הא כיצד נשא אחותו מן האם יוציא מן האב יקיים אחות האב מן האם יוציא מן האב יקיים
possesses kin on his mother's side but not on his father's side. E.g., if he married his sister by his mother, [born before his mother's conversion, and who subsequently became converted too,] he must divorce her; by his father, he may keep her; his father's sister by his father's mother, he must divorce her; by his father's father, he may keep her; his mother's sister by her mother, he must renounce her; by her father — R. Meir ruled that he must divorce her, but the Sages maintained that he may keep her; for R. Meir held that all forbidden degrees of consanguinity on the mother's side must be divorced; on the father's side may be kept.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' The guiding principal in all this is: 'a proselyte is as a new born babe', who stands absolutely in no relationship to any pre-conversion relation. Consequently, his brothers and sisters, father, mother, etc. from before his conversion lose his relationship on his conversion. Should they too subsequently become converted, they are regarded as strangers to him, and he might marry, e.g., his mother or sister. This is the Biblical law. But since heathens themselves recognised the law of incest in respect of maternal relations, the Rabbis decreed that this should hold good for a proselyte too, i.e., that he is forbidden to marry his maternal relations who were forbidden to him before his conversion, so that it should not be said that he abandoned a faith with a higher degree of sanctity than the one he has embraced (since he cannot be expected to understand the principle of complete annulment of relationships). In this case, since he was born in sanctity, he is really not a proselyte at all. He is so styled because he too is legally a stranger to all his father's and mother's pre-conversion relations. As for his mother's paternal sister, R. Meir held that since she is partly maternally related, she is forbidden, as otherwise it would be thought that a proselyte is permitted to marry his maternal relations. But the Rabbis held that there was no fear of this, and since the relationship is in its source paternal, it is not forbidden.
');"><sup>2</sup></span>
Sefer HaChinukh
And it is practiced in every place and at all times by males and females. All people of the world are also obligated about it, since it is a branch of the commandment [against] theft, which is one of the seven commandments that all people of the world were commanded. And do not err, my son, with this well-known tally of the seven commandments of the Noachides mentioned in the Talmud (Sanhedrin 56b); as truthfully these seven are [only] like general principles, but they have many details. So you will find that the prohibition of sexual immorality is considered for them to be one commandment as a general principle, but there are details in it; such as the prohibition of the mother, and the prohibition of the sister from the mother's side, and the prohibition of a married woman, and the wife of the father, and the male, and the animal (Sanhedrin 58a). And so [too,] the matter of idolatry is all considered one commandment for them, but there are many, many details; as behold, they are the same regarding it as Israel, since they are liable for everything that an Israelite court would kill about (Sanhedrin 56b). And so too can we say that since they are warned about the matter of theft, that they were also warned about all of its distancings. And my intention is not to say that they are warned about this with a negative commandment like Israel. Rather, they were warned about it more generally in these seven. It is as if you would say, for example, that Scripture warned them, "Each man, shall not come close to the flesh of his relatives; to the mother, to the sister and to all of the family." And so too also with idolatry [that the command be] in general. And so with theft, [it is] as if it was stated to them, "You shall not steal, but distance yourselves from it completely" - and within the distancing is not to covet. But the matter is not like this with Israel, as the Omnipresent wanted to bring them merit, and [so] he multiplied the commandments for them, more than for [the gentiles]; and also in those that we were commanded, He commanded upon them with separate positive commandments and negative commandments - as every one that does one commandment acquires one defender for himself. And the one who transgresses this and fixes his thought to desire that which is of someone else transgresses this negative commandment. But there are no lashes for it, as there is no act [connected with it], yet his punishment is very great; as it is a cause for several mishaps, as is well-known [from] the story of Achav and Navot.
Ask RabbiBookmarkShareCopy
