Commentary for Sanhedrin 161:14

לידון נמי אאיסור אשת איש דהא אמר ר' אבהו מודה ר' יוסי באיסור מוסיף

— Then he should have revised it [all] just as Moses had revised it.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' [In Deuteronomy.] ');">¹³</span> R. Aha b. Hanina gave the following exposition: What is meant by, [But if a man be just and do that which is lawful and right, etc.] and hath not eaten upon the mountains?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Ibid. 6. ');">¹⁴</span> I.e., he did not eat through his forbears' merit;<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' His own merit being sufficient that God should sustain him. 'Mountains' is interpreted as metaphorically referring to one's ancestors; cf. Micah VI, 2, which may be so translated. ');">¹⁵</span> neither hath he lifted up his eyes to the idols of the house of Israel, that he did not walk with haughty mien; neither hath defiled his neighbor's wife, indicating that he did not [competitively] enter his neighbour's profession; neither hath come near to a menstruous woman, meaning that he did not benefit from the charity fund.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' It being wrong to do so unless one is absolutely compelled. ');">¹⁶</span> And it is written, He is just, he shall surely live.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Ibid. 9. ');">¹⁷</span> When R. Gamaliel read this verse he wept, saying, 'Only he who does all these things shall live, but not merely one of them!' Thereupon R. Akiba said to him, 'If so, Defile not yourselves in all these things.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Lev. XVIII, 24. ');">¹⁸</span> is the prohibition against all [combined] only, but not against one?' [Surely not!] But it means, in one of these things; so here too, for doing one of these things [shall he live]. IF HE COMMITTED ONE SIN FOR WHICH A TWOFOLD DEATH PENALTY IS INCURRED, etc. It has been taught: When did R. Jose rule, HE IS JUDGED ACCORDING TO THE FIRST INTERDICT WHICH LAY UPON HIM? E.g., if a woman was first interdicted as a mother-in-law<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' I.e., if one marries a widow's daughter, so that the widow is forbidden to him only as a mother-in-law. ');">¹⁹</span> and then became a married women, he is judged [for incest with her] as for his mother-in-law only. If she was first forbidden to him as a married woman and then became his mother-in-law, he is punished for a married woman.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Because R. Jose maintains that a second prohibition cannot become operative where one is already in existence. Adultery with a married woman is punished by strangling; incest with one's mother-in-law by burning. ');">²⁰</span> R. Adda b. Ahaba said to Raba: 'If she was first his mother-in-law and then became a married woman, he is judged as for his mother-in-law only'; but should he also not be punished for the interdict attaching to her as a married woman? For R. Abbahu said: R. Jose agrees in regard to a more extensive prohibition [that it becomes operative where a prohibition already exists].<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' As his mother-in-law she was forbidden to him only; on remarriage, the prohibition was extended to all men. Since the second prohibition is thus wider in scope than the first, it is operative even where the first already exists. ');">²¹</span>

Explore commentary for Sanhedrin 161:14. In-depth commentary and analysis from classical Jewish sources.