that a traditional statement may be reported in my name in this world'; for R. Johanan1 stated in the name of R. Simeon b. Yohai: The lips of a [deceased] scholar, in whose name a traditional statement is reported in this world, move gently in the grave. Said R. Isaac b. Ze'ira, or it might be said, Simeon the Nazirite: What is the Scriptural proof of this? And the roof of thy mouth like the best wine that glideth down smoothly for my beloved, moving gently the lips of those who are asleep,2 like a heated mass of grapes. As a heated mass of grapes, as soon as a man places his finger upon it, exudes3 immediately so with the scholars as soon as a traditional statement is made in their name in this world, their lips move gently4 in the grave.
WHETHER HE IS OF THE AGE OF NINE YEARS etc. A contradiction was pointed out: If at the age of twenty he5 did not produce two [pubic] hairs,6 they7 must bring evidence that he is twenty years of age, and he [is then confirmed as a] saris;8 he may neither submit to halizah nor may he perform the levirate marriage. If a woman9 at the age of twenty did not produce two [pubic] hairs, they10 must bring evidence that she is twenty years of age, and she [is then confirmed as a] woman who is incapable of procreation; she may neither perform halizah nor contract levirate marriage!11 — Surely in connection with this Mishnah it was stated: R. Samuel b. Isaac said in the name of Rab that this12 applies only to the case where [other] symptoms13 of a saris also appeared on him.14
Whenever people came [with such a case]19 before Raba,20 he used to tell them, if [the youth was] emaciated, 'Let him first be fattened'; and if he was stout, he used to tell them, 'Let him first be made to lose weight'; for these symptoms disappear21 sometimes as a result of emaciation and sometimes they disappear21 as a result of stoutness.
MISHNAH. A MAN IS PERMITTED TO MARRY [THE NEAR RELATIVE] OF A WOMAN [WHOM HE HAS] OUTRAGED OR SEDUCED.22 HE, HOWEVER, WHO OUTRAGED OR SEDUCED [A RELATIVE] OF HIS MARRIED WIFE, IS GUILTY.23 A MAN MAY MARRY THE WOMAN WHOM HIS FATHER HAS OUTRAGED OR SEDUCED OR THE WOMAN WHOM HIS SON HAS OUTRAGED OR SEDUCED. R. JUDAH FORBIDS [MARRIAGE] WITH THE WOMAN WHOM ONE'S FATHER HAS OUTRAGED OR SEDUCED.
GEMARA. Here24 we learn what the Rabbis taught: 'A man who has outraged a woman25 is permitted to marry her daughter; if, however, he married the woman, he is forbidden to marry her daughter'. A contradiction, however, may be pointed out: A man who is suspected of intercourse with a woman is forbidden to marry her mother, her daughter and her sister!26 — This [prohibition27 is only] Rabbinical.28
Would it be stated, however, where a Rabbinical prohibition exists, that A MAN IS PERMITTED TO MARRY even from the outset! — Our Mishnah refers only to [a marriage] after [the suspected woman's] death.29
Whence is this ruling deduced? — From what the Rabbis taught: In the case of all those [illicit relationships]30 Scripture used the expression of 'lying',31 but here32 it made use of the expression of 'taking',33 in order to tell you [that only when intercourse with a woman was in] the manner of 'taking'34 did the Torah forbid [marriage with her relatives].35
Said R. Papa to Abaye: If that is so,36 then in respect of one's sister, concerning whom it is written, And if a man shall take his sister, his father's daughter, or his mother's daughter;37 is [intercourse] here also forbidden only [if it is in] the manner of 'taking',34 but permitted [if it is in] the manner of 'lying'!38 — The other replied: The word 'taking' is used in the Torah without being defined, [so that a text] to which 'taking' is applicable,39 [signifies] 'taking'40 while one to which only 'lying' is applicable,41 [signifies] 'lying'.42
Raba stated: [That a man who] outraged a woman is permitted to marry her daughter, [is deduced] from here: It is written, The nakedness of thy son's daughter, or of thy daughter's daughter, thou shalt not uncover;43 from which it follows44 that the daughter of her45 son and the daughter of her45 daughter may be uncovered; but it is also written in Scripture, Thou shalt not uncover the nakedness of a woman and her daughter; thou shalt not take her son's daughter, or her daughter's daughter!46 How then [are these to be reconciled]? The former47 refers to cases of outrage and the latter to those of marriage. Might not [the application]48 be reversed? — In respect of forbidden relatives the expression kin49 is written, and kinship exists only by means of marriage; but no kinship exists by means of outrage.
R. JUDAH FORBIDS MARRIAGE WITH THE WOMAN WHOM ONE'S FATHER HAD OUTRAGED etc. R. Giddal stated in the name of Rab: What is R. Judah's reason? Because it is written, A man shall not take his father's wife, and shall not uncover his father's skirt:50 the skirt which his father saw51 he shall not uncover. Whence, however, is it inferred that Scripture speaks of an outraged woman? — From the preceding section of the text where it is written, Then the man that lay with her shall give unto the damsels father fifty shekels of silver.52 And the Rabbis?53 — If one text had occurred in close proximity to the other your exposition would have been justified;54 now, however, that it does not occur in close proximity, the text is required for [an exposition] like that of R. Anan. For R. Anan stated in the name of Samuel that the Scriptural text50 speaks of a woman awaiting the levirate decision of his father; and the meaning of55 his father's skirt50 is: He56 shall not uncover the skirt which is designated for his father.57
[This prohibition,58 however], might be deduced from the fact that she is his aunt!59 — [The text50 was necessary] to make him60 guilty of the transgression of two negative commandments.61 [The prohibition,62 however] might be inferred from the fact [that the widow as a] sister-in-law63 [is forbidden] to marry any stranger!64 — [The text50 was necessary] to make him guilty of the transgression of three negative commandments.65 And if you prefer I might say:66 After [his father's] death.67
'My1 paternal, but not my maternal brother; and he is the husband of my mother and I am the daughter of his wife'!2 — Rami b. Hama said: Such [a relationship is] not [legally possible] according to the ruling of R. Judah in our Mishnah.3
'Ye4 water-drawers,7 we shall ask you8 a riddle that defies solution: He whom I carry is my son and I am the daughter of his brother'? — This is possible where an idolater cohabited with the daughter of his son.9
'Woe,4 woe, for my brother who is my father; he is my husband and the son of my husband; he is the husband of my mother and I am the daughter of his wife; and he provides no food for his orphan brothers, the children of his daughter'? — This is possible when an idolater cohabited with his mother and begot from her a daughter; then he cohabited with that daughter; and then the grandfather10 cohabited with her11 and begot from her sons.12
'I13 and you are brother and sister,14 I and your father are brother and sister, and I and your mother are sisters'? — This is possible where an idolater cohabited with his mother and from her begot two daughters, and then he cohabited with one of these and begot from her a son. When the sons's mother's sister15 carries16 him17 she addresses him thus.18
'I13 and you are the children of sisters,14 I and your father are the children of brothers, and I and your mother are the children of brothers'? — This indeed is possible also in the case of a lawful marriage; where, for instance, Reuben had two daughters, and Simeon19 came and married one of them, and then came the son of Levi19 and married the other.
MISHNAH. THE SONS OF A FEMALE PROSELYTE WHO BECOME PROSELYTES TOGETHER WITH HER NEITHER22 PARTICIPATE IN HALIZAH NOR CONTRACT LEVIRATE MARRIAGE, EVEN IF THE ONE WAS NOT CONCEIVED IN HOLINESS.23 BUT WAS BORN IN HOLINESS,24 AND THE OTHER WAS BOTH CONCEIVED AND BORN IN HOLINESS. SO ALSO [IS THE LAW] WHERE THE SONS OF A BONDWOMAN WERE EMANCIPATED TOGETHER WITH HER.
GEMARA. When the sons of the bondwoman Yudan were emancipated. R. Aha b. Jacob permitted them to marry one another's wives.25 Said Raba to him: But R. Shesheth forbade [such marriages]. The other replied: He forbade, but I allow.
[In respect of proselyte brothers] from the same father and not from the same mother, there is no difference of opinion26 that this27 is permitted;28 [in respect of brothers] from the same mother and not from the same father, there is no difference of opinion26 that this27 is forbidden.29 They differ only [in respect of proselytes whose brotherhood is] both paternal and maternal. He30 who permits it27 [does so because children are] ascribed to their father, since they are spoken of as 'the children of such and such a man'.31 R. Shesheth, however, [holds that they] are also spoken of as 'the children of such and such a woman'.29
Another reading: R. Aha b. Jacob disputed [the illegality of marriage]27 even in respect of maternal brothers. And what is his reason? — Because a man who has become a proselyte is like a child newly born.32
We learned, THE SONS OF A FEMALE PROSELYTE WHO BECAME PROSELYTES TOGETHER WITH HER NEITHER PARTICIPATE IN HALIZAH NOR CONTRACT THE LEVIRATE MARRIAGE, is not the reason33 because they are forbidden [to marry a brother's wife]!34 — No; it is because [the widow] is not subject to the law of halizah and levirate marriage.35 She is permitted, however, to strangers.36 and the brothers also are permitted[to marry her]. But, surely, it was stated EVEN! Now were you to admit that [the brothers] are forbidden.37 one could well justify the expression of EVEN: EVEN IF THE ONE WAS NOT CONCEIVED IN HOLINESS BUT WAS BORN IN HOLINESS. AND THE OTHER WAS BOTH CONCEIVED AND BORN IN HOLINESS, [so that the two might well be regarded] as [the sons of] two mothers,38 they are nevertheless forbidden; if you maintain, however, that they are permitted,39 what [can be the purport of] EVEN!40 — Even though the birth of both was in holiness, and people might mistake41 them for Israelites,42 [the widow] is nevertheless permitted [to marry a stranger].43
Others read: Logical reasoning also supports the view that they are permitted,39 since the expression EVEN was used. For, if you grant that they are permitted39 it is quite correct to say EVEN: Even though the birth of both was in holiness and people might mistake41 them for Israelites.42 they are nevertheless permitted;43 if, however, you maintain that they are for bidden44 what [can be the purport of] EVEN!45 — EVEN IF THE ONE WAS NOT CONCEIVED IN HOLINESS BUT WAS BORN IN HOLINESS, AND THE OTHER WAS BOTH CONCEIVED AND BORN IN HOLINESS [so that they might well be regarded] as [the sons of] two mothers,46 they are nevertheless forbidden.
Come and hear: Twin brothers who were proselytes, and similarly if they were emancipated slaves,47 may neither participate in halizah nor contract levirate marriage, nor are they guilty [of a punishable offence] for [marrying] a brother's wife.48 If however, they were not conceived in holiness but were born in holiness, they neither participate in halizah nor contract levirate marriage49 but are guilty [of a punishable offence]50 for [marrying] a brother's wife.51 If they were both conceived and born in holiness, they are regarded as Israelites in all respects. At all events, it was stated that they are not 'guilty [of a punishable offence] for [marrying] a brother's wife'; [from which it follows that] no punishable offence is incurred
- To Next Folio -