Talmud su Genesi 42:13

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.