Bagian Terkait Ulangan 22:14

It is written⁴¹Lev. 18:29. The verse is not quoted exactly. The argument is in Sifra Qedošim Pereq 10(10). A similar version in Babli 3b.: “For anyone who is acting out any of these abominations will be extirpated”⁴²The argument is made explicit (in the name of the 5th generation Galilean Amora R. Jonah) in Babli 8a: The verse considers all incest prohibitions as equivalent.. Was not the brother’s wife in the set of all incest prohibitions and was removed from this set by the levirate? Could one say that all other incest prohibitions were removed from this set by levirate? Rebbi Ze‘ira in the name of Rebbi Yose ben Ḥanina: “upon her⁴³Lev. 18:18: “Do not take a woman in addition to her sister to be ‘bundle’ together, to uncover her genitals in addition [to the sister’s] in her lifetime.” Cf. also Note 51.”, “upon her⁴⁴Deut. 25:5.”: “her levir shall come upon her.⁴⁴Deut. 25:5.” Since with respect to “upon her” which was said there, the verse speaks about paternal brothers, so with respect to “upon her” which was said here⁴³Lev. 18:18: “Do not take a woman in addition to her sister to be ‘bundle’ together, to uncover her genitals in addition [to the sister’s] in her lifetime.” Cf. also Note 51., the verse speaks about paternal brothers⁴⁵This implies (a) that a sister which also is a sister-in-law cannot be subject to the levirate and (b) no woman subject to an incest prohibition of Lev. 18 can be subject to the levirate, as spelled out in the Mishnah..

Rebbi Benjamin ben Gidal and Rebbi Aḥa were sitting together. Rebbi Aḥa mentioned the statement of Rebbi Yose ben Ḥanina. Rebbi Benjamin bar Gidal said to him: Or maybe: Since with respect to “in addition” which was said there⁴³Lev. 18:18: “Do not take a woman in addition to her sister to be ‘bundle’ together, to uncover her genitals in addition [to the sister’s] in her lifetime.” Cf. also Note 51., the verse speaks about one who is not a sister-in-law, so with respect to “in addition” which was said here⁴⁴Deut. 25:5., does the verse speak about one who is not a sister-in-law⁴⁷Since an argument based on the invariable meaning of words in legal texts must work both ways and Lev.18:18 obviously includes the prohibition of a sister-in-law who is not a brother’s wife, R. Yose ben Ḥanina’s argument seems illogical.? Rebbi Aḥa said to him: The Torah mentions⁴⁴Deut. 25:5. the brother’s wife and you say, the verse speaks about one who is not a sister-in-law! Rebbi Benjamin bar Gidal said to him: The Torah mentions⁴³Lev. 18:18: “Do not take a woman in addition to her sister to be ‘bundle’ together, to uncover her genitals in addition [to the sister’s] in her lifetime.” Cf. also Note 51. one who is not a sister-in-law and you say a sister-in-law⁴⁸The implication from Deut. to Lev. would restrict the prohibition of the sister-in-law to a brother’s widow!! Rebbi Aḥa was offended by him. Rebbi Yose said, not that Rebbi Aḥa disagreed but he insisted on the formulation he had heard from his teacher. What about it? Since “in addition” mentioned there⁴⁴Deut. 25:5. is about a brother’s widow, so “in addition” here⁴³Lev. 18:18: “Do not take a woman in addition to her sister to be ‘bundle’ together, to uncover her genitals in addition [to the sister’s] in her lifetime.” Cf. also Note 51. is even about a brother’s widow⁴⁹The correct implication, parallel to the argument of R. Yose ben Ḥanina, is that Lev. 18:18 applies even to the widow of the childless brother as claimed in the Mishnah..

The Torah said⁵⁰Lev. 18:18.: “Do not take a woman in addition to her sister”. Not only her, her co-wife from where? The verse says “to ‘bundle’ together”, not her co-wife nor her co-wife’s co-wife⁵¹The problem is the verb form לִצְרוֹר which has been translated as “to ‘bundle’ together” (from צרר II, Arabic صرّ) but which might also be taken as “to be a co-wife” (from צרה II, Arabic ضرّ). The Yerushalmi opts for the first version. In the Babli, 13a, the argument is that the verb appears in two forms, צרר here and צור in Deut. 14:25. The duplication of consonants is taken to imply “many bundlings together”, to exclude the co-wives’ co-wives. That argument is more in the line of R. Aqiba’s teaching than the bare argument here.. Not only his wife’s sister, all other incest prohibition from where? Rebbi Ze‘ira in the name of Rebbi Yose ben Ḥanina: A conclusion de minore ad majus⁵²The first of R. Ismael’s rules (cf. Note 13) which is universally accepted, also by R. Aqiba.. Since his wife’s sister, who is under an incest prohibition which may be lifted after being imposed⁵³After the wife’s death., nevertheless is prohibited from the levirate, all other women under incest prohibitions which cannot be lifted after being imposed not much more so! Since in the first case the incest prohibition exempts the prohibited co-wife, all other incest prohibitions also exempt their co-wives⁵⁴Since there is no argument pointing to the opposite conclusion.. This follows Rebbi Aqiba.