Yerushalmi Yevamot 11:1 ירושלמי יבמות י״א:א׳

MISHNAH: One may marry [relatives of] a rape victim or a seduced woman¹Incest prohibitions which are not effective at birth can be created only by marriage, not by promiscuity.. He who rapes or seduces [a relative of] a married woman is guilty²He is liable not only for rape and seduction but also for incest.. A person may marry his father’s rape victim or seduced woman, his son’s rape victim or seduced woman. Rebbi Jehudah prohibits his father’s rape victim or seduced woman³The majority considers both parts of Deut. 23:1: “Nobody may marry his father’s wife, and he should not uncover his father’s garment’s corner” as one prohibition; R. Jehudah reads the second clause as referring to women with whom his father has extramarital relations..

HALAKHAH: “One may marry [relatives of] a rape victim or a seduced woman,” etc. So is the Mishnah: One may marry after a rape victim or seduced woman⁴The language “… נוֹשְׂאִין עַל” may be interpreted to mean “one marries additionally to …” This naturally is not meant here.. If he raped a woman, her mother is permitted; if he seduced a woman, her daughter is permitted⁵Quoted as baraita in Babli 97a..

“He who rapes or seduces [a relative of] a married woman is guilty.” Rebbi Joḥanan said, one stated this for marriage. If he married a woman and then raped her mother, he is guilty. If he married a woman and then seduced her daughter, he is guilty⁶This is obvious, cf. Chapter 10, Notes 139, 140..

There, we have stated⁷Mishnah Ḥulin 5:3.: “If he slaughtered her, her daughter’s daughter, and afterwards her daughter, he absorbs forty [lashes].⁸Really, 39 lashes, the maximum permitted (Deut. 25:3). Similarly, Symmachos’s 80 are really 78. Symmachos said in Rebbi Meïr’s name, he absorbs eighty.⁹Lev. 22:28: “A cow or a sheep, it and its young you shall not slaughter on the same day.” Slaughtering a cow and a second generation calf on the same day is not forbidden. If after that the calf is slaughtered on the same day, with one act he slaughters {the cow and her calf} and {the calf’s calf and her mother}. For the rabbis, violating one law by one act can be punished only once. For Symmachos, the order of execution is important; the prohibition of slaughtering the calf after its mother is separate from that of slaughtering the mother after its calf.” Rebbi Eleazar said, [Symmachos]¹⁰Missing in the text, required by the context. and Rebbi Joḥanan ben Nuri said the same thing, since we stated there¹¹Mishnah Keritut 3:6. R. Eleazar’s opinion is quoted in the Babli, Keritut 14b.: “Rebbi Joḥanan ben Nuri said, he who copulates with his mother-in-law may be guilty because of his mother-in-law, his mother-in-law’s mother and his father-in-law’s mother. They said to him, all three fall under the same law¹²The relevant verse is Lev. 18:17: “The genitals of a woman and her daughter you shall not uncover; her son’s daughter and her daughter’s daughter you shall not take to uncover her nakedness; they are family, it is taboo.” The Tosephta (Keritut 1:21) explains that R. Joḥanan ben Nuri speaks about a man who married three wives, a woman and her nieces from a sister and a brother; i. e. a daughter and two granddaughters of the same woman. If the man sleeps with his mother-in-law, by one act he sleeps with a woman and her daughter, a woman and her daughter’s daughter, and a woman and her son’s daughter. If it is three times the same transgression, he is punished only once; if the one act implies three different paragraphs have been violated, he receives multiple punishment..” Rebbi Jehudah bar Pazi in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: Symmachos agrees to the earlier [part of the Mishnah]¹³Ḥulin 5:3, where it is stated that everybody agrees that if he slaughtered first the mother and after that two of her calves he is whipped “80” times but if he first slaughtered the two calves and then the mother, he is whipped only “40” times.. If was found stated, it still is in dispute¹⁴Tosephta Ḥulin 5:7: “If he slaughtered its five calves and then the cow, Symmachos said in the name of Rebbi Meïr he is guilty of five transgressions but he only is guilty for transgression of one prohibition.” This shows that Symmachos counts instances of the same prohibition separately; he cannot have the same position as R. Joḥanan ben Nuri. This is the position of Rava in the Babli, Keritut 15a; cf. צבי דור, תורת ארץ ישׂראל בבבל, דביר, תל אביב 1971, p. 42.. What is Rebbi Joḥanan ben Nuri’s reason? Since a woman and her daughter and a woman and her daughter’s daughter fall under two separate prohibitions¹⁵For him, the two parts of Lev. 18:17 are two separate paragraphs; for the rabbis the verse counts as only one., also a woman and her son’s daughter and her daughter’s daughter fall under two separate prohibitions. What is the reason of the rabbis? Since a woman and her daughter and a woman and her daughter’s daughter fall under one and the same prohibition, also a woman and her son’s daughter and her daughter’s daughter fall under one and the same prohibition.

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..

²⁹This is from Chapter 2, Notes 104–109. Rebbi Ḥuna understood all of them from this verse: “The genitals of a woman and her daughter you should not uncover, etc.” Taboo - taboo, for an equal cut. Since there are three generations downwards, so there are three generations upwards. Since there is a prohibition downwards, so there is a prohibition upwards. Since upwards one requires marriage, so downwards one requires marriage. Since upwards they are burned, so downwards they are burned. Since downwards, He gave the male’s daughter the same status as the female’s daughter, so upwards we give the male’s mother the same status as the female’s mother.

And following Rebbi Meïr? Since Rebbi Meïr said, a gezerah šawah³⁰Cf. Chapter 8, Note 195. R. Meïr holds that a gezerah šawah is valid only for the rules covered by the respective verses. is at the place it comes from, from where is the third generation (below) forbidden³¹Instead of “below” one has to read מלמעל “above”. In Lev. 18:17, the daughter and granddaughter of a woman are forbidden as taboo to a man sleeping with the woman. Therefore, the question can only be whether the grandmother also is forbidden since the pivot of the prohibition is the woman he slept with first and, as a matter of principle, infractions of prohibitions are punishable only if the punishment is stated in the code. The mother is certainly under an incest prohibition whose infraction would be a capital crime; this is stated in Lev. 20:14.? And following the rabbis, who say, a gezerah šawah is said about them³²It refers to all aspects of the laws involved., from where that the third generation above is punished by burning³³Since she is not mentioned in the verse.? Both for Rebbi Meïr and the rabbis, from where that the third generation above is forbidden? Since it is written “taboo, taboo” for a gezerah šawah, it is as if all were included; all are included³⁴In both Chapters 18 and 20, the prohibition of a woman and either her descendants or ancestors appear in one verse. Therefore, in this case there is no difference in the positions of R. Meïr and the rabbis. The gezerah šawah is sufficient to transfer the prohibition of the descendants (18:17) to the ancestors (20:14) and the punishment from the ancestors to the descendants. Cf. Halakhah 2:4. The same argument is in the Babli, Sanhedrin 75b..

So far his daughter’s daughter from marriage³⁵As noted before, both Lev. 18:17 and 20:14 contain expressions of marriage.. His daughter’s daughter from a rape? “The genitals of your son’s daughter or your daughter’s daughter³⁶Lev. 18:10 prohibits incest with granddaughters. If only legitimate children were intended, the verse would be superfluous. Therefore, it must refer also to all illegitimate children; “rape” is only an example..” Where do we hold? If from marriage, it already had been said. So it it cannot refer to marriage but must refer to rape. So far for the warning, from where the punishment³⁷Lev. 18:10 contains no indication of any punishment.? Rebbi Samuel bar Rav Isaac said, “they, they; taboo, taboo”.³⁸Lev. 18:10 ends עֶרְוָֽתְךָ הֵנָּה “they are your genitals;” Lev. 18:17 ends שַׁאֲרָה הֵנָּה זִאָה הִיא “they are relatives, it is taboo;” Lev. 20:14 reads וְלֹא תִהְיֶה זִאָהבְּתוֹכְכֶם “there should be no taboo among you.” He accepts a gezerah šawah between 18:10 and 17 based on the common word הנה and one between 18:17 and 20:14 based on the common word זמה. This concatenation of two transfers is not without problems (cf. Babli Zebaḥim 50a); the Yerushalmi here indicates that it is only acceptable for R. Aqiba, not for R. Ismael. The argument is quoted in the Babli (Yebamot 3a and Sanhedrin 75b, 76a) in the name of Rav Isaac bar Eudaimon. That follows Rebbi Aqiba; following Rebbi Ismael? Rebbi Ismael stated: “they”, from “them”³⁹He makes a direct connection between Lev. 18:10 and 20:14, taking the unusual word אתהן (for אותן), the combination of the nota accusativi and הן, הנה “they”, to indicate the connection. This argument is not quoted in the Babli.. So far about his daughter’s daughter, from where his daughter⁴⁰Lev. 18:10 makes no mention of the daughter as incest prohibition.? Rav said, if he is forewarned about his daughter’s daughter, so much more for his daughter! If for his daughter’s daughter he is subject to extirpation, so much more for his daughter⁴¹The Babli, Sanhedrin 76a, notes the obvious contradiction to the principle that no punishment can be imposed that is not clearly stated in the text (cf. Note 31) and holds that the argument is so simple that the prohibition must be considered as if it were written in the verse.!

They asked before Rebbi Abbahu: His daughter’s daughter from a marriage; his daughter’s daughter from a rape? He said to them, every “daughter’s daughter” falls under the same category⁴²R. Abbahu rejects the argument (Note 36) that the illegitimate offspring needs an extra verse. The simple meaning of the verse includes all daughter’s daughters.. They asked before Rebbi Abbahu: If [a man] came to a woman, she had a daughter, and after that he came and copulated with her⁴³Something must be missing here. The most simple scenario would be that a man sleeps with his illegitimate daughter when he married two granddaughters of the mother, one from a son and one from another daughter. If the copulation was in ignorance of the family relationship, how many purification sacrifices does he have to bring?. Is he guilty about her because of a woman and her daughter, her daughter’s daughter and her son’s daughter? He said to them, “they are relatives, it is taboo;” all because of taboo⁴⁴Multiple transgression of the same statute can be punished only once..

Rebbi Ḥaggai asked before Rebbi Yose: Why do we not say, “your daughter you should not uncover, your daughter’s daughter you should not uncover”⁴⁵He questions the position of R. Abbahu; why should one not consider Lev. 18:17 as containing two separate prohibitions?? He said to him, if it were written “the genitals of a woman and her daughter’s daughter you shall not uncover”, we would have said, “your daughter you should not uncover, your daughter’s daughter you should not uncover”⁴⁶If the verse had not contained the mention of “taking” (i. e. “marrying”) to make the offense a capital crime, one could have considered the caesura in the verse as defining two separate clauses. But now, since the condition of marriage to at least one of them is essential for the definition of criminality of the act, that cannot be the interpretation.
The Babli, 22b, has a totally different take on Lev. 18:10: That verse speaks only of his granddaughters, but 18:17 deals with the granddaughters of his wife. It is concluded that the granddaughters of a woman with whom he has a child but who is not his wife cannot be under an incest prohibition which is a capital crime. Cf. Chapter 10, Note 195..

Rebbi Abbahu, Rebbi Eleazar in the name of Rebbi Hoshaiah. If there are two prohibitions and one liability to extirpation, the prohibitions split the extirpation⁴⁷It is a general principle of hermeneutics in both Talmudim that for every prohibition one verse has to explain what is forbidden and another verse, often at a different place, has to spell out the punishment. If the latter verse refers to several prohibitions at once, the number of sins committed in one act (the number of required cleansing sacrifices if the sin was inadvertent) is counted by the number of prohibitions, not by the number of punishments enumerated separately. In the Babli (Makkot 14b, Keritut 3a), this is a matter of dispute.. What is the reason? “On human flesh it may not be rubbed and in its proportions you should not make [a compound] like it.⁴⁸Ex. 30:32, speaking of the oil used to anoint priests and holy vessels.” And it is written: “A man who would compound like it⁴⁹Ex. 30:33: “A man who would compound its likeness or who would apply it on an outside person {who is not a priest} will be extirpated from his people.” There are only two prohibitions since the “human” of v. 32 is defined as “not a priest” in v. 33.”. Here are two prohibitions and one liability to extirpation. The prohibitions divide the extirpation. This follows Rebbi Ismael, since Rebbi Ismael said one infers from an argument de minore ad majus but one does not punish from an argument de minore ad majus⁵⁰A principle spelled out many times in the Babli, cf. Makkot 5b, 14a, 17a; Sanhedrin 54a.. Where does he have that from? It comes following what Ḥizqiah stated: “If the daughter of a Cohen is desecrated by whoring.” Why does the verse say, “a man⁵¹Lev. 21:9. “A Cohen man’s daughter if she is desecrated by whoring with her father, shall be burned in fire;” cf. Babli Sanhedrin 76.”? To include him who cohabits with his daughter’s daughter from a rape that she should be [under sentence of] burning⁵²It was determined earlier that the prohibition of 20:14 of descendents or progenitors in the direct line applies only if one of the women is married to the man. For priests, this is extended also to extramarital children.. Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Abun said, one may even understand this from the warning: “Do not desecrate your daughter⁵³Lev. 19:29: “Do not desecrate your daughter to cause her to whore.” This interpretation is quoted in the Babli, Sanhedrin 76a, in the name of R. Abun’s father and there is only one of several alternative interpretations..”

What is the reason of Rebbi Jehudah? “⁵⁴Deut. 23:1. The hermeneutic principles require that two parallel clauses be interpreted as referring to two different situations. If such an interpretation is impossible, then the two clauses count as two separate prohibitions. A man may not take his father’s wife,” that refers to his father’s wife; “and he should not uncover his father’s wing,” that is his rape victim. How do the rabbis explain “his father’s wing”? There⁵⁵Babli Yebamot 97a, stated in the name of Samuel., they say and they do not know the origin of the tradition, that refers to a wing which leans on his father⁵⁶The widow of a childless uncle who waits to be married in levirate by his father and in the meantime is forebidden to all other men.. Would he not anyhow be guilty for her because of his father’s wife⁵⁷For the rabbis who hold that candidacy counts as betrothal; cf. Chapter 2, Note 27.? Rebbi Hila said, because of forewarning⁵⁸In rabbinic interpretation, no punishment is possible in criminal cases unless criminal intent was established by two witnesses who testify that the perpetrator was duly warned that his intended act was criminal., that if he was warned because of his father’s wife, he will be whipped, and because of his father’s wing, he will be whipped⁵⁹In the Babli, 97a, an anonymous statement that if we warned for both his father’s wife and his father’s wing, he transgresses two prohibitions in one act.. Rebbi Jehudah agrees about whipping. Rebbi Jehudah agrees about sacrifice⁶⁰Since no penalty is stated in the Torah for the man who marries a woman who had unmarried sex with his father, he cannot be punished and, therefore, is unable to bring a sacrifice even if his act is considered sinful.. Rebbi Jehudah agrees about all other doubtful cases that he is free⁶¹If the woman had sex with any man other than his father, a marriage to whom would make her current marriage incestuous, no punishment can be meted out even according to R. Jehudah since there is no biblical basis for it. Consequently, the marriage is valid.. Rebbi Jehudah agrees that if he gave her qiddušin that these qiddušin are legally valid.

Rebbi Ḥaggai asked before Rebbi Yose: Is the child a bastard following Rebbi Jehudah? He said to him, “No one with a damaged testicle or with cut-off penis may marry⁶²Deut. 23:2. The prohibition of the father’s wife is verse 1, the rule of bastardy is verse 3; cf. Chaper 4, Note 211.” interrupts the argument. It interrupted the argument in the matter of the father’s wife. He retorted, the father’s wife was part of the set of all incest prohibitions; it was selected from this set to teach about bastardy for all incest prohibitions⁶³This is an application of Rule 9 of R. Ismael (Introduction to Sifra): “Anything in a set which was selected from that set to teach, was not selected to teach only for itself but for the entire set.”
The prohibition of the stepmother is contained in the set of all incest prohibitions (Lev., Chapters 18,20). Therefore, if the result of incest with a stepmother is a bastard, the result of any other incestuous relation must be a bastard (cf. Mishnaiot 4:14,15).. (Let the father’s wife be selected to teach about bastardy for all incests prohibitions.) Similarly, let the rape victim be selected to teach a prohibition concerning all rape victims⁶⁴R. Ḥaggai wants to argue that since according to R. Jehudah, the prohibition of a person who had unmarried sex with his father is written in one verse with the prohibition of the father’s wife, all relationships that would be incestuous in the case of marriage should be prohibited.. He said to him, the father’s wife was part of the set of all incest prohibitions; it was selected from this set to teach about bastardy for all incest prohibitions. Can you say that the rape victim was in a set of all rape victims, that it could teach a prohibition concerning all rape victims⁶⁵There does not exist a set of women prohibited as incestuous by extramarital sex; the set to which Rule 9 might be applied contains only the woman who had slept with his father. The parallel reasoning implied by R. Ḥaggai does not work.? Why cannot the father’s wife be selected to teach about the rape victims in her case? He said to him, is she is the father’s wife, she is not his rape victim; is she is the father’s rape victim, she is not his wife.