## Sanhedrin Daf 76a

###### Sanhedrin 76a:1
[Sanhedrin 76a:1](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Sanhedrin/r/76a:1)

מָה לְהִיא – שֶׁכֵּן אִמָּהּ בִּשְׂרֵפָה, תֹּאמַר בְּהוּא – שֶׁאִמּוֹ בִּסְקִילָה?

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**What** is notable **about her** relatives? They are notable **in that** one who engages in intercourse with **the mother of** his wife is liable to be executed **by** the more severe punishment of **burning. Will you** then **say** that there is a prohibition **with regard to his** relatives, **where** one who engages in intercourse with **his mother** is liable to be executed **by** the less severe punishment of **stoning?**


###### Sanhedrin 76a:2
[Sanhedrin 76a:2](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Sanhedrin/r/76a:2)

וְעוֹד, הוּא כְּהִיא: מָה הִיא – לֹא חִלַּקְתָּה בָּהּ בֵּין בִּתָּהּ לְאֵם אִמָּהּ, אַף הוּא – לֹא תַּחְלוֹק בּוֹ בֵּין בִּתּוֹ לְאֵם אִמּוֹ.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**And furthermore,** one must say that the status of **his** relatives is **like** the status of **her** relatives; and **just as** with regard to **her** relatives, **you did not distinguish between her daughter and the mother of her mother,** and one who engages in intercourse with either is executed by burning, **so too** with regard to **his** relatives, **you should not distinguish between his daughter and the mother of his mother** and he should receive the same punishment for engaging in intercourse with either. Since one who engages in intercourse with the mother of his mother is executed by stoning and one who engages in intercourse with his daughter is executed by burning, the parallel between his relatives and her relatives is incomplete, and the prohibition cannot be derived.


###### Sanhedrin 76a:3
[Sanhedrin 76a:3](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Sanhedrin/r/76a:3)

וּלְמַאן דְּאָמַר סְקִילָה חֲמוּרָה, מֵהַאי קוּשְׁיָא לָא נְידוּנַהּ.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara continues: **And according to the one who says** that **stoning is** more **severe** than burning, **due to this** third **difficulty,** the fact that intercourse with the mother of his mother is forbidden, this *halakha* **is not derived,** as the parallel between his relatives and her relatives is incomplete.


###### Sanhedrin 76a:4
[Sanhedrin 76a:4](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Sanhedrin/r/76a:4)

אִי: מָה הוּא – כַּלָּתוֹ אֲסוּרָה, אַף הִיא – כַּלָּתָהּ אֲסוּרָה?

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara asks: **If** a parallel is drawn between his relatives and the relatives of his wife with regard to the prohibition, **just as** with regard to **his** relatives, **his daughter-in-law is forbidden** to him, **so too** with regard to **her** relatives, **her daughter-in-law is prohibited** to him?


###### Sanhedrin 76a:5
[Sanhedrin 76a:5](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Sanhedrin/r/76a:5)

אָמַר אַבָּיֵי, אָמַר קְרָא: ״אֵשֶׁת בִּנְךָ הִיא״. מִשּׁוּם אֵשֶׁת בִּנְךָ אַתָּה מְחַיְּיבוֹ, וְאִי אַתָּה מְחַיְּיבוֹ מִשּׁוּם אֵשֶׁת בְּנָהּ.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**Abaye says:** That is not so, as **the verse states:** “You shall not expose the nakedness of your daughter-in-law; **she is your son’s wife,** you shall not expose her nakedness” (Leviticus 18:15). **Due to** his intercourse with **the wife of his son you deem him liable** to be executed, **but you do not deem him liable** to be executed **due to** his intercourse with **the wife of the son of** his wife.


###### Sanhedrin 76a:6
[Sanhedrin 76a:6](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Sanhedrin/r/76a:6)

רָבָא אָמַר: בֵּין לְמַאן דְּאָמַר ״דּוּן מִינַּהּ וּמִינַּהּ״, בֵּין לְמַאן דְּאָמַר ״דּוּן מִינַּהּ וְאוֹקֵי בְאַתְרַהּ״ – לָא אָתְיָא.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**Rava says:** That derivation is unnecessary, as with regard to the method of derivation by means of a verbal analogy, **both according to the one who says: Infer** the *halakha* **from it and** derive the details **from it, and according to the one who says: Infer** the *halakha* **from it but interpret** the *halakha* according **to its** own **place,** it **is not derived** that intercourse with one’s wife’s daughter-in-law renders him liable to be executed.


###### Sanhedrin 76a:7
[Sanhedrin 76a:7](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Sanhedrin/r/76a:7)

לְמַאן דְּאָמַר: דּוּן מִינַּהּ וּמִינַּהּ, מָה הוּא – כַּלָּתוֹ אֲסוּרָה, אַף הִיא נָמֵי – כַּלָּתָהּ אֲסוּרָה. וּמִינַּהּ: מָה הוּא בִּסְקִילָה, אַף הִיא נָמֵי בִּסְקִילָה.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara elaborates: **According to the one who says: Infer** the *halakha* **from it and** derive the details **from it,** one might infer: **Just as** with regard to **his** relatives, **his daughter-in-law is forbidden** to him, **so too** with regard to **her** relatives, **her daughter-in-law is forbidden** to him. **And** derive again **from it: Just as** with regard to **his** relatives, he is liable to be executed **by stoning** due to his intercourse with his daughter-in-law, **so too** with regard to **her** relatives, he is **also** liable to be executed **by stoning** due to his intercourse with her daughter-in-law.


###### Sanhedrin 76a:8
[Sanhedrin 76a:8](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Sanhedrin/r/76a:8)

לְמַאן דְּאָמַר: סְקִילָה חֲמוּרָה, אִיכָּא לְמִיפְרַךְ: מָה לְהוּא – שֶׁכֵּן אִמּוֹ בִּסְקִילָה, תֹּאמַר בְּהִיא – שֶׁאִמָּהּ בִּשְׂרֵפָה?

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara proceeds to explain why this is not a valid derivation. **According to the one who says:** Execution by **stoning is** more **severe** than execution by burning, the inference **can be refuted: What** is notable **about his** relatives? They are notable **in that** one who engages in intercourse with **his mother** is liable to be executed **by** the more severe punishment of **stoning. Will you** then **say** that the same is true **with regard to her** relatives, **where** one who engages in intercourse with **her mother** is liable to be executed **by** the less severe punishment of **burning?**


###### Sanhedrin 76a:9
[Sanhedrin 76a:9](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Sanhedrin/r/76a:9)

וְעוֹד: בִּתָּהּ בִּשְׂרֵפָה וְכַלָּתָהּ בִּסְקִילָה? הוּא בְּעַצְמוֹ יוֹכִיחַ, דְּבִתּוֹ בִּשְׂרֵפָה וְכַלָּתוֹ בִּסְקִילָה.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**And furthermore,** as one who engages in intercourse with **the daughter of** his wife, is executed **by** the less severe punishment of **burning,** is it possible that one who engages in intercourse with **the daughter-in-law of** his wife, a more distant relative, is executed **by** the more severe punishment of **stoning?** The Gemara rejects that refutation: **He himself,** with regard to his own relatives, **will prove** that it is in fact possible, **as** one who engages in intercourse with **his daughter** is executed **by burning, and** one who engages in intercourse with **his daughter-in-law** is executed **by stoning.**


###### Sanhedrin 76a:10
[Sanhedrin 76a:10](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Sanhedrin/r/76a:10)

אֶלָּא: מָה הוּא – לֹא חִלַּקְתָּ בּוֹ בֵּין אִמּוֹ לְכַלָּתוֹ, אַף הִיא – לֹא תַּחְלוֹק בָּהּ בֵּין אִמָּהּ לְכַלָּתָהּ. וּלְמַאן דְּאָמַר שְׂרֵפָה חֲמוּרָה, מֵהַאי קוּשְׁיָא לָא נְידוּנֵין.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**Rather, just as** with regard to **his** relatives, **you did not distinguish between his mother and his daughter-in-law,** and one who engages in intercourse with either is executed by stoning, **so too** with regard to **her** relatives, **you should not distinguish between her mother and her daughter-in-law.** Since one who engages in intercourse with the mother of his wife is executed by burning, apparently, one who engages in intercourse with her daughter-in-law is punished by stoning, not burning. Therefore the parallel between his relatives and her relatives is incomplete, and the prohibition cannot be derived. **And according to the one who says** that **burning is** more **severe** than stoning, although the refutations based on the fact that execution by stoning is more severe are not relevant, **due to this difficulty,** this *halakha* **is not derived.**


###### Sanhedrin 76a:11
[Sanhedrin 76a:11](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Sanhedrin/r/76a:11)

וּלְמַאן דְּאָמַר: דּוּן מִינַּהּ וְאוֹקֵי בְאַתְרַהּ, מָה הוּא – כַּלָּתוֹ אֲסוּרָה, אַף הִיא – כַּלָּתָהּ אֲסוּרָה. וְאוֹקֵי בְּאַתְרַהּ: הָתָם הוּא דְּבִסְקִילָה, אֲבָל הָכָא – בִּשְׂרֵפָה, כִּדְאַשְׁכְּחַן בְּאִמָּהּ.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**And according to the one who says: Infer** the *halakha* **from it but interpret** the *halakha* according **to its** own **place,** one might infer: **Just as** with regard to **his** relatives, **his daughter-in-law is forbidden** to him, **so too** with regard to **her** relatives, **her daughter-in-law is forbidden** to him. **And interpret** the *halakha* according **to its** own **place: It is there,** with regard to his relatives, **that** one who engages in intercourse with his daughter-in-law is executed **by stoning; but here,** with regard to her relatives, one who engages in intercourse with **her daughter-in-law** is executed **by burning, as we found** that this is the punishment **with regard to** one who engages in intercourse with **her mother.**


###### Sanhedrin 76a:12
[Sanhedrin 76a:12](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Sanhedrin/r/76a:12)

לְמַאן דְּאָמַר סְקִילָה חֲמוּרָה, אִיכָּא לְמִיפְרַךְ: מָה לְהוּא – שֶׁכֵּן אִמּוֹ בִּסְקִילָה, תֹּאמַר בְּהִיא – שֶׁאִמָּהּ בִּשְׂרֵפָה?

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara proceeds to explain why this is not a valid derivation. **According to the one who says:** Execution by **stoning is** more **severe** than execution by burning, the inference **can be refuted: What** is notable **about his** relatives? They are notable **in that** one who engages in intercourse with **his mother** is liable to be executed **by** the more severe punishment of **stoning. Will you** then **say** that the same is true **with regard to her** relatives, **where** one who engages in intercourse with **her mother** is liable to be executed **by** the less severe punishment of **burning?**


###### Sanhedrin 76a:13
[Sanhedrin 76a:13](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Sanhedrin/r/76a:13)

וְעוֹד: מָה הוּא – חִלַּקְתָּ בּוֹ בֵּין בִּתּוֹ לְכַלָּתוֹ? אַף הִיא – תַּחְלוֹק בָּהּ בֵּין בִּתָּהּ לְכַלָּתָהּ. וּלְמַאן דְּאָמַר נָמֵי שְׂרֵפָה חֲמוּרָה, מֵהַאי קוּשְׁיָא לָא נְידוּנֵין.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**And furthermore, just as** with regard to **his** relatives, **you distinguished between his daughter and his daughter-in-law,** and one who engages in intercourse with his daughter is executed by burning while one who engages in intercourse with his daughter-in-law is executed by stoning, **so too** with regard to **her** relatives, **distinguish between her daughter and her daughter-in-law.** This is contrary to the parallel drawn between his relatives and her relatives, and the *halakha* cannot be derived. **And according to the one who says** that **burning is** more **severe** than stoning, although the refutations based on the fact that execution by stoning is more severe are not relevant, **due to this** latter **difficulty,** this *halakha* **is not derived.**


###### Sanhedrin 76a:14
[Sanhedrin 76a:14](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Sanhedrin/r/76a:14)

בִּתּוֹ מֵאֲנוּסָתוֹ מִנַּיִן? הָאָמַר אַבָּיֵי: קַל וָחוֹמֶר, עַל בַּת בִּתּוֹ עָנוּשׁ – עַל בִּתּוֹ לֹא כׇּל שֶׁכֵּן?

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
§ Throughout, it is clear from the Gemara that one who engages in intercourse with his daughter is executed by burning. The Gemara asks: With regard to **one’s daughter** born **from a woman whom he raped, from where** is it derived that she is forbidden to him? The Gemara answers: **Doesn’t Abaye say** that this is inferred ***a fortiori*:** If one **is punished for** engaging in intercourse with **the daughter of his daughter, for** engaging in intercourse with **his daughter** is it **not all the more so** that he is punished?


###### Sanhedrin 76a:15
[Sanhedrin 76a:15](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Sanhedrin/r/76a:15)

וְכִי עוֹנְשִׁין מִן הַדִּין? גַּלּוֹיֵי מִילְּתָא בְעָלְמָא הוּא.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara asks: **But does** the court **administer punishment** based **on** an *a fortiori* **inference** without an explicit source? The Gemara replies: This **is a mere disclosure** of **the matter,** not a derivation by means of an inference. Presumably, the punishment administered to one who engages in intercourse with the daughter of his daughter stems from the kinship with his daughter. When the verse states with regard to the daughter of his daughter: “For theirs is your own nakedness” (Leviticus 18:10), his daughter is included.


###### Sanhedrin 76a:16
[Sanhedrin 76a:16](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Sanhedrin/r/76a:16)

רָבָא אָמַר, אָמַר לִי רַבִּי יִצְחָק בַּר אַבְדִּימִי: אָתְיָא ״הֵנָּה״ ״הֵנָּה״, אָתְיָא ״זִמָּה״ ״זִמָּה״.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**Rava says: Rabbi Yitzḥak bar Avdimi said to me** that the prohibition of engaging in intercourse with one’s daughter who is not the daughter of his wife **is derived** by means of a verbal analogy between the word **“*henna*,”** written with regard to his descendants: “The nakedness of your son’s daughter, or of your daughter’s daughter, even their nakedness you shall not uncover; for theirs [*henna*] is your own nakedness” (Leviticus 18:10), and the word **“*henna*”** written with regard to the descendants of his wife: “You shall not uncover the nakedness of a woman and her daughter; you shall not take her son’s daughter, or her daughter’s daughter, to uncover her nakedness; they [*henna*] are near kinswomen; it is lewdness” (Leviticus 18:17). Then, it is **derived** from a verbal analogy between the word **“lewdness”** (Leviticus 18:17) and the word **“lewdness”** in the verse: “And if a man takes a woman and her mother, it is lewdness; they shall be burned with fire both him and them, and there shall be no lewdness among you” (Leviticus 20:14).


###### Sanhedrin 76a:17
[Sanhedrin 76a:17](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Sanhedrin/r/76a:17)

תָּנֵי אֲבוּהּ דְּרַבִּי אָבִין: לְפִי שֶׁלֹּא לָמַדְנוּ לְבִתּוֹ מֵאֲנוּסָתוֹ, הוּצְרַךְ הַכָּתוּב לוֹמַר ״וּבַת אִישׁ כֹּהֵן״.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**The father of Rabbi Avin teaches: Due to** the fact **that we did not learn** a punishment for one who engages in intercourse with **his daughter** born **from a woman whom he raped** from an explicit verse in the Torah, **it was necessary for the verse to state: “And** if **the daughter of any priest** profanes herself by acting licentiously, it is her father [*et aviha*] whom she is profaning; she shall be burned with fire” (Leviticus 21:9). The verse can be interpreted: And if the daughter of any priest profanes herself by acting licentiously with her father [*et aviha*]…she shall be burned with fire.


###### Sanhedrin 76a:18
[Sanhedrin 76a:18](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Sanhedrin/r/76a:18)

אִי: מָה בַּת כֹּהֵן – הִיא בִּשְׂרֵפָה וְאֵין בּוֹעֲלָהּ בִּשְׂרֵפָה, אַף בִּתּוֹ מֵאֲנוּסָתוֹ – הִיא בִּשְׂרֵפָה וְאֵין בּוֹעֲלָהּ בִּשְׂרֵפָה?

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara asks: **If** so, why not say that **just as** in the case of **the daughter of a priest** who commits adultery, **she is** executed **by burning but her paramour is** executed by strangulation, **not by burning, so too** in the case of one who engages in intercourse with **his daughter** born **from a woman whom he raped, she is** executed **by burning but her paramour,** i.e., her father, **is** executed by other means and **not by burning?**


###### Sanhedrin 76a:19
[Sanhedrin 76a:19](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Sanhedrin/r/76a:19)

אָמַר אַבָּיֵי: אָמַר קְרָא ״אֶת אָבִיהָ הִיא מְחַלֶּלֶת״, מִי שֶׁמְּחַלֶּלֶת אֶת אָבִיהָ – יָצְתָה זוֹ שֶׁאָבִיהָ מְחַלְּלָהּ.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**Abaye says** that **the verse states: “It is her father whom she is profaning,”** from which it is inferred that **one who profanes her father** by acting licentiously is executed with a court-imposed death penalty different from the death penalty imposed upon her paramour; **excluded** from that *halakha* is **this** case of a daughter whose father engaged in intercourse with her, **where** it is **her father** who **profanes her.**


###### Sanhedrin 76a:20
[Sanhedrin 76a:20](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Sanhedrin/r/76a:20)

רָבָא אָמַר: בִּשְׁלָמָא הָתָם, אַפֵּיקְתֵּיהּ מִדִּינָא דְּבַת כֹּהֵן וְאוֹקֵימְתֵּהּ אַדִּינָא דְּבַת יִשְׂרָאֵל. הָכָא, אַדִּינָא דְּמַאן מוֹקְמַתְּ לֵיהּ? אַדִּינָא דִּפְנוּיָיה מוֹקְמַתְּ לֵיהּ?

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**Rava says: Granted, there,** in the case of the daughter of a priest who commits adultery, based on the inference, **you excluded** the paramour **from the punishment of** the **daughter of a priest,** execution by burning, **and you established his** punishment to correspond **with the punishment of** an adulterous **Israelite woman,** who is executed by strangulation. But **here,** in the case of one who engages in intercourse with his daughter, to correspond **with whose punishment do you establish** the father’s punishment? The Torah does not state any other form of execution in that case. Will **you establish his punishment** to correspond **with the punishment of an unmarried woman** who engages in intercourse, who is not liable to be executed at all? Therefore, there is no alternative to the conclusion that the father, too, is executed by burning.


###### Sanhedrin 76a:21
[Sanhedrin 76a:21](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Sanhedrin/r/76a:21)

אַזְהָרָה לְבִתּוֹ מֵאֲנוּסָתוֹ מִנַּיִין? בִּשְׁלָמָא לְאַבָּיֵי וְרָבָא, מֵהֵיכָא דְּנָפְקָא לְהוּ עוֹנֶשׁ, מֵהָתָם נָפְקָא לְהוּ אַזְהָרָה.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
§ The Gemara asks: **From where** is the **prohibition against** engaging in intercourse with **his daughter** born **from a woman whom he raped** derived? **Granted,** according **to Abaye and Rava,** who, respectively, derive the punishment *a fortiori* or by means of a verbal analogy, from the same source **from which they derive** the **punishment, from there they derive** the **prohibition** as well, as the source includes a prohibition.


###### Sanhedrin 76a:22
[Sanhedrin 76a:22](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Sanhedrin/r/76a:22)

אֶלָּא לִדְתָנֵי אֲבוּהּ דְּרַבִּי אָבִין, מַאי? אָמַר רַבִּי אִילְעָא: אָמַר קְרָא, ״אַל תְּחַלֵּל אֶת בִּתְּךָ לְהַזְנוֹתָהּ״.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**But according to** that **which Rabbi Avin’s father teaches,** that the punishment is derived from the verse written with regard to the daughter of a priest, **what** is the source for the prohibition? **Rabbi Ile’a says** that the prohibition is derived from a verse, as **the verse states: “Do not profane your daughter by causing her to act licentiously [*lehaznotah*],** lest the land falls into licentiousness, and the land becomes full of lewdness” (Leviticus 19:29), from which it is derived that one may not engage in intercourse with his daughter.


###### Sanhedrin 76a:23
[Sanhedrin 76a:23](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Sanhedrin/r/76a:23)

מַתְקֵיף לַהּ רַבִּי יַעֲקֹב אֲחוּהּ דְּרַב אַחָא בַּר יַעֲקֹב: הַאי ״אַל תְּחַלֵּל אֶת בִּתְּךָ לְהַזְנוֹתָהּ״ לְהָכִי הוּא דַּאֲתָא? הַאי מִיבְּעֵי לֵיהּ לְכִדְתַנְיָא: ״אַל תְּחַלֵּל אֶת בִּתְּךָ לְהַזְנוֹתָהּ״ – יָכוֹל בְּכֹהֵן הַמַּשִּׂיא אֶת בִּתּוֹ לְלֵוִי וְיִשְׂרָאֵל הַכָּתוּב מְדַבֵּר? תַּלְמוּד לוֹמַר: ״לְהַזְנוֹתָהּ״ – בְּחִילּוּל שֶׁבִּזְנוּת הַכָּתוּב מְדַבֵּר, בְּמוֹסֵר אֶת בִּתּוֹ שֶׁלֹּא לְשֵׁם אִישׁוּת.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**Rabbi Ya’akov, brother of Rav Aḥa bar Ya’akov, objects to this:** Does **this** verse: **“Do not profane your daughter by causing her to act licentiously,” come to** teach **that** *halakha*? **This** verse **is necessary to** derive **that which is taught** in a *baraita*: With regard to the verse: **“Do not profane your daughter by causing her to act licentiously,”** one **might** have thought that it is **with regard to a priest who marries his daughter to a Levite or Israelite** that **the verse is speaking,** since marrying an Israelite disqualifies her from partaking of *teruma*. To counter this, **the verse states “by causing her to act licentiously,”** indicating that it is **with regard to profaning that involves licentiousness** that **the verse is speaking.** The reference is **to one who gives his daughter** to a man for the purpose of intercourse that is **not for the sake of marriage.**


###### Sanhedrin 76a:24
[Sanhedrin 76a:24](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Sanhedrin/r/76a:24)

אִם כֵּן, לֵימָא קְרָא ״אַל תַּחֵל״! מַאי ״אַל תְּחַלֵּל״? שְׁמַע מִינַּהּ תַּרְתֵּי. וְאַבָּיֵי וְרָבָא, הַאי ״אַל תְּחַלֵּל אֶת בִּתְּךָ לְהַזְנוֹתָהּ״ מַאי עָבְדִי לֵיהּ? אָמַר רַבִּי מָנִי: זֶה הַמַּשִּׂיא אֶת בִּתּוֹ לְזָקֵן.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara answers: **If so,** and that is the sole derivation from the verse, **let the verse say: Do not profane [*taḥel*]. What** is the reason that the verse uses the more complex form: **Do not profane** [***teḥalel]*? Conclude two** derivations **from it.** The Gemara asks: **And** according to **Abaye and Rava,** who derive the prohibition against engaging in intercourse with one’s daughter from a different source, **what do they do with this** verse: **“Do not profane your daughter by causing her to act licentiously”? Rabbi Mani says: This** verse is referring to **one who marries his daughter to an old man.** Since she will not be satisfied with him, it will ultimately lead her to engage in adultery, and her father is responsible for causing that situation.


###### Sanhedrin 76a:25
[Sanhedrin 76a:25](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Sanhedrin/r/76a:25)

כִּדְתַנְיָא: ״אַל תְּחַלֵּל אֶת בִּתְּךָ לְהַזְנוֹתָהּ״. רַבִּי אֱלִיעֶזֶר אוֹמֵר: זֶה הַמַּשִּׂיא אֶת בִּתּוֹ לְזָקֵן. רַבִּי עֲקִיבָא אוֹמֵר: זֶה הַמַּשְׁהֶא בִּתּוֹ בּוֹגֶרֶת.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
This derivation is **as it is taught** in a *baraita*: **“Do not profane your daughter by causing her to act licentiously.” Rabbi Eliezer says: This is** referring to **one who marries his daughter to an old man. Rabbi Akiva says: This is** referring to **one who delays** the marriage of **his daughter** who is **a grown woman.** Since she finds no permissible outlet for her sexual desire, she is apt to engage in licentiousness.


###### Sanhedrin 76a:26
[Sanhedrin 76a:26](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Sanhedrin/r/76a:26)

אָמַר רַב כָּהֲנָא מִשּׁוּם רַבִּי עֲקִיבָא: אֵין לְךָ עָנִי בְּיִשְׂרָאֵל אֶלָּא רָשָׁע עָרוּם, וְהַמַּשְׁהֶא בִּתּוֹ בּוֹגֶרֶת. אַטּוּ הַמַּשְׁהֶא בִּתּוֹ בּוֹגֶרֶת לָאו רָשָׁע עָרוּם הוּא?

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**Rav Kahana says in the name of Rabbi Akiva: You do not have a pauper among** the **Jewish people other** than one who is **a conniving wicked person,** who seeks to conceal his true nature, **and one who delays** the marriage of **his daughter** who is **a grown woman.** The Gemara asks: **Is that to say** that **one who delays** the marriage of **his daughter** who is **a grown woman is not a conniving, wicked person?** He connives to delay her marriage to ensure that she will stay at home and do the housework, sparing him the cost of domestic help, and thereby causes her to sin.


###### Sanhedrin 76a:27
[Sanhedrin 76a:27](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Sanhedrin/r/76a:27)

אָמַר אַבָּיֵי:

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**Abaye says:**