## Sanhedrin Daf 87b

###### Sanhedrin 87b:1
[Sanhedrin 87b:1](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Sanhedrin/r/87b:1)

דִּין בִּתּוֹ מֵאֲנוּסָתוֹ.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
for example, the ***halakha*** of the prohibition against engaging in intercourse with **one’s daughter** born **from** the **victim of his rape.**


###### Sanhedrin 87b:2
[Sanhedrin 87b:2](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Sanhedrin/r/87b:2)

דְּאָמַר רָבָא: אֲמַר לִי רַב יִצְחָק בַּר אֲבוּדִימִי, אָתְיָא ״הֵנָּה״ ״הֵנָּה״,

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**As Rava says: Rav Yitzḥak bar Avudimi said to me:** This prohibition is **derived** by means of a verbal analogy between the word ***henna*,** in the verse: “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*** in a different verse: “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). This verbal analogy indicates that just as intercourse with one’s granddaughter and with one’s wife’s daughter or granddaughter is forbidden, so too, intercourse with one’s daughter is prohibited.


###### Sanhedrin 87b:3
[Sanhedrin 87b:3](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Sanhedrin/r/87b:3)

אָתְיָא ״זִמָּה״ ״זִמָּה״.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
Furthermore, 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 take with his wife also her mother, it is lewdness; they shall be burned with fire, both he and they, so that there be no lewdness among you” (Leviticus 20:14), that one who engages in sexual intercourse with his daughter or granddaughter is liable to be executed by burning.


###### Sanhedrin 87b:4
[Sanhedrin 87b:4](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Sanhedrin/r/87b:4)

״בֵּין דָּם לְדָם״ – בֵּין דַּם נִדָּה, דַּם לֵידָה, דַּם זִיבָה. דַּם נִדָּה – בִּפְלוּגְתָּא עֲקַבְיָא בֶּן מַהֲלַלְאֵל וְרַבָּנַן, דִּתְנַן: דָּם הַיָּרוֹק – עֲקַבְיָא בֶּן מַהֲלַלְאֵל מְטַמֵּא, וַחֲכָמִים מְטַהֲרִין.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**“Between blood and blood”;** this is the ability to discern **between** the disparate *halakhot* relevant to the **blood of menstruation,** the **blood of childbirth,** and the **blood of** a gonorrhea-like **discharge [*ziva*].** In each of these cases, there is a dispute between the Sages with regard to a matter for whose intentional violation one is liable to receive *karet*. In the case of the **blood of menstruation,** it is **with regard to** the issue that is the subject of **the dispute** between **Akavya ben Mahalalel and the Rabbis, as we learned** in a mishna (*Nidda* 19a): With regard to **blood that is green** that is discharged by a woman, **Akavya ben Mahalalel deems** it blood of menstruation and **impure, and the Rabbis deem** it **pure.** According to Akavya ben Mahalalel, one who engages in intercourse with a woman who discharged green blood is liable to receive *karet*, while according to the Rabbis, he is exempt.


###### Sanhedrin 87b:5
[Sanhedrin 87b:5](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Sanhedrin/r/87b:5)

דַּם לֵידָה – בִּפְלוּגְתָּא דְּרַב וְלֵוִי, דְּאִתְּמַר, רַב אָמַר: מַעְיָן אֶחָד הוּא, הַתּוֹרָה טִמְּאַתּוּ וְהַתּוֹרָה טִיהֲרַתּוּ.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
In the case of the **blood of childbirth,** the dispute concerning such a prohibition is **with regard to** the issue that is the subject of **the dispute** between **Rav and Levi.** This is **as it was stated** that **Rav says:** Blood that a woman discharges after childbirth **is** all from **one source; the Torah deemed ritually impure** the blood discharged for one week after the birth of a male and two weeks after the birth of a female, **and the Torah deemed** ritually pure the blood that is discharged for the subsequent thirty-three days for a male and sixty-six days for a female. Even if the blood flows continuously, the status of the blood changes after the conclusion of the period of impurity.


###### Sanhedrin 87b:6
[Sanhedrin 87b:6](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Sanhedrin/r/87b:6)

וְלֵוִי אָמַר: שְׁנֵי מַעֲיָינוֹת הֵן, נִסְתָּם הַטָּמֵא – נִפְתָּח הַטָּהוֹר, נִסְתָּם הַטָּהוֹר – נִפְתָּח הַטָּמֵא.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**And Levi says: It is** from **two sources; the impure** source **is sealed** after one week for a male and two weeks for a female, and then **the pure** source **is opened,** and at the conclusion of the period of the discharge of pure blood, **the pure** source **is sealed** and **the impure** source **is opened.** Only if the flow of impure blood ceases is a subsequent discharge deemed pure. Therefore, if one engaged in intercourse with a woman who experienced a continuous flow of blood beyond the time of the conclusion of the period of the flow of pure blood, according to Levi, he is liable to receive *karet*, and according to Rav, he is exempt.


###### Sanhedrin 87b:7
[Sanhedrin 87b:7](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Sanhedrin/r/87b:7)

דַּם זִיבָה – בִּפְלוּגְתָּא דְּרַבִּי אֱלִיעֶזֶר וְרַבִּי יְהוֹשֻׁעַ. דִּתְנַן: קִישְּׁתָה שְׁלֹשָׁה יָמִים בְּתוֹךְ אַחַד עָשָׂר יוֹם, אִם שָׁפְתָה מֵעֵת לְעֵת וְיָלְדָה – הֲרֵי זוֹ יוֹלֶדֶת בְּזוֹב, דִּבְרֵי רַבִּי אֱלִיעֶזֶר.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
In the case of the **blood of *ziva*,** the dispute concerning such a prohibition is **with regard to** the issue that is the subject of **the dispute** between **Rabbi Eliezer and Rabbi Yehoshua. As we learned** in a mishna (*Nidda* 36b): In a case where a woman **experienced labor** pain accompanied by an emission of blood lasting **three** consecutive **days within** the **eleven days** between the periods when her emissions render her a menstruating woman, during which the emission of blood renders the woman a *zava*, **if she ceased** experiencing labor **for** a twenty-four-hour **period,** indicating that the blood was not the result of imminent birth, **and** then **she gave birth, that** woman **gives birth as a *zava*** and is liable to bring the purification offerings of both a woman after childbirth and a *zava*; this is **the statement of Rabbi Eliezer.**


###### Sanhedrin 87b:8
[Sanhedrin 87b:8](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Sanhedrin/r/87b:8)

וְרַבִּי יְהוֹשֻׁעַ אוֹמֵר: לַיְלָה וָיוֹם, כְּלֵילֵי שַׁבָּת וְיוֹמוֹ, שֶׁשָּׁפְתָה מִן הַצַּעַר וְלֹא מִן הַדָּם.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The mishna continues: **And Rabbi Yehoshua says:** That is her status only if she ceased experiencing labor for a twenty-four-hour period that is **a night and** the **day** that follows, **like Shabbat evening and** the **day** that follows **it.** When the mishna says that she ceased, it is referring to a case **where she ceased from** having labor **pains and not from** having **the** flow of **blood.** The dispute is whether the woman who gave birth has the status of a *zava*, who is required to count seven clean days before immersing in flowing water, or whether she has the status of a woman after childbirth. If the two weeks of the blood of impurity after childbirth elapsed and she did not immerse in flowing water, according to Rabbi Eliezer, she remains a *zava*, and one who engages in intercourse with her is liable to receive *karet*. According to Rabbi Yehoshua, at that point the blood becomes the blood of purity, and one who engages in intercourse with her is not liable to receive *karet*.


###### Sanhedrin 87b:9
[Sanhedrin 87b:9](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Sanhedrin/r/87b:9)

״בֵּין דִּין לְדִין״ – בֵּין דִּינֵי מָמוֹנוֹת, דִּינֵי נְפָשׁוֹת, דִּינֵי מַכּוֹת. דִּינֵי מָמוֹנוֹת – בִּפְלוּגְתָּא דִּשְׁמוּאֵל וְרַבִּי אֲבָהוּ, דְּאָמַר שְׁמוּאֵל: שְׁנַיִם שֶׁדָּנוּ דִּינֵיהֶם דִּין, אֶלָּא שֶׁנִּקְרָאִין בֵּית דִּין חָצוּף. וְרַבִּי אֲבָהוּ אָמַר: לְדִבְרֵי הַכֹּל אֵין דִּינֵיהֶן דִּין.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**“Between plea and plea”;** this is the ability to discern **between** cases of **capital law,** cases of **monetary law,** and cases of **laws** involving **lashes.** The Gemara elaborates: In cases of **monetary law,** the dispute concerning such a prohibition is **with regard to** the issue that is the subject of **the dispute** between **Shmuel and Rabbi Abbahu, as Shmuel says:** With regard to **two** judges **who sat in judgment** and issued a ruling in cases of monetary law, **their ruling is** a valid **ruling, but they are characterized as an impudent court. And Rabbi Abbahu says: Everyone agrees** that **their ruling is not** a valid **ruling.** If a tribunal of two judges rules that one of the litigants must pay the other money, and that litigant uses the money to betroth a woman, according to Shmuel she is betrothed, and one who intentionally engages in intercourse with her is liable to receive *karet*. According to Rabbi Abbahu she is not betrothed, and one who engages in intercourse with her is not liable.


###### Sanhedrin 87b:10
[Sanhedrin 87b:10](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Sanhedrin/r/87b:10)

דִּינֵי נְפָשׁוֹת – בִּפְלוּגְתָּא דְּרַבִּי וְרַבָּנַן. דְּתַנְיָא: רַבִּי אוֹמֵר, ״וְנָתַתָּה נֶפֶשׁ תַּחַת נָפֶשׁ״ – מָמוֹן.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
In cases of **capital law,** the dispute concerning such a prohibition is **with regard to** the issue that is the subject of **the dispute** between **Rabbi** Yehuda HaNasi **and the Rabbis, as it is taught** in a *baraita* that **Rabbi** Yehuda HaNasi **says** with regard to that which is written: “If men struggle and they hurt a pregnant woman…and if there shall be a tragedy **you shall give a life for a life”** (Exodus 21:22–23), the reference is to **a monetary payment** for the life that he took. The tragedy referenced is the unintentional killing of the mother.


###### Sanhedrin 87b:11
[Sanhedrin 87b:11](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Sanhedrin/r/87b:11)

אַתָּה אוֹמֵר מָמוֹן, אוֹ אֵינוֹ אֶלָּא נֶפֶשׁ מַמָּשׁ? נֶאֱמַר ״נְתִינָה״ לְמַעְלָה, וְנֶאֱמַר ״נְתִינָה״ לְמַטָּה. מָה לְהַלָּן מָמוֹן, אַף כָּאן מָמוֹן.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The *tanna* deliberates: **Do you say** that the reference is to **a monetary payment, or** perhaps the reference is **only** to giving his **actual life?** Based on the language employed in the verse, it can be determined that the reference is to monetary payment. In these verses, **giving is stated above:** “And you shall give a life for a life,” **and giving is stated below:** “He shall be punished, as the husband of the woman shall impose upon him, and he shall give as the judges determine” (Exodus 21:23). **Just as there,** in the phrase “Give as the judges determine,” the reference is to **monetary payment, so too here,** in the phrase “Give a life for a life,” the reference is to **monetary payment.** The Rabbis hold that the reference is to giving his actual life. If an heir of the victim betrothed a woman with money seized from the assailant, according to Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi the woman is betrothed, while according to the Rabbis she is not betrothed.


###### Sanhedrin 87b:12
[Sanhedrin 87b:12](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Sanhedrin/r/87b:12)

דִּינֵי מַכּוֹת – בִּפְלוּגְתָּא דְּרַבִּי יִשְׁמָעֵאל וְרַבָּנַן, דִּתְנַן: מַכּוֹת בִּשְׁלֹשָׁה. מִשּׁוּם רַבִּי יִשְׁמָעֵאל אָמְרוּ: בְּעֶשְׂרִים וּשְׁלֹשָׁה.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
In cases of **laws** involving **lashes,** the dispute concerning such a prohibition is **with regard to** the issue that is the subject of **the dispute** between **Rabbi Yishmael and the Rabbis, as we learned** in a mishna (2a): Cases concerning the violation of prohibitions that render one liable to receive **lashes** are adjudicated **by three** judges. The Sages **stated in the name of Rabbi Yishmael:** Cases concerning lashes are adjudicated **by twenty-three** judges. According to Rabbi Yishmael, if a tribunal of three sentences an individual to lashes, that individual can claim damages for any injury caused as a result of the lashes, and if he betroths a woman with that money the betrothal is valid. According to the Rabbis, he cannot claim damages, as the court is authorized to sentence him to receive lashes.


###### Sanhedrin 87b:13
[Sanhedrin 87b:13](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Sanhedrin/r/87b:13)

״בֵּין נֶגַע לָנֶגַע״ – בֵּין נִגְעֵי אָדָם, נִגְעֵי בָתִּים, נִגְעֵי בְגָדִים.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**“Between mark and mark”;** this is the ability to discern **between** the disparate *halakhot* relevant to leprous **marks of a person,** leprous **marks on houses,** and leprous **marks on garments.**


###### Sanhedrin 87b:14
[Sanhedrin 87b:14](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Sanhedrin/r/87b:14)

נִגְעֵי אָדָם – בִּפְלוּגְתָּא דְּרַבִּי יְהוֹשֻׁעַ וְרַבָּנַן. דִּתְנַן: אִם בַּהֶרֶת קָדַם לַשֵּׂעָר הַלָּבָן – טָמֵא, אִם שֵׂעָר לָבָן קָדַם לַבַּהֶרֶת – טָהוֹר, סָפֵק – טָמֵא. רַבִּי יְהוֹשֻׁעַ אוֹמֵר: כֵּהָה. מַאי כֵּהָה? אָמַר רָבָא: כֵּהָה – טָהוֹר.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
In the case of leprous **marks of a person,** the dispute concerning such a prohibition is **with regard to** the issue that is the subject of **the dispute** between **Rabbi Yehoshua and the Rabbis, as we learned** in a mishna (*Nega’im* 4:11): **If the snow-white** leprous **mark [*baheret*] preceded the white hair,** the individual is **impure** with leprosy, as that is the order of events that appears in the Torah, and **if the white hair preceded the *baheret*,** the individual is **pure.** If there is **uncertainty** concerning which appeared first, the Rabbis say: He is **impure,** and **Rabbi Yehoshua says:** It has **darkened.** The Gemara asks: **What** is the meaning of: It has **darkened? Rava says:** Its status is like that of a *baheret* that **darkened,** with regard to which the Torah says that he is **pure.** If one with a *baheret* and a white hair entered the Temple, and there is uncertainty concerning which appeared first, according to the Rabbis he is liable to receive *karet*, and according to Rabbi Yehoshua he is not liable.


###### Sanhedrin 87b:15
[Sanhedrin 87b:15](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Sanhedrin/r/87b:15)

נִגְעֵי בָתִּים, בִּפְלוּגְתָּא דְּרַבִּי אֶלְעָזָר בְּרַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן וְרַבָּנַן. דִּתְנַן: רַבִּי אֶלְעָזָר בְּרַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן אוֹמֵר, לְעוֹלָם אֵין הַבַּיִת טָמֵא עַד שֶׁיֵּרָאֶה כִּשְׁנֵי גְרִיסִין עַל שְׁתֵּי אֲבָנִים, בִּשְׁנֵי כְתָלִים בְּקֶרֶן זָוִית. אׇרְכּוֹ כִּשְׁנֵי גְרִיסִין, וְרׇחְבּוֹ כִּגְרִיס.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
In the case of leprous **marks of houses,** the dispute concerning such a prohibition is **with regard to** the issue that is the subject of **the dispute** between **Rabbi Elazar, son of Rabbi Shimon, and the Rabbis, as we learned** in a mishna (*Nega’im* 12:3): **Rabbi Elazar, son of Rabbi Shimon, says: A house is never** deemed **impure** with leprosy **unless** the leprous mark **will be seen** to be the size of **two Cilician beans, on two stones, on two walls, in a corner** between two walls. **The length of** the mark **is** that of **two Cilician beans and its width is** that of one **Cilician bean.**


###### Sanhedrin 87b:16
[Sanhedrin 87b:16](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Sanhedrin/r/87b:16)

מַאי טַעְמָא דְּרַבִּי אֶלְעָזָר בְּרַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן? כְּתִיב ״קִיר״ וּכְתִיב ״קִירֹת״. אֵיזֶהוּ קִיר שֶׁהוּא כְּקִירוֹת? הֱוֵי אוֹמֵר: זֶה קֶרֶן זָוִית.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara asks: **What is the reason** for the opinion **of Rabbi Elazar, son of Rabbi Shimon?** The Gemara answers: The word **wall is written** in the verse **and** the word **walls is written** in the same verse: And he shall see the leprous mark…in the walls of the house with hollow streaks, greenish or reddish, and their appearance is lower than the wall” (Leviticus 14:37). **Which is** one **wall that is like** multiple **walls? You must say: This is a corner** between two walls. The Rabbis hold that it is a leprous house even if the mark appears on one wall. Therefore, one who entered a house with a leprous mark on one wall and then entered the Temple is liable to receive *karet* according to the Rabbis; according to Rabbi Elazar, son of Rabbi Shimon, he is not liable.


###### Sanhedrin 87b:17
[Sanhedrin 87b:17](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Sanhedrin/r/87b:17)

נִגְעֵי בְגָדִים – בִּפְלוּגְתָּא דְּרַבִּי יוֹנָתָן בֶּן אַבְטוּלְמוֹס וְרַבָּנַן. דְּתַנְיָא: רַבִּי יוֹנָתָן בֶּן אַבְטוּלְמוֹס אוֹמֵר, מִנַּיִן

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
In the case of leprous **marks on garments,** the dispute concerning such a prohibition is **with regard to** the issue that is the subject of **the dispute** between **Rabbi Yonatan ben Avtolemos and the Rabbis, as it is taught** in a *baraita* that **Rabbi Yonatan ben Avtolemos says: From where** is it derived