Talmud su Salmi 89:26

“Did you warn him?” From where warning? Rebbi Samuel bar Naḥman in the name of Rebbi Jonathan: ¹⁸Lev. 20:17. In a slightly different setting, this paragraph also is in Yebamot 11:1, Notes 25–26. Incest with one’s sister is criminal (although by the earthly court only punishable by flogging) while it was permitted to earlier generations. Therefore, it cannot be assumed that everybody knows it to be prohibited. People found engaged in incestuous acts cannot be prosecuted unless before the act informed of its criminality.A man who would take his sister …, it is ḥesed. Rebbi Bun said, Cain 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 to be built on ḥesed¹⁹Ps. 89:3..

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..

²³The same text in Yoma 8:8 (45b l.70, ו),Ševuot 1:9 (33b l.60, ש); similar texts in the Babli Yoma 86a, Tosephta Yom Hakippurim 5:6, Mekhilta dR. Ismael Yitro7, Avot dR. Nathan A 29, Midrash Mishle 10(6) [Yalqut Šim`ony Jeremiah 269, Wehizhir part 1 p. 54]. Rebbi Matthew ben Ḥarash asked Rebbi Eleazar ben Azariah in the Academy²⁴In Babylonian sources he either asked R. Eleazar ben Azariah in Rome or R. Eleazar the Caper grower in Laodicea.. He told him, did you hear the four types of Atonement which Rebbi Ismael explained? He answered him, there are three in addition to repentance. One verse says²⁵Jer. 3:22., return, naughty children, I shall heal your waywardness. But another verse says²⁶Lev. 16:30., for on that day, He shall pardon you, to cleanse you. And another verse says²⁷Ps. 89:33., I shall visit their crime with the rod, and their iniquity with plagues. And another verse says²⁸Is. 22:14., the iniquity of this people shall not be atoned for until you die. How is this? If somebody violates a positive commandment and repents, immediately before he moves from there the Holy One, praise to Him, would forgive him. About this one it says, return, naughty children, I shall heal your waywardness. If one transgresses a prohibition, repentance suspends judgment, and the Day of Atonement pardons. About this one it says, for on that day, He shall pardon you, etc. If one intentionally transgressed [sins punishable by] extirpations or death penalties, repentance and the Day of Atonement pardon half, and sufferings pardon half. About this one it says, I shall visit their crime with the rod, etc. But by whom the Name of Heaven was desecrated, there is no power in repentance to suspend judgment, nor in the Day of Atonement to pardon, nor in sufferings to scour; but repentance and the Day of Atonement pardon a third, and suffering a third, and death scours²⁹The root מרק is used in Lev. 6:21 to describe the thorough cleansing of a metal vessel by scouring.
In the Ševuot text, punishment for behavior that amounts to Desecration of the Name, i. e., unethical behavior by reputedly religious persons, can be suspended by repentance and the Day of Atonement, but only death in suffering scours. a third. About this one it says, the iniquity of this people shall not be atoned for until you die. From this we learn that death scours.