+1, but even according to the Ramban, wouldn't that Gemara also require death (for whatever reason). After all, even according to the Rambam, is talking לא תקרבו?

I don't know what the Ramban does with that gemara. But the way the shach quotes him, his opinion is only real biah is included in the lav. I haven't checked further into his opinion although it is odd to have an explicit gemara against him. Unless he believed it was a special time needing extreme measures like when the chashmonaim killed the guy riding a horse on shabbos.

It's been a while since I looked at it, but I believe he would tell you it is Miderabannan. Note that the Ramban wouldn't have a conceptual problem with a Yeharag v'Al Yavor that is MiDerabannan, as he allows it for a wider range of things anyway. Which actually leaves this Gemara as a problem for the Rambam, no? How is talking a problem, if it is not MiDerabanan?

Here's another idea. The gemara itself seems to imply that the ruling that he should rather die than whatever was possibly precautionary. Either because of shame for the family, or as a safeguard to make sure bnos yisroel don't begin to act improper. So it's quite possible that Ramban agrees that even cases such as this were included in abizrayhu of Giluy Arayos and were included in the vote to be yehareg vlo yaavor. That is not connected to his opinion that only real bias issur is included in the lav of lo sikrivu which the Shach was discussing.

I was writing my megila while you posted. Now, considering that the gemara seems to have reasons that don't fit into regular yehareig v'al yaavor, I am left wondering about the Rambam and the Shach's proof:)

See the first piece in Igros HaGrid in which R. Soloveitchik demonstrates that in Rambam's view the yei'hareg v'al yaavor ruling in the case of the Gemara in Sanhedrin 75 is rabbinic and in reality, he would not even violate a Biblical prohibition.

@mevaqesh I'm assuming he does not mention the Shach?

@user6591 if I recall he disproves his opinion but doesn't mention him by name.

@mevaqesh well it doesn't matter much as far as the original question goes. Even if it's a rabbinic yeharag v'al yaavor, Rambam Beis Yosef and Shach all say yeharag v'al yaavor. The only issue would be the Ramma who mentions the word 'Lav'. If it is not a lav, then one could argue he believes there is no yehareg vlo yaavor. But all in all a pilpul seffer doesn't do much to release normative halacha from following a Shach.

The Chachamim ruled he should die. How about for her to stand naked in front of him? Die. Talk to her from behind a fence? Die. However, see Chavos Ya'ir (§182), who challenges the Shach's opinion that this ruling would apply under normal circumstances.

@Fred as brought in the Pischei Tshuva, he seems to be discussing kissing the girl, which was the crux of the machlokes between rambam and ramban. And especially important, he was discussing kissing her in a non affectionate way and many other factors. I doubt he would go through the same discussion if discussing a case of her standing naked etc which the gemara clearly ruled about.

@Fred but I haven't read the tshuva inside, so full comment pending.

@Fred k. Now I see why the P.T. left out allot of that tshuva. In #4 the P.T. points out that the Ch.Y. contradicted himself in tshuva 182 to 183.

@user6591 I didn't look at 183 yet, but in 182, the C.Y. challenges the Shach because it appears that only the Ran would hold that, under general circumstances, all those actions would fall under yeihareig v'al ya'avor, whereas the Rambam, et. al., would say that, generally speaking, even derech chiba contact would not be yeihareig v'al ya'avor (and presumably also not seeing her unclothed, which the C.Y. says - at least within R' Acha - was a hora'as sha'a where the Rabbis made a point by not giving their approval).

@Fred The way the footnotes and P.T. present it, in 183 he is ruling yehareg even by a lav midirabanan. And if that is his logic against the Shach, than he is arguing on the beis yosef too. And the fact that the p.t. did not bring this aspect down would tend to make me think he disagrees and doesn't want anyone to rule like that.

@user6591 On the contrary, in 183 he rules not yeihareig (unless it is a situation where a non-Jew is intentionally trying to get him to violate his religion or it is b'farhesya). | To correct my earlier comments, the CY indicates that any case where he would be forced to kiss the woman would, by dint of the circumstances, not be derech chiba. Regarding the situation of seeing the woman unclothed, the CY gives various possible reasons to disagree with the Ran, but the CY's ultimate point is clear: In a general case, yeihareig v'al ya'avor would not apply to there.

@Fred than this conversation is really going to have to wait!:)

@user6591 Although you are correct about a lav d'rabbanan; after all, in such extreme sha'as hash'mad type circumstances b'farhesya, even ark'sa d'mesana is yeihareig v'al ya'avor. But this is not true in a normal case. Anyway 183 is pretty brief (half of a column), it shouldn't take long to review.

@user6591 I dont think that the Grid in any way engaged in pilpul. He pointed out that Rambam describes lo sik'r'vu as physical contact, and that there is no indication that he would include speech as well. On the contrary if anyone is to be accused f pilpul the controversial approach of some Acharonim, it is the Shach who invents a new lo sik'r'vu; not the Grid.

The Shulchan Aruch, Tur, and Rama (IIRC) do not mention the Gemara in Sanhedrin 75a likely indicating that they hold it is not normative or relevant. Invoking Rama's statement about gilluy arayos, and a definition of g.a. not agreed to by Rama, is therefore internally inconsistent.

@mevaqesh when you want psak, you open a Shach. When you want a nice shtikel Torah who's author himself would probably never rely upon, you open a Grid. Its not an insult, its a reality. And Beis Yosef mentioned the gemara.

The BY has to mention in it explaining the Rambam who does quote it! There are various mehalchei hapsak. It is true that many less independent poskim rely increasingly on latter day poskim. That neither invalidates the opinion of the rishoonim, nor the views of those who rely on them for psak. Making grandiose statements about what one does "when he wants psak" belies ignoranec of the diverse appraoches towards psak, and labeling the work of the Grid (which you apparently haven't even seen) "a nice shtikel Torah who's author himself would probably never rely upon" seems similarly cavalier.

@mevaqesh I really don't understand what your issue is. Grandiose and cavalier or not, whether I've read it or not does not change anything. A question was asked about a halacha. A halachic source was quoted. A non halachic source was raised as being opposed to the halachic one, to which I commented that has no ramifications halachicaly.

@mevaqesh and don't forget the ramma quoting the Ran. In the Darkei Moshe he explains the gemara on 75a are cases of a lav of lo sikrav. Which still have the din yehareg v'al yaavor. As he wrote in his gloss inn the Shulchan Aruch.