Sanhedrin 106

איסור מצוה שניות מדברי סופרים ואמאי קרו להו איסור מצוה שמצוה לשמוע דברי חכמים

When R. Isaac came,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' From Palestine to Babylon. With the decay of the Palestinian academies in the fourth century, many scholars emigrated from Palestine. These brought with them traditional teachings of the Tannaim. ');">⁷</span>

איסור קדושה אלמנה לכהן גדול גרושה וחלוצה לכהן הדיוט ואמאי קרו להו איסור קדושה דכתיב (ויקרא כא, ו) קדושים יהיו לאלהיהם

he taught as wehave learnt [in our Mishnah]: R. Judah said, he incurs guilt only on accountof her maternal relationship tohim.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' In all cases, not, as stated in the Baraitha, only when she is forbidden to his father. ');">⁸</span>

ותניא עלה רבי יהודה מחליף

Now why is this? — Abaye said:Scripture saith, The nakedness of thy father, or the nakedness of thy mother,shalt thou not uncover, she is thymother.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Lev. XVIII, 7. ');">⁹</span>

חלופי הוא דמחליף הא חליצה בעיא ואי סלקא דעתך ר' יהודה כר' עקיבא סבירא ליה מכדי חייבי לאוין לרבי עקיבא כחייבי כריתות דמי וחייבי כריתות לאו בני חליצה ויבום נינהו

[This teaches:] You mustpunish him for maternal incest, but not for incest with his father's wife.If so, what of the verse, The nakedness of thy father's wife shalt thou notuncover: It is thy father'snakedness?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Ibid. 8. ');">¹⁰</span>

לדבריו דתנא קמא קאמר וליה לא סבירא ליה

Does it not imply, youmay penalise him for incest with his father's wife, but not for maternalincest? In that case, if she is both his mother and his father's wife, oneverse implies the exclusion of maternal incest [as the incriminating offence]— and the other excludes incest with his father's wife [aspunishable].<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Thus leaving no grounds for punishment at all. Or, as Rashi prefers, though admitting that this is undoubtedly punishable, the two verses contradict each other as to the grounds of punishment. On this interpretation, Rashi omits the following passage, 'Now&nbsp;… at all'. ');">¹¹</span>

כי אתא רבי יצחק תני כדתנן רבי יהודה אומר אינו חייב אלא משום האם בלבד

Now if he is punishedfor incest with his mother, even when not his father's wife, and with hisfather's wife, though not his mother-shall we say that when she is both hismother and his father's wife, he incurs no penalty at all? A further difficultyis this: Do not the Rabbis admit the existence of this verse, 'she is thymother'?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' I.e., of course they do, yet they do not agree with R. Judah's view. ');">¹²</span>

וטעמא מאי אמר אביי דאמר קרא (ויקרא יח, ז) אמך היא משום אמו אתה מחייבו ואי אתה מחייבו משום אשת אב

But they interpret it asteaching the law deduced by R. Shisha, the son of R.Iddi;<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' This is given further on. ');">¹³</span>

אלא מעתה (ויקרא יח, ח) ערות אשת אביך לא תגלה ערות אביך היא משום אשת אב אתה מחייבו ואי אתה מחייבו משום אמו

in that case, R. Judah mustalso utilise it for the samepurpose.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Thus the question remains, what is R. Judah's reason? ');">¹⁴</span>

אלא אמו שהיא אשת אביו קאי הכא וממעט לה קאי הכא וממעט לה השתא אמו שאינה אשת אביו מיחייב אשת אביו שאינה אמו מיחייב אמו שהיא אשת אביו לא מיחייב כלל

But R. Aha the son of Ikasaid thus: The Writ sayeth: [she is thy mother: thou shalt not uncover] hernakedness.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Ibid. ');">¹⁵</span>

ותו לרבנן נמי הכתיב אמך היא אלא ההוא מיבעי ליה לכדרב שישא בריה דרב אידי לרבי יהודה נמי ההוא מיבעי ליה לכדרב שישא בריה דרב אידי

This teaches: You maypenalise him for one degree of 'nakedness', but not for twodegrees,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Where a woman stands in a dual relationship of consanguinity, a penalty is incurred only in respect of one. ');">¹⁶</span>

אלא אמר רב אחא בריה דרב איקא אמר קרא ערותה משום ערוה אחת אתה מחייבו ואי אתה מחייבו משום שתי ערות

If so, what of the verse:Thou shalt not uncover the nakedness of thy daughter-in-law: She is thy son'swife: thou shalt not uncover hernakedness?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Ibid. XVIII, 15. ');">¹⁷</span>

אלא מעתה (ויקרא יח, טו) ערות כלתך לא תגלה אשת בנך היא לא תגלה ערותה הכי נמי משום ערוה אחת אתה מחייבו ואי אתה מחייבו משום שתי ערות

Does this too teach:You may penalise him for one degree of 'nakedness', but not for two? Butwe have learnt: HE WHO COMMITS INCEST WITH HIS DAUGHTER-IN-LAW INCURS A PENALTYIN RESPECT OF HER BOTH AS HIS DAUGHTER-IN-LAW AND AS A MARRIED WOMAN. (HEIS GUILTY IN RESPECT OF HER BOTH DURING HIS SON'S LIFETIME AND AFTER HISDEATH); and R. Judah does not dispute this! But since she is but one person,though forbidden in a double capacity, the Writ saith, 'her nakedness'[singular]: here too then, [in the case of one's mother who is also the father'swife] since she is one person, even if she were doubly forbidden, the Writsaith: 'her nakedness'.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' I.e., the use of the singular cannot teach that a penalty can be imposed only for one degree of consanguinity. ');">¹⁸</span>

והתנן הבא על כלתו חייב עליה משום כלתו ומשום אשת איש בין בחיי בנו בין לאחר מיתת בנו ולא פליג ר' יהודה

— But Rabaanswered thus: R. Judah maintains that the nakedness of thy father [thoushalt not uncover], means thy father's wife, deducing this by a gezerahshawah,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' As shewn further on. ');">¹⁹</span>

אלא כיון דחד גופא הוא אע"ג דתרי איסורי נינהו כתיב ערותה הכא נמי כיון דחד גופא הוא אע"ג דתרי איסורי נינהו כתיב ערותה

and it applies to her whethershe is his mother or not; whence do we know then that one's mother who isnot his father's wife is likewise forbidden? — From the verse, the nakednessof thy mother shalt thou not uncover. [Hence the phrase,] 'she is thy mother'teaches that he is guilty only on account of her maternal relationship, butnot because she is his father'swife.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Thus, Raba agrees with Abaye that R. Judah's reason is the limitation implied in the phrase 'she is thy mother'. But he disposes of the consequent difficulty. viz., that of the verse, it is thy father's nakedness in the following way: The dictum, The nakedness of thy father shalt thou not uncover, refers to his father's wife, whether his mother or not; and so far, (without an additional limiting phrase) it is implied that in both cases the interdict is on account of paternal, not maternal consanguinity. Hence, when the following verse states, (The nakedness of thy father's wife thou shalt not uncover:) it is thy father's nakedness, it cannot mean that guilt is incurred only on account of paternal, but not maternal relationship, since that has already been implied in the preceding verse, the nakedness of thy father&nbsp;… shalt thou not uncover. Therefore the limitation undoubtedly intended by the latter verse must be otherwise interpreted. (This is done further on.) Now, since the nakedness of thy father should imply that whether she is his mother or not he is penalised on account of paternal consanguinity, it follows that when the same verse inserts a limiting clause, 'she is thy mother', the limitation must apply to that which has already been expressed, viz., that the father's wife, if also one's mother, is forbidden on account of maternal, not paternal, consanguinity. This is more fully explained in the next passage. ');">²⁰</span>

אלא אמר רבא קסבר ר' יהודה ערות אביך זו אשת אביך ומייתי לה בגזירה שוה

ומשמע בין אשת אביו שהיא אמו בין אשת אביו שאינה אמו אמו שאינה אשת אביו מניין ת"ל ערות אמך לא תגלה אמך היא משום אמו אתה מחייבו ואי אתה מחייבו משום אשת אביו