Talmud su Levitico 20:21

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..

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..

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.