Talmud zu Wajikra 18:16

MISHNAH: Fifteen [categories of] women¹Deut. 25:5 requires that the widow of any man who died without legitimate or illegitimate issue be married by the man’s brother. If, however, that brother is forbidden one of the deceased’s wives by the incest prohibition of Lev. 18 or the rules of Deut. 25:5–10, she may not be married by the brother to whom she is forbidden. free their co-wives²The House of Hillel hold that if one widow is forbidden, all co-widows are forbidden. This is not accepted by the House of Shammai, Mishnah 6. and the co-wives of their co-wives from ḥalîṣah and levirate forever³If one of three brothers had married the second brother’s daughter and another woman, died childless, the other wife was married by the third brother who already had another wife, if the third also dies childless both of his widows are forbidden because one of them is forbidden. This scenario can be extended to n polygamous brothers; n arbitrary.. They are the following: one’s daughter⁴This statement seems to be needed only for an illegitimate daughter, except the daughter from a gentile or a slave woman who are not legally his relatives (Rashi ad loc.). Legitimate children are covered by Lev. 18:17. However, the Yerushalmi (Note 135) does not make any distinction between legitimate and illegitimate daughters.
Sadducees (followed by Karaites and Christians) did forbid marriage with a niece since marriage with an aunt is a biblical prohibition and they held that the incest prohibitions of Lev. 18 are gender symmetric. Pharisaic opinion is that “one does not introduce punishable offence by argument;” what is written is forbidden, what is not written is not (biblically) forbidden., his daughter’s daughter and his son’s daughter⁵Lev. 18:10., his wife’s daughter and her daughter‘s daughter and her son’s daughter⁶Lev. 18:17: “The genitals of a women and her daughter (including mother-in-law and wife) you may not [both] uncover, her son’s daughter (wife’s granddaughter or wife as paternal grandmother’s daughter) or her daughter’s daughter (this forbids the wife’s maternal grandmother) you may not marry to uncover her genitals; they are relatives, it is tabu.”, his mother-in-law and his mother-in-law’s mother and his father-in-law’s mother, his sister⁷This is needed only for the maternal halfsister (Lev. 18:9) married to a paternal halfbrother. It will be established that the levirate applies only to paternal brothers; the first marriage of the halfsister was legitimate. and his maternat aunt⁸Lev. 18:13. and his wife’s sister⁹Lev. 18:18., his maternal halfbrother’s wife¹⁰Lev. 18:16. It is assumed that the halfbrother died or divorced his wife who then married a paternal halfbrother of the man in question to whom she was not related. The earlier marriage to the maternal halfbrother forbade her permanently to the levir, the brother-in-law on the husband’s side.
Since in Deut. 25, “brother” is assumed to mean “paternal brother”, it needs some discussion in the Halakhah why in Lev. 18 “brother” may mean “maternal or paternal brother” since the usual stance is that in legal texts one word can have only one meaning., the wife of his brother who did not live in his world¹¹Deut. 25:5 introduces the rules of the levirate with the statement “If brothers live together”. This means that a brother born after the death of another cannot marry the widow of the deceased, i. e., the childless widow does not have to wait until the newborn baby grows up to marry her but, if there is no other brother, she may immediately marry outside the family., and his daughter-in-law¹²This is obvious (Lev. 18:15) except for the case that the son had died and his widow married a brother of her father-in-law unrelated to her. The prohibition of 18:15 is permanent; the earlier marriage to the son forbade her permanently to the father-in-law..

It is written³⁵Lev. 18:16.: “The genitals of your brother’s wife you may not uncover.” One understands both his paternal and his maternal brothers’ wives, both the wife of a brother who lived concurrently with him or onewho did not live concurrently with him, whether he had children or did not have children³⁶The verse is discussed in the Babli, 55a, independently from the verse quoted next. Therefore, the Babli engages in a series of arguments to indicate that “brother” in this verse has a wider meaning than “brothers” in Deut. 25:5; among them a reference to Lev. 18:9, where “sister” is expressly defined as at least a halfsister from any side. [A tannaitic source, Sifra Qedošim Pereq 11(8), restricts the meaning of “brother” in this verse to that in Deut. 25:5. Cf. R. Abraham ben David’s commentary ad loc.] The Yerushalmi has no need for an additional argument since this paragraph is still a continuation of the first one in this Halakhah, an application of the 12th exegetical rule (Note 13), only that the argument is inverted. Since we know that if something was permitted, forbidden, and permitted again, the set of second permissions must be a proper subset of that of first permissions, it is necessary that the restrictions applied to the meaning of “brother” in the second set cannot apply to the prohibition. {The Babli avoids using rules 7–13 of R. Ismael and never has systematic comparisons between arguments following R. Ismael and those following R. Aqiba.}. She became permitted, excluded from this set, by levirate. Should I think unconditionally? It is said here³⁷Deut. 25:5.: “When brothers live together”; and it is said there³⁸Gen. 42:13. להלן is a Babylonism; in true Galilean style it would be תמן. The parallel argument is in Babli 17b; because the constructive framework of the Yerushalmi is missing in the Babli, the latter has a lengthy discussion why the definition of “brother” for levirate is narrower than that for incest prohibitions.: “We, your servants, are twelve brothers.” Since the “brothers” mentioned there are paternal brothers, so the “brothers” mentioned here must be paternal brothers.

“Vain” and “untruth” both were said together, which is impossible for the mouth to say and the ear to hear⁵⁰The two versions of the Ninth Commandment, Ex. 20:16 and Deut. 5:17, both are Sinaitic versions which had been said in parallel and were written serially.. “Remember” and “keep”⁵¹The two versions of the Fourth Commandment, Ex. 20:8 and Deut. 5:12. The first two examples are also in the Babli, Šebuot 20b, this example only in Babli Roš Haššanah 27a, Mekhilta dR. Simeon ben Ioḥai 20:5 (p. 148). A parallel text from here to the end of the Halakhah is Sifry Deut. 233; Midrash Tannaïm p. 138 (Midrash Haggadol Deut. 22:11), Mekhilta dR. Ismael Yitro Chap. 7. both were said together, which is impossible for the mouth to say and the ear to hear. “Its desecrator shall be put to death” and “two unblemished one year old sheep⁵²From here to the end of the paragraph one speaks of laws that contradict one another, not different parallel texts. Another approach to the problem of contradiction in pentateuchal legislation is in Sifry Num. 3; a radically different one in Babli Ḥulin109b, where Yalta, Rav Naḥman’s wife, holds that all of Sinaitic legislation has exceptions (in contrast to the commandments given to Noah which represent Natural Law and are without exceptions).” both were said together⁵³The first verse is Ex. 31:14 on the observation of the Sabbath, the second is Num. 28:9 on the Sabbath sacrifice which requires many actions which if performed outside the Temple on a Sabbath would be capital crimes., which is impossible for the mouth to say and the ear to hear. “The nakedness of your brother’s wife you shall not uncover⁵⁴Lev. 18:16.”, “her brother-in-law shall come to her⁵⁵Deut. 25:5; cf. Introduction to Tractate Yebamot.”, both were said together. “You shall not move real property from one tribe to another,” “any daughter inheriting real property,” both together⁵⁶On the face of it, both verses, Num. 36:8–9, say the same, viz., that an heiress may marry only a man of her own tribe. The explanation is given in Babli Baba batra 111b, where it is shown that the entire chapter 36 only refers to the daughters of Ṣelofḥad; for all others only the rules of Num. 27:7–11 are applicable without restrictions. In this case, Num. 36:8–9 is the exception from Num. 27:8.. “Fringes you shall make for yourself,” “do not wear sha‘ṭnez”, both were said together⁵⁷In Deut. 22:11, wearing wool and linen together is forbidden. In v. 12, any garment, including linen ones, is required to have fringes, which according to Num. 15:38 must contain a dark blue woolen thread.. And so it says⁵⁸Ps. 62:12., “God spoke once, two I heard from this.” And it is written: “Is not my word like fire, says the Eternal, and like a hammer which shatters a rock.”