Talmud su Levitico 18:8

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.

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.

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..