레위기 21:14 관련 구절

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..

It is written, the genitals of a woman and her daughter you shall not uncover, and it is written, if a man take a woman and her mother, it is taboo. Everywhere is written lying with, but here is written taking, to teach you that he cannot be [criminally] liable for the second woman unless she be taken by him. Or maybe he is [criminally] liable only by marriage? We already said that there is no valid incestuous marriage. But is it not written: Nobody may marry his father’s wife, and he should not uncover his father’s garment’s corner? This comes to tell that she was permitted to him before his father married her. But is it not written: If a man take his brother’s wife? This comes to tell you that she was permitted to him before his brother married her. This is understood by levirate. But is it not written: You should not take a woman in addition to her sister? This comes to tell you that she was permitted to him before he married her sister. This is understood after her sister’s death. But is it not written: A man who would take his sister, his father’s daughter or his mother’s daughter, it is ḥesed? That you should not say that 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 built on ḥesed. But is it not written: Widow, divorcee, and desecrated, these he shall not take? This comes to tell you that if he became betrothed to her, the betrothal is valid.

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..