Commentary for Yevamot 112:2

מאי וכן מאי לאו לא שנא בשוגג ולא שנא במזיד ולא שנא באונס ולא שנא ברצון וקתני פסלה

SIMILARLY, IF A MAN HAD INTERCOURSE WITH ANY OF THE FORBIDDEN RELATIVES ENUMERATED IN THE TORAH, OR WITH ANY OF THOSE WHO ARE INELIGIBLE TO MARRY HIM; now, what is the purport of SIMILARLY? Does it not mean, WHETHER IN ERROR OR IN PRESUMPTION, WHETHER UNDER COMPULSION OR OF HIS OWN FREE WILL? And yet it was stated, HE HAS THEREBY RENDERED HER INELIGIBLE'.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' To marry a priest. Since a married woman is subject to the same restrictions as the 'forbidden relatives', she being included in the penalty of incestuous unions in Lev. XVIII (v. verse 20), it follows that whatever renders the forbidden relatives in our Mishnah ineligible to marry a priest renders a married woman also ineligible. As 'outrage' or 'intercourse under compulsion' is included, our Mishnah must be in agreement with the ruling of R. Shesheth. ');">⁴</span> — No; SIMILARLY might refer<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Lit., 'what'. ');">⁵</span> to the FIRST STAGE.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' I.e., as in the previously mentioned cases so in the following, the first stage has the same force as consummation. The ineligibility of an outraged woman, therefore, does not at all come within the purview of our Mishnah. ');">⁶</span>

Explore commentary for Yevamot 112:2. In-depth commentary and analysis from classical Jewish sources.