Commentary for Kiddushin 134:10
ואימא אידי ואידי לבן הא לכתחילה והא דיעבד
Daf Shevui to Kiddushin
The Talmud continues to try to say that the word “another” refers only to the husband’s son. Perhaps one verse teaches that she shouldn’t be betrothed to him ab initio and the other that if he tries to betroth her, the betrothal is invalid, ex post facto.
But this is rejected because we know the ab initio prohibition by comparing it with the prohibition of marrying one’s wife’s sister. We know this because it specifically states “do not take” which is interpreted to mean that marriage does not work. If this is prohibited even though the penalty is only karet, all the more so it is prohibited (and impossible) to marry one’s father’s wife, for which the penalty is death. Therefore the verse is free to learn that kiddushin is invalid with any incestual prohibition.
But this is rejected because we know the ab initio prohibition by comparing it with the prohibition of marrying one’s wife’s sister. We know this because it specifically states “do not take” which is interpreted to mean that marriage does not work. If this is prohibited even though the penalty is only karet, all the more so it is prohibited (and impossible) to marry one’s father’s wife, for which the penalty is death. Therefore the verse is free to learn that kiddushin is invalid with any incestual prohibition.
Ask RabbiBookmarkShareCopy