יד איבעית אימא משום דמוכח דאם כן לכתביה רחמנא גבי עריות ואיבעית אימא משום דמופני דאם כן לכתוב רחמנא לא יקח איש את אשת אביו לא יגלה כנף אביו למה לי
14 the 'skirt' which his father saw he shall not uncover. And whence is it inferred that this is written with reference to an outraged woman? — From the preceding section of the text where it is written, Then the man that lay with her shall give unto the damsel's father fifty <i>shekels</i> of silver<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Deut. XXII, 29. ');"><sup>24</sup></span> near which it is stated, A man shall not take etc.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Deut. XXIII, 1. ');"><sup>25</sup></span> And the Rabbis?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Represented by the view of the first Tanna who differs from R. Judah. How do they, in view of R. Judah's exposition, allow the marriage of a woman outraged or seduced by one's father? ');"><sup>26</sup></span> — If one text had occurred in close proximity to the other the exposition would have been justified;<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Lit., 'as you said'. ');"><sup>27</sup></span> now, however, that it does not occur in close proximity<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Cur. edd. contain within parentheses: 'Since the text, A man shall not take his father's wife is written between them'. ');"><sup>28</sup></span> [it must be concluded that] the context speaks of a woman who is awaiting the decision of the levir<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Whether he will marry her or consent to halizah. ');"><sup>29</sup></span> and that, [in marrying such a woman, a son]<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Of the levir for whose decision the woman is waiting. ');"><sup>30</sup></span> transgresses two negative precepts.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Infra 97a. One is that of marrying a woman who is virtually his father's wife being subject still to the levirate marriage, and the other is that of marrying an aunt, the wife of his father's deceased brother. ');"><sup>31</sup></span> And what is the reason why [R. Judah] derives laws [from the proximity of texts] in Deuteronomy? — If you wish I might say: Because [there the deduction]<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' From the proximity of the texts. ');"><sup>32</sup></span> is obvious; and if you prefer I might say: Because [there the text] is superfluous.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Lit., 'free', 'disengaged'. i.e., unnecessary for the contexts and consequently free for interpretation and exposition. ');"><sup>33</sup></span> 'If you prefer I might say: Because [there the deduction] is obvious', for, otherwise,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Lit., 'if so', i.e., if the text was meant to convey its plain meaning only. ');"><sup>34</sup></span> the All Merciful should have written the prohibition in the section of forbidden relatives. 'And if you prefer I might say: Because [there the text] is superfluous', for otherwise<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Cf. previous note. ');"><sup>35</sup></span> the All Merciful should have written, A man shall not take his father's wife.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Deut. XXIII, 1. ');"><sup>25</sup></span> what need was there for adding,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Lit., 'wherefore to me'. ');"><sup>36</sup></span> And shall not uncover his father's skirt?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Deut. XXIII, 1. ');"><sup>25</sup></span>