Commento su Levitico 18:9

בת אביך [THE NAKEDNESS OF THY SISTER] THE DAUGHTER OF THY FATHER [OR THE DAUGHTER OF THY MOTHER… THOU SHALT NOT UNCOVER] — Also the daughter of a woman raped by one's father is implied by the term מולדת בית או מולדת חוץ.

THE NAKEDNESS OF THY SISTER, THE DAUGHTER OF THY FATHER, OR THE DAUGHTER OF THY MOTHER, WHETHER BORN AT HOME, OR BORN ABROAD, EVEN THEIR NAKEDNESS THOU SHALT NOT UNCOVER. “Whether born at home, or born abroad — this means whether [the court] says to your father, ‘Keep her mother as your wife,’ or whether it has to say to him, ‘Divorce her mother,’ as for instance when she [i.e., the mother] is a mamzereth or a nethinah” [a mamzereth is the female product from one of the forbidden sexual relationships in this section, and a nethinah is a female descendant of the Gibeonites — relationships with these women being in both cases punishable by whipping]. Thus the language of Rashi. But it is not correct, since this interpretation leads to the conclusion that a sister that is born from [a woman who is herself one of] the relations forbidden [to his father],²⁷⁰I.e., if his mother had sexual relationships with one of the forbidden relations, the penalty for which is excision [and not mere whipping], it would follow that the child born from that union is not included under the terms of this prohibition; since by stating these two examples — that the mother was either a mamzereth or a nethinah, with whom, in both of which cases, sexual intercourse is punishable only with whipping — Rashi thereby seems to exclude from this verse the case where the mother was one of the forbidden relations, where the penalty is excision! This conclusion is obviously incorrect. is not included in this prohibition [against marrying one’s sister. For since Rashi explained the expressions whether born at home, or born abroad as referring to the mother, whether she is a lawful wife or a mamzereth or nethinah, both of whom are forbidden to the father only by punishment of whipping, and not by excision, unlike all forbidden relations, then the illogical result follows that if the mother were one of those relations forbidden to his father by punishment of excision, then the son’s sister born from that union would not be included in this prohibition]! And yet all [sisters] are forbidden by excision [i.e., regardless of whether the sister was born of a union itself permitted, or forbidden by whipping only, or by excision], unless she be born of a bondwoman or a Cuthean woman [in which case she is not considered his sister at all]!
And I wonder at the Rabbi [Rashi]! For in the Gemara of Tractate Yebamoth²⁷¹Yebamoth 23 a. in the second chapter it is clearly stated: “Perhaps I can say that this excludes a sister born of a union forbidden by whipping [as in the case where his father married a mamzereth and she gave birth to a daughter, for I might say that the marriage, being forbidden, had no validity, and she is therefore not his ‘sister’ in the sense that she is included in the prohibition against having intercourse with one’s sister]! Said Rav Papa: In unions punishable by whipping, the marriage, [although forbidden], has legal validity. For it is written, If a man have two wives, the one beloved, and the other hated.²⁷²Deuteronomy 21:15. Now is there before G-d a beloved one and a hated one [i.e., could it be supposed that the law should allow discrimination between the children of a favored wife and those of a hated wife]? Rather, you must say ‘beloved’ denotes ‘beloved for her well-chosen marriage’ [i.e., that it was blameless, since it was within the law], and ‘hated’ means ‘hated for her [illicit] marriage.’ And the Merciful One states, ‘ki thihyena l’ish’ (if a man ‘have’) — two wives.²⁷³The word thihyena is a word indicating legal status of marriage. Thus you must say that in the case of a marriage which is “hated” because it is punishable merely by whipping, [as in the case of a man marrying a mamzereth], the act of betrothal does take effect, and the daughter born from such a union is considered one’s “sister” with respect to the prohibition before us. Perhaps I might say that this excludes a sister born of a union punishable by excision [so that she is not his ‘sister’ in the sense that she is included in the prohibition against having intercourse with one’s sister]! Said Rava: Scripture states, The nakedness of thy sister, the daughter of thy father, or the daughter of thy mother, whether born at home, or born abroad, which means whether [the court] can say to your father, ‘Keep [the mother as your wife],’ or whether it has to say to him, ‘Hotzei’ [as explained further on], and yet the Merciful One states that she is thy sister!”²⁷⁴Since Verse 9 before us begins, The nakedness of ‘thy sister,’ and yet goes on to mention the one ‘born abroad,’ it is clear that even a daughter born of a union which is punishable by excision [as explained further on], is a “sister” with respect to this prohibition. Now the meaning of the word hotzei is that [the court] tells him, “Take her out from your house, for she is not your [legitimate] wife, and the act of marriage has no legal validity in those cases where the union is punishable by excision or by any of the [four] deaths by the hand of the court.” And yet notwithstanding this, one is punished for having intercourse with her because she is considered his sister!²⁷⁵It is thus clear that even if the mother were one of those forbidden relations to his father with whom sexual intercourse is punishable by excision, the daughter born is still forbidden as a “sister.” This does not appear to be so from the language of Rashi before us, who singled out cases of marriages forbidden only by whipping, in which cases the betrothal is valid! See above, Note 270. Only one’s sister born from a bondwoman or a Cuthean woman is not included in this prohibition, since the offspring is of her own [legal] standing.
By way of the plain meaning of Scripture the verse is stating: “The nakedness of thy sister, the daughter of thy father, or the daughter of thy mother, whether born of a marriage, as when the father brought the woman into the home as a wife [and she gave birth to a daughter], or born abroad, as when the man found her outside, and lay hold on her, and lie with her²⁷⁶Deuteronomy 22:28. and she gave him birth [to a daughter], thou shalt not uncover their nakedness.” Thus He mentioned [the prohibition concerning] a mother’s daughter whether she be born in wedlock or from unchastity. For even though in either case she is only his mother’s daughter and not his father’s daughter, [and if so, why did Scripture have to mention both cases], yet one might have thought that a brotherly relationship [forbidding sexual intercourse] applies only to a sister born in wedlock, but not to one born from unchastity, where everything is “free;” therefore Scripture had to admonish against all [kinds of sisters]. There is yet another verse which He stated with reference to one’s father’s daughter, stating The nakedness of thy father’s wife’s daughter, begotten of thy father [thou shalt not uncover],²⁷⁷Verse 11. this being [a prohibition against having intercourse with] a sister who is one’s father’s daughter born of his legitimate wife. It was necessary that He state this, because having said [in Verse 9 before us], the nakedness of thy sister, the daughter of thy father, without any qualification, and then in connection with the daughter of thy mother He explained whether born at home through marriage, or born abroad through unchastity, one might therefore have thought that one’s father’s daughter born in unchastity is permissible to him; for perhaps the Torah was not particular about a man’s offspring born in unchastity, because these are not known to him; therefore He said in explanation, The nakedness of thy father’s wife’s daughter [thou shalt not uncover], thus declaring that the daughter of one’s father mentioned at first [in Verse 9 before us] is not one’s father’s daughter born of his legitimate wife [since that is specifically mentioned further on in Verse 11]. Also, because in the case of the Noachides the prohibition [against sexual intercourse] was only if the brotherhood was from the same mother, and not [if it was exclusively] from the father, Scripture therefore explains that with respect to Israelites, all are alike in the prohibition [whether they are born of one father or one mother].
The correct interpretation of this verse is what the Sages have said in the Gemara of Tractate Yebamoth;²⁷⁸Yebamoth 22a. “A man who has intercourse with his sister, who is also the daughter of his father’s wife [through marriage]²⁷⁹So explained ibid., in Rashi. who is not his mother,²⁸⁰This phrase is not found in our Gemara, but it is a correct explanation. is guilty both on account of his sister, and his father’s wife’s daughter.” And there in the Gemara the Rabbis explained the reason: “Observe, it is written, the nakedness of thy sister, the daughter of thy father etc.; what need was there for the expression, the nakedness of thy father’s wife’s daughter etc.?²⁷⁷Verse 11. In order to teach that he is guilty both on account of his sister, and his father’s wife’s daughter.” Thus Scripture repeats certain prohibitions in order to make one [who commits these abominable practices] guilty on many counts, for even with reference to creeping things [which we are forbidden to eat] He has repeated many prohibitions regarding one matter, in order to punish the offender on all counts.

מולדת בית או מולדת חוץ; both legitimate or illegitimate, both unmarried. This appears to me to be the plain meaning of the text.

מולדת בית או מולדת חוץ, “whether born to someone who may remain at home, or born to someone who must remain outside of it.” Rashi comments that the meaning of these words is: “regardless of whether one tells your father that: “you may keep her,” or whether one tells the father: ”you must divorce her.” [Compare Yevamot 23, an example being quoted being the mamzeret, an illegitimate offspring who we might have thought does not qualify as a “relative.“ Ed.] Nachmanides writes that according to the plain meaning of the text this is a warning not to have sexual relations with one’s mother’s half sister, from the same mother, regardless if such sister was born to a husband and wife, her sister’s husband having married also his wife’s half sister, or if she is the daughter of a totally illicit relationship. Had we not had this verse, we would have thought that as long as the sister in question had been born in wedlock that she deserves preferred treatment, i.e. that the Torah would not publicly shame her by this legislation. This is also the reason that the Torah additionally writes in the following verse about a half sister when the two only have the same father. The first half of that verse speaks of such a half sister born in wedlock, i.e. מולדת אביך. This was necessary, seeing that in the case of a half sister, the daughter of the same mother, the Torah had not spelled out this distinction. There had been an assumption that possibly sleeping with a daughter of one’s father that resulted from an illicit relationship might not be considered by the Torah as an incestuous relationship; the Torah therefore had to set the record straight telling us that such a relationship is forbidden under the heading of קורבה, incest with a relative. The line בת אביך מולדת אביך was written so that we would know that the first verse mentioning בת אביך does not speak of a father’s daughter sired with his legal wife. Seeing that in the rules of incest for non Jews such relationships apply only when they involve the mother rather than the father, the Torah went on record that amongst Israelites there is no such distinction, and both father and mother are considered on an equal footing when it comes to incest. It is therefore possible to incur the penalties for a single act of incestuous relations both because of violating the law not to sleep with one’s sister and with one’s father’s wife.

Even the daughter of a [woman] raped [by your father]. And the verse (11), “The nakedness of the daughter of your father’s wife,” teaches that she must be someone whom your father could marry, excluding your sister born to your father from a maidservant whom one cannot marry [i.e., the marriage would be null and void] as it is written (Bereishis 22:5), “Remain here with the donkey,” [hinting], a people similar to a donkey.

ערות אחותך, “the nakedness of your sister;” this part of the verse concerns carnal relations without the benefit of marriage. [she is your sister from a an illicit relationship that your father indulged in. Ed.]

.בת — WHETHER SHE BE BORN IN THE HOUSE OR WHETHER SHE BE BORN OUTSIDE THE HOUSE — This means, thy sister, thy father's daughter, whether according to the law we can say to thy father, "Keep her mother as your wife" or whether we have to say to him, "Divorce her mother", as, for instance, when she is a ממזרת (the issue of a union forbidden in the Torah under the penalty of כרת) or a נתינה (the daughter of a Gibeonite woman, cf. Joshua 9:27, forbidden under the penalty of מלקות) (Yevamot 23a).

בת אביך, “the daughter of your father;” the result of your father having raped a woman, or seduced her, as a result of which she bore that daughter. This is why the Torah added the words: מולדת בית “born at home,” to describe this relationship. On the other hand, the expression מולדת חוץ, “born outside,” refers to the result of a stranger having raped or seduced your mother as a result of which she bore an illegitimate daughter.