כא כאן באונסין כאן בנשואין
21 In order to intimate that he is guilty on account of both his sister and his father's wife's daughter. And R. Jose son of R. Judah? — Scripture stated, She is thy sister,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Lev. XVIII, 11. ');"><sup>19</sup></span> you can hold him guilty on account of his sister, but you cannot hold him guilty for his father's wife's daughter. And to what do the Rabbis apply the expression, 'She is thy sister'? — They require it [for the deduction] that a man is guilty on account of his sister who is the daughter of his father and the daughter of his mother,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Who was not his father's lawful wife; in the case, for instance, when he and his sister were born from one whom their father had outraged. This case could not be deduced from Lev. XVIII, 9, since the sister born as a result of outrage,' spoken of there, is one who is the daughter of the father or of the mother, while the expression Thy father's wife's daughter refers to one born from a lawful marriage. ');"><sup>20</sup></span> thus indicating that no prohibition<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Such, e.g.. as intercourse with a sister born from the same woman whom their father had outraged. ');"><sup>21</sup></span> may be deduced by logical argument.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' If a sister who is the daughter of only one of his parents is forbidden, how much more so a sister who is the daughter of both his parents. V. Mak., Sonc. ed. pp. 18 and 26. ');"><sup>22</sup></span> And R. Jose son of R. Judah?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' How does he meet the argument of the Rabbis? ');"><sup>23</sup></span> -If so, the All Merciful should have written 'thy sister', what need was there for 'she is'? To indicate that you may hold him guilty on account of 'thy sister' but you cannot hold him guilty on account of 'his father's wife's daughter'. And the Rabbis? Although 'thy sister' was written, It was also necessary to write 'she is'; in order that no one should suggest that elsewhere a prohibition may be deduced by logical argument and that the All Merciful has written here, 'thy sister<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Lit., 'and if you would say what need was there for " thy="" sister"="" what="" the="" all="" merciful="" has="" written'.="" ');"=""><sup>24</sup></span> because Scripture takes the trouble to write down any law that may be deduced a minori ad majus; hence did the All Merciful write 'she is'.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Only she is, i.e., only in this case, where Scripture had explicitly stated it, is the prohibition in force; but elsewhere, where Scripture has not explicitly stated the prohibition, the inference a minori ad majus cannot bring a prohibition into force. ');"><sup>25</sup></span> And R. Jose son of R. Judah? — If so, the All Merciful should have written [the expression], 'She is 'thy sister' in the other verse.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' In Lev. XVIII, 9' which speaks of a sister born from a woman his father had outraged. Since, however, it was inserted in v. 11 which speaks of a sister born from a marriage it must have been meant to imply. as R. Jose said supra, that one 'is only guilty of incest with his sister but not with that of the daughter of his father's wife'. ');"><sup>26</sup></span> And to what does R. Jose son of R. Judah apply the phrase Thy father's wife's daughter?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Lev. XVIII, II. ');"><sup>27</sup></span> — He requires it for [the deduction]: Only she with whom your father can enter Into marital relationship, but a sister born from a slave or a heathen<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' The betrothal of either of whom is not considered valid. ');"><sup>28</sup></span> is excluded, since your father cannot enter with her into marital relationship.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' V. Kid. 68a. ');"><sup>29</sup></span> Might it not be said to exclude a sister born from one whom his father had outraged? — You cannot say this owing to Raba's statement. For Raba pointed out a contradiction: It is written In Scripture, The nakedness of thy son's daughter, or of thy daughter's daughter, even their nakedness thou shalt not uncover,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Lev. Xviii, 10. ');"><sup>30</sup></span> thus it follows that her<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' One's wife's. ');"><sup>31</sup></span> son's daughter and her daughter's daughter are permitted; but [below] it is written, Thou shalt not uncover the nakedness of a woman and her daughter; [thou shalt not take] her son's daughter or her daughter's daughter.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Lev. XVIII, 17. ');"><sup>32</sup></span> How then [are these to be reconciled]? The one<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Lit., 'here'; Lev. XVIII. 10. ');"><sup>33</sup></span> refers to a case of outrage,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' In which case a man may not marry the daughter of his own son or the daughter of his own daughter, and may marry the daughter of the son or the daughter of the daughter whom the outraged woman had from another husband; since he himself is not her lawful husband. As in the case of one's own son and one's own daughter, though the offspring of a woman he outraged, they are legally regarded as son and daughter. so is the sisterhood and brotherhood of such children regarded as legal. ');"><sup>34</sup></span> the other<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Lev. XVIII, 17. ');"><sup>32</sup></span> to that of lawful marriage.