MISHNAH: One may marry [relatives of] a rape victim or a seduced woman. He who rapes or seduces [a relative of] a married woman is guilty. A person may marry his father’s rape victim or seduced woman, his son’s rape victim or seduced woman. Rebbi Jehudah prohibits his father’s rape victim or seduced woman. 23:1 : “Nobody may marry his father’s wife, and he should not uncover his father’s garment’s corner” as one prohibition; R. Jehudah reads the second clause as referring to women with whom his father has extramarital relations. .
HALAKHAH: “One may marry [relatives of] a rape victim or a seduced woman,” etc. So is the Mishnah: One may marry after a rape victim or seduced woman. If he raped a woman, her mother is permitted; if he seduced a woman, her daughter is permitted in Babli 97a . .
“He who rapes or seduces [a relative of] a married woman is guilty.” Rebbi Joḥanan said, one stated this for marriage. If he married a woman and then raped her mother, he is guilty. If he married a woman and then seduced her daughter, he is guilty.
There, we have stated 5:3 . : “If he slaughtered her, her daughter’s daughter, and afterwards her daughter, he absorbs forty [lashes].. 25:3 ). Similarly, Symmachos’s 80 are really 78. Symmachos said in Rebbi Meïr’s name, he absorbs eighty.. 22:28 : “A cow or a sheep, it and its young you shall not slaughter on the same day.” Slaughtering a cow and a second generation calf on the same day is not forbidden. If after that the calf is slaughtered on the same day, with one act he slaughters {the cow and her calf} and {the calf’s calf and her mother}. For the rabbis, violating one law by one act can be punished only once. For Symmachos, the order of execution is important; the prohibition of slaughtering the calf after its mother is separate from that of slaughtering the mother after its calf. ” Rebbi Eleazar said, [Symmachos] and Rebbi Joḥanan ben Nuri said the same thing, since we stated there 3:6 . R. Eleazar’s opinion is quoted in the Babli, Keritut 14b . : “Rebbi Joḥanan ben Nuri said, he who copulates with his mother-in-law may be guilty because of his mother-in-law, his mother-in-law’s mother and his father-in-law’s mother. They said to him, all three fall under the same law. 18:17 : “The genitals of a woman and her daughter you shall not uncover; her son’s daughter and her daughter’s daughter you shall not take to uncover her nakedness; they are family, it is taboo.” The Tosephta ( Keritut 1:21 ) explains that R. Joḥanan ben Nuri speaks about a man who married three wives, a woman and her nieces from a sister and a brother; i. e. a daughter and two granddaughters of the same woman. If the man sleeps with his mother-in-law, by one act he sleeps with a woman and her daughter, a woman and her daughter’s daughter, and a woman and her son’s daughter. If it is three times the same transgression, he is punished only once; if the one act implies three different paragraphs have been violated, he receives multiple punishment. .” Rebbi Jehudah bar Pazi in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: Symmachos agrees to the earlier [part of the Mishnah] 5:3, where it is stated that everybody agrees that if he slaughtered first the mother and after that two of her calves he is whipped “80” times but if he first slaughtered the two calves and then the mother, he is whipped only “40” times. . If was found stated, it still is in dispute 5:7 : “If he slaughtered its five calves and then the cow, Symmachos said in the name of Rebbi Meïr he is guilty of five transgressions but he only is guilty for transgression of one prohibition.” This shows that Symmachos counts instances of the same prohibition separately; he cannot have the same position as R. Joḥanan ben Nuri. This is the position of Rava in the Babli, Keritut 15a ; cf. צבי דור, תורת ארץ ישׂראל בבבל, דביר, תל אביב 1971, p. 42. . What is Rebbi Joḥanan ben Nuri’s reason? Since a woman and her daughter and a woman and her daughter’s daughter fall under two separate prohibitions. 18:17 are two separate paragraphs; for the rabbis the verse counts as only one. , also a woman and her son’s daughter and her daughter’s daughter fall under two separate prohibitions. What is the reason of the rabbis? Since a woman and her daughter and a woman and her daughter’s daughter fall under one and the same prohibition, also a woman and her son’s daughter and her daughter’s daughter fall under one and the same prohibition.
It is written. 20:14 : “If a man takes a woman and her mother, it is taboo.” Everywhere is written “lying with” but here is written “taking”, to teach you that he cannot be guilty for the second [woman] unless the first one is prepared for him. Or maybe only by marriage? We already said that there is no incestuous marriage. But is it not written. 23:1 ; neither the term “lying with” nor the term “uncovering genitals” is used. Does this mean that only the marriage with a stepmother is forbidden? This and the following questions challenge the assertion that the incest prohibition of a man with mother and daughter is the only one where “taking” is mentioned. : “Nobody may marry his father’s wife, and he should not uncover his father’s garment’s corner”? This comes to tell you that she was permitted to him before his father married her. But is it not written. 20:21 . This is a relevant question since the verse is also from Chapter 20. : “If a man take his brother’s wife, it is despicable”? This comes to tell you that she was permitted to him before his brother married her. This is confirmed by levirate. But is it not written. 18:18 . The argument following is parallel to that of the verse quoted before this one. : “You should not take a woman in addition to her sister to make her a co-wife”? This comes to tell you that she was permitted to him before he married her sister. This is confirmed after her sister’s death. But is it not written. 20:17 . The argument identifies חסד I “to be well behaved” and חסד II “to act shamefully”. A similar argument in Babli Sanhedrin 58b . : “A man who would take his sister, his father’s daughter or his mother’s daughter; he sees her genitals and she sees his genitals, it is ḥesed .” Rebbi Avin said, that you should not say that Kain married his sister, Abel married his sister, “it is charitable”, I was charitable with the first generations so the world could be inhabited; “I said, the world was built on ḥesed . 89:3 . .” But is it not written. 21:7 . : “Widow, divorcee, and desecrated, these he shall not take”? This comes to tell you that if he became betrothed to her that the betrothal is valid.
Rebbi Ḥuna understood all of them from this verse: “The genitals of a woman and her daughter you should not uncover, etc.” Taboo - taboo, for an equal cut. Since there are three generations downwards, so there are three generations upwards. Since there is a prohibition downwards, so there is a prohibition upwards. Since upwards one requires marriage, so downwards one requires marriage. Since upwards they are burned, so downwards they are burned. Since downwards, He gave the male’s daughter the same status as the female’s daughter, so upwards we give the male’s mother the same status as the female’s mother.
And following Rebbi Meïr? Since Rebbi Meïr said, a gezerah šawah is valid only for the rules covered by the respective verses. is at the place it comes from, from where is the third generation (below) forbidden. 18:17 , the daughter and granddaughter of a woman are forbidden as taboo to a man sleeping with the woman. Therefore, the question can only be whether the grandmother also is forbidden since the pivot of the prohibition is the woman he slept with first and, as a matter of principle, infractions of prohibitions are punishable only if the punishment is stated in the code. The mother is certainly under an incest prohibition whose infraction would be a capital crime; this is stated in Lev . 20:14 . ? And following the rabbis, who say, a gezerah šawah is said about them, from where that the third generation above is punished by burning? Both for Rebbi Meïr and the rabbis, from where that the third generation above is forbidden? Since it is written “taboo, taboo” for a gezerah šawah , it is as if all were included; all are included is sufficient to transfer the prohibition of the descendants (18:17) to the ancestors (20:14) and the punishment from the ancestors to the descendants. Cf. Halakhah 2:4 . The same argument is in the Babli, Sanhedrin 75b . .
So far his daughter’s daughter from marriage. 18:17 and 20:14 contain expressions of marriage. . His daughter’s daughter from a rape? “The genitals of your son’s daughter or your daughter’s daughter. 18:10 prohibits incest with granddaughters. If only legitimate children were intended, the verse would be superfluous. Therefore, it must refer also to all illegitimate children; “rape” is only an example. .” Where do we hold? If from marriage, it already had been said. So it it cannot refer to marriage but must refer to rape. So far for the warning, from where the punishment. 18:10 contains no indication of any punishment. ? Rebbi Samuel bar Rav Isaac said, “they, they; taboo, taboo”. 18:10 ends עֶרְוָֽתְךָ הֵנָּה “they are your genitals;” Lev. 18:17 ends שַׁאֲרָה הֵנָּה זִאָה הִיא “ they are relatives, it is taboo ;” Lev . 20:14 reads וְלֹא תִהְיֶה זִאָה בְּתוֹכְכֶם “there should be no taboo among you.” He accepts a gezerah šawah between 18:10 and 17 based on the common word הנה and one between 18:17 and 20:14 based on the common word זמה. This concatenation of two transfers is not without problems (cf. Babli Zebaḥim 50a ); the Yerushalmi here indicates that it is only acceptable for R. Aqiba, not for R. Ismael. The argument is quoted in the Babli ( Yebamot 3a and Sanhedrin 75b , 76a ) in the name of Rav Isaac bar Eudaimon. That follows Rebbi Aqiba; following Rebbi Ismael? Rebbi Ismael stated: “they”, from “them”. 18:10 and 20:14 , taking the unusual word אתהן (for אותן), the combination of the nota accusativi and הן, הנה “they”, to indicate the connection. This argument is not quoted in the Babli. . So far about his daughter’s daughter, from where his daughter. 18:10 makes no mention of the daughter as incest prohibition. ? Rav said, if he is forewarned about his daughter’s daughter, so much more for his daughter! If for his daughter’s daughter he is subject to extirpation, so much more for his daughter 76a , notes the obvious contradiction to the principle that no punishment can be imposed that is not clearly stated in the text (cf. Note 31 ) and holds that the argument is so simple that the prohibition must be considered as if it were written in the verse. !
They asked before Rebbi Abbahu: His daughter’s daughter from a marriage; his daughter’s daughter from a rape? He said to them, every “daughter’s daughter” falls under the same category. They asked before Rebbi Abbahu: If [a man] came to a woman, she had a daughter, and after that he came and copulated with her. Is he guilty about her because of a woman and her daughter, her daughter’s daughter and her son’s daughter? He said to them, “they are relatives, it is taboo;” all because of taboo.
Rebbi Ḥaggai asked before Rebbi Yose: Why do we not say, “your daughter you should not uncover, your daughter’s daughter you should not uncover”. 18:17 as containing two separate prohibitions? ? He said to him, if it were written “the genitals of a woman and her daughter’s daughter you shall not uncover”, we would have said, “your daughter you should not uncover, your daughter’s daughter you should not uncover”. 18:10 : That verse speaks only of his granddaughters, but 18:17 deals with the granddaughters of his wife. It is concluded that the granddaughters of a woman with whom he has a child but who is not his wife cannot be under an incest prohibition which is a capital crime. Cf. Chapter 10, Note 195 . .
Rebbi Abbahu, Rebbi Eleazar in the name of Rebbi Hoshaiah. If there are two prohibitions and one liability to extirpation, the prohibitions split the extirpation 14b , Keritut 3a ), this is a matter of dispute. . What is the reason? “On human flesh it may not be rubbed and in its proportions you should not make [a compound] like it.. 30:32 , speaking of the oil used to anoint priests and holy vessels. ” And it is written: “A man who would compound like it. 30:33 : “A man who would compound its likeness or who would apply it on an outside person {who is not a priest} will be extirpated from his people.” There are only two prohibitions since the “human” of v. 32 is defined as “not a priest” in v. 33 . ”. Here are two prohibitions and one liability to extirpation. The prohibitions divide the extirpation. This follows Rebbi Ismael, since Rebbi Ismael said one infers from an argument de minore ad majus but one does not punish from an argument de minore ad majus 5b , 14a , 17a ; Sanhedrin 54a . . Where does he have that from? It comes following what Ḥizqiah stated: “If the daughter of a Cohen is desecrated by whoring.” Why does the verse say, “a man. 21:9 . “A Cohen man’s daughter if she is desecrated by whoring with her father, shall be burned in fire;” cf. Babli Sanhedrin 76 . ”? To include him who cohabits with his daughter’s daughter from a rape that she should be [under sentence of] burning. Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Abun said, one may even understand this from the warning: “Do not desecrate your daughter. 19:29 : “Do not desecrate your daughter to cause her to whore.” This interpretation is quoted in the Babli, Sanhedrin 76a , in the name of R. Abun’s father and there is only one of several alternative interpretations. .”
What is the reason of Rebbi Jehudah? “. 23:1 . The hermeneutic principles require that two parallel clauses be interpreted as referring to two different situations. If such an interpretation is impossible, then the two clauses count as two separate prohibitions. A man may not take his father’s wife,” that refers to his father’s wife; “and he should not uncover his father’s wing,” that is his rape victim. How do the rabbis explain “his father’s wing”? There 97a , stated in the name of Samuel. , they say and they do not know the origin of the tradition, that refers to a wing which leans on his father. Would he not anyhow be guilty for her because of his father’s wife? Rebbi Hila said, because of forewarning, that if he was warned because of his father’s wife, he will be whipped, and because of his father’s wing, he will be whipped. Rebbi Jehudah agrees about whipping. Rebbi Jehudah agrees about sacrifice. Rebbi Jehudah agrees about all other doubtful cases that he is free. Rebbi Jehudah agrees that if he gave her qiddušin that these qiddušin are legally valid.
Rebbi Ḥaggai asked before Rebbi Yose: Is the child a bastard following Rebbi Jehudah? He said to him, “No one with a damaged testicle or with cut-off penis may marry. The prohibition of the father’s wife is verse 1 , the rule of bastardy is verse 3; cf. Chaper 4, Note 211. ” interrupts the argument. It interrupted the argument in the matter of the father’s wife. He retorted, the father’s wife was part of the set of all incest prohibitions; it was selected from this set to teach about bastardy for all incest prohibitions): “Anything in a set which was selected from that set to teach, was not selected to teach only for itself but for the entire set.” The prohibition of the stepmother is contained in the set of all incest prohibitions ( Lev ., Chapters 18 , 20 ). Therefore, if the result of incest with a stepmother is a bastard, the result of any other incestuous relation must be a bastard (cf. Mishnaiot 4:14 , 15 ). . (Let the father’s wife be selected to teach about bastardy for all incests prohibitions.) Similarly, let the rape victim be selected to teach a prohibition concerning all rape victims. He said to him, the father’s wife was part of the set of all incest prohibitions; it was selected from this set to teach about bastardy for all incest prohibitions. Can you say that the rape victim was in a set of all rape victims, that it could teach a prohibition concerning all rape victims? Why cannot the father’s wife be selected to teach about the rape victims in her case? He said to him, is she is the father’s wife, she is not his rape victim; is she is the father’s rape victim, she is not his wife.
MISHNAH: The sons of a female convert who converted with her do neither perform ḥalîṣah nor levirate even if a first [son] was not conceived in holiness but born in holiness and a second [son] was conceived and born in holiness. The same applies to a slave girl who was freed together with her sons.
HALAKHAH: “A female convert who converted,” etc. Is not text is a copy from Sifra Qedošim Parašah 9(9 ), where the rhetorical question is appropriate. the convert guilty for his mother. 21:15 , 17 ). R. Yose the Galilean holds that a Gentile cannot claim relationship with his children, whether the mother is Gentile or Jewish. but not for his father following Rebbi Yose the Galilean? Rebbi Aqiba says, “his father and mother he cursed.. 20:9 : “Any man who would curse his father and (or) his mother shall certainly die; his father and (or) mother he cursed, his blood is on him.” R. Aqiba infers from “curse his father”, “his mother he cursed”, that the rules for father and mother must be identical. ” Anybody potentially guilty for his mother is potentially guilty for his father but nobody who cannot be guilty for his mother can be guilty for his father. Rebbi Aqiba agrees that the “silenced by his mother should he adress any man as his father. If his father were known, he would be a normal Jew. ” one is potentially guilty for his mother but not for his father. Rebbi Jacob bar Aḥa, Rebbi Yasa in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: Where do they disagree? About a convert not conceived in holiness but born in holiness. But about a convert conceived and born in holiness even Rebbi Yose the Galilean agrees 3:12 ).. .
Rebbi Yasa went to Ḥomṣ. People came and asked him about the family of Ashtin Chapter 6 they are called Astor. who were converts, might they marry in levirate? He said to them, so says Rebbi Joḥanan: It is prohibited. They wanted to say, if a woman has children. But if the woman has no children, what can you say? He married his brother’s wife in levirate. If she is not his brother’s wife, should he not be considered as marrying a wife from outside? Rebbi Jacob bar Aḥa came in the name of Rebbi Isaac bar Naḥman: Even so it is forbidden, that people should not say, we saw the commandment of levirate among converts. When has this been said? When he lived with her after he converted. But if he did not live with her after he converted, everybody agrees that it is as if he married a woman from outside.
A convert who converted while married to a woman and her daughter, or a woman and her sister, marries one and separates from the other. When has this been said? If he did not live with either of them. But if he lived with one of them after he converted, the one he lived with is his wife. If he lived with both of them, since he lived with them, he lived with them.
A convert has to separate from his sister, whether paternal or maternal, the words of Rebbi Meïr. Rebbi Jehudah says, he must separate from his maternal halfsister; a paternal halfsister he may keep. He must separate from his mother’s sister but may keep his father’s sister, the words of Rebbi Meïr. Rebbi Jehudah says, he must separate from his mother’s maternal halfsister but may keep his mother’s paternal halfsister 18(7), the baraita is quoted as it is here, only that instead of R. Jehudah one has the anonymous Sages. . If he married any other incest prohibited woman, he may keep her. It was only said, “if he married”. Therefore, not from the start.
A Gentile has to separate from his sister, whether paternal or maternal, the words of Rebbi Meïr. Rebbi Jehudah says, he must separate from his maternal halfsister; a paternal halfsister he may keep. He must separate from his mother’s sister but may keep his father’s sister, the words of Rebbi Meïr. Rebbi Jehudah says, he must separate from his mother’s maternal halfsister but may keep his mother’s paternal halfsister 58a , identical to the rules given for converts in Yebamot 98b . . Rav Ḥanin said, he explained us the words of Rebbi Meïr simply: “Therefore, a man has to abandon his father and his mother. 2:24 . The common interpretation of the verse as basis of a “natural law” of incest prohibitions is in the sources [ Babli Sanhedrin 58a , Gen. rabba 18(8)]: “Therefore, a man leaves his father (the father’s wife who might not be his mother) and his mother and clings to his wife (marriage is effected by intercourse, but after the first intercourse of a woman all sex acts with other people are adulterous since there is no divorce; male homosexual activity is also forbidden) and they will be one flesh (only vaginal intercourse is counted as such).” All other incest prohibitions of Lev . are for Jews only. (A minority opinion, that of R. Eliezer in the Babli, identifies the “father” as the father’s sisters.) .” What is close to him from his father’s side, what is close to him from his mother’s side. Rebbi Vivian asked: Then his father’s sister should be forbidden because she is close to his father! His mother’s sister should be forbidden because she is close to his mother! Rebbi Simeon, the son of Rebbi Ayvo objected: “Amram took his aunt Yokhebed as wife. 6:20 . According to the rules promulgated by him, Moses was a bastard. This proves (a) that the incest prohibitions of Lev . 18 are introduced because of the holiness of the Land or as prohibition of idolatrous practices and (b) the paternal aunt is permitted to a Gentile. .” Does that mean that the Israelites did not even behave as descendants of Noah? Rebbi Hila said, what is close to him from his father’s side, what is close to him from his mother’s side. They objected to Rebbi Meïr: “And truly she is my sister, my father’s daughter, but not my mother’s.. 20:12 . According to Philo ( Special Laws III , 22–25), the practice of marrying halfsisters was recognized in Greece and that of marrying full sisters in Egypt. ” He said to them: Is a proof from there? Not “she became my wife”?
What about it? Rebbi Yose said, about any incest prohibition which for a Jewish court is a capital crime, a descendant of Noah is forewarned; and about any incest prohibition which for a court is not a capital crime, a descendant of Noah is not forewarned 57b . . They objected: Is not a case involving the sister a capital crime for a Jewish court and the descendants of Noah are not forewarned. 20:17 ) but is not a capital crime on Earth. Maybe the reference should be to a man married to a woman and her daughter; cf. Note 82 . ? Rebbi Hila in the name of Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish: “Because of these abominations, the Eternal, your God, uproots them before you.. 18:12 , speaking of idolatry. ” This teaches that the Holy One, praise to Him, does not punish if He did not warn 57b ). Therefore, Gentiles can be punished for idolatrous practices since they have been warned about them. R. Hila seems to agree that the incest prohibitions which exceed the bare minimum are directed against idolatrous practices. .
Rebbi Idi said before Rebbi Yose, a slave is permitted his sister 58b ), he is no longer a Gentile but not yet a responsible Jew. He cannot be punished in either law and he cannot legally marry. . He said to him, did you hear this even if she is from the same mother? He said, yes. He said to him, but did we not state: “The same applies to a slave girl who was freed together with her sons.” For ḥalîṣah and levirate. Rebbi Phineas said before Rebbi Yose in the name of Rebbi Yasa: A slave who slept with his mother is obligated for a purification sacrifice. “You shall command them. 1:2 . After the introduction: “Speak to the Children of Israel”, the addition “you shall command them” seems superfluous unless it includes people whose inclusion among the Children of Israel is doubtful. ,” including slaves. Or should we say, this was said about fat Chapter 8, Note 247 .) ? Do we find in his relation to his mother that her converted aspect accompanies the unconverted aspect just as with a slave girl her converted aspect accompanies the unconverted aspect. 22:23–24 ). By contrast, adultery with a half-freed slave girl engaged to be married to a free man (in expectation of her full emancipation; she did belong to two masters one of whom manumitted his share) can be expiated by a reparation offering ( Lev . 19:20–22 ; Sifra Qedošim Pereq 5 ). This shows that her semi-free status interferes with the operation of criminal law for free persons. In analogy, we could conjecture that the status of a slave as incompletely converted (since he is not obligated to observe most positive commandments) interferes with the operation of the laws of obligatory sacrifices. The problem is not resolved, probably because it is not realistic. ?
MISHNAH: If the children of five women were mixed up, and the mixed-up became adults, married wives, and died, then four perform ḥalîṣah and one marries in levirate with the widow who may be his sister-in-law or four perform ḥalîṣah and one marries. The one who marries either performs levirate or he marries an unrelated woman; in both cases the marriage is unquestionably valid. . This one and three others perform ḥalîṣah for another one and another one marries in levirate of mixed-up children. The death of a childless man of the mixed-up group causes n -1 ḥalîṣot and 1 levirate or n ḥalîṣot . . It turns out that there are four ḥaliṣot and one levirate marriage for every one.
HALAKHAH: “If the children of five women were mixed up,” etc. of mixed-up children. The death of a childless man of the mixed-up group causes n -1 ḥalîṣot and 1 levirate or n ḥalîṣot . Everywhere you say, there is no ḥalîṣah after ḥalîṣah , and here, you say so? There, it is was sure, here it is in doubt. Everywhere you say, if one does not say to him, take in levirate, one does not say, perform ḥalîṣah , and here, you say so with her; otherwise he might marry another man’s brother’s widow. That means that the four first men must perform ḥalîṣah and are forbidden for levirate. ? There, it is was sure, here it is doubtful.
MISHNAH: If a woman’s child was mixed up with her daughter-in-law’s child, the mixed-up children became adults, married wives, and died. The other sons of the daughter-in-law must perform ḥalîṣah but not levirate since for them it is doubtful whether [the widow was] a brother’s wife or an uncle’s wife with her. . But the sons of the old woman may either perform ḥalîṣah or levirate since for them she was either a brother’s wife or a nephew’s wife, then the widow is either the sister-in-law of her husband’s brother and can be married in levirate or she is the widow of a nephew who can be married. “Levirate” in this case has to be taken with a grain of salt since unintentional intercourse (cf. Mishnah 6:1 ) will only possibly make the widow a wife. . If one of the identified ones died, the mixed-up ones must perform ḥalîṣah but not levirate for a son of the old woman since there is a doubt whether [the widow was] a brother’s wife or an uncle’s wife. But for the sons of the daughter-in-law, one performs ḥalîṣah; the other may marry in levirate, she is either the sister-in-law or the free widow of a nephew and permitted. .
HALAKHAH: “If a woman’s child was mixed up,” etc. Rebbi Joḥanan said: So is the Mishnah: The sister-in-law’s sons’ wives, the old woman’s sons’ wives. Rebbi Ḥaggai said, this implies that a man may marry a nephew’s ex-wife.
MISHNAH: If the child of a priestly woman was mixed up with the child of her slave girl then both may eat heave; they together take one part from the threshing floor, they may not defile themselves by becoming impure for the dead, and they may not marry women enabled or disabled [for the priesthood].
HALAKHAH: “If the child of a priestly woman was mixed up,” etc. “Both may eat heave”, since slaves of Cohanim eat heave.
“They together take one part from the threshing floor,” that is what Rebbi Ḥiyya stated: One does not distribute to women and slaves on the threshing floor 2:7, 8 ). but one gives them the gifts of priesthood and/or those due to Levites from the barn.
“They may not marry women, whether enabled or disabled [for the priesthood].” Not enabled ones because of the disabled one. Not disabled ones because of the enabled one.
May they bring one cereal offering together that would be totally burned. 6:16 ). They may bring a cereal offering to the Temple and declare that it should be counted as the offering of the one of them who is a Cohen. ? It was stated: They may bring one cereal offering conditionally that would be totally burned. May they bring two cereal offerings one of which should be burned totally and the other have a handful taken and the rest eaten. 6:7–11 ). ? It was stated: They may bring two cereal offerings of one which is burned totally and of the other a handful is taken and the rest eaten. May they testify together that it should be counted as testimony of one witness? That would follow the rule of Rebbi Ze‘ira, Rav Isaac in the name of Rav Assi: Since if they were to be found perjured they could not be executed, the murderer could not be executed 41a ): Testimony which is not subject to the penalties of perjuty is no testimony. The remark: “This applies here also” shows that the statement of Rav Assi refers to criminal proceedings in general. The murderer cannot be executed if one of the testimonies to his guilt is not subject to the penalties of perjury. . This applies here also.
MISHNAH: When the mixed-up children became adults and manumitted one another they may marry women appropriate for the priesthood, may not defile themselves for the dead, but if they became defiled they do not suffer forty lashes. They may not eat heave, but if they ate they do not have to pay its value and and additional fifth 6:1, 7:1), and no Cohen can successfully sue any of them for payment by proving that he is not a Cohen, they do not have to pay. . They cannot attend distributions on the threshing floor; they have to sell their heave, but the money is theirs. They have no part in the Temple sacrifices, one does not give them sacrifices, but one cannot take theirs from them. They are exempt from the foreleg, the chin, and the first stomach. 18:3 . . Their firstborn animal should graze until it develops a blemish. 15:19–23 . . One charges them with the disabilities of an Israel and those of Cohanim.
HALAKHAH: “If the mixed-up children became adults,” after it happened. Does that mean, not from the start? So is the Mishnah: It is permitted from the start to manumit. Even Rebbi Yose the Galilean, who said that one is forbidden to manumit. 25:46 : “You shall have them work for you forever”. In the Babli, this interpretation is quoted in the name of the Amora Rav Jehudah ( Berakhot 47b ), R. Aqiba ( Soṭah 3b , against R. Ismael who reads “You may have them work for you forever”), Rav Jehudah in the name of Samuel ( Giṭṭin 38b ). , will agree here that it is permitted for the benefit of children. What means “appropriate”? Not disabled.
From where that a Cohen presents his sacrifices during [the period of duty of] any watch from the presentation of the shew-bread on one Sabbath to its removal the next Sabbath). The priests were indemnified for their work by receiving the skins of most holy sacrifices and all gifts to priests during their week of work. A hint of this is found in Deut . 18:9 . Even after the destruction of the Temple, the calendar of service of the districts was retained for special occasions, cf. Mishnah Ta‘aniot 2:7. he chooses? The verse says, “he may come as his heart desires … and serve”. 18:6–7 . Priests acting for themselves are exempt from the obligation to use the watch in charge of the week. The same argument is in Babli Baba Qama 109b , where verses are quoted in support of the assertion here that the hide and meat do not belong to the acting watch. In contrast, Sifry Deut . 168 restricts the right of the Cohen to participation in the priestly blessing any time he so desires. . If he was old or sick, he may give it to any watch he likes but the hide and meat are his. If he was impure or had a bodily defect, he must give it to the acting watch, and the hide and meat are theirs. These mixed-up ones, how do you treat them? Comparing them to the old or sick, or to the impure or to those with a bodily defect. It seems reasonable to compare them to the impure or those having a bodily defect; but the Mishnah compares them to the old or sick, since we have stated: “One cannot take his from him.”
MISHNAH: [A woman] did not wait three months after [the death of] her husband, married, and gave birth, and it is not known whether it is a nine months’ child of the first or a seven months’ child of the second. If she had sons from the first and the second, they perform ḥalîṣah but not levirate from both sides. She cannot marry any one of them since her husband might have been the son of the other man and the marriage would then be incestuous. . Similarly, he performs ḥalîṣah but not levirate for the widow but is forbidden levirate. . If he had brothers from the first or from the second not from the same mother, he may perform ḥalîṣah or levirate or levirate if there is another brother who could marry or release a widow without complication. If there was only one brother on one side who died childless, his widow either is a sister-in-law who can be married by the levir or she is an unrelated woman free to marry any man. and they may perform ḥalîṣah or levirate and one may marry in levirate.” In that version, if the questionable son dies childless, a brother from one side must perform ḥalîṣah ; then one of the other side either may perform ḥalîṣah or marry in levirate since either the widow is his sister-in-law or she is unrelated and free to marry any man. One must assume that the version of the Yerushalmi (and a group of independent Mishnah mss.) is shorthand for the version of the Babli. . If one was an Israel and the other a priest, he may marry a woman appropriate for the priesthood, may not defile himself for the dead, but if he became defiled he does not suffer forty lashes. He may not eat heave but if he ate, he does not have to pay its value and additional fifth 6:1, 7:1), and no Cohen can successfully sue any of them for payment by proving that he is not a Cohen, they do not have to pay. . He cannot attend distributions on the threshing floor. He has to sell his heave but the money is his. He has no part in the Temple sacrifices, one does not give him sacrifices but one cannot take his from him. He is exempt from the foreleg, the chin, and the first stomach. 18:3 . . His firstborn animal should graze until it develops a blemish. 15:19–23 . . One charges him with the disabilities of an Israel and those of Cohanim. If both were Cohanim, he has to mourn intensely for them and they for him. 10:6 ) to continue their Temple service. If it were not forbidden in general, no special permission would have been needed. . He may not defile himself for them, they may not defile themselves for him. He does not inherit from them but they inherit from him. He is not prosecutable if he injures or curses either one of them. He may serve on the watch of either one but does not participate in distributions. If both were of the same watch, he takes one part.
HALAKHAH: “[A woman] did not wait three months,” etc. “If both were Cohanim, he has to mourn intensely for them,” etc. Where do we hold? It is impossible after death [of the first] since we have stated: “He has to mourn intensely for them and they for him.” One understands that he does not defile himself for the second [husband], I say that he is the son of the first. But why does he not defile himself for the first one? It must be that he divorced. Then, as you take it, if he is his son, he should defile himself for him. If he is not his son, he is desecrated, and what happens if he defiles himself? It must be that he raped. Did not Rebbi Abba say in the name of Abba bar Jeremiah that a rape victim does not have to wait three months? Should we say, following the rabbis, but we follow Rebbi Yose!
Rebbi Ḥiyya stated: One mourns deeply and defiles himself in a case of doubt. Rebbi Yose said, the Mishnah says so: “He has to mourn intensely for them and they for him.” Rebbi Ashian bar Yaqim had a case. He asked Rebbi Yose, who told him, you do not have to. He said to him, but did not Rebbi Ḥiyya say, one mourns deeply and defiles himself in a case of doubt? His signs were clear 15:7 ). In the Babli, 80b , complete hair and fingernails prove that the child is a living seven-months’ baby who just lingered in the womb. . But did not the colleagues say in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: One does not act on the signs of an eight months’ child? He had a sign that he had intercourse and then separated.
An eight months’ child is like a stone 15:5 ; Babli Sabbath 135a , Yebamot 80a , Baba Batra 20a . He is considered to be dead. and one does not move him on the Sabbath, but his mother lies down beside him and nurses him. Rebbi Yose asked: May one push aside the Sabbath for babies that are in doubt 15:5 was not known to the Yerushalmi since it clearly states: In case of doubt whether it is a seven or an eight months’ child, one does not push aside the Sabbath. ? Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Abun said, it is fine. How you take it, if he is a nine months’ child, he must be circumcised. If he is an eight months’ child, it is as if he cut flesh without need. The rabbis of Caesarea said, Rebbi Jacob ben Dositheos asked, who permitted to cut flesh without need 136a , in the name of R. Ada bar Ahava, follows R. Yose bar Abun here and explains the Tosephta (Note 162) that one may not push aside the Sabbath if one forgot to bring the necessary implements and would have to carry them in the public domain on the Sabbath. ?
It was stated 15:7 ; Babli Sabbath 135a . : Rebbi Simeon ben Gamliel says, any human who lives for thirty days is not a still birth, “all redeemed you shall redeem at the age of one month. 18:16 . ;” and an animal which lives for eight days is not a still birth, “from the eighth day and further it will be welcome as a sacrifice, a gift to the Eternal. 22:27 . .” There 136a . The rabbis hold that any child born alive frees his mother from levirate and ḥalîṣah . , they say that practice follows Rabban Simeon ben Gamliel. Rebbi Abba said, where do they disagree? If he was not born in his months. But if he was born in his months, even Rabban Simeon ben Gamliel will agree.
“If he injured one and then injured the other, or cursed one and then cursed the other, he cannot be prosecuted.” 16a , Ḥulin 82b , 91a . Rebbi Ḥanania asked, does that not disagree with Rebbi Joḥanan? Since they disagree about the second day of holidays in the diaspora. Rebbi Joḥanan said, one accepts forwarning in a case of doubt, Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish said, one does not accept forwarning in a case of doubt 5:4 (fol. 32c), Nazir 8:1 (fol. 57a); derived from the point of view of R. Jehudah in Babli Makkot 16a . . Rebbi Ḥanina said in the name of Rebbi, there is no disagreement. There, it would have been possible to make a determination, here it is impossible to make the determination.
“If he injured both of them at the same time or cursed them at the same time, he is guilty. Rebbi Jehudah frees him.”, and Babli 101a . Rebbi Joḥanan asked: Is not the argument of Rebbi Jehudah inverted? As we have stated there: 7:3 , speaking of the sinew of the hip which is forbidden as food ( Gen . 32:33 ). He ate from both sides but did not know which piece was from what side. For the majority it makes no difference since the sinews on both sides are forbidden. For R. Jehudah, the singular used in the verse, “the sinew of the hip” implies that only one is forbidden; in the opinion of the Babli this must be the one on the right hand side. The Yerushalmi must hold that R. Jehudah holds that clearly one of the two sinews is forbidden but it is not decided which one it is. R. Jehudah holds that since he certainly ate a piece of the forbidden sinew, he is guilty. Then the question is why should the eater be prosecutable when the prosecution could not show which piece was the forbidden one? “If he ate the volume of an olive of one of them and the volume of an olive of the other, he absorbs eighty [lashes]; Rebbi Jehudah says, he absorbs only forty [lashes].” Rebbi Crispus said, it is not inverted. There, it was in doubt what is forbidden. Here, it was certain but it became doubtful for him. Rebbi Judan asked: If it is so, in case carcass meat was mixed up with slaughtered meat, since it was certain but became doubtful for him, should he be free if he ate it? Rebbi Yose said, Rebbi Jehudah agrees for all other prohibitions that he is (free). But here, Rebbi Jehudah is interpreting verses: “His father,” certain but not uncertain, “his mother”, certain but not uncertain 9(8 ), on Lev . 20:9 . .
“He may serve in the watch of either one”. He should not serve. Rebbi Aḥa, Rebbi Ḥinena in the name of Rebbi Yasa, because of the damage to the family.
It was stated: Only if they both belong to the same clan.