Talmud su Deuteronomio 23:2

The following exposition was given by R. Ḥanina b. Uri before [a gathering of] the Sages in the name of R. Nathan: Anyone who is included in the category Shall not enter [into the assembly of the Lord]²³Deut. 23, 2-4. disqualifies a woman by his cohabitation²⁴From marrying a kohen or from eating terumah if she was the daughter of a kohen. Cf. Ḳid. 74b (Sonc. ed., pp. 381f.). and disqualifies the child.²⁵From his marriage. Such a child cannot be counted as belonging to the community. The reading of GRA is followed. They are: an Ammonite,²⁶Deut. 23, 4. Moabite,²⁷ibid. Egyptian,²⁸ibid. 8f. Idumean,²⁹ibid. slave, bastard, nathin,³⁰A descendant of the Gibeonites; cf. Josh. 9, 27. Samaritan³¹Cuthean (Samaritan) was probably substituted from fear of the censor for an original goï (heathen). and a ḥalal.³²One unfit for the priesthood on account of his father’s illegitimacy. The daughter of a ḥalal is fit³³To marry even a kohen. although [her father] is within [the category of] shall not enter.³⁴This is in accordance with the opinion of R. Dosethai b. Judah in Ḳid. 77a (Sonc. ed., p. 395), who maintained that as the sons of Israel are a miḳweh of purification for ḥalaloth, so are the daughters a miḳweh of purification for ḥalalim, so that their issue is eligible for the priesthood. The Mishnah (ibid.) states: The daughter of a ḥalal is unfit to the priesthood for all time.

If a man remarried his divorced wife after her marriage [with a second husband who subsequently died or divorced her], he may not cohabit with her, neither may a levir marry her [if her husband died childless].⁵⁸So GRA. Cf. Yeb. 11b-12a (Sonc. ed., pp. 57f.). The wife of a fit man who has a brother who is crushed in his privy parts⁵⁹Deut. 23, 2. is permitted to her husband but is prohibited to the levir.⁶⁰If her husband died childless. The rival⁶¹Where a husband has more than one wife, each woman is a ‘rival’ in relation to the other. of a soṭah is permitted to her husband but forbidden to the levir.⁶²Both the rival and the soṭah are exempt from the levirate marriage and ḥaliẓah, because a soṭah is in the same category as a forbidden relative.
A man who married a sister of his brother’s divorced wife or a sister of his brother’s ḥaluẓah, [though this sister] is permitted to her husband she is forbidden to the levir [if her husband died childless].
The wife of a man crushed in his privy parts who has a fit brother, though forbidden to her husband,⁶³Cf. Deut. 23, 2. is permitted to the levir. A soṭah is forbidden both to the husband and to the levir.⁶⁴lit. ‘to this one and to that one’. A ḥaluẓah is likewise forbidden to both. The wife of a man crushed in his privy parts whose brother is similarly maimed is forbidden to both.

Rebbi Ḥaggai asked before Rebbi Yose: Is the child a bastard following Rebbi Jehudah? He said to him, “No one with a damaged testicle or with cut-off penis may marry⁶²Deut. 23:2. The prohibition of the father’s wife is verse 1, the rule of bastardy is verse 3; cf. Chaper 4, Note 211.” interrupts the argument. It interrupted the argument in the matter of the father’s wife. He retorted, the father’s wife was part of the set of all incest prohibitions; it was selected from this set to teach about bastardy for all incest prohibitions⁶³This is an application of Rule 9 of R. Ismael (Introduction to Sifra): “Anything in a set which was selected from that set to teach, was not selected to teach only for itself but for the entire set.”
The prohibition of the stepmother is contained in the set of all incest prohibitions (Lev., Chapters 18,20). Therefore, if the result of incest with a stepmother is a bastard, the result of any other incestuous relation must be a bastard (cf. Mishnaiot 4:14,15).. (Let the father’s wife be selected to teach about bastardy for all incests prohibitions.) Similarly, let the rape victim be selected to teach a prohibition concerning all rape victims⁶⁴R. Ḥaggai wants to argue that since according to R. Jehudah, the prohibition of a person who had unmarried sex with his father is written in one verse with the prohibition of the father’s wife, all relationships that would be incestuous in the case of marriage should be prohibited.. He said to him, the father’s wife was part of the set of all incest prohibitions; it was selected from this set to teach about bastardy for all incest prohibitions. Can you say that the rape victim was in a set of all rape victims, that it could teach a prohibition concerning all rape victims⁶⁵There does not exist a set of women prohibited as incestuous by extramarital sex; the set to which Rule 9 might be applied contains only the woman who had slept with his father. The parallel reasoning implied by R. Ḥaggai does not work.? Why cannot the father’s wife be selected to teach about the rape victims in her case? He said to him, is she is the father’s wife, she is not his rape victim; is she is the father’s rape victim, she is not his wife.