Yevamot 97

Chapter 97

א <big><strong>מתני׳</strong></big> איזהו ממזר כל שאר בשר שהוא בלא יבא דברי ר"ע שמעון התימני אומר כל שחייבים עליו כרת בידי שמים והלכה כדבריו ורבי יהושע אומר כל שחייבין עליו מיתת בית דין
1 <b><i>MISHNAH</i></b>. WHO IS DEEMED TO BE A BASTARD?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' V. Deut. XXIII, 2. ');"><sup>1</sup></span> [THE OFFSPRING OF A UNION WITH] ANY CONSANGUINEOUS RELATIVE WITH WHOM COHABITATION IS FORBIDDEN;<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Under the penalty of flogging (incurred for the infringement of a negative precept). ');"><sup>2</sup></span> THIS IS THE RULING OF R. AKIBA. SIMEON THE TEMANITE SAID: [THE OFFSPRING OF ANY UNION] THE PENALTY FOR WHICH IS <i>KARETH</i> AT THE HANDS OF HEAVEN; AND THE <i>HALACHAH</i> IS IN AGREEMENT WITH HIS VIEW, AND R. JOSHUA SAID: [THE OFFSPRING OF ANY UNION]. THE PENALTY FOR WHICH IS DEATH AT THE HANDS OF <i>BETH DIN</i>.
ב אמר רבי שמעון בן עזאי מצאתי מגלת יוחסין בירושלים וכתוב בה איש פלוני ממזר מאשת איש לקיים דברי רבי יהושע
2 SAID R. SIMEON B. 'AZZAI: I FOUND A ROLL OF GENEALOGICAL RECORDS IN JERUSALEM, AND THEREIN WAS WRITTEN, SO-AND-SO IS A BASTARD [HAVING BEEN BORN] FROM [A FORBIDDEN UNION WITH] A MARRIED WOMAN',<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Such a union is punishable by death at the hands of Beth din, ');"><sup>3</sup></span> WHICH CONFIRMS THE VIEW OF R. JOSHUA. IF A MAN'S WIFE DIED, HE IS PERMITTED TO MARRY HER SISTER. IF HE DIVORCED HER AND THEN SHE DIED HE IS PERMITTED TO MARRY HER SISTER. IF SHE WAS<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' After her divorce. ');"><sup>4</sup></span>
ג אשתו שמתה מותר באחותה גרשה ומתה מותר באחותה נשאת לאחר ומתה מותר באחותה יבמתו שמתה מותר באחותה חלץ לה ומתה מותר באחותה נשאת לאחר ומתה מותר באחותה:
3 MARRIED TO ANOTHER MAN AND DIED, HE IS PERMITTED TO MARRY HER SISTER. IF A MAN'S SISTER-IN-LAW<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' The widow of his brother who died without issue. ');"><sup>5</sup></span> DIED, HE MAY MARRY HER SISTER. IF HE SUBMITTED TO HER <i>HALIZAH</i> AND THEN SHE DIED, HE IS PERMITTED TO MARRY HER SISTER. IF SHE WAS MARRIED<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' After the halizah. ');"><sup>6</sup></span>
ד <big><strong>גמ׳</strong></big> מ"ט דרבי עקיבא דכתיב (דברים כג, א) לא יקח איש את אשת אביו ולא יגלה כנף אביו כנף שראה אביו לא יגלה
4 TO ANOTHER MAN AND THEN DIED HE IS PERMITTED TO MARRY HER SISTER. <b><i>GEMARA</i></b>. What is R. Akiba's reason? — Because it is written A man shall not take his father's wife and shall not uncover his father's skirt,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Deut. XXIII, 1. ');"><sup>7</sup></span> he shall not uncover the skirt which his father saw; and he<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' R. Akiba. ');"><sup>8</sup></span>
ה וסבר לה כר' יהודה דאמר באנוסת אביו הכתוב מדבר דהויא לה חייבי לאוין
5 holds the same opinion as R. Judah who said that this Scriptural text<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Deut. XXIII, 1. ');"><sup>7</sup></span> speaks of a woman whom his father had outraged,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Not his lawful wife. Infra 97a. ');"><sup>9</sup></span> and who is classed among those forbidden to him under the penalty for a negative precept;<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Flogging (v. supra note 1). ');"><sup>10</sup></span>
ו וסמיך ליה (דברים כג, ג) לא יבא ממזר בקהל ה' אלמא מהני הוי ממזר
6 and since close to this [text occurs the commandment], A bastard shall not enter the assembly of the Lord,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Deut. XXIII, 3. ');"><sup>11</sup></span> it is obvious that the offspring of any such union<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Forbidden under the penalty for a negative precept (v. supra p. 321, n. 1). ');"><sup>12</sup></span> is deemed to be a bastard. According to R. Simai also who includes<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' In R. Akiba's category of bastards. ');"><sup>13</sup></span>
ז ולרבי סימאי דמרבה שאר חייבי לאוין דלאו דשאר ולרבי ישבב דמרבה אפילו חייבי עשה
7 [the offspring of] any other union that is forbidden by a negative precept even though [the offenders are] not consanguineous relatives,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Keth, 29b, Kid. 68a, the marriage, e.g., with one's divorced wife. ');"><sup>14</sup></span> and according to R. Yeshebab who includes<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' In R. Akiba's category of bastards. ');"><sup>13</sup></span> even the offspring of a union forbidden under a positive commandment,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' The union, e.g., with an Edomite or an Egyptian (v. Deut. XXIII, 8-9) the prohibition of which is derived from the positive precept. The third generation that are born unto then, may enter into the assembly of the Lord (ibid. 9) from which it follows that only the third generation may enter; but not the first, or the second generation. Any prohibition that is derived from a positive precept has only the force of a positive precept and dues not involve the penalty of flogging, much less that of kareth. V. Keth. 29b. ');"><sup>15</sup></span>
ח נפקא להו מולא
8 the deduction<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' That these categories are also classed as bastards. ');"><sup>16</sup></span> is made from And&nbsp;… not.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Deut. XXIII, 1b. ');"><sup>17</sup></span> And Simeon the Temanite?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Whence, in view of R. Akiba's deduction, dues he derive his ruling in our Mishnah? ');"><sup>18</sup></span>
ט ושמעון התימני סבר לה כרבנן דאמרי בשומרת יבם של אביו הכתוב מדבר דהויא לה חייבי כריתות וסמיך ליה לא יבא ממזר אלמא מחייבי כריתות הוי ממזר
9 — He holds the same opinion as the Rabbis who stated that the text<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Deut. XXIII, 1b. ');"><sup>17</sup></span> speaks of a woman<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Whose husband died without issue. ');"><sup>19</sup></span> awaiting the levirate decision of his father,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Who most decide whether to contract with her the levirate marriage or to submit to halizah from her. ');"><sup>20</sup></span>
י ורבי יהושע לכתוב רחמנא לא יגלה לא יקח (ולא יגלה) למה לי אלא לאו הכי קאמר מלא יקח עד לא יגלה הוי ממזר טפי לא הוי ממזר
10 the union with such a woman<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' As one's father's brother's wife. ');"><sup>21</sup></span> being forbidden under the penalty of <i>kareth</i>; and since close to this text appears. A bastard shall not enter,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Deut. XXIII, 3. ');"><sup>11</sup></span> it proves that the offspring of a union forbidden under the penalty of <i>kareth</i> is deemed to be a bastard.
יא אמר אביי הכל מודים בבא על הנדה
11 And R. Joshua?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Whence does he derive his ruling in out Mishnah? ');"><sup>22</sup></span> — The All Merciful should have written<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' If the text of Deut. XXIII, 1b speaks of a woman outraged by one's father (as R. Judah maintains) or of a widow awaiting the decision of the levir (as Simeon the Temanite asserts). ');"><sup>23</sup></span> 'Shall not uncover' only!<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' From which text alone R. Judah and the Rabbis could have deduced their respective rulings, while the case of one's father's wife would follow logically by inference a minori ad majus. ');"><sup>24</sup></span> What need was there for 'Shall not take'?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Cf. Rashal. Cur. edd. insert in parentheses, 'And shall not uncover. ');"><sup>25</sup></span> Must it not, consequently. be concluded that it is this that was meant:<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' By the addition of the text Shall not take. ');"><sup>26</sup></span> [The offspring] of [a union with her who is explicitly mentioned between] 'Shall not take' and 'Shall not uncover'<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' I.e., one's father's wife, forbidden under the death penalty at the hands of Beth din. ');"><sup>27</sup></span> is deemed to be a bastard, but no others<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' The offspring of unions which are forbidden under the penalty of kareth or flogging. ');"><sup>28</sup></span> are to be regarded as bastards.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' The proximity of Deut, XXIII, 3 (the text relating to the bastard) to that of v. 1, according to R. Joshua, beats on the case of a father's wife only (v. 2a). The mention of 'shall not uncover' (v. 1b) implies, if it refers to one's father's brother's widow awaiting the levir's decision (the view of the Rabbis and Simeon the Temanite), that cohabitation with her is forbidden to the levir's sun by two negative precepts, those of Lev. XVIII, 24 and Deut. XXIII, 1b; and if it refers to a woman whom one's father has outraged (the view of R. Akiba and R. Judah). the text is required to lay down this very prohibition. ');"><sup>29</sup></span> Abaye said: All agree that if one cohabited with a menstruant
Previous ChapterNext Chapter