Commento su Deuteronomio 23:1

לא יקח — This does not mean “he shall not take” but “he cannot take” his father’s wife: there can be no question of a legal marriage for him in regard to her, because the marriage ceremony (קדושין) has no legal hold on her (cannot make her his wife: it is no marriage) (Kiddushin 67b; cf. Rashi on Kiddushin 67b s. v. לא יקח)

לא יקח איש את אשת אביו, this law has been repeated here to inform us that anyone born from such a union falls under the category of mamzer, “bastard.”

לא יקח איש את אשת אביו, A man must not marry the wife of his father.” The reference is to a woman whom his father had once raped. This explains why this verse is appended to the subject of rape just discussed.

He cannot effect marriage with her, etc. Rashi is answering the question: It should have said “he may not expose” as it is written in the end [of the verse], “And may not expose.” He explains that קיחה implies that he cannot effect marriage with her, i.e. [he cannot] marry her with money, because we derive this law by comparing the expression קיחה written here to קיחה written regarding the field of Efron (Kiddushin 2a) [where it denotes marrying with money]. Rashi is referring to [marrying] her after the death of his father, otherwise, we would know [that he cannot marry her] because she is a married woman.

Kap. 23. V. 1. Während die auf Verwandtschaft beruhenden Eheverbote חייבי מיתת ב׳׳ד וחייבי כריתות bereits im dritten Buche ausgesprochen sind, folgen hier (Verse 2 — 9) noch auf Körperbeschaffenheit, Geburt und Abstammung beruhende Eheverbote, wodurch קהל ד׳, der Ehekreis des priesterlichen Gottesvolkes ebenso von ungeeigneten Elementen frei gehalten werden soll, wie innerhalb desselben die Priesterehen ihre noch engeren Umgrenzungen haben. Es sind dies חייבי לאוין וחייבי עשה השוין בכל, allgemein durch לא תעשה oder עשה verbotene Ehen, wie jene חייבי לאוין דכהונה sind. Ihnen voran stehen im Verse 1 zwei Eheverbote, die wir vielmehr im עריות-Kapitel des dritten Buches hätten erwarten dürfen, wo ja auch ohnehin אשת אב, hier das erste der beiden Verbote, schon steht, so dass es hier nur als eine Wiederholung erscheinen würde. Die Bedeutung und Stellung dieser beiden Verbote bedarf daher einer eingehenden Erwägung.

לא יקח איש את אשת אביו, “a man must not marry a woman who had been the wife of his father;” (even if she had only been raped by his father, and not legally married) This law does not come under the heading of a woman legally married to his father, as the offspring of such a marriage, i.e. the man the Torah speaks about here, would then be a bastard who cannot marry any Jewish woman. If he had done so he would be guilty of the karet penalty, and would forfeit his share in the afterlife. Here we speak of a woman who had been raped by his father, and this is why this verse follows the last verse of the last chapter which dealt with rape, when the penalty had been a financial one payable to the girl’s father. According to the opinion of rabbi Akiva, the karet penalty is sometimes also applicable to violation of commandments where this had not been spelled out. According to the other sages, our paragraph would have to speak of someone sleeping with his aunt while that aunt was awaiting completion of the process of completing the levirate marriage.

ולא יגלה כנף אביו AND HE SHALL NOT UNCOVER HIS FATHER’S SKIRT — This refers to the שומרת יבם of his father (the widow of his father’s brother who died without issue, and who is waiting (שומרת) for her brother-in-law (יבם) either to marry her or to put her through the ceremony of release, חליצה), who is thus destined for his father. But has he not already been prohibited about her (i.e. forbidden to marry her) on account of the law (Leviticus 18:14) “the nakedness of thy father’s brother [thou shalt not uncover]”?! But the prohibition is repeated here in order to make him transgress two negative commands if he takes her (Yevamot 4a), and in order to put into juxtaposition to it the law (v. 2) “one born of incest or adultery (ממזר) shall not come [into the assembly of the Lord]”, and thereby to teach that one is termed ממזר only if he is born from those liable to the penalty of excision on account of the intercourse between them, as is the case with one who take’s his father’s שומרת יבם, who is forbidden to him under the penalty of כרת as אשת אחי אביו; cf. Leviticus 18:14 and Leviticus 18:29 (but not if he was born of a woman intercourse with whom involves only flagellation), and it logically follows that the term applies also to one born from those liable to one of the death penalties by sentence of the court, for amongst the cases of forbidden intercourse there is none punishable with death by the sentence of the court which does not involve the penalty of excision (if it was not preceded by a warning) (Yevamot 49a; cf. also Rashi on Kiddushin 67b s. v. מהנ״מ).

ולא יגלה כנף אביו, ”and he shall not uncover the robe of his father.” The reference is to a woman who is slated to become his father’s wife as she was widowed from a brother of his father who had no children.

His father’s prospective levirate partner, etc. Rashi is answering the question: Why does the verse needs to add, “And may not expose the edge of his father’s garment,” [which seems superfluous]? Therefore he says that it comes to include his father’s prospective levirate partner, etc.

Jebamot 97 a lehrt die Halacha: נושא אדם אנוסת אביו ומפותת אביו אנוסת בנו ומפותת בנו, dass die sonst durch Ehe eintretenden Eheverbote infolge eines unehelichen Umgangs nicht statthaben, בנשואין איכא שאר באונסין ליכא שאר, eine eheliche Verbindung begründet die Verwandtschaft zwischen Mann und Weib und deren Folgen, ein bloß geschlechtlicher Umgang nicht (daselbst). Das vorige Kapitel bespricht zum Schlusse die Fälle außerehelicher Vergehen, insbesondere schließt es (Verse 28 u. 29) mit einem solchen, und statuiert, daß bei אונס, bei gewalttätigem Verbrechen für den Verbrecher die Pflicht der Ehelichung mit versagter Scheidungsbefugnis eintritt. Dem dürfte sich nun der Satz: לא יקח אדם את אשת אביו mit Hinblick auf die im Wajikra Kap. 18 und 20 gegebenen Verbote ערות כלתך וגו׳ אשת בנך וגו׳ ערות אשת אביך וגו׳ usw. anschließen und wiederholt hervorheben, dass diese Verbote nur bei אשת אביך usw. eintreten, nicht aber bei אנוסת אביו ומפותת אביו usw. (ähnlich רלב׳׳ג). Damit ist denn der jüdischen Ehe der sittliche Charakter augenfällig vindiziert. Nur der sittliche Willensakt der Einigung zwischen Mann und Weib, קידושין, bildet das Band zwischen Mann und Weib mit seinen verwandtschaftlichen Folgen, nicht aber ביאה das bloß physische geschlechtliche Moment. קידושין ohne ביאה begründet שאר, nicht aber ביאה ohne קידושין.

ולא יגלה כנף אביו, “and neither is he to uncover his father’s robe.” According to the Talmud, tractate Yevamot, folio 49, what is meant here by the word כנף, is a robe which his father was in the habit of revealing, i.e. a woman with whom his father had indulged in extra marital relations. We find this word in a similar context in Ruth 3,9, where the latter requests that Boaz, as her late husband’s redeemer become her partner in a levirate marriage.

Evidently, to transgress, with her, against two prohibitions, etc. You might ask: There are three prohibitions, because there is also the prohibition, “Let the wife of the dead man not marry outside to a strange man” (below 25:5)! The answer is that these two prohibitions apply even after his father’s death, but the prohibition of “Let the wife of the dead man not marry outside to a strange man” applies only as long as he is alive.

ולא יגלה כנף אביו nach der (eben daselbst) rezipierten Halacha: כנף הראוי לאביו לא יגלה, eine dem Vater ausnahmsweise gestattete, ja gebotene Ehelichung einer Verwandten bleibt für den Sohn, selbst nach dem Tode des Vaters, verboten. Es ist dies שומרת יבם של אביו, die Witwe des kinderlos verstorbenen Vaterbruders (Kap. 25, 5). Der Vater hätte diese ehelichen sollen, oder durch חליצה das Band lösen; dem Sohne aber bleibt sie, selbst wenn der Vater vor Vollziehung des einen oder des anderen Aktes gestorben, als Tante verboten. Auch die Stellung dieses Verbotes dürfte durch den am Schlusse des vorigen Kapitels besprochenen Fall veranlasst sein. Es war dort die Bestimmung ולו תהיה לאשה und damit die Pflicht der Ehelichung einer bestimmten Person vom Gesetze ausgesprochen. Es gibt nur noch einen einzigen Fall, in welchem das Gesetz eine ähnliche Verpflichtung statuiert. Dieser Fall ist eben: יבום, und dürfte hier diese Ehelichung der Witwe des kinderlos verstorbenen Bruders durch den Ausdruck כנף angedeutet sein; vergl.: ופרשת כנפך על אמתך (Ruth 9, 9). Dass sich aber das Gesetz veranlasst sehen konnte, die Gestattung resp. Verpflichtung zur Schwägerehe ausdrücklich auf den Bruder des Verstorbenen zu beschränken und einen etwaigen Eintritt des Neffen zurückzuweisen, dürfte sich aus dem Umstande motivieren, dass in einigen anderen Fällen das Gesetz in der Tat einen ähnlichen Eintritt des Sohnes an die Stelle des Vaters kennt. So bei יעוד (Schmot 21, 9) und שדה אחוזה (Wajikra 25, 25).

To teach that the bastard is only, etc. Rashi means that this is another reason why the Torah writes, “And he may not expose the edge of his father’s garment,” in order to juxtapose to it, “the bastard may not enter, etc.” You might ask that the verse, “One may not enter — with injured or crushed genitals, etc.,” interrupts between these two verses! The answer is since such people cannot have children and so they are unable to produce bastards, the verse [concerning them] is not considered an interruption.

As no act of incest or adultery subject to judicial execution, etc. Rashi is saying that you should not ask: There is a rule that we cannot add extra punishments [or extra prohibitions to a transgression] through a kal vachomer [and similarly we cannot add the status of a bastard to a child resulting from this transgression through a kal vachomer]! He explains that “no act of incest, etc.” Therefore, since this transgression is liable to kares, the child will be a bastard even without a kal vachomer since he is the result of a kares prohibition. And the father’s prospective levirate partner is a kares prohibition because she is his aunt.