Talmud zu Dewarim 23:1

It is written¹⁶Lev. 20:14: “If a man takes a woman and her mother, it is taboo.” Everywhere is written “lying with”¹⁷In the punishment list of Chap. 20. In the prohibition of Chap. 18, the expression used is mostly “uncovering genitals”. but here is written “taking”, to teach you that he cannot be guilty for the second [woman] unless the first one is prepared¹⁸Available to him at least by betrothal or obligation of levirate. The criminal sanction cannot be applied if one of the parties was married to him but died. for him. Or maybe only by marriage¹⁹That he had to marry both women. This is impossible since an incestuous marriage has no existence in law.? We already said that there is no incestuous marriage. But is it not written²⁰Deut. 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 her²¹The statement that he may not marry her makes sense only if without the father’s marriage the son could have married her. This supports the Mishnah.. But is it not written²²Lev. 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 levirate²³She again becomes permitted to the levir.. But is it not written²⁴Lev. 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 written²⁵Lev. 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 ḥesed²⁶Ps. 89:3..” But is it not written²⁷Lev. 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 valid²⁸The marriages forbidden only to priests, “prohibitions of holiness”, are not incestuous; they are sinful but valid, cf. Halakhah 2:3..

What is the reason of Rebbi Jehudah? “⁵⁴Deut. 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”? There⁵⁵Babli Yebamot 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 father⁵⁶The widow of a childless uncle who waits to be married in levirate by his father and in the meantime is forebidden to all other men.. Would he not anyhow be guilty for her because of his father’s wife⁵⁷For the rabbis who hold that candidacy counts as betrothal; cf. Chapter 2, Note 27.? Rebbi Hila said, because of forewarning⁵⁸In rabbinic interpretation, no punishment is possible in criminal cases unless criminal intent was established by two witnesses who testify that the perpetrator was duly warned that his intended act was criminal., 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 whipped⁵⁹In the Babli, 97a, an anonymous statement that if we warned for both his father’s wife and his father’s wing, he transgresses two prohibitions in one act.. Rebbi Jehudah agrees about whipping. Rebbi Jehudah agrees about sacrifice⁶⁰Since no penalty is stated in the Torah for the man who marries a woman who had unmarried sex with his father, he cannot be punished and, therefore, is unable to bring a sacrifice even if his act is considered sinful.. Rebbi Jehudah agrees about all other doubtful cases that he is free⁶¹If the woman had sex with any man other than his father, a marriage to whom would make her current marriage incestuous, no punishment can be meted out even according to R. Jehudah since there is no biblical basis for it. Consequently, the marriage is valid.. Rebbi Jehudah agrees that if he gave her qiddušin that these qiddušin are legally valid.

Rebbi Jacob bar Aḥa said: There²⁷⁰In Babylonia; Babli Yebamot45b., they state that the one who disqualifies, disqualifies from an unmarried woman, and the one who qualifies, qualifies even from a married woman²⁷¹R. Meïr who declares the child of a Gentile and a Jewish woman a bastard, does so even if the woman was single. R. Simeon ben Jehudah who declares the child qualified does so even if the mother was a Jewish woman married to a Jew. Practice in the Babli is decided according to R. Simeon ben Jehudah.. Rebbi Tanḥum bar Pappus sent and asked Rebbi Yose about two cases from Alexandria, one involving an unmarried woman, the other a married woman. About the married woman, he wrote him: “A bastard shall not come into the Eternal’s congregation.²⁷²Deut. 23:1. He decided against the Babylonian practice.” About the unmarried woman he wrote, be inventive²⁷³The expression מבדין is a hapax legomenon. It can be derived from Aramaic בדי “to invent a story”, or from a multiplicity of Arabic roots. In G one reads “you should recognize that”, meaning that both the girl and her child can marry in the congregation. The only argument one has for the text of L is that it is lectio difficilior., for your are not forewarned about the holy daughters of Israel. He²⁷⁴Rebbi Yose (the Babli, Yebamot45b, is undecided whether it was R. Yose bar Abin or R. Yose bar Zavida) who declared the child of the married woman a bastard and that of the single woman qualified. He collected signatures from the members of his Academy to stress the importance of his decision. said to Rebbi Mana, take and sign; he signed. He said to Rebbi Berekhiah, take and sign, but he did not agree. After they ended the session Rebbi Mana was standing with Rebbi Berekhiah and asked him, why did you not sign? He answered, did not Rebbi Jacob bar Aḥa say that there, they state that the one who disqualifies, disqualifies from an unmarried woman, and the one who qualifies, qualifies even from a married woman²⁷⁵How can you qualify the child of the unmarried woman if the child of the married woman is a bastard?? He said, praised be the Merciful that I had not heard this doctrine, for if I had heard this doctrine I would not have signed and people would have said that the student²⁷⁶R. Mana, the student of R. Yose. disagrees with his teacher. Mar Uqban said, here, you say that the one who disqualifies, disqualifies from an unmarried woman, and the one who qualifies, qualifies from an unmarried woman, but about a married woman, nothing was said. The next morning he²⁷⁷R. Berekhiah, who had heard from Mar Uqban that R. Yose decided correctly according to the Galilean tradition. came and wanted to sign. He²⁷⁸R. Yose, who apparently was offended by R. Berekhiah’s behavior. R. Berekhiah was a great preacher but no great authority in law. said to him, there is no space.