Талмуд к Иевамот 2:12

²⁷⁰Yebamot 2:4 (Notes 81–85), Lev. rabba24(6). The text here seems to be original since only here (and Lev. rabba) the observation of R. Samuel bar Rav Isaac’s maid is given justification. Dissolute in sexual matters. For the woman of Shunem said to her husband: Lo, I know that he is a holy man of God²⁷¹2K.4:9.. Rebbi Jonah said, he is holy, but his student is not holy. Rebbi Abun said, because he never looked at her. But the rabbis of Caesarea say, he never had an involuntary emission. The slave girl of Rebbi Samuel ben Rav Isaac said, I was washing my master’s garments. I never saw a bad thing on my master’s garments. It is written: Geḥazi drew near to push her away²⁷²2K.4:27.. What is לְהָדְפָהּ? Rebbi Yose ben Ḥanina said, he put his hand on her beauty spot, between her breasts.

“Rebbi Jehudah says, a king may marry a king’s widow, since we find that David married Saul’s widow, as it is said: I gave your master’s house to youand your master’s wives on your breast.” This refers to Riṣpah⁸¹Saul’s concubine, cf. Yebamot 2:4, Note 116., Abigail and Batseba⁸²These two examples refer to the preceding paragraph and show that the argument of the rabbis of Caesarea is wrong. David married Abigail, Nabal’s widow, when already he claimed kingship (in the interpretation of the next paragraphs) and Batseba, Uriah’s widow, when actually he was king..

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..

MISHNAH: Neither the orphan¹²⁹The orphaned underage girl who was married off by her mother or brothers, who repudiated her husband before reaching adulthood (cf. Yebamot 1:2, Note 118). By walking out, she (Yebamot Mishnah 13:4).
In all Babli mss. and in all Mishnah mss. of the Babylonian tradition, instead of “the orphan” one reads outright הַמְמָאֵנֶת “the repudiating”. Cf. The Babylonian Talmud with Variant Readings, Kethuboth II, p. תיד, Note 59. The Yerushalmi version must have been the original one since the Babli, 100b, discusses whether the Mishnah implies that no minor can claim a ketubah., nor the secondarily prohibited¹³⁰She is her husband’s relative but not a close one; her marriage is valid by biblical standards but considered incestuous by rabbinical rules; Yebamot2:4, Note 67. But since the marriage is valid by biblical standards, her children are not bastards. She is denied a ketubah in order to induce her to refuse the marriage from the start., nor the she-ram¹³¹The infertile female who lacks secondary female sex characteristics; cf. Yebamot 1:1, Note 65. If she was married underage and failed to become an adult physically, the husband may claim that he entered the marriage thinking that she was fully female and that, therefore, the marriage transaction was in error and invalid. may claim ketubah, or usufruct¹³²The husband does not have to return the usufruct he had from her dowry during the existence of the marriage., or sustenance, or depreciation¹³³He is not responsible to replace depreciated goods brought as her dowry.. But if he married her from the start as a she-ram, she has claim to her ketubah¹³⁴Not only ketubah, but all other payments due to the divorcee or widow, since the marriage certainly was valid.. A widow [married] to the High Priest¹³⁵The High Priest is forbidden to marry her (Lev. 21:14); she is not forbidden to marry him but she is barred from eating sanctified food and her children are desecrated from the priesthood. By biblical decree, she and her children are desecrated. This is punishment. Her marriage is biblically valid; there is no rabbinic reason to deny her the ketubah and the benefits accruing automatically to a wife., a divorcee or one who had received ḥalîṣah to a common priest¹³⁶He is forbidden to marry her (Lev. 21:7); she is not forbidden to marry him but she is barred from eating sanctified food and her children are desecrated from the priesthood., a bastard or Gibeonite girl to an Israel, an Israel girl married to a bastard or Gibeonite¹³⁷The bastard is forbidden by biblical law to marry an Israelite girl (Deut. 23:3, cf. Yebamot 1:5 Note 176; 4:15 Note 211), the Gibeonite by an old popular tradition ascribed to King David (Yebamot 2:4, Note 72). By Mishnah Qiddušin 3:14, in both cases the children inherit the status of the partner with the lower status., have claim to ketubah.

⁹⁷A similar text is in Semaḥot 2:14, a different formulation is in the Babli (Ketubot 27b/28a). If somebody divorces his wife she should not live in the same courtyard or the same place⁹⁸Or zarua‘ (Yibbum waḥalȋṣah #618) reads מבוי “dead-end-street” in place of מקום. This is the language of the Babli.. If the courtyard was the wife’s property, the husband has to move out, if the husband’s, the wife has to move out. If it was common property, who has to move because of whom? The woman because of the man, unless they can manage to have separate exits⁹⁹In the interpretation of Or zarua‘, if they can build a wall dividing the property, each section having its own entrance door from the courtyard.. When has this been said? If they were definitively married, not if they were not definitively married¹⁰⁰Preliminarily married couples are not supposed to have slept together; they are not suspected to do so after divorce.. But the wife of a Cohen if she was not definitively married¹⁰¹Since she is biblically prohibited to her preliminary ex-husband., as well as the status of a preliminarily married woman in Jehudah¹⁰²She was unchaperoned together with her preliminary husband and presumed to have slept with him; Mishnah Ketubot 1:5., is that of one definitively married. Nobody has to move if a person gives ḥalȋṣah to his sister-in-law even if he had “bespoken¹⁰³The imitation of preliminary marriage before levirate marriage; cf. Mishnah Yebamot 2:1, Note 6. This is a rabbinic formality; if the couple had relations, they would be biblically married and the marriage could only be terminated by a bill of divorce. The act of ḥalȋṣah guarantees that they never were intimate and the precautions enacted for divorced couples do not apply to them.” her since “bespeaking” does not fully acquire.