Talmud su Levitico 18:10

MISHNAH: Fifteen [categories of] women¹Deut. 25:5 requires that the widow of any man who died without legitimate or illegitimate issue be married by the man’s brother. If, however, that brother is forbidden one of the deceased’s wives by the incest prohibition of Lev. 18 or the rules of Deut. 25:5–10, she may not be married by the brother to whom she is forbidden. free their co-wives²The House of Hillel hold that if one widow is forbidden, all co-widows are forbidden. This is not accepted by the House of Shammai, Mishnah 6. and the co-wives of their co-wives from ḥalîṣah and levirate forever³If one of three brothers had married the second brother’s daughter and another woman, died childless, the other wife was married by the third brother who already had another wife, if the third also dies childless both of his widows are forbidden because one of them is forbidden. This scenario can be extended to n polygamous brothers; n arbitrary.. They are the following: one’s daughter⁴This statement seems to be needed only for an illegitimate daughter, except the daughter from a gentile or a slave woman who are not legally his relatives (Rashi ad loc.). Legitimate children are covered by Lev. 18:17. However, the Yerushalmi (Note 135) does not make any distinction between legitimate and illegitimate daughters.
Sadducees (followed by Karaites and Christians) did forbid marriage with a niece since marriage with an aunt is a biblical prohibition and they held that the incest prohibitions of Lev. 18 are gender symmetric. Pharisaic opinion is that “one does not introduce punishable offence by argument;” what is written is forbidden, what is not written is not (biblically) forbidden., his daughter’s daughter and his son’s daughter⁵Lev. 18:10., his wife’s daughter and her daughter‘s daughter and her son’s daughter⁶Lev. 18:17: “The genitals of a women and her daughter (including mother-in-law and wife) you may not [both] uncover, her son’s daughter (wife’s granddaughter or wife as paternal grandmother’s daughter) or her daughter’s daughter (this forbids the wife’s maternal grandmother) you may not marry to uncover her genitals; they are relatives, it is tabu.”, his mother-in-law and his mother-in-law’s mother and his father-in-law’s mother, his sister⁷This is needed only for the maternal halfsister (Lev. 18:9) married to a paternal halfbrother. It will be established that the levirate applies only to paternal brothers; the first marriage of the halfsister was legitimate. and his maternat aunt⁸Lev. 18:13. and his wife’s sister⁹Lev. 18:18., his maternal halfbrother’s wife¹⁰Lev. 18:16. It is assumed that the halfbrother died or divorced his wife who then married a paternal halfbrother of the man in question to whom she was not related. The earlier marriage to the maternal halfbrother forbade her permanently to the levir, the brother-in-law on the husband’s side.
Since in Deut. 25, “brother” is assumed to mean “paternal brother”, it needs some discussion in the Halakhah why in Lev. 18 “brother” may mean “maternal or paternal brother” since the usual stance is that in legal texts one word can have only one meaning., the wife of his brother who did not live in his world¹¹Deut. 25:5 introduces the rules of the levirate with the statement “If brothers live together”. This means that a brother born after the death of another cannot marry the widow of the deceased, i. e., the childless widow does not have to wait until the newborn baby grows up to marry her but, if there is no other brother, she may immediately marry outside the family., and his daughter-in-law¹²This is obvious (Lev. 18:15) except for the case that the son had died and his widow married a brother of her father-in-law unrelated to her. The prohibition of 18:15 is permanent; the earlier marriage to the son forbade her permanently to the father-in-law..

So far his daughter’s daughter from marriage³⁵As noted before, both Lev. 18:17 and 20:14 contain expressions of marriage.. His daughter’s daughter from a rape? “The genitals of your son’s daughter or your daughter’s daughter³⁶Lev. 18:10 prohibits incest with granddaughters. If only legitimate children were intended, the verse would be superfluous. Therefore, it must refer also to all illegitimate children; “rape” is only an example..” Where do we hold? If from marriage, it already had been said. So it it cannot refer to marriage but must refer to rape. So far for the warning, from where the punishment³⁷Lev. 18:10 contains no indication of any punishment.? Rebbi Samuel bar Rav Isaac said, “they, they; taboo, taboo”.³⁸Lev. 18:10 ends עֶרְוָֽתְךָ הֵנָּה “they are your genitals;” Lev. 18:17 ends שַׁאֲרָה הֵנָּה זִאָה הִיא “they are relatives, it is taboo;” Lev. 20:14 reads וְלֹא תִהְיֶה זִאָהבְּתוֹכְכֶם “there should be no taboo among you.” He accepts a gezerah šawah between 18:10 and 17 based on the common word הנה and one between 18:17 and 20:14 based on the common word זמה. This concatenation of two transfers is not without problems (cf. Babli Zebaḥim 50a); the Yerushalmi here indicates that it is only acceptable for R. Aqiba, not for R. Ismael. The argument is quoted in the Babli (Yebamot 3a and Sanhedrin 75b, 76a) in the name of Rav Isaac bar Eudaimon. That follows Rebbi Aqiba; following Rebbi Ismael? Rebbi Ismael stated: “they”, from “them”³⁹He makes a direct connection between Lev. 18:10 and 20:14, taking the unusual word אתהן (for אותן), the combination of the nota accusativi and הן, הנה “they”, to indicate the connection. This argument is not quoted in the Babli.. So far about his daughter’s daughter, from where his daughter⁴⁰Lev. 18:10 makes no mention of the daughter as incest prohibition.? Rav said, if he is forewarned about his daughter’s daughter, so much more for his daughter! If for his daughter’s daughter he is subject to extirpation, so much more for his daughter⁴¹The Babli, Sanhedrin 76a, notes the obvious contradiction to the principle that no punishment can be imposed that is not clearly stated in the text (cf. Note 31) and holds that the argument is so simple that the prohibition must be considered as if it were written in the verse.!