Commentary for Keritot 28:26
ותניא
he is sentenced for intercourse with a mother-in-law; if she was forbidden to him first as a married woman and then as a mother-in-law, he is sentenced for connection with a married woman! - Answered R'Abbahu: R'Jose admits [an exception to the rule] when the new prohibition is more comprehensive.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' V. p. 104, nn. 6 and 7. If the new prohibition is more comprehensive it supersedes the first one. The reason why R. Jose, in the quoted Mishnah, nevertheless holds that only the prohibition which is first established is of avail, (although in the first of the examples the second prohibition, viz.,the one concerning a married woman, which applied to all men, is more comprehensive than the first) is because the penalty of the first transgression is more stringent than that of the second (Rashi) .');"><sup>14</sup></span>
Explore commentary for Keritot 28:26. In-depth commentary and analysis from classical Jewish sources.