משנה: הַבָּא עַל הָאֵם חַייָב עָלֶיהָ מִשּׁוּם אֵם וּמִשּׁוּם אֵשֶׁת אָב. רִבִּי יְהוּדָה אוֹמֵר אֵינוֹ חַייָב אֶלָּא מִשּׁוּם הָאֵם בִּלְבָד. הַבָּא עַל אֵשֶׁת אָב חַייָב עָלֶיהָ מִשּׁוּם אֵשֶׁת אָב וּמִשּׁוּם אֵשֶׁת אִישׁ בֵּין בְּחַיֵּי אָבִיו בֵּין לְאַחַר מִיתַת אָבִיו בֵּין מִן הָאֵירוּסִין בֵּין מִן הַנִּישּׂוּאִין. הַבָּא עַל כַּלָּתוֹ חַייָב עָלֶיהָ מִשּׁוּם כַּלָּתוֹ וּמִשּׁוּם אֵשֶׁת אִישׁ בֵּין בְּחַיֵּי בְּנוֹ בֵּין לְאַחַר מִיתַת בְּנוֹ בֵּין מִן הָאֵירוּסִין בֵּין מִן הַנִּישּׂוּאִין. MISHNAH: A person having sexual relations with the mother is guilty because of mother and because of father’s wife126If he committed the incest in ignorance either of the person or the law, he owes two purification sacrifices.. Rebbi Jehudah say, he is guilty only because of mother127He holds that Leviticus.18.7">Lev. 18:7 only forbids the mother; 18:8 only forbids the stepmother..
A person having sexual relations with the father’s wife is guilty because of father’s wife and because of married woman, whether during his father’s lifetime or after his father’s death128But if the widowed stepmother is not remarried, he is not guilty for sleeping with an otherwise married woman. Similarly, a man sleeping with his daughter-in-law (Sanhedrin 7:6:3-6" href="/Jerusalem_Talmud_Sanhedrin.7.6.3-6">Halakhah 8) is not guilty of adultery with a married woman if at the moment of the crime she was not married to anybody. Neither the prohibition of the stepmother nor that of the daughter-in-law are removed by divorce and remarriage to a third party., whether preliminarily married or definitively married.
A person having sexual relations with his daughter-in-law is guilty because of his daughter-in-law and because of a married woman, whether during his son’s lifetime or after his son’s death128But if the widowed stepmother is not remarried, he is not guilty for sleeping with an otherwise married woman. Similarly, a man sleeping with his daughter-in-law (Sanhedrin 7:6:3-6" href="/Jerusalem_Talmud_Sanhedrin.7.6.3-6">Halakhah 8) is not guilty of adultery with a married woman if at the moment of the crime she was not married to anybody. Neither the prohibition of the stepmother nor that of the daughter-in-law are removed by divorce and remarriage to a third party., whether preliminarily married or definitively married.
הלכה: הַבָּא עַל הָאֵם כול׳. הַבָּא עַל אֵשֶׁת אָב כול׳. אַזְהָרָה לָבֹא עַל הָאֵם מְנַיִין. עֶרְוַת אִמְּךָ֖ לֹ֣א תְגַלֵּה֑. כָּרֵת מְנַיִין. כִּ֚י כָּל־אֲשֶׁ֣ר יַֽעֲשֶׂ֔ה מִכֹּ֥ל הַתּֽוֹעֵבוֹת הָאֵ֑לֶּה וְנִכְרְת֛וּ הַנְּפָשׁ֥וֹת הָֽעוֹשׂוֹת מִקֶּ֥רֶב עַמָּֽם׃ אַזְהָרָה לָבֹא עַל אֵשֶׁת אָב מְנַיִין. עֶרְוַ֥ת אֵֽשֶׁת־אָבִ֖יךָ לֹ֣א תְגַלֵּה֑. כָּרֵת מְנַיִין. כִּ֚י כָּל־אֲשֶׁ֣ר יַֽעֲשֶׂ֔ה וגו׳. עוֹנֶשׁ מְנַיִין. וְאִ֗ישׁ אֲשֶׁ֤ר יִשְׁכַּב֙ אֶת־אֵ֣שֶׁת אָבִ֔יו עֶרְוַ֥ת אָבִ֖יו גִּלָּה֑ מוֹת־יֽוּמְת֥וּ וגו׳. HALAKHAH: “A person having sexual relations with the mother,” etc. Halakhah 7:“A person having sexual relations with the father’s wife,” etc. From where the warning129A prohibition the penalty for which is not spelled out carries a penalty of flogging (Deut. 25:21). For any more serious infraction the pentateuchal style requires that separate verses must spell out (1) the prohibition, (2) the penalty to be imposed by the court, (3) the penalty imposed by Heaven in case the crime was not observed by two blameless adult male witnesses and, therefore, no court case was possible. In case of sexual crimes this would mean that the witnesses have to see the sex act. For a civil case, such as a husband wishing to divorce his wife because of her adultery, without paying her ketubah, it is enough for witnesses to testify to her going to a room with another man, locking the door, and extinguishing the lights. But this is not enough for a criminal conviction. for a person having sexual relations with the mother? Your mother’s nakedness you shall not uncover.130Leviticus.18.7">Lev. 18:7. From where extirpation? For anybody who would commit any of these abominations, the guilty persons will be extirpated from their people131Leviticus.18.29">Lev. 18:29.. From where the warning for a person having sexual relations with the father’s wife? Your father’s wife’s nakedness you shall not uncover.132Leviticus.18.8">Lev. 18:8 From where extirpation? For anybody who would commit,131Leviticus.18.29">Lev. 18:29. etc. Punishment from where? A man who would sleep with his father’s wife, his father’s nakedness he uncovered; they shall be put to death,133Leviticus.20.11">Lev. 20:11. Even R. Jehudah will agree that this verse also refers to the mother. The verse ends: their blood be on them. In the next Halakhah it will be determined that this expression implies stoning; cf. Sanhedrin.54a">Babli 54a. etc.
הַבָּא עַל כַּלָּתוֹ כול׳. אַזְהָרָה לָבֹא עַל כַּלָּתוֹ מְנַיִין. עֶרְוַ֥ת כַּלָּֽתְךָ֖ לֹ֣א תְגַלֵּה֑. כָּרֵת מְנַיִין. כִּ֚י כָּל־אִישׁ אֲשֶׁ֣ר יַֽעֲשֶׂ֔ה מִכֹּ֥ל הַתּֽוֹעֵבוֹת הָאֵ֑לֶּה וְנִכְרְת֛וּ. עוֹנֶשׁ מְנַיִין. וְאִ֗ישׁ אֲשֶׁ֤ר יִשְׁכַּב֙ אֶת־כַּלָּת֔וֹ וגו׳. From where the warning129A prohibition the penalty for which is not spelled out carries a penalty of flogging (Deut. 25:21). For any more serious infraction the pentateuchal style requires that separate verses must spell out (1) the prohibition, (2) the penalty to be imposed by the court, (3) the penalty imposed by Heaven in case the crime was not observed by two blameless adult male witnesses and, therefore, no court case was possible. In case of sexual crimes this would mean that the witnesses have to see the sex act. For a civil case, such as a husband wishing to divorce his wife because of her adultery, without paying her ketubah, it is enough for witnesses to testify to her going to a room with another man, locking the door, and extinguishing the lights. But this is not enough for a criminal conviction. for a person having sexual relations with his daughter-in-law? Your daughter-in-law’s nakedness you shall not uncover.134Leviticus.18.15">Lev. 18:15. From where extirpation? For any man who would commit any of these abominations will be extirpated,131,Leviticus.18.29">Lev. 18:29.135The verse is slightly misquoted. etc. Punishment from where? A man who would sleep with his daughter-in-law136Leviticus.20.12">Lev. 20:12. etc.
תַּנִּיתָהּ הָכַא תַּנִּיתָהּ בִּכְרִיתוּת. נִיחָא בִּכְרִיתוּת. שֶׁהוּא מֵבִיא קָרְבָּן וְחוֹזֵר וּמֵבִיא קָרְבָּן. אִית לָךְ מֵימַר בְּסַנְהֶדְרִין. שֶׁהוּא נִסְקַל וְחוֹזֵר וְנִסְקַל. אָמַר רִבִּי יוּדָן אָבוֹי דְרִבִּי מַתַּנְייָה. לְהַתְרָייָה אִיתְאֲמָרַת. שֶׁאִם הִתְרוּ בוֹ מִשּׁוּם אֵשֶׁת אָב לוֹקֶה. מִשּׁוּם אֵם לוֹקֶה. וְיִתְרוּ בוֹ מִשּׁוּם אֵשֶׁת אִישׁ. אָמַר רִבִּי אָבוּן. תִּיפְתָּר בִּפְנוּיָה. We have it stated here, we have it stated in Keritut137The multiple transgressions committed by one act mentioned in the last three Mishnaiot are also implied by Keritot 1:1" href="/Mishnah_Keritot.1.1">Mishnah Keritut 1:1.. One understands in Keritut138If the sin was committed inadvertently, one act may require multiple sacrifices for atonement. that he brings one sacrifice and then has to bring a second. What can you say in Sanhedrin139A person can be executed only once.? That he is stoned and then stoned again? Rebbi Yudan, Rebbi Mattaniah’s father, said: explain it for warnings140Since a person can only be convicted if he was warned in appropriate fashion (Sanhedrin 5:1:2-11" href="/Jerusalem_Talmud_Sanhedrin.5.1.2-11">Halakhah 5:1), he will be convicted for the single transgression about which he had been warned.. For if they warned him because of the father’s wife, he is hit,141As the commentaries point out, one cannot translate לוֹקֶה by “being flogged”, since one refers to capital crimes. because of the mother, he is hit. Could they not also warn him because of a married woman? Rebbi Abun said, explain it if she was unmarried128But if the widowed stepmother is not remarried, he is not guilty for sleeping with an otherwise married woman. Similarly, a man sleeping with his daughter-in-law (Sanhedrin 7:6:3-6" href="/Jerusalem_Talmud_Sanhedrin.7.6.3-6">Halakhah 8) is not guilty of adultery with a married woman if at the moment of the crime she was not married to anybody. Neither the prohibition of the stepmother nor that of the daughter-in-law are removed by divorce and remarriage to a third party..
תַּמָּן תַּנִּינָן. רִבִּי יְהוּדָה אוֹמֵר. אִם לֹא הָֽיְתָה אִמּוֹ רְאוּיָה לְאָבִיו אֵינוֹ חַייָב אֶלָּא אַחַת. הָא אִם הָֽיְתָה אִמּוֹ רְאוּיָה לָאָבִיו חַייָב שְׁתַּיִם. רִבִּי אַבָּהוּ בְשֵׁם רִבִּי יוֹחָנָן. לֹא שַׁנְייָא. בֵּין שֶׁהָֽיְתָה אִמּוֹ רְאוּיָה לָאָבִיו בֵּין שֶׁאֵין אִמּוֹ רְאוּיָה לָאָבִיו אֵינוֹ חַייָב אֶלָּא אַחַת. טַעֲמֵיהּ דְּרִבִּי יוֹחָנָן. אִמְּךָ֣ הִיא. מִשּׁוּם אִמּוֹ אַתָּה מְחַייְבוֹ. עִרָה אֶת כָּל־הַפָּרָשָׁה לָאֵם. רִבִּי בּוּן בַּר חִייָה בְּעָא קוֹמֵי רִבִּי זְעִירָא. מָה רָאָה רִבִּי יוֹחָנָן לִתְפוֹשׂ אֶת הָאֵם וּלְהָנִיחַ אֶת אֵשֶׁת הָאָב. אָמַר לֵיהּ. דְּהוּא סָבַר כְּרִבִּי יִשְׁמָעֵאל. דְּרִבִּי יִשְׁמָעֵאל דָּרַשׁ. עֶרְוַ֥ת אֵֽשֶׁת־אָבִ֖יךָ. בִּזְכוּר הַכָּתוּב מְדַבֵּר. וְאֵין אָבִיו בִּכְלַל הַזְּכוּר. אֶלָּא לְחַייְבוּ שְׁתַּיִם. דְּתַנֵּי. הָבָּא עַל אָבִיו חַייָב עָלָיו שְׁתַּיִם. וְנִיתְנֵי. שְׁלֹשִׁים וְשֶׁבַע כְּרִיתוֹת בַּתּוֹרָה. רִבִּי מָנָא אָמַר. כָּל־שֵׁם זְכוּר אֶחָד. עֶרְוַ֥ת אֵֽשֶׁת־אָבִ֖יךָ בְּאֵשֶׁת אָב הַכָּתוּב מְדַבֵּר. עֶרְוַ֥ת אִמְּךָ֖ זוֹ אִמּוֹ שֶׁהִיא אֵשֶׁת אָבִיו. אִמּוֹ שֶׁאֵינָהּ אֵשֶׁת אָבִיו מְנַיִין. אִמְּךָ֣ הִיא לֹ֥א תְגַלֶּה֖ עֶרְוָתָֽהּ׃ מָה עֲבַד לָהּ רִבִּי יִשְׁמָעֵאל. פָּתַר לָהּ לְאַחַר מִיתָה. וְלֵית לְרִבִּי עֲקִיבָה כֵּן עֶרְוַ֥ת אָבִ֖יךָ הִיא׃ לֹא שַׁנְייָא בֵּין בְּחַיֵּיהָ בֵּין לְאַחַר מִיתָה. רִבִּי עֲקִיבָה דָּרַשׁ. עֶרְוַ֥ת אֵֽשֶׁת־אָבִ֖יךָ. בְּאֵשֶׁת אָב הַכָּתוּב מְדַבֵּר. עֶרְוַ֥ת אִמְּךָ֖ זוֹ אִמּוֹ שֶׁהִיא אֵשֶׁת אָבִיו. אִמּוֹ שֶׁאֵינָהּ אֵשֶׁת אָבִיו מְנַיִין. אִמְּךָ֣ הִיא לֹ֥א תְגַלֶּה֖ עֶרְווָתָהּ׃ מָה עֲבַד לָהּ רִבִּי יִשְׁמָעֵאל. פָּתַר לָהּ לְאַחַר מִיתָה. וְלֵית לֵיהּ לְרִבִּי עֲקִיבָה כֵּן עֶרְוַ֥ת אָבִ֖יךָ עֶרְוַ֥ת אִמְּךָ֖. מָה אָבִיךָ כָּל־שֶׁהוּא אָבִיךָ בֵּין לָעוֹנֶשׁ בֵּין לָאַזְהָרָה. אַף אִמְּךָ כָּל־שֶׁהִיא אִמְּךָ בֵּין לָעוֹנֶשׁ בֵּין לָאַזְהָרָה. לָא מִסְתַּבְּרָא דְדָרִישׁ אָהֵן קִרְייָא. אֶלָּא רִבִּי יוּדָה דְּלֵית לֵיהּ אִמּוֹ שֶׂהִיא אֵשֶׁת אָבִיו צָרִיךְ מִידְרוֹשׁ עֶרְוַ֥ת אָבִ֖יךָ וְעֶרְוַ֥ת אִמְּךָ֖. מָה אָבִיךָ כָּל־שֶׁהוּא אָבִיךָ בֵּין לָעוֹנֶשׁ בֵּין לָאַזְהָרָה. אַף אִמְּךָ כָּל־שֶׁהִיא אִמְּךָ בֵּין לָעוֹנֶשׁ בֵּין לָאַזְהָרָה. אָמַר רִבִּי זְעִירָה. הָדָא אָֽמְרָה. לְמֵידִין מִגְּזֵירָה שָׁוָה אֲפִילוּ מופְנָה מִצַּד אֶחָד. אָמַר לֵיהּ רִבִּי יוּדָן. לֵית דָא פְשִׁיטָא עַל דְּרִבִּי עֲקִיבָה. דְּרִבִּי עֲקִיבָה אָמַר. גְּזֵירָה שָׁוָה אַף עַל פִּי שֶׁאֵינוֹ מוּפְנָה. 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 Sanhedrin.53a-54a">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 Sanhedrin.53a">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). Leviticus.18.7">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 (Leviticus.18.7">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 him148Sanhedrin.54a">Babli 54a; Sanhedrin 54a:12:1" href="/Tosafot_on_Sanhedrin.54a.12.1">Tosaphot s. v. הבא.. Then should we not state “thirty-seven extirpations in the Torah”149Keritot 1:1" href="/Mishnah_Keritot.1.1">Mishnah 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 nakedness152Leviticus.18.8">Lev. 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 (Leviticus.18.7">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 Leviticus.20.11">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 (Niddah.22b">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 8:3:2-15" href="/Jerusalem_Talmud_Yoma.8.3.2-15">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 Shabbat.64a">Babli, Šabbat 64a, Niddah.22b">Niddah 22b..
רִבִּי יִרְמְיָה בָעֵי. הַבָּא עַל אִמּוֹ מָהוּ שֶׁהוּא חַייָב עָלֶיהָ מִשֵׁם אֵשֶׁת אִישׁ. תָּא חֲמִי. אִילּוּ בָא אַחֵר עָלֶיהָ חַייָב מִשּׁוּם אֵשֶׁת אִישׁ בְּנָהּ לֹא כָל־שֶׁכֵּן. הָתִיב רִבִּי יוֹסֵי. הֲרֵי חוֹרְגָהּ הֲרֵי הוּא חַייָב עָלֶיהָ מִשּׁוּם אֵשֶׁת אִישׁ. וּבְנָהּ אֵינוֹ חַייָב עָלֶיהָ מִשּׁוּם אֵשֶׁת אִישׁ. דְּתַנֵּי. אַף בִּשְׁאָר כָּל־הָעֲרָיוֹת כֵּן. חֲמוֹתוֹ וְאֵשֶׁת אִישׁ אַתְּ תּוֹפְשׂוֹ מִשּׁוּם חֲמוֹתוֹ. כַּלָּתוֹ וְאֵשֶׁת אִישׁ אַתְּ תּוֹפְסוֹ מִשּׁוּם כַּלָּתוֹ. אֲחוֹתוֹ וְאֵשֶׁת אִישׁ אַתְּ תּוֹפְסוֹ מִשּׁוּם אֲחוֹתוֹ. מַבְרִיחוֹ מִן הַחֲמוּרָה וּמְקַנְתְּרוֹ בַקַּלָּה לֵית יְכִיל. דְּתַנֵּי. הַבָּא עַל אֲחוֹתוֹ חַייָב עָלֶיהָ מִשּׁוּם אֲחוֹתוֹ וּמִשּׁוּם בַּת אֵשֶׁת אָבִיו. רִבִּי יוֹסֵי בֵּירִבִּי יוּדָה אוֹמֵר. הַבָּא עַל אֲחוֹתוֹ אֵינוֹ חַייָב עָלֶיהָ אֶלָּא מִשּׁוּם שֵׁם אֶחָד בִּלְבַד. וְכֵן הַבָּא עַל כַּלָּתוֹ. רִבִּי יִרְמְיָה רִבִּי אַבָּהוּ בְשֵׁם רִבִּי יוֹחָנָן. אַתְייָא דְרִבִּי יוֹסֵי בֵּירִבִּי יוּדָה בְשִׁיטַּת רִבִּי יוּדָה אָבִיו. כְּמַה דְרִבִּי יוּדָה תוֹפֵשׂ שֵׁם רִאשׁוֹן. כֵּן רִבִּי יוֹסֵי בֵּירִבִּי יוּדָה תוֹפֵשׂ שֵׁם רִאשׁוֹן. חָזַר רִבִּי יִרְמְיָה רִבִּי אַבָּהוּ בְשֵׁם רִבִּי יוֹחָנָן. לֵית לְרִבִּי יוֹסֵי בֵּירִבִּי יוּדָה כְּשִׁיטַת רִבִּי יוּדָה אָבִיו. תַּמָּן אִמּוֹ בְּלֹא אֵשֶׁת אָבִיו חַייָב. אֵשֶׁת אָבִיו בְּלֹא אִמּוֹ חַייָב. בְּרַם הָכָא מָצִינוּ בַּת אֵשֶׁת אָבִיו בְּלֹא אֲחוֹתוֹ הוּא מוּתָּר בָּהּ. Rebbi Jeremiah asked: Is a person having sexual relations with his mother guilty [of adultery] with her as a married woman162This is a question only for R. Jehudah; for the majority it already was answered positively, Sanhedrin 7:6:4" href="/Jerusalem_Talmud_Sanhedrin.7.6.4">Note 128.? Come and see: if a third person had sexual relations with her, would he not be guilty [of adultery] with her as a married woman? Her son not so much more? Rebbi Yose objected: is not her stepson guilty [of adultery] with her as a married woman, but her son is not guilty [of adultery] with her as a married woman163To make sense of this objection, one has to read אֵשֶׁת אָב “the father’s wife” instead of אֵשֶׁת אִישׁ “a married woman”. R. Jehudah in the Mishnah explicitly declares the prohibition of the father’s wife inapplicable to the mother.? As we have stated:164A similar text is in Sanhedrin 10:1-2" href="/Tosefta_Sanhedrin.10.1-2">Tosephta 10:2. Also with all other cases of incest and adultery the situation is the same. His mother-in-law as a married woman, you catch him because of his mother-in-law165The mother-in-law is forbidden as the wife’s mother (Leviticus.18.17">Lev. 18:17); the penalty for the willful crime is burning (20:14), more serious than strangling, the penalty for adultery (20:10).. His daughter-in-law as a married woman, you catch him because of his daughter-in-law166The penalty is stoning (20:10). Even though the question here is about the number of sacrifices due for an unintended crime, the more serious crime is the only one counted. But, naturally, if in case of intentional crime the warning was given only about adultery, not about any incestuous aspect, the perpetrator is tried for adultery. This baraita contradicts the Mishnah.. His sister as a married woman, do you catch him because of his sister? You smuggle him away from the serious crime and strike him for the easier one167Adultery is a capital crime; sleeping with one’s sister is punishable only by Heaven, not the human court.
The verb קנתר used here is Greek κεντρόω “to strike with a stick” (to goad an animal.); this you cannot do as we have stated: A person having sexual relations with his sister is liable because of her as his sister and as a daughter of his father’s wife168The sister is always characterized as your father’s daughter or your mother’s daughter (18:9,20:17), describing the full sister or the maternal half-sister, or your father’s wife’s daughter from your father(18:11), describing the paternal half-sister. It seems that there is no biblical penalty attached to relations with the paternal extramarital half-sister. Yevamot.22b">Babli Yebamot 22b.. Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Jehudah says, a person having sexual relations with his sister169The unmarried sister. is only liable because of her as his sister; the same is true for his daughter-in-law. Rebbi Jeremiah, Rebbi Abbahu in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Jehudah follows the argument of his father Rebbi Jehudah. Just as Rebbi Jehudah accepts the description mentioned first, so Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Jehudah accepts the description mentioned first. Rebbi Jeremiah, Rebbi Abbahu in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan turned around: Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Jehudah does not follow the argument of his father Rebbi Jehudah. There he is liable because of his mother, who is not his father’s wife; he is liable because of his father’s wife who is not his mother. But here we find that he is permitted his father’s wife’s daughter, who is not his sister170Children from previous marriages who are not related to one another are encouraged to marry. Rav was the son of R. Hiyya’s unrelated half-brother and half-sister from previous marriages of his parents..