Sanhedrin

The Master said: 'Whence do we know that the lower is as the upper?' What is meant by 'lower' and 'upper'? Shall we say that her son's daughter and her daughter's daughter ['lower'] are as her own daughter ['upper']?  But are not [all three] simultaneously derived?  Again, if it means that his father-in-law's mother and his mother-in-law's mother are as his mother-in-law: then instead of 'the lower is as the upper', the Tanna should have said 'the upper is as the lower'?  — Read, 'the upper is as the lower'. If so, [how explain] wickedness [zimmah] is stated here, and also elsewhere'; seeing that their very prohibition is as yet unknown, how can 'zimmah' be written in connection therewith?  Abaye answered: This is its meaning: Whence do we know that the third generation above is treated as the third below?  — The word 'zimmah' is written in connection with both the lower generation  and the upper;  just as in the lower, the third generation is forbidden also,  so in the upper too;  and just as the lower is assimilated to the upper in respect of punishment, so is the upper to the lower in respect of formal prohibition.  R. Ashi said: After all, it is as taught:  What then is the meaning of 'lower'? Lower in [gravity of the] prohibition. Now, if so,  then just as her [i.e. his wife's] maternal grandmother is forbidden [to him], so is his maternal grandmother?  — Abaye answered: The Writ sayeth, [The nakedness of thy father, or the nakedness of thy mother, shalt thou not uncover'] she is thy mother — 18 teaching: thou canst punish for [incest with] his mother, but not with his mother's mother. Raba said: Whether we maintain, 'judge from it in its entirety', or  'judge from it, and place it on its own basis', this could not be deduced.  For on the view, 'judge from it in its entirety', [the deduction would proceed thus:] Just as her [his wife's] maternal grandmother is forbidden [to him], so is his maternal grandmother forbidden. [Then carrying the analogy] to its uttermost, just as in her case [i.e., incest with the former] is punished by fire so in his case [i.e., incest with the latter] is punished by fire. But on the view  that burning is severer [than stoning]. This analogy can be refuted. [Thus:] Why is her case [forbidden]?  Because her [his wife's] mother is similarly forbidden.  But can you say the same in his case, seeing that his mother is forbidden [only] on pain of stoning!  Moreover, his mother is forbidden on pain of stoning: shall his mother's mother be forbidden on pain of burning!  Further, just as in her [his wife's] case, you have drawn no distinction between her mother and her mother's mother [both being forbidden on pain of burning], so in his, no distinction must be drawn between his mother and his mother's mother.  And on the view that stoning is severer, the analogy cannot be deduced because of this last difficulty.  Whilst on the view, 'judge from it and place it on its own basis,' [the deduction would proceed thus:] Just as her [his wife's] maternal grandmother is forbidden [to him], so is his maternal grandmother forbidden. But 'place it on its own basis', thus: in the former case the punishment is burning; but in the latter, stoning, the penalty which we find prescribed for incest with his mother. Now, on the view that burning is severer, this can be refuted,