13): The word “man” excludes a minor boy. The phrase “lies with a male” is referring to any male, whether he is an adult man or whether he is a minor boy. The phrase “as with a woman [mishkevei isha],” referring to lying with a woman, appears in the plural. The verse teaches you that there are two manners of lying with a woman for which one who engages in intercourse with a woman forbidden to him is punished, vaginal and anal intercourse.

Rabbi Yishmael says: This phrase is written to come to teach about the punishment for homosexual intercourse, and the halakha that one is liable for anal intercourse with a woman who is forbidden to him is found to be derived from it.

The phrase “they shall be put to death” is referring to execution by stoning. Do you say that they are executed by stoning, or is it rather by one of all the other types of death penalty that are stated in the Torah? It is stated here: “Their blood shall be upon them,” and it is stated with regard to a necromancer and a sorcerer: “Their blood shall be upon them” (Leviticus 20:27). Just as there the verse states that a necromancer and a sorcerer are executed by stoning, so too here, they are executed by stoning.