Talmud su Levitico 18:78

When a man betroths¹On the terms ‘betrothal’ and ‘marriage’ in Jewish law, cf. Kallah, p. 401, n. 1. a woman, he debars himself from [marrying] seven blood relations, viz.: her mother, her mother’s mother, her father’s mother, her daughter, her son’s daughter, her daughter’s daughter and her sister while she herself is alive.²Cf. Yeb. 40a, b (Sonc. ed., p. 249). In all these who are prohibited to him, the interdict is never lifted except in the case of his wife’s sister who is forbidden to him only during her lifetime;³Cf. Lev. 18, 18. and never does he disqualify his wife [from cohabitation with him] through [his intercourse] with her mother, her daughter or her sister.⁴The law applies to all the seven relatives. The three are mentioned probably because one might have thought that, on account of their close relationship, his wife would in such a circumstance be forbidden to him. Cf. Yeb. 94b-95a (Sonc. ed., pp. 643ff.).

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..

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..

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..

MISHNAH: The following are to be burned: one who copulates with a woman and her daughter,¹Lev. 20:14. and the daughter of a Cohen who committed adultery²Lev. 21:9.. In the category of a woman and her daughter are included his daughter, his daughter’s daughter, his son’s daughter, his wife’s daughter, her daughter’s daughter, and her son’s daughter³Lev. 18:17 includes relations with a woman and her granddaughter with the prohibition of a woman and her daughter. The Mishnaiot in the Babli and most independent Mishnah mss. include mention of the mother and the grandmother-in-law. This is logically redundant.. The following are to be beheaded: the murderer,⁴Chapter 7, Note 4. and the inhabitants of a seduced town⁵Deut. 13:16; Halakhot 7:1,10:7,8..

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..

MISHNAH: The following are flogged¹As a matter of principle, all transgressions of biblical prohibitions are punishable by flogging unless specifically exempted. The rules are spelled out by Maimonides in his Commentary to this Mishnah. It is under stood that a sentence of flogging can be passed only after a trial based on the testimony of two witnesses both to the fact of the crime and the necessary warning given to the perpetrator.
A crime punishable by the death penalty can never lead to a sentence of flogging, even if the death penalty cannot be imposed because of a material or technical obstacle. Crimes punishable by extirpation or Death by the Hand of Heaven are subject to flogging, since in this case the earthly punishment guarantees the sinner his part in the World to Come (Mishnah 17).
A crime punishable by a fine cannot lead to punishment by flogging. Crimes done by speech without accompanying action are not punishable by flogging, except swearing falsely, substituting sacrifices (Lev. 27:10), and cursing using the Name which is a potential capital crime.
A crime connected to a positive commandment cannot lead to punishment by flogging as long as the positive commandment still can be executed (Mishnah 4).
The infraction of a positive commandment cannot be punished. For example, the High Priest is commanded to marry a virgin. He is prohibited of marrying a widow, divorcee, or desecrated woman (Lev. 21:13–14). If he marries a woman who is not forbidden but not a virgin, he cannot be punished.
A prohibition understood by inference, not written explicitly, cannot be punished.: He who copulates with his sister²Lev. 20:17. The list starts with sexual transgressions punishable by Heaven., or his father’s sister, or his mother’s sister³Lev. 20:19., or his wife’s sister⁴Lev. 18:18. This is a simple prohibition., or his brother’s wife⁵Lev. 20:21., or his father’s brother’s wife⁶Lev. 20:20., or a menstruating woman⁷Lev. 20:18.. A widow for the High Priest⁸Lev. 21:14, a simple prohibition., or a divorcee⁹Lev. 21:7. The clause about halîṣah, the freeing of the widow of a childless man from levirate marriage, is in dispute; the majority holds that the prohibition of the widow after halîsah is rabbinic. or one having received ḥalîṣah for a common priest. For a widow and divorcee one is liable because of two categories¹⁰If the High Priest marries a widow who had been a divorcee.. For a divorcee having received ḥalîṣah one is only liable for one category¹¹Since halîṣah is forbidden only as a kind of divorce..

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..

HALAKHAH: ²⁹This and the the following paragraph also are Halakhah 3:8 in Avodah zara, where the differences in spelling are noted. Evidence points to Šabbat as the primary source. Much of the argument is found in Babli Šabbat 82b–83b. There is written abomination about the menstruating woman, and there is written abomination about idolatry, and there is written abomination about vermin. There is written abomination about the menstruating woman, for anybody who would commit any of these abomination s³⁰Lev. 18:29. The verse refers to all prohibitions of a sexual nature., etc. Abomination about idolatry, and do not bring any abomination into your house³¹Deut. 7:26. This verse refers uniquely to idols and idolatry., etc. Abomination about vermin, do not eat any abomination³²Deut. 14:2. The verse refers to all food prohibitions.. But I do not know to which of them it was compared. Rebbi Aqiba says, it was compared to abomination regarding the menstruating woman. As the menstruating woman imparts impurity by load, also idolatry imparts impurity by load²In Lev. 15:20–21 it is stated that anything the menstruating woman lies on becomes an original source of impurity. This means that if a woman in her period lies on top of ten mattresses and somebody touches the lowest one, which the woman never touched, he becomes impure as if he had touched the woman herself.. Or since the menstruating woman imparts impurity through a cover stone³³Stone is impervious to impurity. In general, anything not susceptible to impurity cannot transmit impurity. The one and only exception is impurity caused by genital discharges where impurity by load (Note 2) applies to anything under the affected person and even a stone plate covering a mattress will not shield the mattress from impurity if a person afflicted by a genital discharge sits on the stone. Babli Niddah 69b., does idolatry impart impurity through a cover stone? Rebbi Zeriqan in the name of Rav Jehudah, but some say in the name of Rav Ḥisda: Rebbi Aqiba agrees with the Sages that idolatry does not impart impurity through a cover stone. But the rabbis say it was compared to abomination s of vermin. As vermin imparts impurity by motion³⁴Here one has a serious discrepancy between the technical terminology of the Babli and the Yerushalmi. In the Babli impurity by motion is a form of impurity by load: If a person suffering from a genital discharge moves something indirectly or is moved with it, he imparts impurity. In the Yerushalmi this is consistently designated by its Mishnaic name, מִדְרָס, “stepping on.” This kind of impurity emphatically does not exist for vermin, or anything other than genital discharges. Therefore היסט the “motion” mentioned here must be that of a person’s hand touching an impure object. Transfer of impurity by touch is the only one mentioned for the eight kinds of impure vermin., so also idolatry imparts impurity by motion. Or as vermin in the size of a lentil imparts impurity³⁵Mishnah Ahilut 1:8. This minimum size for generation of impurity does not apply to complete limbs. does idolatry in the size of a lentil also impart impurity? Rebbi Zeˋira, Rebbi Isaac bar Naḥman in the name of Rebbi Eleazar, Rebbi Abbahu in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: They were yoked to Baal Peor and ate sacrifices to the dead³⁶Ps. 106:28.. As the dead in the volume of an olive impart impurity so idolatry in the volume of an olive imparts impurity. Or since a corpse imparts impurity once a person puts his finger tips in³⁷This refers to “tent” impurity (Ševuot 2:1 Note 34) which is created by any part of a person’s body being under the same roof as a corpse, even if it is only a finger tip., could I think that idolatry imparts once a person puts his finger tips in? Tearing down, tearing down from the leprous house³⁸A house afflicted with recurrent “leprosy” must be torn down (Lev. 14:45). Pagan altars must be torn down (Deut. 12:3). By the nature of the topics, the verb נתץ is used in the singular in the first case, in the plural in the second. Therefore this is a comparison (הקש), not an “equal cut” (גזירה שוה); the laws will be similar, not exactly identical.. Since in a leprous house when he entered with his head and most of his body³⁹Based on Lev. 14:46, which decrees impurity for anybody coming into the house, Sifra Meṣoraˋ Pereq 5(4), Mishnah Negaˋim 13:8., so idolatry when he entered with his head and most of his body. Rebbi Ḥanania said, this means that the impurity of idolatry is not consistent⁴⁰Neither R. Aqiba nor the rabbis are consistent in their comparisons.. For otherwise, why does one compare if for the facile [impurity] and does not compare for the strict? Rebbi Mana said, it is consistent. Why was it compared to a corpse and to vermin? To inform in both cases about the facile [impurity] attached to it⁴¹The impurity of idols and idolatry should follow the rules common for impurities generated either by dead vermin or by bodily discharges. This argument is known in the Babli tradition as הַצַּד הַשָּׁוֶה “the equal part;” cf. H. Guggenheimer, Logical Problems in Jewish Tradition, in: “Confrontations with Judaism”, ed. Ph. Longworth, London 1966, p. 185.. This is for a broken idol. But a whole one even in the most minute size⁴²This is consistent with the impurity of animals as food, where a complete creature always is biblically forbidden irrespective of size (cf. Nazir 6:1 Note 64)., as Rebbi Ḥuna, Rebbi Ḥama bar Gorion said in the name of Rav: Baal was the penis gland in the form of a bean: They selected the Baal of circumcision as god⁴³Jud. 8:33. Instead of “Baal of Covenant” one reads “Baal of circumcision” referring to the place of circumcision. This identifies the Semitic Baal with the Greek and Roman Priapus..

It is written¹⁶Lev. 20:14: “If a man takes a woman and her mother, it is taboo.” Everywhere is written “lying with”¹⁷In the punishment list of Chap. 20. In the prohibition of Chap. 18, the expression used is mostly “uncovering genitals”. but here is written “taking”, to teach you that he cannot be guilty for the second [woman] unless the first one is prepared¹⁸Available to him at least by betrothal or obligation of levirate. The criminal sanction cannot be applied if one of the parties was married to him but died. for him. Or maybe only by marriage¹⁹That he had to marry both women. This is impossible since an incestuous marriage has no existence in law.? We already said that there is no incestuous marriage. But is it not written²⁰Deut. 23:1; neither the term “lying with” nor the term “uncovering genitals” is used. Does this mean that only the marriage with a stepmother is forbidden?
This and the following questions challenge the assertion that the incest prohibition of a man with mother and daughter is the only one where “taking” is mentioned.: “Nobody may marry his father’s wife, and he should not uncover his father’s garment’s corner”? This comes to tell you that she was permitted to him before his father married her²¹The statement that he may not marry her makes sense only if without the father’s marriage the son could have married her. This supports the Mishnah.. But is it not written²²Lev. 20:21. This is a relevant question since the verse is also from Chapter 20.: “If a man take his brother’s wife, it is despicable”? This comes to tell you that she was permitted to him before his brother married her. This is confirmed by levirate²³She again becomes permitted to the levir.. But is it not written²⁴Lev. 18:18. The argument following is parallel to that of the verse quoted before this one.: “You should not take a woman in addition to her sister to make her a co-wife”? This comes to tell you that she was permitted to him before he married her sister. This is confirmed after her sister’s death. But is it not written²⁵Lev. 20:17. The argument identifies חסד I “to be well behaved” and חסד II “to act shamefully”. A similar argument in Babli Sanhedrin 58b.: “A man who would take his sister, his father’s daughter or his mother’s daughter; he sees her genitals and she sees his genitals, it is ḥesed.” Rebbi Avin said, that you should not say that Kain married his sister, Abel married his sister, “it is charitable”, I was charitable with the first generations so the world could be inhabited; “I said, the world was built on ḥesed²⁶Ps. 89:3..” But is it not written²⁷Lev. 21:7.: “Widow, divorcee, and desecrated, these he shall not take”? This comes to tell you that if he became betrothed to her that the betrothal is valid²⁸The marriages forbidden only to priests, “prohibitions of holiness”, are not incestuous; they are sinful but valid, cf. Halakhah 2:3..

What if there is a co-wife²³Since none of the sisters can be married (Mishnah 3:1), could any co-wife of one of them be married?? Rebbi Hila in the name of Rebbi Avina: It is an inference de minore ad majus. If the Sages gave a co-wife to the sister of a woman with whom one performed ḥalîṣah, which is rabbinic²⁴The imputation of the status of divorcee to any woman having performed ḥalîṣah is purely rabbinic. Therefore, the prohibition of the sister of a woman with whom he had performed ḥalîṣah and her co-wives is not biblical., here, where there is the prohibition of sisters²⁵Lev. 18:18., not so much more? It is obvious that the rule of co-wives applies to his daughter²⁶Since this is a case of Mishnah 1:1, the sentence is superfluous. It is missing in ms. A.. Rebbi Abun in the name of Rebbi Avina: One has stated there²⁷A baraita referring to the case of Mishnah 3:1, partially quoted in Babli, 27a., “if the co-wives performed ḥalîṣah, the sisters were freed; if the sisters performed ḥalîṣah, the co-wives were not freed.” But as you say, if the co-wives performed ḥalîṣah, the sisters were freed, so it should be that even if the sisters performed ḥalîṣah, the co-wives should be freed²⁸Since the House of Hillel hold that a woman forbidden for levirate gives the same status to her co-wives, it seems illogical to give the co-wives a status different from that of the sisters.. But it must follow Rebbi Joḥanan ben Nuri, since Rebbi Joḥanan ben Nuri said, come and let us institute that the co-wife perform ḥalîṣah without being admitted to levirate²⁹Chapter 1, Notes 200–204.. Did they institute that? Was it not stated: They did not manage to institute this before the time became unsuitable. But it must follow the House of Shammai³⁰Same conclusion in Babli, 27a. since the House of Shammai permit the co-wives to the brothers. Rebbi Phineas said to Rebbi Yose: If it follows the House of Shammai, even if the co-wives performed ḥalîṣah, the sistersshould not be freed³¹If ḥalîṣah of the sisters is worthless for the co-wives then ḥalîṣah of the co-wives should be worthless for the sisters since the House of Shammai validate a marriage of the sisters.! But we have stated: Rebbi Eliezer said, the House of Shammai say, they shall keep them, but the House of Hillel say, they have to divorce. There are two Tannaïm interpreting the House of Shammai, one said if the co-wives performed ḥalîṣah, the sisters were freed, the other one said if the co-wives performed ḥalîṣah, the sisters were not freed.

Did we not state: “Just as the water checks her out so it checks him out”? ¹⁶The next few sentences are copied from Chapter 1, Note 128. But see the Tosaphot text in which only one sentence from there (and Yebamot Chapter 10, Notes 49 ff.) appears. Just as she is forbidden to her husband, so she is forbidden to her paramour. Just as she is forbidden to her husband’s brother, so she is forbidden to her paramour’s brother. Just as the water checks her out for every single intercourse for which she receives her husband after [intercourse with] her paramour, so it checks him out. Since she in general becomes forbidden, whether by him or by another [man], she is checked out¹⁷Cf. Mishnah 2:5 that the husband may stipulate that the water check her out not only for adultery with the named respondent but with any man whosoever.. But when he¹⁸The husband. makes [her] drink, he¹⁹The suspected adulterer. is checked out²⁰The water is presumed to act at a distance, to make the adulterer’s belly swell and his waist disappear. (Cf. Note 14).. If it checked him out but not her, I would say that merit suspends for her²¹Cf. Chapter 3, Halakhot 4,5.. That is according to him who says that merit suspends and it is not recognizable. But following him who says that merit suspends and it is recognizable? Look, she was not recognized! But I could say that she drank uncovered water²²Water which was left standing uncovered and unattended may contain snake poison, cf. Terumot 8:5, in particular Notes 113 ff. and it²³Meaning the adulterer’s. swelled. They should not have her¹⁵The scribe wrote מבדקונַיה. It seems that the ms. before him had מבדקוניה, “to check him out”, but the scribe recognized that the masculine was inappropriate and indicated that one should read מבדקונַהּ, “to check her out”. checked out in this way but correctly²⁴Reading כדין “correctly” with Tosaphot, against a nondescript כדון “so” in the text. It would be against all rules if water which was left unattended in a vessel were used in the Temple.! But I could say that he was in secret with other women²⁵The accused boy friend was an adulterer but not with that woman.. Did we not think to say, when he makes [her] drink, he is checked out²⁶The water acts at a distance only from a woman with whom he actually committed adultery; the explanation attempted in the previous sentence is impossible.? Explain it that he had criminal intent but she acted in error; then the water checked him out but not her²⁷If either it was a case similar to date rape or that the adulterer impersonated the husband.. [²⁸Added from Tosaphot, missing in the mss. If the water checked her out but not him,] I would say that merit suspends for (her) [him]²⁹From Tosaphot text.. That is according to him who says that merit suspends and it is not recognizable. But following him who says that merit suspends and it is recognizable? Look, she was not recognized! But I could say that she drank uncovered water and her belly swelled. They should not have her checked out in this way but correctly!²⁴Reading כדין “correctly” with Tosaphot, against a nondescript כדון “so” in the text. It would be against all rules if water which was left unattended in a vessel were used in the Temple. But I could say that she was in secret with other men. Then if he¹⁸The husband. divorced her, she would be permitted to him.¹⁹The suspected adulterer. Explain it that he acted in error but she had criminal intent; then the water checked her out but not him. If he had criminal intent but she acted in error, then it is obvious that she is permitted to her house¹⁸The husband.. If he¹⁸The husband. divorced her, would she be permitted to him¹⁹The suspected adulterer.? Is it possible to say that he had criminal intent and you say so? If he acted in error but she had criminal intent, it is obvious that she is forbidden to her house. If he¹⁸The husband. divorced her, would she be permitted to him¹⁹The suspected adulterer.? Is it possible to say that she left because of him and you say so³⁰The Yerushalmi forbids the wife even to the unintentional adulterer; e. g., if she told him that she was single.? From where do we know that all depends on her? Simeon bar Abba in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: Is is written³¹Lev. 18:20.: “Do not ejaculate semen into your neighbor’s wife to be impure through her.” It depends on her; if she had criminal intent, she is forbidden, acted in error she is permitted³²Everything depends on her status; since a rape victim is permitted to her husband, the divorced rape victim is permitted to the rapist but the woman who pretended to be single is forbidden to her boyfriend after her divorce..

If a man cohabits with any woman forbidden him as incest, he does not thereby disqualify her from marrying a kohen.⁴²Cf. Yeb. 61b (Sonc. ed., p. 409) where R. ‘Aḳiba maintains that the term harlot forbidden to a kohen applies only to one who is in fact a prostitute. GRA omits ‘not’. Higger quotes the suggestion of Prof. L. Ginzberg that there is a scribal error through dittography and the text should read: ‘Not only is the child a bastard but he even disqualifies her from marrying a kohen’. [If a kohen cohabits with his wife when she is] niddah, although he is liable to a penalty for the intercourse,⁴³Cf. Lev. 18, 19. the child [who is conceived] is qualified to stand and offer sacrifices upon the altar.⁴⁴The offspring of a forbidden but valid marriage cannot be considered a ḥalal. Cf. Yeb. 60a (Sonc. ed., p. 399).
A woman who had intercourse with that which is not a human being,⁴⁵i.e. an animal; ibid. 59b (Sonc. ed., p. 397). although she is in consequence subject to the penalty of kareth,⁴⁶If the offence was committed in the presence of witnesses after due warning, the penalty is stoning (Lev. 20, 16); in the absence of witnesses and warning, she is under the penalty of kareth. she is not disqualified from marrying a kohen. R. Jose said: It once happened at Haitali⁴⁷The Babylonian form of Aitalu, the modern Aiterun, N.W. of Ḳadesh; cf. S. Klein, Beiträge, p. 47. that while a young woman was cleaning the floor⁴⁸lit. ‘house’; she must have been kneeling. a gorilla⁴⁹In Yeb. loc. cit., ‘a wild dog’. came and covered her from the rear. When the case came before the Sages, they did not disqualify her from marrying a kohen.

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.

The following are the forbidden relatives in the second degree: his father’s mother, his mother’s mother,⁵⁰The Bible only prohibits a man’s mother and the Rabbis extended the prohibition to his mother’s mother on account of his mother. His father’s mother is likewise prohibited as they are both called ‘grand-mothers’. the wife of his mother’s father, the wife of his father’s father,⁵¹The previous note applies here mutatis mutandis. the wife of his son’s son, the wife of his daughter’s son, the wife of a father’s maternal brother, the wife of a mother’s paternal brother. Bar Ḳappara adds the mother of his father’s father and the mother of his mother’s father. The wife of his father’s brother is forbidden to him⁵²Lev. 18, 14. but the daughter [his cousin] is permitted to him; his father’s brother is permitted to marry his⁵³The nephew’s. wife or his daughter; the wife of his mother’s brother is forbidden to him but his daughter is permitted to him. His mother’s brother is permitted to marry [the nephew’s] wife or daughter.
A man is permitted to marry the wife of his father-in-law⁵⁴Cf. Yeb. 21a (Sonc. ed., p. 124). and the wife of his son-in-law, but the Sages said that the wife of his father-in-law is not permitted to him because of appearance’s sake; [the mother-in-law’s] daughter is permitted to him.⁵⁵After the death of her sister, his wife. A man may not marry the daughter of his stepson,⁵⁶It is forbidden in Lev. 18, 17, and is not an incest of the second degree. It is only included here on account of the clause that follows. Cf. Yeb. loc. cit. but [the stepson’s] wife is permitted to him. His stepson is permitted to marry [the stepfather’s] wife and daughter. A man may marry the wife of his brother’s son and the wife of his sister’s son.⁵⁷This is a repetition of what is stated above in connection with a nephew’s wife and daughter. [A table of prohibited marriages is provided in Hertz, The Pentateuch and Haftorahs, Leviticus, pp. 186f., Sonc. ed., p. 559.]

The following are the forbidden relatives in the second degree: his father’s mother, his mother’s mother,⁵⁰The Bible only prohibits a man’s mother and the Rabbis extended the prohibition to his mother’s mother on account of his mother. His father’s mother is likewise prohibited as they are both called ‘grand-mothers’. the wife of his mother’s father, the wife of his father’s father,⁵¹The previous note applies here mutatis mutandis. the wife of his son’s son, the wife of his daughter’s son, the wife of a father’s maternal brother, the wife of a mother’s paternal brother. Bar Ḳappara adds the mother of his father’s father and the mother of his mother’s father. The wife of his father’s brother is forbidden to him⁵²Lev. 18, 14. but the daughter [his cousin] is permitted to him; his father’s brother is permitted to marry his⁵³The nephew’s. wife or his daughter; the wife of his mother’s brother is forbidden to him but his daughter is permitted to him. His mother’s brother is permitted to marry [the nephew’s] wife or daughter.
A man is permitted to marry the wife of his father-in-law⁵⁴Cf. Yeb. 21a (Sonc. ed., p. 124). and the wife of his son-in-law, but the Sages said that the wife of his father-in-law is not permitted to him because of appearance’s sake; [the mother-in-law’s] daughter is permitted to him.⁵⁵After the death of her sister, his wife. A man may not marry the daughter of his stepson,⁵⁶It is forbidden in Lev. 18, 17, and is not an incest of the second degree. It is only included here on account of the clause that follows. Cf. Yeb. loc. cit. but [the stepson’s] wife is permitted to him. His stepson is permitted to marry [the stepfather’s] wife and daughter. A man may marry the wife of his brother’s son and the wife of his sister’s son.⁵⁷This is a repetition of what is stated above in connection with a nephew’s wife and daughter. [A table of prohibited marriages is provided in Hertz, The Pentateuch and Haftorahs, Leviticus, pp. 186f., Sonc. ed., p. 559.]

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.!

It is written⁴¹Lev. 18:29. The verse is not quoted exactly. The argument is in Sifra Qedošim Pereq 10(10). A similar version in Babli 3b.: “For anyone who is acting out any of these abominations will be extirpated”⁴²The argument is made explicit (in the name of the 5th generation Galilean Amora R. Jonah) in Babli 8a: The verse considers all incest prohibitions as equivalent.. Was not the brother’s wife in the set of all incest prohibitions and was removed from this set by the levirate? Could one say that all other incest prohibitions were removed from this set by levirate? Rebbi Ze‘ira in the name of Rebbi Yose ben Ḥanina: “upon her⁴³Lev. 18:18: “Do not take a woman in addition to her sister to be ‘bundle’ together, to uncover her genitals in addition [to the sister’s] in her lifetime.” Cf. also Note 51.”, “upon her⁴⁴Deut. 25:5.”: “her levir shall come upon her.⁴⁴Deut. 25:5.” Since with respect to “upon her” which was said there, the verse speaks about paternal brothers, so with respect to “upon her” which was said here⁴³Lev. 18:18: “Do not take a woman in addition to her sister to be ‘bundle’ together, to uncover her genitals in addition [to the sister’s] in her lifetime.” Cf. also Note 51., the verse speaks about paternal brothers⁴⁵This implies (a) that a sister which also is a sister-in-law cannot be subject to the levirate and (b) no woman subject to an incest prohibition of Lev. 18 can be subject to the levirate, as spelled out in the Mishnah..

It is written⁴¹Lev. 18:29. The verse is not quoted exactly. The argument is in Sifra Qedošim Pereq 10(10). A similar version in Babli 3b.: “For anyone who is acting out any of these abominations will be extirpated”⁴²The argument is made explicit (in the name of the 5th generation Galilean Amora R. Jonah) in Babli 8a: The verse considers all incest prohibitions as equivalent.. Was not the brother’s wife in the set of all incest prohibitions and was removed from this set by the levirate? Could one say that all other incest prohibitions were removed from this set by levirate? Rebbi Ze‘ira in the name of Rebbi Yose ben Ḥanina: “upon her⁴³Lev. 18:18: “Do not take a woman in addition to her sister to be ‘bundle’ together, to uncover her genitals in addition [to the sister’s] in her lifetime.” Cf. also Note 51.”, “upon her⁴⁴Deut. 25:5.”: “her levir shall come upon her.⁴⁴Deut. 25:5.” Since with respect to “upon her” which was said there, the verse speaks about paternal brothers, so with respect to “upon her” which was said here⁴³Lev. 18:18: “Do not take a woman in addition to her sister to be ‘bundle’ together, to uncover her genitals in addition [to the sister’s] in her lifetime.” Cf. also Note 51., the verse speaks about paternal brothers⁴⁵This implies (a) that a sister which also is a sister-in-law cannot be subject to the levirate and (b) no woman subject to an incest prohibition of Lev. 18 can be subject to the levirate, as spelled out in the Mishnah..

Rebbi Benjamin ben Gidal and Rebbi Aḥa were sitting together. Rebbi Aḥa mentioned the statement of Rebbi Yose ben Ḥanina. Rebbi Benjamin bar Gidal said to him: Or maybe: Since with respect to “in addition” which was said there⁴³Lev. 18:18: “Do not take a woman in addition to her sister to be ‘bundle’ together, to uncover her genitals in addition [to the sister’s] in her lifetime.” Cf. also Note 51., the verse speaks about one who is not a sister-in-law, so with respect to “in addition” which was said here⁴⁴Deut. 25:5., does the verse speak about one who is not a sister-in-law⁴⁷Since an argument based on the invariable meaning of words in legal texts must work both ways and Lev.18:18 obviously includes the prohibition of a sister-in-law who is not a brother’s wife, R. Yose ben Ḥanina’s argument seems illogical.? Rebbi Aḥa said to him: The Torah mentions⁴⁴Deut. 25:5. the brother’s wife and you say, the verse speaks about one who is not a sister-in-law! Rebbi Benjamin bar Gidal said to him: The Torah mentions⁴³Lev. 18:18: “Do not take a woman in addition to her sister to be ‘bundle’ together, to uncover her genitals in addition [to the sister’s] in her lifetime.” Cf. also Note 51. one who is not a sister-in-law and you say a sister-in-law⁴⁸The implication from Deut. to Lev. would restrict the prohibition of the sister-in-law to a brother’s widow!! Rebbi Aḥa was offended by him. Rebbi Yose said, not that Rebbi Aḥa disagreed but he insisted on the formulation he had heard from his teacher. What about it? Since “in addition” mentioned there⁴⁴Deut. 25:5. is about a brother’s widow, so “in addition” here⁴³Lev. 18:18: “Do not take a woman in addition to her sister to be ‘bundle’ together, to uncover her genitals in addition [to the sister’s] in her lifetime.” Cf. also Note 51. is even about a brother’s widow⁴⁹The correct implication, parallel to the argument of R. Yose ben Ḥanina, is that Lev. 18:18 applies even to the widow of the childless brother as claimed in the Mishnah..

He who cohabits with a maidservant is liable to the penalty for transgressing fourteen negative commands and also to the penalty of kareth at the hand of Heaven, viz.: Thou shalt not let thy cattle gender with a diverse kind;⁶⁸Lev. 19, 19. The list given here is according to the text of GRA. Cf. Sanh. 82a (Sonc. ed., pp. 543f.). Thou shalt not sow thy field with two kinds of seed;⁶⁹ibid. Neither shall there come upon thee a garment of two kinds of stuff mingled together;⁷⁰ibid. Thou shalt not sow thy vineyard with two kinds of seed;⁷¹Deut. 22, 9. Thou shalt not plough [with an ox and an ass together];⁷²ibid. 10. Thou shalt not wear a mingled stuff;⁷³ibid. 11. All these laws forbid ‘mixtures’. Thou shalt not commit adultery;⁷⁴Ex. 20, 13. Thou shalt not covet;⁷⁵ibid. 14. And thou shalt not lie with any beast;⁷⁶Lev. 18, 23. Neither shalt thou profane the name of thy God;⁷⁷ibid. 21. also one on account of [laws concerning] a non-Jewish maidservant, a harlot, a niddah and a heathen woman. And one punishment of kareth, as it is stated, May the Lord cut off to the man that doeth this him that calleth and him that answereth out of the tents of Jacob, and him that offereth an offering unto the Lord of hosts.⁷⁸Mal. 2, 12. If he was a lay-Israelite and profaned his seed with a maidservant or a heathen woman, he will have no ‘awakening’⁷⁹i.e. instruction. ‘Awakening’ and ‘responding’ correspond in the Heb. to him that calleth and him that answereth in Mal. 2, 12. among the Sages and no ‘responding’ among the disciples. If he was a kohen, he will not have a son that offereth an offering unto the Lord of hosts.

The Torah said⁵⁰Lev. 18:18.: “Do not take a woman in addition to her sister”. Not only her, her co-wife from where? The verse says “to ‘bundle’ together”, not her co-wife nor her co-wife’s co-wife⁵¹The problem is the verb form לִצְרוֹר which has been translated as “to ‘bundle’ together” (from צרר II, Arabic صرّ) but which might also be taken as “to be a co-wife” (from צרה II, Arabic ضرّ). The Yerushalmi opts for the first version. In the Babli, 13a, the argument is that the verb appears in two forms, צרר here and צור in Deut. 14:25. The duplication of consonants is taken to imply “many bundlings together”, to exclude the co-wives’ co-wives. That argument is more in the line of R. Aqiba’s teaching than the bare argument here.. Not only his wife’s sister, all other incest prohibition from where? Rebbi Ze‘ira in the name of Rebbi Yose ben Ḥanina: A conclusion de minore ad majus⁵²The first of R. Ismael’s rules (cf. Note 13) which is universally accepted, also by R. Aqiba.. Since his wife’s sister, who is under an incest prohibition which may be lifted after being imposed⁵³After the wife’s death., nevertheless is prohibited from the levirate, all other women under incest prohibitions which cannot be lifted after being imposed not much more so! Since in the first case the incest prohibition exempts the prohibited co-wife, all other incest prohibitions also exempt their co-wives⁵⁴Since there is no argument pointing to the opposite conclusion.. This follows Rebbi Aqiba.

What is the fence that the Torah made around its words? It says (Leviticus 18:19), “Do not come near woman during her period of impurity.” Perhaps [you would still think] one could hug her and kiss her and speak flirtatiously with her. So the verse tells you, “Do not come near.” Perhaps [you would still think] one could sleep next to her on the bed, as long as she was clothed. So the verse tells you, “Do not come near.” Perhaps [you would still think] she could wash her face and put makeup on her eyes. So the verse (Leviticus 15:33) tells you, “She is in her period of exile” – that is, all the days that she is in her period [of impurity], she will be in exile. Because of this they said: The spirit of the sages is pleased with anyone who makes herself unattractive during the days of her period [of impurity]. The spirit of the sages is displeased with anyone who makes herself attractive during the days of her period [of impurity].

HALAKHAH: “Similarly, anybody who comes upon any of the incest-prohibited women,” etc. “He should not take a widow⁴³A fragment of Lev. 21:14..” Even if under duress? The verse says, “he shall not desecrate his seed in his people.” Even if he touched? The verse does not say לא יחול but לא יחלל, even under duress; לא יחול but לא יחלל, even by touching. So far following Rebbi Aqiba⁴⁴Rebbi Aqiba considers every pillel or polel verb an extension of an original ayin waw or ayin yod form. {The reading of ms. A is preferable since a חיל form of חלל is used in Lev. 21:4.} On the one hand, “to take” means “to marry”. On the other hand, the use of the pillel in v. 15 means an extension of the framework. This is taken as authorization of the judicial establishment to extend the range of the acts prohibited.. Following Rebbi Ismael⁴⁵The basis of the argument is the 3rd exegetical rule of R. Ismael [Introduction to Sifra (2)]: The technical meaning of a word does not change from topic to topic.? Rebbi Ismael stated: It says here⁴⁶The marriage restrictions imposed on the High Priest, Lev. 21:14, are formulated as prohibitions to “take” certain women. “taking” and it says there “taking” referring to incest prohibitions⁴⁷Lev. 18:17–18.. Since regarding “taking” referred to by incest prohibitions He treated the one who touched as equal to the one who completed⁶The exact meaning of this term is discussed in the Halakhah. Cf. also Chapter 4, Note 59., so also regarding “taking” referred to here we should treat the one who touched as equal to the one who completed. Rebbi Ḥaggai asked, if regarding “taking” referred to by incest prohibitions He treated the one who touched as equal to the one who completed and the child is a bastard, so also regarding “taking” referred to here we should treat the one who touched as equal to the one who completed and treat the child as a bastard⁴⁸This would be the correct application of R. Ismael’s rule, leading to a result contradicting practice. A similar argument in the Babli, 54a, is explicitly based on comparison with the menstruating woman whose children are not bastards, circumventing R. Ḥaggai’s objection.. Rebbi Yosa said, for which purpose was “desecrated” written? Is not bastard worse than desecrated⁴⁹Since the child of a disapproved union of the High Priest is defined as “desecrated” it cannot be a bastard since everything forbidden to a desecrated person is forbidden to a bastard but not vice-versa. Therefore, the rule of R. Ismael cannot be applied in this form.? Rebbi Abun bar Bisna came in the name of Rebbi Abba bar Mamal. It says here “taking” and it says there “taking” referring to the woman waiting for the levir. Since regarding “taking” referring to the one waiting for the levir He treated the one who touched as equal to the one who completed and the child is acceptable, so also regarding “taking” referred to here we should treat the one who touched as equal to the one who completed and treat the child as acceptable⁵⁰At least for non-priestly unions., since Rebbi Abba bar Mamal said: When he touched, he became guilty because of the desecrated one. When the gland entered, he became guilty for having intercourse. When he ejaculated, he became guilty because of desecrating¹⁵Lev. 21:15. Since the three sins are committed at three different times, he can be indicted and punished for three different crimes without any question of competition of laws. In the Babli, Qiddushin 78a, it is noted that the language of Lev. 21:14 implies that he can be punished for the second offense only if he actually had married the widow..

There is a story of a man who studied much Scripture and much Mishnah, and devotedly served the great Torah scholars – and yet he died in middle age. So his wife took his tefillin and went to the synagogues and study houses, and would scream and cry and say to them: My masters! It is written in your Torah (Deuteronomy 30:20), “For it is your life, and the length of your days.” But my husband studied so much Scripture, and so much Mishnah, and served the Torah scholars so devotedly – so why did he die in middle age? No one there had anything to say in response. Then one day, Elijah the prophet visited her and said: My daughter, why are you screaming and crying? She said to him: Master, my husband studied so much Scripture, and so much Mishnah, and devotedly served the Torah scholars – and yet he died in middle age. He said to her: When you were in your period [of impurity], did he come near you during the first (three) days? She said to him, “God forbid! He never touched me with even his little finger. And he would say to me, Do not even touch the dishes, lest they bring (me) to doubt [whether or not I am impure]. [Elijah continued:] And during the latter days, did he come near you? She said to him: Master, I ate with and drank with him, and slept with him in the same bed fully clothed, and yes, his flesh would touch my flesh – but we never had any intention of doing anything else. He said to her: Blessed is the Omnipresent God who killed him! For so it is written in the Torah (Leviticus 18:19), “Do not come near a woman during her period of impurity.”
It says (Leviticus 18:6), “None of you shall come near any of his own flesh.” Because of this, they said: A man should not be alone with (any) women in an inn, even with his sister or his daughter, because of what people will think. He should not chat with a woman in the marketplace, even with his own wife, let alone with another woman, because of what people will claim. A man should not follow a woman in the marketplace, not even his own wife, let alone another woman, because of what people will claim. It says here, “None of you shall come near,” and then it says further on [in the verse], “Do not come near.” Do not come near something that causes you to sin. Stay away from ugliness, and even something similar to ugliness. (Therefore) the sages said: Stay away from a minor sin, for it may bring you to a major sin. And run to [perform] a minor mitzvah (commandment), for it will bring you to [perform] a major mitzvah.
It says (Song of Songs 7:3), “Your belly is like a heap of wheat, surrounded by a hedge of lilies.” “Your belly is [like] a heap of wheat” – that refers to the congregation of Israel. “Surrounded by a hedge of lilies” – that refers to the seventy elders.
Another interpretation: “Your belly is a heap of wheat” – these are the minor, easy commandments. “Surrounded by a hedge of lilies” – when Israel performs mitzvot [commandments], they are taken into the life of the World to Come. How does this happen? When one’s wife is in her period [of impurity], and she is with him in his house, he wants to sleep with her – he wants to, but he does not. Will anyone see him, or will anyone know, or say anything to him? He is only afraid of the one who checks the immersion [at the mikveh]. You could say the same about [taking] challa [for the priests], and you could say that same about [giving] the first shearing [of wool to the priests]. These are minor, easy commandments – like lilies – but when Israel performs them, they are taken into the life of the World to Come.

There is a story of a man who studied much Scripture and much Mishnah, and devotedly served the great Torah scholars – and yet he died in middle age. So his wife took his tefillin and went to the synagogues and study houses, and would scream and cry and say to them: My masters! It is written in your Torah (Deuteronomy 30:20), “For it is your life, and the length of your days.” But my husband studied so much Scripture, and so much Mishnah, and served the Torah scholars so devotedly – so why did he die in middle age? No one there had anything to say in response. Then one day, Elijah the prophet visited her and said: My daughter, why are you screaming and crying? She said to him: Master, my husband studied so much Scripture, and so much Mishnah, and devotedly served the Torah scholars – and yet he died in middle age. He said to her: When you were in your period [of impurity], did he come near you during the first (three) days? She said to him, “God forbid! He never touched me with even his little finger. And he would say to me, Do not even touch the dishes, lest they bring (me) to doubt [whether or not I am impure]. [Elijah continued:] And during the latter days, did he come near you? She said to him: Master, I ate with and drank with him, and slept with him in the same bed fully clothed, and yes, his flesh would touch my flesh – but we never had any intention of doing anything else. He said to her: Blessed is the Omnipresent God who killed him! For so it is written in the Torah (Leviticus 18:19), “Do not come near a woman during her period of impurity.”
It says (Leviticus 18:6), “None of you shall come near any of his own flesh.” Because of this, they said: A man should not be alone with (any) women in an inn, even with his sister or his daughter, because of what people will think. He should not chat with a woman in the marketplace, even with his own wife, let alone with another woman, because of what people will claim. A man should not follow a woman in the marketplace, not even his own wife, let alone another woman, because of what people will claim. It says here, “None of you shall come near,” and then it says further on [in the verse], “Do not come near.” Do not come near something that causes you to sin. Stay away from ugliness, and even something similar to ugliness. (Therefore) the sages said: Stay away from a minor sin, for it may bring you to a major sin. And run to [perform] a minor mitzvah (commandment), for it will bring you to [perform] a major mitzvah.
It says (Song of Songs 7:3), “Your belly is like a heap of wheat, surrounded by a hedge of lilies.” “Your belly is [like] a heap of wheat” – that refers to the congregation of Israel. “Surrounded by a hedge of lilies” – that refers to the seventy elders.
Another interpretation: “Your belly is a heap of wheat” – these are the minor, easy commandments. “Surrounded by a hedge of lilies” – when Israel performs mitzvot [commandments], they are taken into the life of the World to Come. How does this happen? When one’s wife is in her period [of impurity], and she is with him in his house, he wants to sleep with her – he wants to, but he does not. Will anyone see him, or will anyone know, or say anything to him? He is only afraid of the one who checks the immersion [at the mikveh]. You could say the same about [taking] challa [for the priests], and you could say that same about [giving] the first shearing [of wool to the priests]. These are minor, easy commandments – like lilies – but when Israel performs them, they are taken into the life of the World to Come.

“Vain” and “untruth” both were said together, which is impossible for the mouth to say and the ear to hear⁵⁰The two versions of the Ninth Commandment, Ex. 20:16 and Deut. 5:17, both are Sinaitic versions which had been said in parallel and were written serially.. “Remember” and “keep”⁵¹The two versions of the Fourth Commandment, Ex. 20:8 and Deut. 5:12. The first two examples are also in the Babli, Šebuot 20b, this example only in Babli Roš Haššanah 27a, Mekhilta dR. Simeon ben Ioḥai 20:5 (p. 148). A parallel text from here to the end of the Halakhah is Sifry Deut. 233; Midrash Tannaïm p. 138 (Midrash Haggadol Deut. 22:11), Mekhilta dR. Ismael Yitro Chap. 7. both were said together, which is impossible for the mouth to say and the ear to hear. “Its desecrator shall be put to death” and “two unblemished one year old sheep⁵²From here to the end of the paragraph one speaks of laws that contradict one another, not different parallel texts. Another approach to the problem of contradiction in pentateuchal legislation is in Sifry Num. 3; a radically different one in Babli Ḥulin109b, where Yalta, Rav Naḥman’s wife, holds that all of Sinaitic legislation has exceptions (in contrast to the commandments given to Noah which represent Natural Law and are without exceptions).” both were said together⁵³The first verse is Ex. 31:14 on the observation of the Sabbath, the second is Num. 28:9 on the Sabbath sacrifice which requires many actions which if performed outside the Temple on a Sabbath would be capital crimes., which is impossible for the mouth to say and the ear to hear. “The nakedness of your brother’s wife you shall not uncover⁵⁴Lev. 18:16.”, “her brother-in-law shall come to her⁵⁵Deut. 25:5; cf. Introduction to Tractate Yebamot.”, both were said together. “You shall not move real property from one tribe to another,” “any daughter inheriting real property,” both together⁵⁶On the face of it, both verses, Num. 36:8–9, say the same, viz., that an heiress may marry only a man of her own tribe. The explanation is given in Babli Baba batra 111b, where it is shown that the entire chapter 36 only refers to the daughters of Ṣelofḥad; for all others only the rules of Num. 27:7–11 are applicable without restrictions. In this case, Num. 36:8–9 is the exception from Num. 27:8.. “Fringes you shall make for yourself,” “do not wear sha‘ṭnez”, both were said together⁵⁷In Deut. 22:11, wearing wool and linen together is forbidden. In v. 12, any garment, including linen ones, is required to have fringes, which according to Num. 15:38 must contain a dark blue woolen thread.. And so it says⁵⁸Ps. 62:12., “God spoke once, two I heard from this.” And it is written: “Is not my word like fire, says the Eternal, and like a hammer which shatters a rock.”

⁹⁸Babli 7b, Sifra Aḥare Pereq4(1–3).“He shall atone for the Sanctuary from the impurities of the Children of Israel⁹⁹Lev. 16:16., etc. In this aspect I have three impurities. The impurity of foreign worship as it is said, to defile My Sanctuary¹⁰⁰Lev. 20:3.. Sexual offenses as it is said, not to act in the rules of abominations¹⁰¹Lev. 18.30.. Spilling of blood as it is said, do not defile the Land¹⁰²Num. 35:34, a misquote from memory.. I could think that this he-goat atones for all these impurities, the verse says, from the impurities, not all impurities¹⁰³Reading the prefix מ as partitive, cf. Note 75.. We find that the verse treated the impurity of the Sanctuary and its sancta separately; also here we treat only the impurity of the Sanctuary and its sancta separately¹⁰⁴In his opinion, the Day of Atonement is exclusively for repairing any damage to the Sanctuary., the words of Rebbi Jehudah. Rebbi Simeon says, from its place it is decided, as it is said, he shall atone for the Sanctuary from the impurities of the Children of Israel, any impurity in the Sanctuary. I could think that this he-goat atones for these impurities, the verse says, and their crimes⁹⁹Lev. 16:16.. These are the rebellions¹⁰⁵Intentional sins, intended as “breaking the yoke of Heaven”. There is no homily on חַטָּאוֹת “unintentional sins” also mentioned in the verse., for so it says, the king of Moab rebelled against me¹⁰⁶2K. 3:7..

¹³³Babli 27b. According to this source, ben Dama was the son of R. Ismael’s sister. It happened that Eleazar ben Dama was bitten by a snake and Jacob from Kefar-Sama came to heal him (,and told him, I shall speak to you)¹³⁴Addition in the text here. in the name of Jesus ben Pandera. Rebbi Ismael said to him, Ben Dama you are not allowed. He told him, I shall bring a proof that he can heal me. He could not bring proof before he died. Rebbi Ismael said to him, you are blessed, ben Dama, that you left this world in peace and did not tear down the fences of the Sages, (to confirm)¹³⁴Addition in the text here. as it is written¹³⁵Eccl. 10:8. The fence is a stone wall without mortar with holes in which a snake may hide., he who tears down a fence will be bitten by a snake. But did not a snake bite him? But that it will not bite him in the Future World¹³⁶The mythical snake which seduced Eve.. What could he have said? Which a person should do and live by them¹³⁷Lev. 18:5..

In general by extirpation, the separate case by extirpation²In error.; the word of Rebbi Joḥanan implies that it is “general case and detail¹⁶²Hermeneutical principle #5 on R. Ismael’s list states that a general expression followed by particulars only refers to the particulars. If both general expression and details declare the same., one has to find a reason why the details have to be mentioned separately.”, as Rebbi Abbahu said in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan, since anybody who would perform any of these abomination s, they will be extirpated¹⁶³Lev. 18:29. This verse decrees a general verdict of extirpation on any violation of sexual taboos spelled out in Lev.18, whether or not they are criminally punishable.. Was not his sister included in the general class¹⁶⁴The sister is forbidden in Lev. 18:9 but in the chapter about penalties, Lev. 20:17, the punishment is reserved for Heaven. and was mentioned separately of the general class to divide from the general class. Rebbi Eleazar objected, is it not written¹⁶⁵Lev. 20:19. The wording might be slightly misleading., the nakedness of your mother’s sister and your father’s sister you shall not uncover, for he would touch his relative? He told him, this was mentioned separately for a reason, to judge by “touching”¹⁶⁶Lev. 20:19 makes two statements: The punishment is reserved for Heaven and the sin is committed the moment the genitals of the parties touch, without any penetration. Mishnah Yebamot 6:2 extends the equivalence of touching and penetration to all sexual offenses.. He said to him, is it not written¹⁶⁷Lev. 20:18. The implications are the same as for v. 19., a man who would lie with an unwell woman, uncover her nakedness and touch her source? He told him, this was mentioned separately for a reason, to judge the one “touching” as finishing. That you should not say, since he is liable for her [already]¹⁶⁸The word was deleted by the corrector but it is necessary for the understanding of the text. Since in Lev. 15 it is stated that simple touching (not sexual “touching”) a niddah causes impurity and is forbidden to the male, her prohibition differs materially from the other sexual taboos. for impurity we should not consider for him “touching” as finishing. Therefore it was necessary to mention (that he is liable for each single one.)¹⁶⁹This seems to be extraneous to the discussion. However, since the statement is also found in the Genizah text of Sanhedrin, it seems to be original and explains that Lev. 18:29 decrees separate extirpation and, therefore, separate sacrifices for unintentional sin, for each separate category of incest. He said to him, is it not written¹⁷⁰Lev. 20:20., a man who would sleep with his aunt, his uncle’s nakedness he uncovered? He told him, this was mentioned separately to judge by childlessness. But is it not written¹⁷¹Lev. 20:21., a man who would marry his brother’s wife, she is separated? He told him, this was mentioned separately to judge by childlessness, as Rebbi Yudan¹⁷²The Amora. His counterpart in the Babli is the third generation Amora Rabba (Rav Abba bar Naḥmani). The Babli (Yebamot 55a) applies both statements to both verses. said, where it is written childless they shall be¹⁷¹Lev. 20:21., they will be without children, childless they shall die¹⁷⁰Lev. 20:20., they bury their children.

But Rebbi Ismael himself had a problem: from where does one prove it¹⁸²This refers to the paragraph before the last, where R. Joḥanan explained that the sister had a special role in the list of incest prohibitions, to deduce that from the different levels of punishment the blanket decree of extirpation really represents separate decrees for each kind of infraction. In Sanhedrin, the name here is Joḥanan. But Ismael may be the correct attribution, since according to one opinion in the Babli, Zebaḥim 107b, this is R. Ismael’s position. S. Liebermann prefers to read “Eleazar” since the supporting argument is quoted in the latter’s name.? Rebbi Abbahu, Rebbi Eleazar in the name of Rebbi Hoshaia: Two prohibitions and one extirpation, the prohibitions split the extirpation¹⁸³This answers the question. It is rather frequent to find verses containing multiple prohibitions covered by one mention of extirpation where the context makes it clear that each single infraction triggers extirpation.. What is the reason? ¹⁸⁴Ex. 30:32,33 regarding the holy oil. Only v. 33 is discussed.It should not be used to be rubbed on anybody’s skin and in its proportions you shall not imitate it, and it is written, a person who would compound similarly, or who would put it on a stranger, will be extirpated from his people, that is two prohibitions and one extirpation. The prohibitions split the extirpation¹⁸⁵A person who inadvertently compounds aromatic oil in the same composition as holy oil and uses it on people has to bring two sacrifices. Babli, Makkot 14b.. How does Rebbi Joḥanan treat this? The verse speaks about males. His sister is mentioned to teach about all females¹⁸⁶While in the punishments listed in Lev. 20 both sexes are mentioned, the prohibition in Chapter 18 are all formulated for the male, except that the mention of extirpation is formulated (18:29) for “all persons”. Since the punishment for marrying one’s sister is extirpation (20:17) for both partners, it proves that the “persons” mentioned in 18:29 are both male and female.. Does Rebbi Eleazar not accept this? He has it from do not come near¹⁸⁷Lev. 18:6, the verse introducing incest prohibitions. While the verse starts אִישׁ אִישׁ it is agreed that the meaning is not “every man” but “every person”., equally male or female. How does Rebbi Joḥanan treat this? He explains it but it is not clear¹⁸⁸Since אִישׁ אִישׁ really means “every man” it needs a supporting argument.
מחוור is Babylonian spelling of Galilean מחובר “logically connected”; in the ms. it is a corrector’s change., so also from the following: Samuel bar Abba asked before Rebbi Zeˋira, should not well-being sacrifices, being treated separately, split all sancta regarding impurity¹⁸⁹Impurity of well-being sacrifices, the only ones available to lay people, is treated at length in Lev. 7:11–27. Impurity of sacrifices available to priests is treated in Lev. 22:1–16. One should assume that a priest who inadvertently eats a combination of impure well-being and other sacrifices has to bring separate purification sacrifices; but this is not the case.? He told him, it was necessary that they be treated separately, to eliminate sancta dedicated for the upkeep of the Temple regarding larceny¹⁹⁰While misuse of all kinds of sancta is larceny, it is punishable only if the monetary value of the misuse is at least one peruṭah. Misuse of one half peruṭah’s worth of Temple donations and one half peruṭah’s worth of sacrifices is not punishable., lest one be liable for them because of mushiness¹⁹¹Sacrificing with the intent of eating of the sacrificial meat out of its time and place., leftovers¹⁹²Eating of sacrificial meat after its allotted time., and impurity. But is that not a Mishnah? “All sancta destined for the altar combine with one another with respect to liability for mushiness, leftovers, and impurity¹⁹³This shows that well-being and other sacrifices are equal in the hand of the Cohen, Mishnah Meˋilah 4:1. The categories of mushiness, leftovers, and impurity do not apply to monetary gifts to the Temple. Anything donated to the Temple which is not a sacrifice or a Temple vessel is sold by the Temple treasurer and thereby reverts to fully profane status.,” in contrast to sancta destined for the upkeep of the Temple. Since they do not combine, they do split¹⁹⁵Somebody committing simultaneous larceny involving gifts to the Temple and sacrifices has to atone separately for the two offenses.. Rebbi Ḥanina¹⁹⁶The Genizah text in Sanhedrin reads Ḥinena, preferable for chronological reasons. said, so it is. They split but do not combine¹⁹⁷R. Ḥanina’s statement is an assertion that the rules are different for well-being and other sacrifices. This would agree with the Babli, Meˋilah 15a, that in fact well-being and purification offerings do not combine; the contrary statement of the Mishnah is classified as a rabbinic stringency..

HALAKHAH: “The order of beheading,” etc. ⁴¹Babli 52b; Tosephta 9:11.“Rebbi Jehudah agrees that there is no death uglier than this but the Torah said⁴²Lev. 18:3., in their statutes you shall not walk.” Rebbi Joḥanan said, also it was stated thus: One shall murder the murderer⁴³Num. 35:30: Any homicide; following witnesses one shall murder the murderer., the way he murdered. I could think that if he killed with a sword, one should kill him with a sword, with a rod one should kill him with a rod? Avenging is written here⁵Ex. 21:20. The slave slain by his master shall be avenged. Babli 52b; the Babli text in Mekhilta dR. Ismael p. 273, dR. Simeon bar Iohai p. 175., and there it is written: I shall bring over you a sword which avenges the vengeance of the Covenant⁶Lev. 26:25.. Since avenging mentioned there is by the sword, also avenging mentioned here is by the sword. I could think that he⁴⁴The avenger. should kill him between the arms? It is said here⁴⁵Deut. 19:19. Since this refers to perjured witnesses, it includes all kinds of death penalties., you shall eliminate the evil from your midst, and it is said there⁴⁶Deut. 21:9., you shall eliminate the innocent blood from your midst. Elimination, elimination; breaking the neck, breaking the neck⁴⁷By the doctrine of invariability of lexemes the meaning of “elimination” must be the same in Deut. 19:19 and Deut. 21:9. That of “breaking the neck” in Deut. 21:4 is defined by “neck” in Lev. 5:8. Since elimination in Deut. 21 is by breaking the neck, Deut. 19:19 also must refer to the neck. Since strangulation is not mentioned in the Pentateuch, the only method of execution to which this may refer is beheading.. Since elimination here is at the neck, also there it is at the neck. Since breaking the neck there implies chopping off the head, also here chopping off the head.

“They said to him: If it is practice, we shall accept this; if it is a logical argument, there is a counter-argument.” What could they have argued? Rebbi Abbahu in the name of Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Ḥanina: Are not his grandchildren forbidden for three generations, both male and female¹⁹¹In Lev. 18:17, incest with direct descendents is forbidden for three generations, equally for males and females. The Babli, 77b, has the same argument. There, the two questions of R. Abbahu are answered in the negative; incest prohibitions which concern capital crimes cannot be used as counter arguments in an argument de minore ad majus involving simple prohibitions (regarding Ammonites and Moabites) or prohibitions derived from a positive commandment (regarding Edomites and Egyptians) but they may be used in applications of rules 3 and 4 of R. Ismael (under conditions not recognized by the Yerushalmi.)? Rebbi Abbahu said that Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish questioned, does one argue a matter concerning bastardy in a matter not concerning bastardy? Rebbi Ḥaggai said that Rebbi Abbahu questioned, does one argue a matter concerning extirpation in a matter not concerning extirpation? He said to them, in fact, I am declaring practice and a verse supports me. “Sons,” not daughters¹⁹²Deut. 23:9: “Sons that will be born to them in the third generation shall come (masc.) for them into the Eternal’s congregation.” The entire sentence is in the masculine..

BARAITHA. Hold aloof from what is repulsive and from what resembles it, lest others suspect you of sin.
GEMARA. Whence do we learn this? For it is written, Therefore shall ye keep My charge.¹⁵⁵Lev. 18, 30. It does not state, ‘My statutes’ but My charge. This teaches, Guard the charge so that you do not infringe the statutes.¹⁵⁶Cf. Yeb. 21a (Sonc. ed., p. 124): ‘Provide a charge to My charge’, i.e. add restrictive measures to safeguard the precepts.

How can one prove secondary prohibitions? Rebbi Ḥuna said: “These⁸⁶Lev. 18:27, כִּי אֶת־כָּל־הַתּוֹעֵבוֹת הָאֵל “all these abominations”, these should have been written הָאֵלֶּה; the short form is taken as a hint of the root אל “power” (the meaning of the word commonly but wrongly translated as “God”).”, the strong ones. This implies that there are weaker ones⁸⁷In the Babli, 21a, the argument is in the name of Rava.. The following are the secondary prohibitions⁸⁸Babli 21a, Tosephta 3:1 (parallels the Babli in content and the Yerushalmi in language), Derekh Ereṣ Rabba 1, extended to contain most of the next paragraph.: His paternal grandmother and his maternal grandmother, his paternal grandfather’s wife and his maternal grandfathers wife, his grandson’s wife whether from son or daughter, the wife of his mother’s brother and the wife of his father’s maternal brother.

Rav said⁹⁵In the Babli, 21b, this is reported as a Galilean statement which is rejected because it is not valid in all cases.: In all cases where the female is forbidden by the Torah, the wife of the corresponding male is forbidden. The father’s sister is forbidden as female; the wife of the father’s brother, the corresponding male, is forbidden⁹⁶Both cases are biblical, Lev. 18:12,14. It seems that Rav claims biblical status for his statement.. The mother’s sister is forbidden as female⁹⁷Lev. 18:13. The second case is a secondary prohibition.; the wife of the mother’s brother, the corresponding male, is forbidden His son’s daughter is forbidden as female⁹⁸Lev. 18:17.; the wife of his son’s son, the corresponding male, is forbidden His daughter’s daughter is forbidden as female⁹⁸Lev. 18:17.; the wife of his daughter’s son, the corresponding male, is forbidden Rebbi Jacob the Southerner said before Rebbi Yose, there are another two. His mother is biblical⁹⁹Lev. 18:7.. His mother’s mother is secondary to her. They forbade his father’s mother because of his mother’s mother¹⁰⁰She is in the list of secondary prohibitions. As the Babli notes, 21b, in general one does not admit fences around fences of the law (cf. Note 72), so without Rav’s rule, she should be permitted. The Babli has a special explanation for the prohibitions, because grandmother and grandfather are called grand mother and grand father by the grandchildren, which gives them status of father and mother. The Yerushalmi disagrees and holds that there is never a fence for a fence of the law. In the next paragraph one proves the biblical prohibition of some so-called secondaries.. His son’s wife is biblical¹⁰¹Lev. 18:15.. His son’s son’s wife is secondary to her. They forbade his daughter’s son’s wife because of his son’s son’s wife. Rebbi Mattaniah said, there are another two. His father’s wife is biblical¹⁰²Lev. 18:8.. His paternal grandfather’s wife is secondary to her. They forbade his maternal grandfather’s wife because of his paternal grandfather’s wife. His father’s paternal brother’s wife is biblical¹⁰³Lev. 18:14. It was stated in Halakhah 1:1 that “brother” means “paternal brother”.. His father’s maternal brother’s wife is secondary to her. They forbade his mother’s maternal halfbrother’s wife because of his father’s maternal brother’s wife.

Rav said⁹⁵In the Babli, 21b, this is reported as a Galilean statement which is rejected because it is not valid in all cases.: In all cases where the female is forbidden by the Torah, the wife of the corresponding male is forbidden. The father’s sister is forbidden as female; the wife of the father’s brother, the corresponding male, is forbidden⁹⁶Both cases are biblical, Lev. 18:12,14. It seems that Rav claims biblical status for his statement.. The mother’s sister is forbidden as female⁹⁷Lev. 18:13. The second case is a secondary prohibition.; the wife of the mother’s brother, the corresponding male, is forbidden His son’s daughter is forbidden as female⁹⁸Lev. 18:17.; the wife of his son’s son, the corresponding male, is forbidden His daughter’s daughter is forbidden as female⁹⁸Lev. 18:17.; the wife of his daughter’s son, the corresponding male, is forbidden Rebbi Jacob the Southerner said before Rebbi Yose, there are another two. His mother is biblical⁹⁹Lev. 18:7.. His mother’s mother is secondary to her. They forbade his father’s mother because of his mother’s mother¹⁰⁰She is in the list of secondary prohibitions. As the Babli notes, 21b, in general one does not admit fences around fences of the law (cf. Note 72), so without Rav’s rule, she should be permitted. The Babli has a special explanation for the prohibitions, because grandmother and grandfather are called grand mother and grand father by the grandchildren, which gives them status of father and mother. The Yerushalmi disagrees and holds that there is never a fence for a fence of the law. In the next paragraph one proves the biblical prohibition of some so-called secondaries.. His son’s wife is biblical¹⁰¹Lev. 18:15.. His son’s son’s wife is secondary to her. They forbade his daughter’s son’s wife because of his son’s son’s wife. Rebbi Mattaniah said, there are another two. His father’s wife is biblical¹⁰²Lev. 18:8.. His paternal grandfather’s wife is secondary to her. They forbade his maternal grandfather’s wife because of his paternal grandfather’s wife. His father’s paternal brother’s wife is biblical¹⁰³Lev. 18:14. It was stated in Halakhah 1:1 that “brother” means “paternal brother”.. His father’s maternal brother’s wife is secondary to her. They forbade his mother’s maternal halfbrother’s wife because of his father’s maternal brother’s wife.

Rav said⁹⁵In the Babli, 21b, this is reported as a Galilean statement which is rejected because it is not valid in all cases.: In all cases where the female is forbidden by the Torah, the wife of the corresponding male is forbidden. The father’s sister is forbidden as female; the wife of the father’s brother, the corresponding male, is forbidden⁹⁶Both cases are biblical, Lev. 18:12,14. It seems that Rav claims biblical status for his statement.. The mother’s sister is forbidden as female⁹⁷Lev. 18:13. The second case is a secondary prohibition.; the wife of the mother’s brother, the corresponding male, is forbidden His son’s daughter is forbidden as female⁹⁸Lev. 18:17.; the wife of his son’s son, the corresponding male, is forbidden His daughter’s daughter is forbidden as female⁹⁸Lev. 18:17.; the wife of his daughter’s son, the corresponding male, is forbidden Rebbi Jacob the Southerner said before Rebbi Yose, there are another two. His mother is biblical⁹⁹Lev. 18:7.. His mother’s mother is secondary to her. They forbade his father’s mother because of his mother’s mother¹⁰⁰She is in the list of secondary prohibitions. As the Babli notes, 21b, in general one does not admit fences around fences of the law (cf. Note 72), so without Rav’s rule, she should be permitted. The Babli has a special explanation for the prohibitions, because grandmother and grandfather are called grand mother and grand father by the grandchildren, which gives them status of father and mother. The Yerushalmi disagrees and holds that there is never a fence for a fence of the law. In the next paragraph one proves the biblical prohibition of some so-called secondaries.. His son’s wife is biblical¹⁰¹Lev. 18:15.. His son’s son’s wife is secondary to her. They forbade his daughter’s son’s wife because of his son’s son’s wife. Rebbi Mattaniah said, there are another two. His father’s wife is biblical¹⁰²Lev. 18:8.. His paternal grandfather’s wife is secondary to her. They forbade his maternal grandfather’s wife because of his paternal grandfather’s wife. His father’s paternal brother’s wife is biblical¹⁰³Lev. 18:14. It was stated in Halakhah 1:1 that “brother” means “paternal brother”.. His father’s maternal brother’s wife is secondary to her. They forbade his mother’s maternal halfbrother’s wife because of his father’s maternal brother’s wife.

Rav said⁹⁵In the Babli, 21b, this is reported as a Galilean statement which is rejected because it is not valid in all cases.: In all cases where the female is forbidden by the Torah, the wife of the corresponding male is forbidden. The father’s sister is forbidden as female; the wife of the father’s brother, the corresponding male, is forbidden⁹⁶Both cases are biblical, Lev. 18:12,14. It seems that Rav claims biblical status for his statement.. The mother’s sister is forbidden as female⁹⁷Lev. 18:13. The second case is a secondary prohibition.; the wife of the mother’s brother, the corresponding male, is forbidden His son’s daughter is forbidden as female⁹⁸Lev. 18:17.; the wife of his son’s son, the corresponding male, is forbidden His daughter’s daughter is forbidden as female⁹⁸Lev. 18:17.; the wife of his daughter’s son, the corresponding male, is forbidden Rebbi Jacob the Southerner said before Rebbi Yose, there are another two. His mother is biblical⁹⁹Lev. 18:7.. His mother’s mother is secondary to her. They forbade his father’s mother because of his mother’s mother¹⁰⁰She is in the list of secondary prohibitions. As the Babli notes, 21b, in general one does not admit fences around fences of the law (cf. Note 72), so without Rav’s rule, she should be permitted. The Babli has a special explanation for the prohibitions, because grandmother and grandfather are called grand mother and grand father by the grandchildren, which gives them status of father and mother. The Yerushalmi disagrees and holds that there is never a fence for a fence of the law. In the next paragraph one proves the biblical prohibition of some so-called secondaries.. His son’s wife is biblical¹⁰¹Lev. 18:15.. His son’s son’s wife is secondary to her. They forbade his daughter’s son’s wife because of his son’s son’s wife. Rebbi Mattaniah said, there are another two. His father’s wife is biblical¹⁰²Lev. 18:8.. His paternal grandfather’s wife is secondary to her. They forbade his maternal grandfather’s wife because of his paternal grandfather’s wife. His father’s paternal brother’s wife is biblical¹⁰³Lev. 18:14. It was stated in Halakhah 1:1 that “brother” means “paternal brother”.. His father’s maternal brother’s wife is secondary to her. They forbade his mother’s maternal halfbrother’s wife because of his father’s maternal brother’s wife.

Rav said⁹⁵In the Babli, 21b, this is reported as a Galilean statement which is rejected because it is not valid in all cases.: In all cases where the female is forbidden by the Torah, the wife of the corresponding male is forbidden. The father’s sister is forbidden as female; the wife of the father’s brother, the corresponding male, is forbidden⁹⁶Both cases are biblical, Lev. 18:12,14. It seems that Rav claims biblical status for his statement.. The mother’s sister is forbidden as female⁹⁷Lev. 18:13. The second case is a secondary prohibition.; the wife of the mother’s brother, the corresponding male, is forbidden His son’s daughter is forbidden as female⁹⁸Lev. 18:17.; the wife of his son’s son, the corresponding male, is forbidden His daughter’s daughter is forbidden as female⁹⁸Lev. 18:17.; the wife of his daughter’s son, the corresponding male, is forbidden Rebbi Jacob the Southerner said before Rebbi Yose, there are another two. His mother is biblical⁹⁹Lev. 18:7.. His mother’s mother is secondary to her. They forbade his father’s mother because of his mother’s mother¹⁰⁰She is in the list of secondary prohibitions. As the Babli notes, 21b, in general one does not admit fences around fences of the law (cf. Note 72), so without Rav’s rule, she should be permitted. The Babli has a special explanation for the prohibitions, because grandmother and grandfather are called grand mother and grand father by the grandchildren, which gives them status of father and mother. The Yerushalmi disagrees and holds that there is never a fence for a fence of the law. In the next paragraph one proves the biblical prohibition of some so-called secondaries.. His son’s wife is biblical¹⁰¹Lev. 18:15.. His son’s son’s wife is secondary to her. They forbade his daughter’s son’s wife because of his son’s son’s wife. Rebbi Mattaniah said, there are another two. His father’s wife is biblical¹⁰²Lev. 18:8.. His paternal grandfather’s wife is secondary to her. They forbade his maternal grandfather’s wife because of his paternal grandfather’s wife. His father’s paternal brother’s wife is biblical¹⁰³Lev. 18:14. It was stated in Halakhah 1:1 that “brother” means “paternal brother”.. His father’s maternal brother’s wife is secondary to her. They forbade his mother’s maternal halfbrother’s wife because of his father’s maternal brother’s wife.

Rav said⁹⁵In the Babli, 21b, this is reported as a Galilean statement which is rejected because it is not valid in all cases.: In all cases where the female is forbidden by the Torah, the wife of the corresponding male is forbidden. The father’s sister is forbidden as female; the wife of the father’s brother, the corresponding male, is forbidden⁹⁶Both cases are biblical, Lev. 18:12,14. It seems that Rav claims biblical status for his statement.. The mother’s sister is forbidden as female⁹⁷Lev. 18:13. The second case is a secondary prohibition.; the wife of the mother’s brother, the corresponding male, is forbidden His son’s daughter is forbidden as female⁹⁸Lev. 18:17.; the wife of his son’s son, the corresponding male, is forbidden His daughter’s daughter is forbidden as female⁹⁸Lev. 18:17.; the wife of his daughter’s son, the corresponding male, is forbidden Rebbi Jacob the Southerner said before Rebbi Yose, there are another two. His mother is biblical⁹⁹Lev. 18:7.. His mother’s mother is secondary to her. They forbade his father’s mother because of his mother’s mother¹⁰⁰She is in the list of secondary prohibitions. As the Babli notes, 21b, in general one does not admit fences around fences of the law (cf. Note 72), so without Rav’s rule, she should be permitted. The Babli has a special explanation for the prohibitions, because grandmother and grandfather are called grand mother and grand father by the grandchildren, which gives them status of father and mother. The Yerushalmi disagrees and holds that there is never a fence for a fence of the law. In the next paragraph one proves the biblical prohibition of some so-called secondaries.. His son’s wife is biblical¹⁰¹Lev. 18:15.. His son’s son’s wife is secondary to her. They forbade his daughter’s son’s wife because of his son’s son’s wife. Rebbi Mattaniah said, there are another two. His father’s wife is biblical¹⁰²Lev. 18:8.. His paternal grandfather’s wife is secondary to her. They forbade his maternal grandfather’s wife because of his paternal grandfather’s wife. His father’s paternal brother’s wife is biblical¹⁰³Lev. 18:14. It was stated in Halakhah 1:1 that “brother” means “paternal brother”.. His father’s maternal brother’s wife is secondary to her. They forbade his mother’s maternal halfbrother’s wife because of his father’s maternal brother’s wife.

Rebbi Ḥuna understood all of them from this verse¹⁰⁴Lev. 18:17. “The genitals of a woman and her daughter you should not uncover; her son’s daughter or her daughter’s daughter you should not take to uncover her genitals, they are relatives, this is taboo.” Take means “to marry”.: “The genitals of a woman and her daughter you should not uncover; her son’s daughter or her daughter’s daughter.” Taboo - taboo, for an equal cut¹⁰⁵In v. 20:14 one reads: “If a man take a woman and her mother, it is taboo, in fire they should burn him and them, so that there be no taboo amongst you.” In contrast to v. 18:17 which speaks “downwards” of future generations, that verse speaks “upwards” of preceding generations. They are connected by the word taboo {Accadic zamū “to exclude from something, to refuse something to somebody”} which must “cut” the same way in both cases. The argument is refuted in Babli Sanhedrin 75a/b since it contradicts verses dealing with earlier generations which seem to insist that the kinds of sin and their punishments are not comparable.. Since there are three generations downwards, so there are three generations upwards¹⁰⁶Wife, her mother, and grandmothers as well as himself, his mother and grandmothers.. Since there is a prohibition downwards, so there is a prohibition upwards. Since upwards one requires marriage, so downwards one requires marriage¹⁰⁷To make it a capital crime.. Since upwards they are burned, so downwards they are burned. Since downwards, He¹⁰⁸The Lawgiver. gave the male’s daughter the same status as the female’s daughter¹⁰⁴Lev. 18:17. “The genitals of a woman and her daughter you should not uncover; her son’s daughter or her daughter’s daughter you should not take to uncover her genitals, they are relatives, this is taboo.” Take means “to marry”., so upwards He gave the male’s mother the same status as the female’s mother. What is this about? His father-in-law’s mother and his mother-in-law’s mother. Should not his father’s mother be like his father-in-law’s mother¹⁰⁹His mother-in-law’s mother is under a biblical prohibition since his wife is her granddaughter. Since the verse puts the daughter’s daughter on the same level as the son’s daughter, the paternal grandmother also must be forbidden.? Should not his mother’s mother be like his mother-in-law’s mother¹¹⁰So there is only one fence, not two. The same argument holds for all the rhetorical questions; all the prohibitions are reduced to single fences.? They forbade his father’s father’s wife because of his father’s mother. They forbade his mother’s father’s wife because of his mother’s mother. Should not his son’s son’s wife be like his wife’s son’s daughter? Should not his daughter’s son’s wife be like his wife’s daughter’s daughter?

It happened that Eleazar ben Dama was bitten by a snake and Jacob from Kefar-Sama came to heal him in the name of Jesus ben Pandera, but Rebbi Ismael prevented him¹³³Babli Avodah zara 27b. According to this source, ben Dama was the son of R. Ismael’s sister.. He told him, I shall bring a proof that he can heal me. He could not bring proof before he died. Rebbi Ismael said to him, you are blessed, ben Dama, that you left this world in peace and did not tear down the fences of the Sages, as it is written¹³⁴Eccl. 10:8. The fence is a stone wall without mortar with holes in which a snake may hide., he who tears down a fence will be bitten by a snake. But did not a snake bite him? But that it will not bite him in the Future World¹³⁵The mythical snake which seduced Eve.. What could he have said? Which a person should do and live by them¹³⁶Lev. 18:5..

⁷²This paragraph and the following almost to the end of the Halakhah have a slightly more complete parallel in Šabbat 7:2 (9c l.62–9d l.59). Rebbi Abun bar Ḥiyya said^73,In Šabbat, there is here a sentence connecting the text to the preceding discussion, not applicable here. This shows that the text here is not a mechanical copy of the text in Šabbat.⁷⁴One of R. Ismael’s hermeneutical principles is that “a detail which was singled out from a general class was singled out not for itself but as an example for the entire class.” In Šabbat, R. Abun bar Hiyya is reported here to have stated that according to R. Ismael this holds only for a single detail, not for two or more. (As a statement of R. Johanan see below, Notes 95 ff.).: Rebbi Ismael stated so: You shall not divine nor cast spells⁷⁵Lev. 19:26. Divination is an attempt to predict the future by magical means; spellbinding is practical witchcraft. Both are particular examples of the prohibition of witchcraft (Ex. 22:17), but no penalty is indicated.. Were not divination and spellbinding included in the general class but were mentioned separately to be treated differently from the general case? In general by extirpation, the separate cases for extirpation⁷⁶To use witchcraft is a capital crime as indicated in the Mishnah; in the absence of witnesses there is an automatic Divine verdict of extirpation. But the special cases of divination and spellbinding only trigger a verdict of extirpation; they are not cases for the human court. This illustrates R. Ismael’s principle. In Sifra Qedošim Pereq 6(2), R. Ismael and R. Aqiba identify divination and spellbinding as examples of make-believe witchcraft which according to Mishnah 19 is not punishable by the human court. Automatically, these are separate examples of sins which require a purification sacrifice if done without criminal intent. A person who unintentionally acts as sorcerer, divinator, and spellbinder has to bring three sacrifices.. A statement of Rebbi Joḥanan says, it is a case of general case and detail⁷⁷The wording might be slightly misleading. There is a hermeneutical principle (#5 on R. Ismael’s list) which states that a general expression followed by particulars only refers to the particulars. This presupposes that both general expression and details are in the same paragraph. For example, Lev. 1:2 describes sacrificial animals as animals, cattle, sheep, or goats. In the context, “animals” means “cattle, sheep, and goats”. In the discussion here, the details are mentioned in paragraphs other than the one describing the general category. Then one has to find a reason why the details have to be mentioned separately., as Rebbi Abbahu said in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan, for anybody who would perform any of these abominations will be extirpated⁷⁸Lev. 18:29. This verse decrees a general verdict of extirpation on any violation of sexual taboos spelled out in Lev. 18, whether or not they are criminally punishable., etc. Was not his sister included in the general class⁷⁹The sister is forbidden in Lev. 18:9 but in the chapter about penalties, Lev. 20:17, the punishment is reserved for Heaven.? Rebbi Eleazar objected: Was it not written, the nakedness of your mother’s sister and your father’s sister you shall not uncover⁸⁰A misquote from Lev. 18:7,8. It seems that in G the verses were quoted correctly. It is incorrect also in Šabbat. It seems from the context that the text in G is a learned scribe’s correction of the original which, however, did not refer to Lev. 18:7,8 but to Lev. 20:19: The nakedness of your mother’s sister and your father’s sister you shall not uncover, for his close relative he touched, their sin they have to carry. Cf. Babli Yebamot 54a.? He told him, it was stated separately for a reason, to judge it by touching⁸¹Lev. 20:19 makes two statements: The punishment is reserved for Heaven and the sin is committed the moment the genitals of the parties touch, without any penetration. Mishnah Yebamot 6:2 extends the equivalence of touching and penetration to all sexual offenses.. But is it not written⁸²Lev. 20:18. The implications are the same as for v. 19.: A man who would lie with an unwellwoman, who uncovered her nakedness, he touched her source, and she uncovered the source of her blood? He told him, it was stated separately for a reason, to judge it by touching. That you should not say, since one is guilty about her already by the impurity of touching, we should not treat the one who touched equal to the one who had full intercourse. Therefore, it was necessary to say it⁸³In G and Šabbat: “Therefore, it was necessary to say that he is liable for each one,” cf. Note 71. It is possible to justify the addition by noting that Lev. 18:29 decrees separate extirpation and, therefore, separate sacrifices for unintentional sin, for each separate category of incest.. But is it not written⁸⁴Lev. 20:20.: A man who would sleep with his aunt uncovered his uncle’s nakedness? He told him, it was stated separately for a reason, to judge it by destruction⁸⁵In Šabbat there is a reference here to Lev. 20:21. This also is missing in G, showing that the text here is secondary to that in Šabbat, since Lev. 20:20 says they shall die destroyed whereas v. 21 notes they shall be destroyed. The difference is explained in the following statement by R. Yudan. The Babli (Yebamot 55a) applies both statements to both verses., as Rebbi Yudan said, at all places where they will be destroyed is mentioned, they will be childless; where they shall die destroyed is mentioned, they shall bury their children.

“What is the positive commandment about the menstruating woman?” Rebbi Abin said, Keep the Children of Israel away from their impurities⁷⁰Lev. 15:31. The verse continues: Lest they die in their impurities when they defile My abode which is in their midst. This is the positive commandment not to defile the Temple. The verse concludes the chapters on impurities created by the human body (childbirth, skin diseases, male and female venereal diseases, menstruation, and sexual relations with a menstruating woman). Therefore it also is the positive commandment regarding the menstruating woman and is interpreted to forbid sexual relations with a woman close to the expected onset of her menses. The question about the woman experiencing a discharge during sex must refer to an unexpected event. Babli Ševuot 18b, most of the paragraph.. Rebbi Jonathan sent to ask Rebbi Simeon ben Rebbi Yose bar Lakonia, from where a warning for one having sex with an impure woman? He wanted to throw a stone after him; he told him, you are asking me something that children recite every day in the synagogue⁷¹Serving as elementary school under the system of compulsory elementary education instituted by Joshua ben Gamla.: To a woman in the separation ofher impurity you shall not come near to uncover her nakedness⁷²Lev. 18:19.. He answered him, that is not my problem. My only problem is rather “if he was having sex with an impure woman, he is liable. If he was having sex with a pure one and she said to him, I became impure,” if he separates immediately, is he liable⁷³As the Babli explains, interrupting the coition during an erection is pleasurable for the male and therefore forbidden under the circumstances. The end of the erection must precede the separation.? He told him, I and you have the same problem. Let us go out and learn. They went out and heard the voice of a Tanna who stated following Ḥiskiah: If lying a man will lie with her⁷⁴Lev. 15:24.. Not only that if he was having sex with an impure woman, he is liable. If he was having sex with a pure one and she said to him, I became impure, if he separates immediately, is he liable? The verse says, her secretion shall be⁷⁴Lev. 15:24., even if her secretion starts⁷⁵The rabbinic expression for the onset on the menses is פִּרֵס נִידָּה, “breaking through”. with him. What should he do? Rav Hoshaia, Rav Jehudah in the name of Samuel, he shall cool down. If he did not cool down? Rebbi Yose said, for him I am reading do not come near⁷²Lev. 18:19. as “do not separate”. Closeness is separation. Rav Ḥuna in the name of Rav Abba: Those who say, be close to yourself, do not touch me for I sanctified you⁷⁶Is. 65:5. Also in the Babli the verse is quoted in support of the interpretation of the root קרב as “to separate”.. Rebbi Zeˋira said, he should imagine that a sword is cutting into his flesh. Is everybody Rebbi Zeˋira? Rebbi Tanḥuma in the name of Rav Ḥuna: He shall press his fingertips on the wall, then he will cool down⁷⁷Babli Ševuot 18a..

“Apostomos²⁰²This personality cannot be identified since he cannot be dated. burned the Torah.” Where did he burn it? Rebbi Aḥa said, at the ford of Lydda. But the rabbis are saying, at the ford of Tarlosa²⁴⁸Place not identified. In A one reads “exercise field” instead of “ford”.. “And put up an idol in the Temple.” There are Tannaim who state, “was put up.” He who says, “was put up,” Manasse’s idol. He who said, “put up”, Apostomos’s idol²⁴⁹A here has an insert from Seder Olam which identifies Apostomos with the Emperor Caligula.. Why was it not fixed as a fast day²⁵⁰The question here is why the Seventeenth of Tammuz is not a full 24 hr. fast day like the Ninth of Av. The question in A, why was the day when the scouts were sent not made a fast day (since they caused the people to stay in the wilderness for 40 years and fixed the day for the double destruction of the Temple) is incompatible with the statement of R. Joshua ben Levi and has to be classified as gloss.? Ḥinnena the father of Bar Yanta in the name of Rebbi Banaia: Because most of the community did not accept it as obligation²⁵¹And a rabbinic institution which is not accepted by a majority of the people is invalid.. Rebbi Joshua ben Levi said, all that happened on this was repeated, all that happened on that was not repeated²⁵²The happenings on Tammuz 17 do not have the severity of those on Av 9.. Rebbi Levi said, it is written, which a person shall do and live by them²⁵³Lev. 18:5. The verse shows that danger to life or limb supersedes religious obligations., and the light in a person’s eyes only returns after 40 days²⁵⁴Therefore full 24 hr. fast-days must be spaced at least 40 days apart. This forbids making Tammuz 17 a full fast-day..

HALAKHAH: “If one’s house was connected to a house of pagan worship,” etc. ¹⁷⁵This Halakhah also is Halakhah 9:1 in Šabbat(ש). Evidence points to Šabbat as the primary source. Much of the argument is found in Babli Šabbat 82b–83b. There is written abomination about the menstruating women, abomination about vermin, abomination about idolatry. About the menstruating woman, for anybody who would commit any of these abominations¹⁷⁶Lev. 18:29. The verse refers to all prohibitions of a sexual nature.. About vermin, do not eat any abomination¹⁷⁷Deut. 14: 2. The verse refers to all food prohibitions.. About idolatry, and do not bring any abomination into your house¹⁷⁸Deut. 7:26. This verse refers uniquely to idols and idolatry.. But I do not know for which purpose it was compared. Rebbi Aqiba says, it was compared to abomination regarding the menstruating woman. As the menstruating woman imparts impurity by load¹⁷⁴In Lev. 15:20–21 it is stated that anything she lies on becomes an original source of impurity. This means that if a woman in her period lies on top of ten mattresses and somebody touches the lowest one, which the woman never touched, he becomes impure as if he touched the woman herself. For R. Aqiba anybody who carries an idol becomes impure even if he never touched the idol., also idolatry imparts impurity by load. Or since the menstruating woman imparts impurity through a cover stone¹⁷⁹Stone is impervious to impurity. In general, anything not susceptible to impurity cannot transmit impurity. The one and only exception is impurity caused by genital discharges where impurity by load (Note 174) applies to anything under the affected person and even a stone plate covering a mattress will not shield the mattress from impurity if a person afflicted by a genital discharge sits on the stone. Babli Niddah 69b., does idolatry impart impurity through a cover stone? Rebbi Zeriqa in the name of Rebbi Ḥanina¹⁸⁰In, Šabbat: Rav Jehudah. On one hand, the tradent in Šabbat is mentioned as R. Zeriqan, the Yerushalmi form, not the Babli form Zeriqa as here; but this is to be explained by the babylonized spelling of the text of the present Tractate. On the other hand, the tradent in the Babli (Šabbat 82b) is R. Eleazar, a known student of R. Ḥanina., but some say in the name of Rav Ḥisda: Rebbi Aqiba agrees with the Sages that idolatry does not impart impurity through a cover stone. But the rabbis say it was compared to abominations of vermin. As vermin imparts impurity by motion¹⁸¹Here one has a serious discrepancy between the technical terminology of the Babli and the Yerushalmi. In the Babli impurity by motion is a form of impurity by load: If a person suffering from a genital discharge moves something indirectly or is moved with it, he imparts impurity. In the Yerushalmi this is consistently designated by its Mishnaic name, מִדְרָס, “stepping on.” This kind of impurity emphatically does not exist for vermin, or anything other than genital discharges. Therefore היסט the “motion” mentioned here must be that of a person’s hand touching an impure object. Transfer of impurity by touch is the only one mentioned for the eight kinds of impure vermin., so also idolatry imparts impurity by motion. Or as vermin in the size of a lentil imparts impurity¹⁸²Mishnah Ahilut 1:8. This minimum size for generation of impurity does not apply to complete limbs. does also idolatry in the size of a lentil impart impurity? Rebbi Zeˋira, Rebbi Isaac bar Naḥman, Rebbi Eleazar, Rebbi Abbahu in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: They were yoked to Baal Peor and ate sacrifices to the dead¹⁸³Ps. 106:28.. As the dead in the size of an olive impart impurity¹⁸²Mishnah Ahilut 1:8. This minimum size for generation of impurity does not apply to complete limbs. so idolatry in the size of an olive imparts impurity. Or since a corpse imparts impurity once a person puts his finger tips in¹⁸⁴This refers to “tent” impurity (Ševuot 2:1 Note 34) which is created by any part of a person’s body being under the same roof as a corpse, even if it is only a finger tip., could I think that idolatry imparts once a person puts his finger tips in? Tearing down, tearing down one infers from the leprous house¹⁸⁵A house afflicted with recurrent “leprosy” must be torn down (Lev. 14:45). Pagan altars must be torn down (Deut. 12:3). By the nature of the topics, the verb נתץ is used in the singular in the first case, in the plural in the second. Therefore this is a comparison (הקש), not an “equal cut” (גזירה שוה); the laws will be similiar, not exactly identical.. Since in a leprous house when he entered with his head and most of his body¹⁸⁶Based on Lev. 14:46, which decrees impurity for anybody coming into the house, Sifra Meṣoraˋ Pereq 5(4), Mishnah Negaˋim 13:8., so idolatry when he entered with his head and most of his body. Rebbi Ḥanina¹⁸⁷In Šabbat: Ḥanania. The latter attribution is correct since he must have been a contemporary of R. Mana (II). said, this means that the impurity of idolatry is not consistent¹⁸⁸Neither R. Aqiba nor the rabbis are consistent in their comparisons.. For otherwise, why does one compare if for the facile [impurity] and does not compare for the strict? Rebbi Mana said, it is consistent. Why was it compared to a corpse and to vermin? To inform in both cases about the facile [impurity] attached to it¹⁸⁹The impurity of idols and idolatry should follow the rules common to impurities generated either by dead vermin or by bodily discharges. This argument is known in the Babli tradition as הַצַּד הַשָּׁוֶה “the equal part;” cf. H. Guggenheimer, Logical Problems in Jewish Tradition, in: “Confrontations with Judaism”, ed. Ph. Longworth, London 1966, p. 185.. This is for a broken idol. But an entire one even in the most minute size¹⁹⁰This is consistent with the impurity of animals as food, where a complete creature always is biblically forbidden irrespective of size (cf. Nazir 6:1 Note 64)., as Rebbi Yose hen Rebbi Abun¹⁹¹In ש: R. Ḥuna. said, Rav Ḥama bar Gorion in the name of Rav: Baal was the penis gland in the form of a bean. What is the reason? They selected the Baal of circumcision as god¹⁹²Jud. 8:33. Instead of “Baal of Covenant” one reads “Baal of circumcision” referring to the place of circumcision. This identifies the Semitic Baal with the Greek and Roman Priapus..

HALAKHAH: “A person having sexual relations with the mother,” etc. Halakhah 7:“A person having sexual relations with the father’s wife,” etc. From where the warning¹²⁹A prohibition the penalty for which is not spelled out carries a penalty of flogging (Deut. 25:21). For any more serious infraction the pentateuchal style requires that separate verses must spell out (1) the prohibition, (2) the penalty to be imposed by the court, (3) the penalty imposed by Heaven in case the crime was not observed by two blameless adult male witnesses and, therefore, no court case was possible. In case of sexual crimes this would mean that the witnesses have to see the sex act. For a civil case, such as a husband wishing to divorce his wife because of her adultery, without paying her ketubah, it is enough for witnesses to testify to her going to a room with another man, locking the door, and extinguishing the lights. But this is not enough for a criminal conviction. for a person having sexual relations with the mother? Your mother’s nakedness you shall not uncover.¹³⁰Lev. 18:7. From where extirpation? For anybody who would commit any of these abominations, the guilty persons will be extirpated from their people¹³¹Lev. 18:29.. From where the warning for a person having sexual relations with the father’s wife? Your father’s wife’s nakedness you shall not uncover.¹³²Lev. 18:8 From where extirpation? For anybody who would commit,¹³¹Lev. 18:29. etc. Punishment from where? A man who would sleep with his father’s wife, his father’s nakedness he uncovered; they shall be put to death,¹³³Lev. 20:11. Even R. Jehudah will agree that this verse also refers to the mother. The verse ends: their blood be on them. In the next Halakhah it will be determined that this expression implies stoning; cf. Babli 54a. etc.

HALAKHAH: “A person having sexual relations with the mother,” etc. Halakhah 7:“A person having sexual relations with the father’s wife,” etc. From where the warning¹²⁹A prohibition the penalty for which is not spelled out carries a penalty of flogging (Deut. 25:21). For any more serious infraction the pentateuchal style requires that separate verses must spell out (1) the prohibition, (2) the penalty to be imposed by the court, (3) the penalty imposed by Heaven in case the crime was not observed by two blameless adult male witnesses and, therefore, no court case was possible. In case of sexual crimes this would mean that the witnesses have to see the sex act. For a civil case, such as a husband wishing to divorce his wife because of her adultery, without paying her ketubah, it is enough for witnesses to testify to her going to a room with another man, locking the door, and extinguishing the lights. But this is not enough for a criminal conviction. for a person having sexual relations with the mother? Your mother’s nakedness you shall not uncover.¹³⁰Lev. 18:7. From where extirpation? For anybody who would commit any of these abominations, the guilty persons will be extirpated from their people¹³¹Lev. 18:29.. From where the warning for a person having sexual relations with the father’s wife? Your father’s wife’s nakedness you shall not uncover.¹³²Lev. 18:8 From where extirpation? For anybody who would commit,¹³¹Lev. 18:29. etc. Punishment from where? A man who would sleep with his father’s wife, his father’s nakedness he uncovered; they shall be put to death,¹³³Lev. 20:11. Even R. Jehudah will agree that this verse also refers to the mother. The verse ends: their blood be on them. In the next Halakhah it will be determined that this expression implies stoning; cf. Babli 54a. etc.

HALAKHAH: “A person having sexual relations with the mother,” etc. Halakhah 7:“A person having sexual relations with the father’s wife,” etc. From where the warning¹²⁹A prohibition the penalty for which is not spelled out carries a penalty of flogging (Deut. 25:21). For any more serious infraction the pentateuchal style requires that separate verses must spell out (1) the prohibition, (2) the penalty to be imposed by the court, (3) the penalty imposed by Heaven in case the crime was not observed by two blameless adult male witnesses and, therefore, no court case was possible. In case of sexual crimes this would mean that the witnesses have to see the sex act. For a civil case, such as a husband wishing to divorce his wife because of her adultery, without paying her ketubah, it is enough for witnesses to testify to her going to a room with another man, locking the door, and extinguishing the lights. But this is not enough for a criminal conviction. for a person having sexual relations with the mother? Your mother’s nakedness you shall not uncover.¹³⁰Lev. 18:7. From where extirpation? For anybody who would commit any of these abominations, the guilty persons will be extirpated from their people¹³¹Lev. 18:29.. From where the warning for a person having sexual relations with the father’s wife? Your father’s wife’s nakedness you shall not uncover.¹³²Lev. 18:8 From where extirpation? For anybody who would commit,¹³¹Lev. 18:29. etc. Punishment from where? A man who would sleep with his father’s wife, his father’s nakedness he uncovered; they shall be put to death,¹³³Lev. 20:11. Even R. Jehudah will agree that this verse also refers to the mother. The verse ends: their blood be on them. In the next Halakhah it will be determined that this expression implies stoning; cf. Babli 54a. etc.

From where the warning¹²⁹A prohibition the penalty for which is not spelled out carries a penalty of flogging (Deut. 25:21). For any more serious infraction the pentateuchal style requires that separate verses must spell out (1) the prohibition, (2) the penalty to be imposed by the court, (3) the penalty imposed by Heaven in case the crime was not observed by two blameless adult male witnesses and, therefore, no court case was possible. In case of sexual crimes this would mean that the witnesses have to see the sex act. For a civil case, such as a husband wishing to divorce his wife because of her adultery, without paying her ketubah, it is enough for witnesses to testify to her going to a room with another man, locking the door, and extinguishing the lights. But this is not enough for a criminal conviction. for a person having sexual relations with his daughter-in-law? Your daughter-in-law’s nakedness you shall not uncover.¹³⁴Lev. 18:15. From where extirpation? For any man who would commit any of these abominations will be extirpated,^131,Lev. 18:29.¹³⁵The verse is slightly misquoted. etc. Punishment from where? A man who would sleep with his daughter-in-law¹³⁶Lev. 20:12. etc.

From where the warning¹²⁹A prohibition the penalty for which is not spelled out carries a penalty of flogging (Deut. 25:21). For any more serious infraction the pentateuchal style requires that separate verses must spell out (1) the prohibition, (2) the penalty to be imposed by the court, (3) the penalty imposed by Heaven in case the crime was not observed by two blameless adult male witnesses and, therefore, no court case was possible. In case of sexual crimes this would mean that the witnesses have to see the sex act. For a civil case, such as a husband wishing to divorce his wife because of her adultery, without paying her ketubah, it is enough for witnesses to testify to her going to a room with another man, locking the door, and extinguishing the lights. But this is not enough for a criminal conviction. for a person having sexual relations with his daughter-in-law? Your daughter-in-law’s nakedness you shall not uncover.¹³⁴Lev. 18:15. From where extirpation? For any man who would commit any of these abominations will be extirpated,^131,Lev. 18:29.¹³⁵The verse is slightly misquoted. etc. Punishment from where? A man who would sleep with his daughter-in-law¹³⁶Lev. 20:12. etc.

The question was asked: May one say, ‘Would that I had So-and-so’s money! Would that I had a wife like So-and-so’s wife!’? May one sleep in one bed with his wife who is niddah or not? May one quarrel with a man with whom it is not fit to quarrel? Come and hear and I will answer all these questions. It is stated, Thou shalt not covet:⁸Ex. 20, 17, in A.J. 14. even [by saying,] ‘Would that I had So-and-so’s money!’ To say, ‘Would that I had So-and-so’s money!’ is [the conduct of] a thief or a robber. But [as for the remark], ‘Would that I had as much money as So-and-so!’ why should this be definitely forbidden? He only expresses a wish for himself! But [to say], ‘Would that So-and-so gave me his money!’ constitutes an act of coveting. ‘Would that I had a wife like the wife of So-and-so!’—[by saying this he indicates that] he has already impure thoughts concerning her; but to say ‘Would that the daughter of So-and-so would marry me!’ is certainly permissible. Is not this self-evident? It is necessary [to state this because] he may say to her, ‘Be betrothed to me’ and she may refuse. ‘May one sleep in one bed with his wife who is niddah?’ [It is stated,] And thou shalt not approach unto a woman to uncover her nakedness, as long as she is impure by her uncleanness.⁹Lev. 18, 19. He is allowed, however, to eat with her. Whoever approaches his wife¹⁰Add with H ‘who is niddah’, which is implied. while she is asleep is as if he approached a ship which is about to be wrecked in the sea.¹¹He is heading for a sin against the Torah. Here it is written, And thou shalt not approach, and there it is written, So the shipmaster came to him.¹²Jonah 1, 6. The Heb. for came to is the same as for approach. The context is the danger to the ship in which Jonah was sailing. Some say that he is obliged to bring a sin-offering, as it is written, The soul that sinneth, it shall die.¹³Ezek. 18, 20. This sentence is omitted in H. The point appears to be this: The word sinneth is הַחׄטֵאת, which is written without the waw and can be read הַחַטָאת, ‘the sin-offering’. Since Ezekiel, in verse 6, mentions [coming] near to a woman in her impurity, by the rule of analogy it is concluded that such a sin can only be atoned by a sin-offering. Some say: It is as if he offered sacrifices to the Golden Calf.¹⁴H adds Ex. 32, 19, as the proof-text where came nigh occurs, which in Heb. is the same as approached. ‘May one quarrel with a man with whom it is not fit to quarrel?’ It is written, And I contended with them, and cursed them.¹⁵Neh. 13, 25. Nehemiah strove with the Jews who had married heathen women.

Rebbi Aḥa said: Solomon said, three things I desecrated where I got the better of the law¹⁸¹Eccl. r. 2(3), Tanhuma Aḥare Mot 1, Tanhuma Buber Ahare Mot 2, Pesiqṭa dR. Cahana(Buber) Ahare Mot 168b–168a.
Most of the verses quoted in these paragraphs are also quoted in the Babli, 21b. Cf. also Cant. rabba 1(10).. He shall not add wives, and it is written: King Solomonloved foreign women¹⁸²1K. 11:1.. Rebbi Simeon ben Ioḥai said, he really made love to them immorally¹⁸³He did not marry them but slept with them unmarried to increase his sexual enjoyment.. Ḥananiah, Rebbi Joshua’s nephew, says, because you shall not intermarry with them¹⁸⁴Deut. 7:3. He agrees with R. Simeon ben Iohai and notes that by behaving immorally he avoided violating the law. In Num. r. 10(8) only Hanania and R. Yose are mentioned.. Rebbi Yose said, to draw them to the words of the Torah and bring them under the Wings of the Divine Presence¹⁸⁵He married all those women with good intentions but violated Deut. 17:17. The expression “to take shelter under the Wings of the Divine Presence” for “to convert to Judaism” is from Ru. 2:12.. Rebbi Eliezer said, because also the foreign wives made him sin¹⁸⁶Neh. 13:26. He violated Mishnah 7 according to all authorities quoted there.. It turns out that one may say that Rebbi Simeon ben Ioḥai, Ḥananiah, and Rebbi Eliezer mean the same. Rebbi Yose disagrees with all three of them.

Rebbi Jacob bar Zavdi in the name of Rebbi Abbahu in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan, only from the place of masculinity²⁴³Here starts the discussion of the last sentence in this Mishnah, the assertion of R. Eleazar ben Shamua (in the Babli, R. Eliezer) that for the definition of homosexuality an hermaphrodite is a full male. The position of R. Joḥanan here is an explicit statement of R. Eleazar (ben Shamua) in Tosephta 10:2.. Rebbi Simon in the name of Rebbi Joshua ben Levi: even from the female place²⁴⁴For him, heterosexual intercourse of a male with an hermaphrodite is still homosexuality. In the Babli, 83b, that is the opinion of Rav.. Rebbi Jacob bar Zavdi in the name of Rebbi Abbahu: Rebbi Joshua ben Levi retracted this, from the following verse²⁴⁵Lev. 18:22. As the Babli explains, on the face of it, the verse seems to support the first opinion of R. Joshua ben Levi, but a second look shows that the prohibition is to lie with a male, i. e., the male aspect of the hermaphrodite.: “And with a male you should not lie in the way of a woman’s beddings”, one who may lie in two ways, including the female. Who is that? That is the hermaphrodite. Rebbi said, I looked for but did not find words of Ben Shamua about the hermaphrodite, for the entire group ganged up on me²⁴⁶Babli 84a; there, “the students of R. Eleazar ben Shamua ganged up on him like chickens in a chicken coop.”. Why? Not to make it public or because he was not worth it? What difference does it make? He usually made public. If you say, it was not to make it public²⁴⁷The uncommon form לגלע instead of the common לגלות seems so be an Arabism, from جلع “to uncover indecently”. It seems that the teachings of R. Eleazar ben Shamua’s students were esoteric., the publicity is already in his hand. The reason must be that he was not worth it. What could he made public? He inherits²⁴⁸If there are 2 children, a hermaphrodite and a daughter, at the death of the father the daughter has a claim on the estate for a dowry but the only heir is the hermaphrodite.
The Babli, 83b, which attributes the Mishnah to R. Eliezer, proves from parallel statements that the hermaphrodite is considered a full male only in respect to homosexuality. In all other respects, it is considered a case of doubt whether he is male or female., he testifies²⁴⁹He can testify formally in cases where a male witness is required (such as the validity of certain legal acts.), his grain offering is burnt completely²⁵⁰The grain offering of a Cohen is burned completely (Lev. 6:16); the grain offering of the daughter of a Cohen is treated like the offering of an Israel and most of it is eaten by the Cohanim in the Temple precinct., one says grace with him as with a male.

¹⁴²These two paragraphs are partially corrupt. In a few places, the required corrections are obvious; other passages are not so simple. The text was treated at length by M. Assis לפירושה של סוגיא אחת בירושלמי סנהדרין Sinai 99(1986) pp. 110–127. The parallel in the Babli is 53a–54a. There, we have stated¹⁴³In the Yerushalmi תַּמָּן תַּנִּינָן always introduces a Mishnah quote. Already J. N. Epstein in מבוא לנוסח המשנה p. 150 has noted that one should read תַּמָּן תְּנַיִין “there (in Babylonia) one states.” The Babylonian baraita is quoted in the Babli, 53a.: Rebbi Jehudah says, if his mother was not fit for his father, he is liable only for one [sacrifice]. Therefore, if his mother was fit for his father, he is liable for two. Rebbi Abbahu in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: There is no difference. Whether his mother was fit for his father or unfit for his father, he is liable only once. The reason of Rebbi Joḥanan¹⁴⁴It seems that one has to read “R. Jehudah” since R. Johanan opposes the conclusion of the argument.: Your mother is she, you find him guilty because of his mother; this directs the entire chapter towards his mother¹⁴⁵This is only the end of an argument which can be reconstructed from Sifra Qedošim Pereq 9(12). Lev. 18:7 reads: Your father’s nakedness and your mother’s nakedness you shall not uncover; she is your mother, do not uncover her nakedness. The unusual wordiness of the verse has to be explained. Later in the paragraph there is disagreement whether your father’s nakedness refers to homosexual relations or describes a woman other than the mother who had sexual relations with the father. R. Jehudah opts for the first alternative. The mother then is singled out; she is equally forbidden whether she is or ever was his father’s wife or not, just as the father is forbidden whether he ever was married to his mother or not. This excludes any possibility to charge relations with her as father’s wife as a separate crime.. Rebbi Abun bar Ḥiyya asked before Rebbi Zeˋira: What caused Rebbi Joḥanan¹⁴⁴It seems that one has to read “R. Jehudah” since R. Johanan opposes the conclusion of the argument. to concentrate on the mother and to leave the father’s wife aside? He told him, for he argues with Rebbi Ismael, as Rebbi Ismael explained: Your father’s wife’s nakedness¹⁴⁶Obviously one has to read your father’s nakedness (v. 7) instead of a quote from v.8.; the verse refers to the male. Is not his father included in the category of the male¹⁴⁷Since homosexual intercourse also is a capital crime.? Only to make him liable twice, as we have stated: A person having sexual relations with his father is doubly liable about him¹⁴⁸Babli 54a; Tosaphot s. v. הבא.. Then should we not state “thirty-seven extirpations in the Torah”¹⁴⁹Mishnah Keritut 1:1 lists 36 separate cases of extirpation; homosexual acts with the father are not listed.? Rebbi Mana said, all denotations of males are one. ¹⁵⁰This text is repeated later as R. Aqiba’s opinion. Since R. Ismael was quoted as opposing this interpretation, it is not his opinion. The text is dittography from the following.Your father’s wife’s nakedness; the verse refers to the father’s wife. Your mother’s nakedness, that is his mother who is his father’s wife. From where his mother who is not his father’s wife? Your mother is she; do not uncover her nakedness. How does Rebbi Ismael treat this? He explains it to apply after [the father’s] death¹⁵¹Why is the mother mentioned twice, once in parallel with the father and once separately?. Does Rebbi Aqiba not explain she is your father’s nakedness¹⁵²Lev. 18:8, referring to the stepmother.? There is no difference whether during lifetime or after death. Rebbi Aqiba explains: Your father’s wife’s nakedness¹⁴⁶Obviously one has to read your father’s nakedness (v. 7) instead of a quote from v.8., the verse refers to the father’s wife. Your mother’s nakedness, that is his mother who is his father’s wife. From where his mother who is not his father’s wife? Your mother is she; do not uncover her nakedness. How does Rebbi Ismael treat this? He explains it to apply after [the father’s] death¹⁵³Dittography from above.. Does not Rebbi Aqiba treat your father’s nakedness, your mother’s nakedness¹⁵⁴M. Assis here sees a lacuna referring to the earlier statement that the mother remains equally forbidden whether or not the father is alive. This is not a necessary inference.? Since your father refers to your father in any capacity¹⁵⁵Whether married, seducer, rapist or paying for sexual services. both for punishment¹⁵⁶Punishment is spelled out in Lev. 20:11, warning in 18:7. and warning, so also your mother refers to one’s mother in any capacity both for punishment and warning. Is it not reasonable to explain that verse except following Rebbi Jehudah who because he does not accept “his mother who is his father’s wife”¹⁵⁷He rejects the interpretation that the first mention of your mother in v. 7 refers to the father’s wife, the second mention to a mother not married to his father. must explain that your father’s nakedness, your mother’s nakedness refers to your father in any capacity both for punishment and warning, so also your mother refers to your mother in any capacity both for punishment and warning. Rebbi Zeˋira said, this implies that one infers from parallel language¹⁵⁸גְּזֵירָה שָׁוָה “equal cut” is the transfer of rules from one law to another if identical language was used. The majority opinion accepts inferences from “equal cut” only if (a) there exists a tradition that the words in question were written for this purpose and (b) no other inferences are drawn from the expressions in question (Babli Niddah 22b). Property (b) is meant if an expression is called “free”. The equal cut here is the use of your father’s nakedness both in v.7 and v.8. As we have seen, in v.7 the expression clearly is not “free”. even if it is free only from one side¹⁵⁹M. Assis rightly points out that it is not free even in v.8 since the expression is used to forbid the stepmother after the father’s death.. Rebbi Yudan said to him¹⁶⁰As M. Assis points out, the statement also is quoted in Yoma 8:3 (45a l. 48) where R. Yudan’s statement is an independent remark. Since R. Yudan lived a generation after R. Zeˋira, the Yoma version has to be accepted., this is obvious for Rebbi Aqiba since Rebbi Aqiba infers from parallel language even if it is not free¹⁶¹This statement is unknown to Babylonian sources; the statement of the Babylonian R. Zeˋira is found in the Babli, Šabbat 64a, Niddah 22b..

¹⁸¹Eccl. r. 2(3), Tanhuma Aḥare Mot 1, Tanhuma Buber Ahare Mot 2, Pesiqṭa dR. Cahana(Buber) Ahare Mot 168b–168a.
Most of the verses quoted in these paragraphs are also quoted in the Babli, 21b. Cf. also Cant. rabba 1(10). It is written¹⁹³Eccl. 2:2.: To amusement I said, be praised. The Holy One, praise to him, said to Solomon: What is this crown on your head? Descend from My throne! Rebbi Yose ben Ḥanina said, at that moment an angel came down looking like Solomon, removed him from his throne, and sat in his stead. He was going around in synagogues and houses of study, saying I am Ecclesiastes, I used to be king over Israel in Jerusalem¹⁹⁴Eccl. 1:12.. They were telling him, the king sits on his chair of honor¹⁹⁵Latin bisellium; cf. Löw in Krauss’s Lehnwörter. and you say, I am Ecclesiastes? They hit him with a stick and brought a dish of split beans before him. At that moment, he said: that is my part¹⁹⁶Eccl. 2:10.. Some say, a staff. Others say, a rod. Others say, with his belt. ¹⁹⁷Cant. r. ad 5:10, Lev. r. 19(2), Ex. r. 6(1). Solomon is accused of wanting to remove the imperative from Deut. 17:17. Who had accused him? Rebbi Joshua ben Levi said, י in יַרְבֶּה¹⁶⁰2S. 23:15–16; 1Chr. 11:17–18. accused him. Rebbi Simeon ben Ioḥai stated: The book Deuteronomy ascended, bowed down before the Holy One, praise to Him, and said to Him: Master of the Universe, You wrote in Your Torah that any disposition¹⁹⁸Greek διαθήκη “will, disposition”. which is partially invalid is totally invalid, and now Solomon wants to uproot a י from me! The Holy One, praise to Him, said to it: Solomon and a thousand like him will disappear but nothing from you will disappear.

HALAKHAH: “A man who had sexual relations with a male.” From where the warning¹²⁹A prohibition the penalty for which is not spelled out carries a penalty of flogging (Deut. 25:21). For any more serious infraction the pentateuchal style requires that separate verses must spell out (1) the prohibition, (2) the penalty to be imposed by the court, (3) the penalty imposed by Heaven in case the crime was not observed by two blameless adult male witnesses and, therefore, no court case was possible. In case of sexual crimes this would mean that the witnesses have to see the sex act. For a civil case, such as a husband wishing to divorce his wife because of her adultery, without paying her ketubah, it is enough for witnesses to testify to her going to a room with another man, locking the door, and extinguishing the lights. But this is not enough for a criminal conviction. for a person having sexual relations with a male¹⁷³The form זְכוּר denotes, if not the penis, then the male as appendix to his sex organ.? With a male you shall not sleep in women’s ways¹⁷⁴Lev. 18:22. A general parallel to this paragraph is in the Babli, 54b.. From where extirpation? For anybody who would commit any of these abominations will be extirpated^131,Lev. 18:29.¹³⁵The verse is slightly misquoted., etc. Punishment from where? A man who would sleep with a male in women’s ways, an abomination did both of them commit; they shall be put to death; their blood be on them¹⁷⁵Lev. 20:13.. You learn their blood be on them from their blood be on them¹⁵Lev. 20:12. From Lev. 20:27: they shall be put to death, by a stone they shall be stoned, their blood be on them, it is inferred that any expression “their blood be on them” means execution by stoning. Babli 54a.. That is for the active one. For the passive one from where? With a male you shall not sleep in women’s ways, read: to be slept with¹⁷⁶The unvocalized text תשכב can be read either with the masoretes as active תִּשְׁכַּב “you shall sleep” or as passive תִּשָּׁכֵב “you shall be slept with”. The nonstandard vocalization in the text is from the ms. (Babli 54b).. So far following Rebbi Aqiba. Following Rebbi Ismael? There shall be no qadeš among the sons of Israel¹⁷⁷Deut. 23:18. The identification of the qadeš as the male prostitute follows later from the verse in Kings.. From where extirpation for the passive homosexual following Rebbi Ismael? Rebbi Jeremiah in the name of Rebbi Abbahu. It says here qadeš and it says there, also a qadeš was in the land¹⁷⁸1K. 14:24.. You learn qadeš from qadeš and qadeš from abomination¹⁷⁹It is assumed that qadeš means the same in both verses. Also, qadeš must refer to the male since the feminine form qedešah is explicitly mentioned in Deut. 23:18. 1K. 14 continues: They did all the abominations of the peoples whom the Eternal had uprooted from before the Children of Israel. These abominations are referred to in Lev. 18:29 and the only abominations unique to a male are homosexuality and active bestiality. In the Babli, 54b, both R. Ismael’s and R. Aqiba’s statements are quoted as baraitot; partially also in Sifra Qedošim Pereq 9(12).. Rebbi Ḥiyya bar Ada in the name of Rebbi Ḥanina: Abomination from abomination¹⁸⁰In Lev.20, the expression abomination is only used for the homosexual. This implies that the qadeš in 1K. 14:24, and therefore in Deut. 23:18 is engaged in homosexual acts.. Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Abun said, a baraita¹⁸¹Not recorded elsewhere. states this: Both committed an abomination¹⁷⁴Lev. 18:22. A general parallel to this paragraph is in the Babli, 54b.. Both are stoned, both are subject to warning, both by extirpation.

HALAKHAH: “A man who had sexual relations with a male.” From where the warning¹²⁹A prohibition the penalty for which is not spelled out carries a penalty of flogging (Deut. 25:21). For any more serious infraction the pentateuchal style requires that separate verses must spell out (1) the prohibition, (2) the penalty to be imposed by the court, (3) the penalty imposed by Heaven in case the crime was not observed by two blameless adult male witnesses and, therefore, no court case was possible. In case of sexual crimes this would mean that the witnesses have to see the sex act. For a civil case, such as a husband wishing to divorce his wife because of her adultery, without paying her ketubah, it is enough for witnesses to testify to her going to a room with another man, locking the door, and extinguishing the lights. But this is not enough for a criminal conviction. for a person having sexual relations with a male¹⁷³The form זְכוּר denotes, if not the penis, then the male as appendix to his sex organ.? With a male you shall not sleep in women’s ways¹⁷⁴Lev. 18:22. A general parallel to this paragraph is in the Babli, 54b.. From where extirpation? For anybody who would commit any of these abominations will be extirpated^131,Lev. 18:29.¹³⁵The verse is slightly misquoted., etc. Punishment from where? A man who would sleep with a male in women’s ways, an abomination did both of them commit; they shall be put to death; their blood be on them¹⁷⁵Lev. 20:13.. You learn their blood be on them from their blood be on them¹⁵Lev. 20:12. From Lev. 20:27: they shall be put to death, by a stone they shall be stoned, their blood be on them, it is inferred that any expression “their blood be on them” means execution by stoning. Babli 54a.. That is for the active one. For the passive one from where? With a male you shall not sleep in women’s ways, read: to be slept with¹⁷⁶The unvocalized text תשכב can be read either with the masoretes as active תִּשְׁכַּב “you shall sleep” or as passive תִּשָּׁכֵב “you shall be slept with”. The nonstandard vocalization in the text is from the ms. (Babli 54b).. So far following Rebbi Aqiba. Following Rebbi Ismael? There shall be no qadeš among the sons of Israel¹⁷⁷Deut. 23:18. The identification of the qadeš as the male prostitute follows later from the verse in Kings.. From where extirpation for the passive homosexual following Rebbi Ismael? Rebbi Jeremiah in the name of Rebbi Abbahu. It says here qadeš and it says there, also a qadeš was in the land¹⁷⁸1K. 14:24.. You learn qadeš from qadeš and qadeš from abomination¹⁷⁹It is assumed that qadeš means the same in both verses. Also, qadeš must refer to the male since the feminine form qedešah is explicitly mentioned in Deut. 23:18. 1K. 14 continues: They did all the abominations of the peoples whom the Eternal had uprooted from before the Children of Israel. These abominations are referred to in Lev. 18:29 and the only abominations unique to a male are homosexuality and active bestiality. In the Babli, 54b, both R. Ismael’s and R. Aqiba’s statements are quoted as baraitot; partially also in Sifra Qedošim Pereq 9(12).. Rebbi Ḥiyya bar Ada in the name of Rebbi Ḥanina: Abomination from abomination¹⁸⁰In Lev.20, the expression abomination is only used for the homosexual. This implies that the qadeš in 1K. 14:24, and therefore in Deut. 23:18 is engaged in homosexual acts.. Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Abun said, a baraita¹⁸¹Not recorded elsewhere. states this: Both committed an abomination¹⁷⁴Lev. 18:22. A general parallel to this paragraph is in the Babli, 54b.. Both are stoned, both are subject to warning, both by extirpation.

From where the warning¹²⁹A prohibition the penalty for which is not spelled out carries a penalty of flogging (Deut. 25:21). For any more serious infraction the pentateuchal style requires that separate verses must spell out (1) the prohibition, (2) the penalty to be imposed by the court, (3) the penalty imposed by Heaven in case the crime was not observed by two blameless adult male witnesses and, therefore, no court case was possible. In case of sexual crimes this would mean that the witnesses have to see the sex act. For a civil case, such as a husband wishing to divorce his wife because of her adultery, without paying her ketubah, it is enough for witnesses to testify to her going to a room with another man, locking the door, and extinguishing the lights. But this is not enough for a criminal conviction. for a person having sexual relations with an animal? Do not give your emission into an animal to defile yourself by it¹⁸²Lev. 18:23. The entire paragraph has a parallel in the Babli, 54b.. From where extirpation? For anybody who would commit any of these abominations will be extirpated^131,Lev. 18:29.¹³⁵The verse is slightly misquoted., etc. Punishment from where? A man who would sleep with a animal shall be put to death¹⁸³Lev.20:15. The corresponding verse for a woman is 20:16.. You infer their blood be on them from their blood be on them^15,Lev. 20:12. From Lev. 20:27: they shall be put to death, by a stone they shall be stoned, their blood be on them, it is inferred that any expression “their blood be on them” means execution by stoning. Babli 54a.¹⁸⁴The expression is used only in v. 16. It is implied that the punishment for male bestiality cannot be less than that of female bestiality.. So far following Rebbi Aqiba. Following Rebbi Ismael? Rebbi Ismael from his source¹⁷⁹It is assumed that qadeš means the same in both verses. Also, qadeš must refer to the male since the feminine form qedešah is explicitly mentioned in Deut. 23:18. 1K. 14 continues: They did all the abominations of the peoples whom the Eternal had uprooted from before the Children of Israel. These abominations are referred to in Lev. 18:29 and the only abominations unique to a male are homosexuality and active bestiality. In the Babli, 54b, both R. Ismael’s and R. Aqiba’s statements are quoted as baraitot; partially also in Sifra Qedošim Pereq 9(12). and Rebbi Aqiba from his source¹⁸⁵R. Ismael includes bestiality in the actions of a qadeš. R. Aqiba always refers to Lev. 18:29.. Extirpation for a male passive partner is not found for Rebbi Ismael¹⁸⁶The Babli disagrees and finds the passive participant in bestiality in Ex. 22:18.. Punishment for a male passive partner is not found for Rebbi Ismael or Rebbi Aqiba¹⁸⁷In Lev. 20., but it is written: One who sacrifices to the forces of nature shall be banned. Since this one is in for stoning and extirpation, also that one is in for stoning and extirpation¹⁸⁸The worshipper of the forces of nature is banned Ex. 22:19, but as adherent of foreign worship he is stoned. It is implied that the death penalty decreed in the preceding verse, anybody lying with an animal shall be put to death, for the passive participant in bestiality also must be executed by stoning.. What is the difference between them? If one had active homosexual relations followed by passive ones, in Rebbi Ismael’s opinion he is liable only once; in Rebbi Aqiba’s opinion he is liable twice¹⁸⁹In the Babli, 54b, the attributions are switched. One has to follow the classical commentaries in correcting the Yerushalmi following the Babli since, as explained in Notes 175–178, R. Aqiba finds the prohibition of active and passive homosexuality in the same verse whereas R. Ismael defines the passive homosexual as qadeš. Therefore, combined active and passive homosexual activity violates one verse for R. Aqiba, two for R. Ismael.. If one had active relations with an animal followed by passive ones. Both in Rebbi Aqiba’s as in Rebbi Ismael’s opinions he is liable twice¹⁹⁰For both R. Aqiba and R. Ismael both Lev. 18:22 (or 23) and Ex. 22:18 are violated. The Babli disagrees, 54b.. If he had active homosexual relations with both a male and an animal he is liable twice. If he had passive homosexual relations with both a male and an animal he is liable twice. If he had simultaneous active sexual relations with two males, since both of them became guilty because of him, he is liable twice. If he had simultaneous passive sexual relations with two males, since both of them became guilty because of him, he is liable twice. It was stated: For males, an underage boy does not have the status of an adult¹⁹¹Sexual relations with males under the age of nine years and one day, and females under three years and one day, are not considered as sexual activities; cf. Ketubot1:3 Notes 147,152.; a young animal has the status of a fully grown one. Rebbi Eleazar said, he cannot become liable because of it unless it be three years and one day of age¹⁹²This does not refer to bestiality but to homosexuality. Homosexual relations of a male with an underage boy are not punishable unless the boy is at least three years and one day of age, i. e., that a valid sex act would have been performed if the child had been a girl. In the Babli, 54b/55a, Samuel derives this from Lev. 18:22 where homosexual acts are called lyings in woman’s way..

From where the warning¹²⁹A prohibition the penalty for which is not spelled out carries a penalty of flogging (Deut. 25:21). For any more serious infraction the pentateuchal style requires that separate verses must spell out (1) the prohibition, (2) the penalty to be imposed by the court, (3) the penalty imposed by Heaven in case the crime was not observed by two blameless adult male witnesses and, therefore, no court case was possible. In case of sexual crimes this would mean that the witnesses have to see the sex act. For a civil case, such as a husband wishing to divorce his wife because of her adultery, without paying her ketubah, it is enough for witnesses to testify to her going to a room with another man, locking the door, and extinguishing the lights. But this is not enough for a criminal conviction. for a person having sexual relations with an animal? Do not give your emission into an animal to defile yourself by it¹⁸²Lev. 18:23. The entire paragraph has a parallel in the Babli, 54b.. From where extirpation? For anybody who would commit any of these abominations will be extirpated^131,Lev. 18:29.¹³⁵The verse is slightly misquoted., etc. Punishment from where? A man who would sleep with a animal shall be put to death¹⁸³Lev.20:15. The corresponding verse for a woman is 20:16.. You infer their blood be on them from their blood be on them^15,Lev. 20:12. From Lev. 20:27: they shall be put to death, by a stone they shall be stoned, their blood be on them, it is inferred that any expression “their blood be on them” means execution by stoning. Babli 54a.¹⁸⁴The expression is used only in v. 16. It is implied that the punishment for male bestiality cannot be less than that of female bestiality.. So far following Rebbi Aqiba. Following Rebbi Ismael? Rebbi Ismael from his source¹⁷⁹It is assumed that qadeš means the same in both verses. Also, qadeš must refer to the male since the feminine form qedešah is explicitly mentioned in Deut. 23:18. 1K. 14 continues: They did all the abominations of the peoples whom the Eternal had uprooted from before the Children of Israel. These abominations are referred to in Lev. 18:29 and the only abominations unique to a male are homosexuality and active bestiality. In the Babli, 54b, both R. Ismael’s and R. Aqiba’s statements are quoted as baraitot; partially also in Sifra Qedošim Pereq 9(12). and Rebbi Aqiba from his source¹⁸⁵R. Ismael includes bestiality in the actions of a qadeš. R. Aqiba always refers to Lev. 18:29.. Extirpation for a male passive partner is not found for Rebbi Ismael¹⁸⁶The Babli disagrees and finds the passive participant in bestiality in Ex. 22:18.. Punishment for a male passive partner is not found for Rebbi Ismael or Rebbi Aqiba¹⁸⁷In Lev. 20., but it is written: One who sacrifices to the forces of nature shall be banned. Since this one is in for stoning and extirpation, also that one is in for stoning and extirpation¹⁸⁸The worshipper of the forces of nature is banned Ex. 22:19, but as adherent of foreign worship he is stoned. It is implied that the death penalty decreed in the preceding verse, anybody lying with an animal shall be put to death, for the passive participant in bestiality also must be executed by stoning.. What is the difference between them? If one had active homosexual relations followed by passive ones, in Rebbi Ismael’s opinion he is liable only once; in Rebbi Aqiba’s opinion he is liable twice¹⁸⁹In the Babli, 54b, the attributions are switched. One has to follow the classical commentaries in correcting the Yerushalmi following the Babli since, as explained in Notes 175–178, R. Aqiba finds the prohibition of active and passive homosexuality in the same verse whereas R. Ismael defines the passive homosexual as qadeš. Therefore, combined active and passive homosexual activity violates one verse for R. Aqiba, two for R. Ismael.. If one had active relations with an animal followed by passive ones. Both in Rebbi Aqiba’s as in Rebbi Ismael’s opinions he is liable twice¹⁹⁰For both R. Aqiba and R. Ismael both Lev. 18:22 (or 23) and Ex. 22:18 are violated. The Babli disagrees, 54b.. If he had active homosexual relations with both a male and an animal he is liable twice. If he had passive homosexual relations with both a male and an animal he is liable twice. If he had simultaneous active sexual relations with two males, since both of them became guilty because of him, he is liable twice. If he had simultaneous passive sexual relations with two males, since both of them became guilty because of him, he is liable twice. It was stated: For males, an underage boy does not have the status of an adult¹⁹¹Sexual relations with males under the age of nine years and one day, and females under three years and one day, are not considered as sexual activities; cf. Ketubot1:3 Notes 147,152.; a young animal has the status of a fully grown one. Rebbi Eleazar said, he cannot become liable because of it unless it be three years and one day of age¹⁹²This does not refer to bestiality but to homosexuality. Homosexual relations of a male with an underage boy are not punishable unless the boy is at least three years and one day of age, i. e., that a valid sex act would have been performed if the child had been a girl. In the Babli, 54b/55a, Samuel derives this from Lev. 18:22 where homosexual acts are called lyings in woman’s way..

Rebbi Abun bar Ḥiyya asked of Rebbi Zeˋira: For what reason did Rebbi Ismael and Rebbi Aqiba disagree about a male and an animal but did not disagree about any incest prohibition¹⁹³For all other sexual prohibitions they agree that the warnings and punishments equally apply to both partners.? He told him, because for all incest prohibitions it is written blood relative,¹⁹⁴The introductory clause Lev. 18:6: No human shall come near to his blood relative to uncover nakedness refers to both sexes. The detailed prohibitions always are formulated for the male and mention the female’s nakedness, but here nakedness is mentioned without any pronoun, masculine or feminine. and about these it is not written blood relative. They objected: About the menstruating woman it is not written blood relative; did they disagree about her¹⁹⁵Both agree that for both partners the warning is Lev. 18:19 and the punishment, explicitly for both sexes, is 20:18.? Rebbi Jeremiah in the name of Rebbi Abbahu: For it is written approach, approach; it is as if all were here and there¹⁹⁶The singular in 18:19 is equivalent to the plural used in 18:6; it is as if “blood relative” were written there.. Rebbi Ḥiyya bar Aba in the name of Rebbi Ḥanina: To the wife in the separation of her impurity you shall not come near to uncover her nakedness¹⁹⁷Lev. 18:19. The verse seems to refer exclusively to the male; it is quoted as an objection.. Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Abun said, “not to come near” is “not to uncover.¹⁹⁸Since “not to uncover” is used in 20:18 explicitly for both sexes, “not to come near” in 18:19 also must apply to both sexes.”

From where the warning¹²⁹A prohibition the penalty for which is not spelled out carries a penalty of flogging (Deut. 25:21). For any more serious infraction the pentateuchal style requires that separate verses must spell out (1) the prohibition, (2) the penalty to be imposed by the court, (3) the penalty imposed by Heaven in case the crime was not observed by two blameless adult male witnesses and, therefore, no court case was possible. In case of sexual crimes this would mean that the witnesses have to see the sex act. For a civil case, such as a husband wishing to divorce his wife because of her adultery, without paying her ketubah, it is enough for witnesses to testify to her going to a room with another man, locking the door, and extinguishing the lights. But this is not enough for a criminal conviction. for a woman bringing an animal upon herself? A woman should not stand before an animal to be impregnated; it is mixture¹⁹⁹Lev. 18:19.. Extirpation from where? For anybody who would commit any of these abominations will be extirpated^131,Lev. 18:29.¹³⁵The verse is slightly misquoted.. Punishment from where? If a woman stood before an animal to be impregnated, you should slay the woman and the animal; dying they shall be put to death, their blood be on them²⁰⁰Misquoted from Lev. 20:16.. One infers slaying from slaying, stoning from stoning, their blood be on them from their blood be on them²⁰¹Both for male and female bestiality it is said that the animal has to be slain; this shows that in both cases the animal has to be killed in the same way. Stoning is to be inferred from their blood be on them (Notes 15,184) referring to the female; this then is transferred also to apply to the male..

From where the warning¹²⁹A prohibition the penalty for which is not spelled out carries a penalty of flogging (Deut. 25:21). For any more serious infraction the pentateuchal style requires that separate verses must spell out (1) the prohibition, (2) the penalty to be imposed by the court, (3) the penalty imposed by Heaven in case the crime was not observed by two blameless adult male witnesses and, therefore, no court case was possible. In case of sexual crimes this would mean that the witnesses have to see the sex act. For a civil case, such as a husband wishing to divorce his wife because of her adultery, without paying her ketubah, it is enough for witnesses to testify to her going to a room with another man, locking the door, and extinguishing the lights. But this is not enough for a criminal conviction. for a woman bringing an animal upon herself? A woman should not stand before an animal to be impregnated; it is mixture¹⁹⁹Lev. 18:19.. Extirpation from where? For anybody who would commit any of these abominations will be extirpated^131,Lev. 18:29.¹³⁵The verse is slightly misquoted.. Punishment from where? If a woman stood before an animal to be impregnated, you should slay the woman and the animal; dying they shall be put to death, their blood be on them²⁰⁰Misquoted from Lev. 20:16.. One infers slaying from slaying, stoning from stoning, their blood be on them from their blood be on them²⁰¹Both for male and female bestiality it is said that the animal has to be slain; this shows that in both cases the animal has to be killed in the same way. Stoning is to be inferred from their blood be on them (Notes 15,184) referring to the female; this then is transferred also to apply to the male..

”The period mentioned in the Torah.” ¹⁸²In Mekhilta dR.Ismael (ed. Horovitz-Rabin p. 259), the first opinion is attributed to Rebbi, the second to R. Joshia; the explanation attributed here to R. Eliezer ben Jacob is there in the name of R. Jonathan. In the Babli, 47b, the first opinion is attributed to R. Eleazar or R. Eliezer, the second is anonymous; the midrash of R. Eliezer ben Jacob is given in his name, 48a. Mekhilta dR.Simeon ben Ioḥai follows the attributions of the Yerushalmi (pp. 167–168). Some Tannaïm state¹⁸³The problem is Ex. 21:9 which states that a man who takes an additional wife may not diminish שְׁאֵר, כְּסוּת, and עֹנָה of his first wife. The meaning of כְּסוּת “garment, covering” is clear but the meaning of the other two words is a matter of controversy. שְׁאֵר means “flesh” but, as the verses quoted in support of different meanings show, it means both “meat” and “relative, one’s flesh and blood.” Note also in Accadic šērum “flesh”, š’r (of a different etymology) “to go towards; to have sexual relations”. The root שאר II has no connection with the usual שאר “to remain, be a remainder” (Arabic سار.).
The problem with עֹנָה is that the verb ענה “to humiliate, inflict pain” in sexual context always means “to rape, to have forced intercourse” but in the verse here it has a positive meaning, the intercourse to which the wife is entitled. [Note that in Arabic, عنا means both “produce plants” (said of the earth) and “to be humiliated, captive” (from this العَوَانِي “Moslem women”).] From the positive meaning of עֹנָה in the verse comes the rabbinic-modern Hebrew עוֹנָה “season”, used in the midrash of R. Eliezer ben Jacob.: שְׁאֵר that is intercourse; עוֹנָה that is food. Some Tannaïm state: עוֹנָה that is intercourse; שְׁאֵר that is food. He who said שְׁאֵר is intercourse: “No person to the שְׁאֵר of his flesh;¹⁸⁴Lev. 18:6: “No person to the שְׁאֵר of his flesh should come close, to uncover nakedness.”” עוֹנָה is food: “He fed you and made you hunger¹⁸⁵Deut. 8:3, usually translated as: “He chastised you and made you hunger before He fed you with the manna that neither you nor your fathers knew.””. He who said שְׁאֵר is food: “He let rain on them שְׁאֵר like dust¹⁸⁶Ps. 78:27.”; עוֹנָה that is intercourse, “that you should not deprive my daughters,¹⁸⁷Gen. 31:50. “That you should not deprive my daughters nor take wives in addition to my daughters.” In Gen. rabba 74(12), this verse is explained that (a) Bilha and Silpa also were Laban’s daughters from slave women and (b) that Laban made Jacob swear that he would not deprive his daughters of intercourse during their lifetime nor take additional wives after their deaths.” that refers to intercourse. Rebbi Eliezer ben Jacob explains the verse¹⁸⁸He denies that there is a biblical command which fixes minimal amounts of sexual attention due wives. He explains Ex. 21:9 as exhortation rather than prescription, reading “her flesh, her garment, and her season he should not diminish”., “her flesh her garment”, that her garment should fit her flesh, that he should not give a young woman clothes of an old woman nor an old woman clothes of a young one. “Her garment her season”, that he should not give summer clothing for the rainy season nor that for the rainy season in summer. From where does he get food¹⁸⁹How can he establish an obligation of the husband to feed his wife?? Since he is not permitted to withhold from her things that are not necessities of life¹⁹⁰A new garment at least twice a year., not so much more things that are necessities of life! From where does he get the obligation of periodic intercourse? Since he may not withhold from her things which do not constitute the main reason for marriage¹⁹⁰A new garment at least twice a year., so certainly he may not withhold the things which constitute the main reason for marriage!

“An oath that I shall eat this loaf;” etc. ¹³³Since by the first oath he became obligated to eat the loaf by biblical rules, the second oath has a similar status as an oath to violate a biblical commandment.Vain and untruth both were said together, which is impossible for the ear to hear and the mouth to say. Its desecrator shall be put to death and on the Sabbath day two sheep¹³⁴Ex. 31:14, Num. 28:9. were said together. Do not wear ša`aṭnez, fringes you shall make for yourselves¹³⁵Deut. 22:11–12., both were said together. The nakedness of your brother’s wife and her brother-in-law shall come to her¹³⁶Lev. 18:16, Deut. 25:5. were said together. You shall not move property; any daughter inheriting real estate¹³⁷Num. 36:8–9. both were said together, which is impossible for the mouth to say and the ear to hear. And so it says, God spoke once, two I heard from this¹³⁸Ps. 62:12.. And it says, is not My word like fire, says the Eternal¹³⁹Jer. 23:29. The reference is to the end of the verse, and like a hammer splintering rock..

The following words²⁷Which have an indelicate nuance. are written but not read [in their written form]:²⁸A more polite word is substituted. It is written ba‘folim²⁹Meaning ‘posteriors’. but we read baṭṭeḥorim;³⁰1 Sam. 5, 5, emerods. it is written yishgalennah³¹Meaning ‘rape’. This is the reading of N.Y. and M. V has thishgalennah. but we read yishkabennah;³²Deut. 28, 30, shall lie with her. it is written weroba‘ haḳḳab ḥiryonim³³2 Kings 6, 25, and the fourth part of a kab of dove’s dung. but we read weroba‘ haḳḳab dibyonim;³⁴Meaning ‘and the fourth … of decayed leaves’. it is written memë shinehem³⁵ibid. XVIII, 27, their own water. but we read memë raglehem;³⁶lit. ‘the water of their feet’. it is written ḥorehem³⁷ibid. their own dung. but we read ẓo’atham;³⁸lit. ‘their evacuation’. it is written wayyesimehu lemaḥara’oth³⁹ibid. X, 27, and made it a draught-house. but we read lemoẓa’oth.⁴⁰lit. ‘retreats’.
If a person uses euphemisms in the section of forbidden marriages⁴¹Lev. 18, 6-20. he is silenced.⁴²[The text in V is corrupt and emended in agreement with the Mishnah in Meg. 25a (Sonc. ed., p. 149).] R. Jonah explained:⁴³What is meant here by ‘euphemisms’. [39a] [When one says]⁴⁴By trying to be more considerate than Scripture. ‘the nakedness of his father’ or ‘the nakedness of his⁴⁵Instead of thy father and thy mother (Lev. 18, 7). R. Joseph (Meg. loc. cit.) gives a different interpretation, viz. the alteration of nakedness to ‘shame’ (cf. Sonc. ed., p. 151, n. 2). mother’. If a person says⁴⁶[Or, according to J. Rabbinowitz, Mishnah Megillah, p. 133. ‘And thou shalt not give any of thy seed (to a heathen woman) to become with child in idolatry,] instead of and thou shalt not give of thy seed to set them apart to Molech (Lev. 18, 21). ‘and thou shalt not cause any of thy seed to be conceived by a Gentile woman’,⁴⁷So altering the true meaning of the text which deals with the worship of Molech (cf. Sonc. ed., Meg. p. 149, n. 3). he is silenced with a rebuke.

The following words²⁷Which have an indelicate nuance. are written but not read [in their written form]:²⁸A more polite word is substituted. It is written ba‘folim²⁹Meaning ‘posteriors’. but we read baṭṭeḥorim;³⁰1 Sam. 5, 5, emerods. it is written yishgalennah³¹Meaning ‘rape’. This is the reading of N.Y. and M. V has thishgalennah. but we read yishkabennah;³²Deut. 28, 30, shall lie with her. it is written weroba‘ haḳḳab ḥiryonim³³2 Kings 6, 25, and the fourth part of a kab of dove’s dung. but we read weroba‘ haḳḳab dibyonim;³⁴Meaning ‘and the fourth … of decayed leaves’. it is written memë shinehem³⁵ibid. XVIII, 27, their own water. but we read memë raglehem;³⁶lit. ‘the water of their feet’. it is written ḥorehem³⁷ibid. their own dung. but we read ẓo’atham;³⁸lit. ‘their evacuation’. it is written wayyesimehu lemaḥara’oth³⁹ibid. X, 27, and made it a draught-house. but we read lemoẓa’oth.⁴⁰lit. ‘retreats’.
If a person uses euphemisms in the section of forbidden marriages⁴¹Lev. 18, 6-20. he is silenced.⁴²[The text in V is corrupt and emended in agreement with the Mishnah in Meg. 25a (Sonc. ed., p. 149).] R. Jonah explained:⁴³What is meant here by ‘euphemisms’. [39a] [When one says]⁴⁴By trying to be more considerate than Scripture. ‘the nakedness of his father’ or ‘the nakedness of his⁴⁵Instead of thy father and thy mother (Lev. 18, 7). R. Joseph (Meg. loc. cit.) gives a different interpretation, viz. the alteration of nakedness to ‘shame’ (cf. Sonc. ed., p. 151, n. 2). mother’. If a person says⁴⁶[Or, according to J. Rabbinowitz, Mishnah Megillah, p. 133. ‘And thou shalt not give any of thy seed (to a heathen woman) to become with child in idolatry,] instead of and thou shalt not give of thy seed to set them apart to Molech (Lev. 18, 21). ‘and thou shalt not cause any of thy seed to be conceived by a Gentile woman’,⁴⁷So altering the true meaning of the text which deals with the worship of Molech (cf. Sonc. ed., Meg. p. 149, n. 3). he is silenced with a rebuke.

The following words²⁷Which have an indelicate nuance. are written but not read [in their written form]:²⁸A more polite word is substituted. It is written ba‘folim²⁹Meaning ‘posteriors’. but we read baṭṭeḥorim;³⁰1 Sam. 5, 5, emerods. it is written yishgalennah³¹Meaning ‘rape’. This is the reading of N.Y. and M. V has thishgalennah. but we read yishkabennah;³²Deut. 28, 30, shall lie with her. it is written weroba‘ haḳḳab ḥiryonim³³2 Kings 6, 25, and the fourth part of a kab of dove’s dung. but we read weroba‘ haḳḳab dibyonim;³⁴Meaning ‘and the fourth … of decayed leaves’. it is written memë shinehem³⁵ibid. XVIII, 27, their own water. but we read memë raglehem;³⁶lit. ‘the water of their feet’. it is written ḥorehem³⁷ibid. their own dung. but we read ẓo’atham;³⁸lit. ‘their evacuation’. it is written wayyesimehu lemaḥara’oth³⁹ibid. X, 27, and made it a draught-house. but we read lemoẓa’oth.⁴⁰lit. ‘retreats’.
If a person uses euphemisms in the section of forbidden marriages⁴¹Lev. 18, 6-20. he is silenced.⁴²[The text in V is corrupt and emended in agreement with the Mishnah in Meg. 25a (Sonc. ed., p. 149).] R. Jonah explained:⁴³What is meant here by ‘euphemisms’. [39a] [When one says]⁴⁴By trying to be more considerate than Scripture. ‘the nakedness of his father’ or ‘the nakedness of his⁴⁵Instead of thy father and thy mother (Lev. 18, 7). R. Joseph (Meg. loc. cit.) gives a different interpretation, viz. the alteration of nakedness to ‘shame’ (cf. Sonc. ed., p. 151, n. 2). mother’. If a person says⁴⁶[Or, according to J. Rabbinowitz, Mishnah Megillah, p. 133. ‘And thou shalt not give any of thy seed (to a heathen woman) to become with child in idolatry,] instead of and thou shalt not give of thy seed to set them apart to Molech (Lev. 18, 21). ‘and thou shalt not cause any of thy seed to be conceived by a Gentile woman’,⁴⁷So altering the true meaning of the text which deals with the worship of Molech (cf. Sonc. ed., Meg. p. 149, n. 3). he is silenced with a rebuke.

MISHNAH: He who says, may the good ones bless You, is the way of heretics¹⁵⁵It is heretic to permit only the predestined few to Divine worship and to designate everybody else as belonging to Satan since every human has the capacity to repent and become good.. To the bird’s nest reaches your mercy¹⁵⁶Referring to Deut. 22:6. To give sermons about presumed reasons for biblical commandments is sinful., Your name may be mentioned on good things¹⁵⁷But not on bad ones; this contradicts the obligation to praise God for the Bad as one does for the Good, Mishnah Berakhot 9:5. we thank we thank¹⁵⁸If the beginning of the penultimate benediction of the Amidah is repeated without stop in between it looks like an affirmation of the existence of dual powers.: one silences him. One who circumscribes in incest prohibitions¹⁵⁹Lev. Chap. 18. For example, changing your father into “his father”, or, as in Pseudo-Jonathan, “debase” for uncover., one silences him. He who translates and do not give of your offspring to be burned for Moloch¹⁶⁰Lev. 18:21. as “do not allow your semen to impregnate a Gentile woman”¹⁶¹Pseudo-Jonathan’s translation.: one silences him with rebuke.

HALAKHAH: “One who gives any of his descendants to the Moloch.” From where a warning not to give any of his descendants to the Moloch? Do not give any of your descendants to the Moloch²⁸⁸Lev. 18:21.. Extirpation from where? For he gave one of his descendants to the Moloch²⁸⁹Lev. 20:3and shall be extirpated²⁹⁰A wrong quote from Lev. 20:5. It should read: I shall extirpate him.. Punishment from where? Each one of the Children of Israel, or of the sojourner in Israel, who would give any of his descendants to the Moloch shall be made to die; the people of the Land shall smash him with stones²⁹¹Lev. 20:2.. Do not give any of your descendants, I could think that he was guilty if he handed over but did not make him pass²⁹²In the interpretation of the Talmudim, the child was handed over to the Moloch priests and then made to pass or be carried between two fires. It is not assumed that the child was burned since that would be murder which in itself is a capital crime and would obviate the discussion of the exact conditions which make Moloch worship a capital crime. In the Babli, 64b, it is assumed that there is one fire in a ditch and the Moloch worship requires to jump, not to walk, over the fire. This interpretation also is possible for the Yerushalmi.
The paragraphs have a parallel in the Babli, 64b, partially with different attributions.; the verse says: Do not give any of your descendants to pass through. I could think that he was guilty if he handed over and made him pass through but not for the Moloch; the verse says: Do not give any of your descendants to pass through for the Moloch²⁹³Since passing through (or jumping over) fire is characteristic for Moloch worship and not part of worship of Heaven, doing this for any other deity is forbidden foreign worship, subject to divine extirpation, but not a prosecutable capital crime.. I could think that he was guilty if he handed over and made him pass through for the Moloch but without fire; the verse says: among you, nobody should be found to make his son or his daughter pass through fire²⁹⁴Deut. 18:10. In the Moloch paragraphs in Lev., the nature of “passing through” is never spelled out; by the doctrine of invariability of lexemes it is only made definite in this quote. Sifra Qedošim Parašah 10(3).. Passing through, passing through as an equal cut²⁹⁵Cf. 3:10, Note 158.. Since “passing through” mentioned there is through fire, so “passing through” mentioned here also is through fire. You have to say that he is not guilty unless he handed over and made him pass through fire for the Moloch. Rebbi Nasa in the name of Rebbi Eleazar: He is guilty only if he hand him over to the priests, takes him, and makes him pass. What if he lets him walk normally? It was stated: one was drawing him and made him pass through. It was stated: if he made him walk through on his feet he is not prosecutable²⁹⁶Babli 64b. In neither Talmud is it totally clear whether father or priests make the child pass through or over the fire.. Rebbi Eleazar ben Rebbi Simeon declares him guilty. Whether for the Moloch or for any other foreign worship; Rebbi Eleazar ben Rebbi Simeon says, he is guilty only for the Moloch²⁹⁷Bablt 64a., he is guilty only for his descendants. Rebbi Joḥanan said, Rebbi Eleazar ben Rebbi Simeon’s reason is from here: It shall not be found in you²⁹⁸The word בְּךָ in Deut. 18:10 is read as in you; this is interpreted to describe one’s bodily issue, the children., from your body you should not be found making pass through. I shall extirpate him … from among his people²⁹⁹A not quite correct quote from Lev. 20:5.. To include all other foreign worship for extirpation³⁰⁰In the Moloch paragraph Lev. 20:1–5 extirpation is mentioned twice, in vv. 3 and 5. One refers to Moloch worship; the other then must refer to any other worship using fire. Sifra Qedošim Parašah 10(15).. From where punishment? Of his descendants he gave to the Moloch²⁸⁹Lev. 20:3, death he shall be made to die²⁹¹Lev. 20:2., if he made him pass through himself. Does he not pass through on his feet? Because he made him pass through himself, but if he was drawing him and made him pass through, he is guilty. What does Rebbi Eleazar ben Rebbi Simeon mean, if he made him walk through on his feet he is not prosecutable? He has to make him pass through jumping.

Do not give of your offspring to be burned for Moloch¹⁶⁰Lev. 18:21., “do not allow your semen to impregnate a Gentile woman”. Rebbi Ismael stated, he who marries a Gentile woman and has children from her raises enemies of the Omnipresent¹⁷²The Babli 25a explicitly characterizes this as R. Ismael’s interpretation of Lev. 18:21..

From where a warning for the one who curses father or mother? Everybody has to fear his mother and father³⁴⁶Lev. 19:3.. From where punishment and extirpation? And he who curses his father or mother shall be made to die the death³⁴⁷Ex. 21:17.. And it says, for anybody who would commit any of these abominations will be extirpated^349,This text is also in Ketubot 3:9, explained there with a list of readings in Notes 126–135. The parallel in the Babli is 66b.¹³¹Lev. 18:29..

MISHNAH: If his wife died, her sister is permitted to him. If he divorced her and she died, her sister is permitted to him²²⁸Lev. 18:18. If she was his wife for one minute, her sister is forbidden to him during her lifetime, by biblical standards. The same holds for the sister-in-law from a childless brother by rabbinic standards.. If she had married another man and died, her sister is permitted to him. If his sister-in-law died, her sister is permitted to him. If he performed ḥalîṣah with her and she died, her sister is permitted to him.