Commentary for Yevamot 183:18

האי תנא הך תנא דר"ע הוא דאמר מחייבי לאוין דשאר הוי ממזר מחייבי לאוין גרידי לא הוי ממזר אמר רב יהודה

FROM A MAN WHO IS NOT HER HUSBAND.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' The divorce being unnecessary it has no effect on the status of the woman. ');">⁵⁹</span> <b><i>GEMARA</i></b>. What is meant by BEFORE<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' In the first clauses of our Mishnah. ');">⁶⁰</span> and what is meant by AFTER?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Lit., 'what is first and what is last'. ');">⁶¹</span> If it be suggested that BEFORE means before the [second] report and that AFTER means after that report, it should have been stated: The child is a bastard!<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Since the child's legitimacy is not determined by the date of the report but by the facts. ');">⁶²</span> Because it was desired to state in the final clause, IF SHE WAS TOLD, 'YOUR HUSBAND IS DEAD', AND SHE MARRIED, AND AFTERWARDS SHE WAS TOLD, 'HE WAS ALIVE BUT IS NOW DEAD&nbsp;… ANY CHILD BORN BEFORE<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Lit., 'the first'. ');">⁶³</span> [THE DEATH OF HER FIRST HUSBAND] IS A BASTARD, BUT ONE BORN AFTER IT<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Lit., 'and the last'. ');">⁶⁴</span> IS NO BASTARD, the expressions BORN BEFORE OR AFTER IS A BASTARD were used in the first clause also. Our Rabbis taught: This<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' The statement in the first clause of our Mishnah that the child is a bastard. ');">⁶⁵</span> is the view of R. Akiba who stated: Betrothal with those who are subject [on intercourse] to the penalties of a negative commandment is invalid.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' V. supra 10b. And no divorce is consequently required. ');">⁶⁶</span> The Sages, however, said that [the child] of a sister-in-law<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Who married a stranger before she had performed halizah with the levir. ');">⁶⁷</span> is no bastard.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Tosef. XI. Since such marriage is forbidden by a negative precept only, and is not subject to kareth. ');">⁶⁸</span> Let it be said: The child of a union between those who are subject [on intercourse] to the penalties of a negative precept is no bastard!<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' This more general statement would have also included the particular case of the sister-inlaw mentioned. ');">⁶⁹</span> — This Tanna<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Referred to in the Baraitha cited as 'the Sages'. ');">⁷⁰</span> is the following Tanna of the school of R. Akiba, who stated that [only a child] of a union that is subject to the penalties of a negative precept owing to consanguinity is a bastard, but one born from a union that is subject to the penalties of a mere negative precept<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' The marriage, for instance, of the sister-in-law to a stranger. The general statement (v. supra note 7) was consequently inadmissible. ');">⁷¹</span> is no bastard. Rab Judah stated

Explore commentary for Yevamot 183:18. In-depth commentary and analysis from classical Jewish sources.