אי משום פצוע דכא לאו שיורא דהא תנא ליה חייבי לאוין
[our Mishnah] should also have taught: If an Egyptian of the second generatlon married two Egyptian women, one of the first, and the other of the second generation, and he had sons from the first and from the second, [the wives of these sons], if they<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' The sons.
');"><sup>13</sup></span> married in the proper manner,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' I.e., if the son of the Egyptian of the second generation, who thus belongs to the third and is permitted to enter the assembly (v. Deut. XXIII, 9), married the daughter of an Israelite; while the other who belongs to the second generation married an Egyptian of the second generation.
');"><sup>14</sup></span>
Sefer HaChinukh
From the laws of the commandment is that which they, may their memory be blessed, said (Kiddushin 78a) that there is no liability for lashes until he has intercourse. But [if] he married her and did not have intercourse, he is not lashed - as there is no liability for lashes without intercourse. And [both] he and her are lashed; and that which they, may their memory be blessed, said (Yevamot 84b), "Fitting women are not [prohibited] from marrying disqualified men," is not from this matter at all - and we will explain the thing below on this page. As this one who has had intercourse with someone to whom she is forbidden, is also included in the obligation - and like the matter that they, may their memory be blessed, said that there is no difference between a woman and a man regarding all of the punishments of the Torah, except for the designated maidservant, [about] which I have written above in the Order of Vayikra in the commandment of a definite guilt-offering (Sefer HaChinukh 129).
Ask RabbiBookmarkShareCopy
