Halakhah for Sanhedrin 105:21

מתיב רב אושעיא איסור מצוה ואיסור קדושה חולצות ולא מתייבמות

OR FROMNESU'IN.18 HE WHO COMMITS INCEST WITHHIS DAUGHTER-IN-LAW INCURS A PENALTY IN RESPECT OF HER BOTH AS HISDAUGHTER-IN-LAW AND AS A MARRIED WOMAN. [HE IS GUILTY IN RESPECT OF THE FORMER]BOTH DURING HIS SON'S LIFETIME AND AFTER HIS DEATH, WHETHER SHE WAS WIDOWEDFROM ERUSIN OR FROM NESU'IN. GEMARA. It has been taught: R. Judah said: Ifhis mother was unfit for his father, he is guilty only in respect of hermaternal relationship to him. What is meant by unfit for him? Shall we say,forbidden to him on pain ofextermination20 or death inflictedby the Beth din? This would prove that theRabbis21 hold that even for such heincurs a twofold penalty. But how so, seeing that his father cannot be legallymarried to her at all?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Lit., 'he has no claim of kiddushin in her regard'. Kiddushin (marriage betrothal) is invalid when contracted between parties forbidden to each other under such severe penalties. Consequently, she is not his wife, and her son, in committing incest, does not transgress the interdict attaching to one's father's wife. ');">22 — Henceit must refer to a woman who is forbidden to him in virtue of a negativeprecept,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Which carries with it the penalty of flogging, but not of death or extermination; e.g. a bastard or a nathin or a divorcee in respect of a priest. The Sages maintain that in such cases kiddushin, though forbidden, is valid if contracted. ');">23 R. Judah agreeing withR. Akiba, who holds that Kiddushin is not valid between those who are interdictedto each other by a negative command. R. Oshaia objected: [We have learnt:] A woman who is forbidden [to her deceasedhusband's brother] by a positive precept, or on the score of sanctity, mustperform the halizah ceremony,24 butmay not marry her brother-in-law.

Sefer HaChinukh

From the laws of the commandment is that which they, may their memory be blessed, said (Sanhedrin 53a) that the wife of his father is forbidden by Torah writ, whether [she is his wife by virtue of] betrothal - the understanding of which is kiddushin (designation) - or from marriage; whether in the lifetime of his father and even if he divorced her, or after his death. And so [too,] that which they forbade (Yevamot 21a) the wife of his father's father - meaning to say the wife of his grandfather - even though she is not his grandmother, to make a fence for this prohibition. And so [too,] did they also forbid the wife of the father of his grandfather and so [too,] the wife of the father of the mother of his grandfather, and likewise going way back, even to Yaakov. And they also forbade just the wife of the father of his mother, as a fence for this prohibition. And the reason is because the essence of this prohibition is from the side of the father - meaning the wife of the father. Therefore they, may their memory be blessed, were more stringent with the side of the fathers and said that it be forbidden going way back forever; but from the side of the mother they only decreed just with the wife of the father of the mother. And this is similar to the distinction that we wrote above with the prohibition of the mother. And the rest of its details are in the places that we will write below (Sefer HaChinukh 211) at the end of the Order (see Tur, Even HaEzer 21). And this is from the sexual prohibitions that all people of the world were prohibited more generally. But there is a distinction between Israel and the rest of the nations - as with the rest of the nations, [one] is only called the wife of the father by way of intercourse, but with Israel, even by way of designation; and likewise regarding the secondary ones, as there is no prohibition of the secondary ones among the nations, as we said.

Ask RabbiBookmarkShareCopy

Previous Verse Full Chapter Next Verse