משנה: אֵילּוּ הֵן הַנִּשְׂרָפִין הַבָּא עַל אִשָּׁה וּבִתָּהּ וּבַת כֹּהֵן שֶׁזִּנְּתָה. יֵשׁ בִּכְלָל אִשָּׁה וּבִתָּהּ בִּתּוֹ וּבַת בִּתּוֹ וּבַת בְּנוֹ וּבַת אִשְׁתּוֹ וּבַת בִּתָּהּ וּבַת בְּנָהּ. MISHNAH: The following are to be burned: one who copulates with a woman and her daughter,1Leviticus.20.14">Lev. 20:14. and the daughter of a Cohen who committed adultery2Leviticus.21.9">Lev. 21:9.. In the category of a woman and her daughter are included his daughter, his daughter’s daughter, his son’s daughter, his wife’s daughter, her daughter’s daughter, and her son’s daughter3Leviticus.18.17">Lev. 18:17 includes relations with a woman and her granddaughter with the prohibition of a woman and her daughter. The Mishnaiot in the Babli and most independent Mishnah mss. include mention of the mother and the grandmother-in-law. This is logically redundant.. The following are to be beheaded: the murderer,4Sanhedrin 7:1:2" href="/Jerusalem_Talmud_Sanhedrin.7.1.2">Chapter 7, Note 4. and the inhabitants of a seduced town5Deuteronomy.13.16">Deut. 13:16; Sanhedrin 7:1:2-7" href="/Jerusalem_Talmud_Sanhedrin.7.1.2-7">Halakhot 7:1,Sanhedrin 10:6:2-3" href="/Jerusalem_Talmud_Sanhedrin.10.6.2-3">10:7,Sanhedrin 7:6:3-6" href="/Jerusalem_Talmud_Sanhedrin.7.6.3-6">8..
הלכה: אֵילּוּ הֵן הַנִּשְׂרָפִין כול׳. תַּמָּן תַּנִּינָן. HALAKHAH: “The following are to be burned,” etc. There, we have stated6The entire following Halakhah is a copy of Yevamot 11:1:2-13" href="/Jerusalem_Talmud_Yevamot.11.1.2-13">Yebamot 11:1, explained there in Sanhedrin 9:1:1-6:4" href="/Jerusalem_Talmud_Sanhedrin.9.1.1-6.4">Notes 4–65. The text here does not always follow the same order as given there. The Notes here are restricted to indicate where the text of Yebamot (Y) was preferred for translation. The corruptions in the Sanhedrin text make it clear that the Y text is original.:
נוֹשְׂאִין עַל הָאֲנוּסָה וְעַל הַמְפוּתָּה. כֵּינִי מַתְנִיתָא. נוֹשְׂאִין אחד הָאֲנוּסָה וְאחד הַמְפוּתָּה. אָנַס אִשָּׁה מוּתָּר בְּאִמָּהּ. פִּיתֶּה אִשָּׁה מוּתָּר בְּבִתָּהּ. “One may marry [relatives of] a rape victim or a seduced woman.” So is the Mishnah: One may marry after7The reading of Y אחר clearly is the correct one, not אחד “one,” as written here. a rape or after a seduction. If he raped a woman, her mother is permitted. If he seduced a woman, he daughter is permitted.
הָאוֹנֵס וְהַמְפַתֶּה עַל הַנְּשׂוּאָה חַייָב. אָמַר רִבִּי יוֹחָנָן. דֶּרֶךְ נִישּׂוּאִין שָׁנוּ. נָשָׂא אִשָּׁה וְאַחַר כָּךְ אָנַס אֶת אִמָּהּ חַייָב. נָשָׂא אִשָּׁה וְאַחַר כָּךְ פִּיתָּה אֶת בִּתָּהּ חַייָב. “He who rapes or seduces [a relative of] a married woman is [criminally] liable.” Rebbi Joḥanan said, one stated this for marriage. If he married a woman and then raped her mother, he is [criminally] liable. If he married a woman and then seduced her daughter, he is [criminally] liable.
אָמַר רִבִּי לָֽעְזָר. סוּמָכוֹס וְרִבִּי יוֹחָנָן בֶּן נוּרִי אָֽמְרוּ דָּבָר אֶחָד. דְּתַנִּינָן תַּמָּן. שְׁחָטָהּ וְאֶת בַּת בִּתָּהּ וְאַחַר כָּךְ שָׁחַט אֶת בִּתָּהּ סוֹפֵג אֶת הָאַרְבָּעִים. סוּמָכוֹס אוֹמֵר מִשּׁוּם רַבִּי מֵאִיר. סוֹפֵג אֶת שְׁמוֹנִים. תַּמָּן תַּנִּינָן. רַבִּי יוֹחָנָן בֶּן נוּרִי אוֹמֵר. הַבָּא עַל חֲמוֹתוֹ חַייָב עָלֶיהָ מִשּׁוּם חֲמוֹתוֹ וְאֵם חֲמוֹתוֹ וְאֵם חָמִיו. אָֽמְרוּ לוֹ. שְׁלָשְׁתָּן שֵׁם אֶחָד הֵן: רִבִּי יוּדָה בַּר פָּזִי בְשֵׁם רִבִּי יוֹחָנָן. מוֹדֶה סוּמָכוֹס לְרִבִּי יוֹחָנָן. אַשְׁכַּח תַּנֵּי. עוֹד הִיא בְמַחֲלוֹקֶת. מַה טַעֲמָא דְרִבִּי יוֹחָנָן בֶּן נוּרִי. מַה אִשָּׁה וּבִתָּהּ וּבַת בִּתָּהּ בִּשְׁנֵי לָאוִין. אַף אִשָּׁה (וּבִתָּהּ) וּבַת בִּתָּהּ בִּשְׁנֵי לָאוִין. מַה טַעֲמוֹן דְּרַבָּנִין. מַה בַת בְּנָהּ וּבַת בִּתָּהּ בְּלָאו אֶחָד אַף אִשָּׁה וּבַת בִּתָּהּ וּבַת בְּנָהּ בְּלָאו אֶחָד. Rebbi Eleazar said, Symmachos and Rebbi Joḥanan ben Nuri said the same thing, since we stated there: “If he slaughtered her, her daughter’s daughter, and afterwards her daughter, he absorbs forty [lashes]. Symmachos said in Rebbi Meïr’s name, he absorbs eighty.” There, we have stated: “Rebbi Joḥanan ben Nuri said, he who copulates with his mother-in-law may be liable 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 law.” Rebbi Jehudah bar Pazi in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: Symmachos agrees with Rebbi Joḥanan. It was found stated: it still is in dispute. 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 prohibitions, also a woman and (her daughter) [her son’s daughter]8Text of Y. The text of Sanhedrin (in parentheses) simply is a copy of the preceding sentence. 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 the under same prohibition.
כְּתִיב עֶרְוַ֥ת אִשָּׁ֛ה וּבִתָּהּ֭ לֹ֣א תְגַלֵּ֑ה. וּכְתִיב וְאִ֗ישׁ אֲשֶׁ֨ר יִַקּ֧ח אֶת־אִשָּׁ֛ה וְאֶת־אִמָּהּ֭ זִמָּה הִיא. בְּכוּלְּהֹם כְּתִיב שְׁכִיבָה וּבָהּ כְּתִיב לְקִיחָה. לְלַמְּדָךְ שֶׁאֵינוֹ חַייָב עַל הַשְּׁנִייָה עַד שֶׁתְּהֵא לְקוּחָה לוֹ. אוֹ אֵינוֹ מִתְחַייֵב עָלֶיהָ אֶלָּא עַל דֶּרֶךְ נִישּׂוּאִין. לָמַדְנוּ שֶׁאֵין קִידּוּשִׁין תּוֹפְסִין בָּעֲרָיוֹת. וְהָֽא כְתִיב לֹֽא־יִַקּ֥ח אִ֖ישׁ אֶת־אֵ֣שֶׁת אָבִ֑יו וְלֹ֥א יְגַלֶּה֖ כֲּנ֥ף אָבִֽיו׃ בָּא לְהוֹדִיעָךְ שֶׁהָיָה מוּתָּר בָּהּ עַד שֶׁלֹּא נִישֵּׂאת לְאָבִיו. וְהָֽכְתִיב וְאִ֗ישׁ אֲשֶׁ֥ר יִקַּ֛ח אֶת־אֵ֥שֶׁת אָחִ֖יו. מָה הוּא בָא לְהוּדִיעָךְ. שֶׁהָיָה מוּתָּר בָּהּ עַד שֶׁלֹּא נִישֵּׂאת לְאָחִיו. וְתוּבָן עַל יְדֵי יִיבּוּם. וְהָֽכְתִיב וְאִשָּׁ֥ה אֶל אֲחוֹתָהּ לֹ֣א תִקָּ֑ח. בָּא לְהוֹדִיעָךְ שֶׁהָיָה מוּתָּר עַד שֶׁלֹּא נָשָׂא אֲחוֹתָהּ. וְתוּבָן לְאַחַר מִיתַת אַחוֹתָהּ. וְהָֽכְתִיב וְאִ֣ישׁ אֲשֶׁר־יִקַּ֣ח אֶת־אֲחוֹתוֹ בַּת־אָבִ֣יו א֣וֹ בַת־אִ֠מּ֠וֹ וְרָאָ֨ה אֶת־עֶרְוָתָ֜הּ וְהִ֨יא תִרְאֶ֤ה אֶת־עֶרְוָתוֹ֨ חֶ֣סֶד ה֔וּא. שֶׁלֹּא תֹאמַר. קַיִן נָשָׂא אֶת אֲחוֹתוֹ. הֶבֶל נָשָׂא אֶת אֲחוֹתוֹ. חֶסֶד עָשִׂיתִי עִם הָרִאשׁוֹנִים שֶׁיִיבָּנֶה הָעוֹלָם מֵהֶם. אָמַ֗רְתִּי ע֭וֹלָם חֶ֣סֶד יִבָּנֶ֑ה. וְהָֽכְתִיב אַלְמָנָה֚ וּגְרוּשָׁה֙ וַֽחֲלָלָ֣ה זוֹנָ֔ה אֶת־אֵ֖לֶּה לֹ֣א יִקָּ֑ח. בָּא לְהוֹדִיעָךְ שֶׂאִם קִידְּשָׁהּ תָּֽפְסוּ בָהּ קִידּוּשִׁין. 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.
רַב הוּנָא אָמַר. עַד כְּדוֹן בַּת בִּתּוֹ לְנִישּׂוּאִין. בַּת בִּתּוֹ מִן הָאוֹנְסִין. כְּתִיב עֶרְוַת֚ בַּת־בִּנְךָ֙ א֣וֹ בַֽת־בִּתְּךָ֔ לֹ֥א תְגַלֶּ֖ה עֶרְוָתָ֑ן. מָה אֲנָן קַייָמִין. אִם לְנִישּׂוּאִין הֲרֵי כְּבָר אָמוּר. אֶלָּא אִם אֵינוֹ עִנְייָן לְנִישּׂוּאִין תְּנֵיהוּ עִנְייָן לְאוֹנְסִין. עַד כְּדוֹן בַּת בִּתּוֹ. בִּתּוֹ מְנַיִין. רַב אָמַר. אִם עַל בַּת בִּתּוֹ הוּא מוּזְהָר עַל בִּתּוֹ לֹא כָל־שֶׁכֵּן. אִם עַל בַּת בִּתּוֹ הוּא עָנוּשׁ כָּרֵת לֹא כָל־שֶׁכֵּן עַל בִּתּוֹ. (Rav Huna said:)9Missing in Y, probably spurious. so far his daughter’s daughter from marriage. His daughter’s daughter from a rape? It is written, the genitals of your son’s daughter or your daughter’s daughter you shall not uncover. Where do we hold? If from marriage, it already had been said. So it cannot refer to marriage but must refer to rape. So far about his daughter’s daughter; from where his daughter? 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 punishment (by extirpation)9Missing in Y, probably spurious., so much more for his daughter!
מְנָא לֵיהּ. אַשְׁכַּח תַּנֵּי חִזְקִיָּה. וּבַת֙ אִ֣ישׁ כֹּהֵ֔ן כִּ֥י תֵחֵ֖ל לִזְנ֑וֹת. מַה תַלְמוּד לוֹמַר אִישׁ. אֶלָּא לָהָבִיא הַבָּא עַל בִּתּוֹ מִן הָאוֹנְסִין שֶׁהוּא בִשְׂרֵיפָה. 10Missing in Y. Rav’s argument is rejected in the Sanhedrin.76a">Babli 76a since it violates a fundamental principle of criminal law that no act is punishable which is not listed as punishable in the written law. Therefore one needs a verse which punishes sexual relations with an illegitimate daughter. From where does he have this? If was found stated by Ḥizqiah: And if the daughter of a Cohen man start to whore11Leviticus.21.9">Lev. 21:9.. Why does the verse say man? To include one who copulates with his daughter from a rape among the burned12The verse states clearly that the priesthood is inherited from the male line. A daughter of a Cohen who is not the daughter of the Cohen’s wife still is a Cohen’s daughter and subject to the rules of the priesthood. But the Sanhedrin.76a">Babli 76a rejects the argument given here since the verse states that the Cohen’s daughter has to be burned because she desecrates her father; this excludes an incestuous relationship, in which the father desecrates his daughter..
רַב חוּנָה שָׁמַע כּוּלְּהוֹן מִן הָכָא. עֶרְוַ֥ת אִשָּׁ֛ה וּבִתָּהּ֭ לֹ֣א תְגַלֵּ֑ה. וּכְתִיב וְאִ֗ישׁ אֲשֶׁ֨ר יִקַּ֧ח אֶת־אִשָּׁ֛ה וְאֶת־אִמָּהּ֭ זִמָּ֣ה הִיא. זִמָּה זִמָּה לִגְזֵירָה שָׁוָה. מַה לְמַטָּן שְׁלֹשָׁה דוֹרוֹת אַף לְמַעֲלָן שְׁלֹשָׁה דוֹרוֹת. מַה לְמַטָּן בְּלֹא תַעֲשֶׂה אַף לְמַעֲלָן בְּלֹא תַעֲשֶׂה. מַה לְמַטָּן דֶּרֶךְ נִישּׂוּאִין אַף לְמַעֲלָן דֶּרֶךְ נִישּׂוּאִין. מַה לְמַטָּן בִּשְׂרֵיפָה אַף לְמַעֲלָן בִּשְׂרֵיפָה. מַה לְמַטָּן עָשָׂה בַת זָכָר כְּבַת נְקֵיבָה אַף לְמַעֲלָן נַעֲשָׂה בַת זָכָר כְּבַת נְקֵיבָה. 13The changes from or additions to the text in Y are underlined. It is clear that the Yebamot text is the correct one, where in the references to Leviticus.20.14">Lev. 20:14 “upwards” and “downwards” have to be interchanged and in the last sentence “mother” replaces “daughter”. Rav Huna understood all of these [rules] from this verse: The genitals of a woman and her daughter you should nor uncover. And it is written, if a man take a woman and her daughter, it is taboo. Taboo-taboo for an equal cut. Since there are three generations downwards, so there are three generations upwards. Since there is a prohibition downwards, there is a prohibition upwards. Since downwards one requires marriage, so upwards one requires marriage. Since downwards they are burned, so upwards 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 daughter the same status as the female’s daughter.
וּכְרִבִּי מֵאִיר. דְּרִבִּי מֵאִיר אָמַר. גְּזֵירָה שָׁוָה בְּמָקוֹם שֶׁבָּא. דּוֹר שְׁלִישִׁי לְמַטָּה מְנַיִין שֶׂהוּא בְלֹא תַעֲשֶׂה. (וּכְרַבָּנִין דִּינּוּן אָֽמְרִין. גְּזֵירָה שָׁוָה בְּמָקוֹם שֶׁבָּאת. דּוֹר שְׁלִישִׁי לְמַטָּה מְנַיִין שֶׂהוּא בָא בְלֹא תַעֲשֶׂה.) וּכְרַבָּנִין דִּינּוּן אָֽמְרִין. גְּזֵירָה שָׁוָה כָּאָמוּר בָּהּ. דּוֹר שְׁלִישִׁי לְמַעֲלָה מְנַיִין שֶׂהוּא בִּשְׂרֵיפָה. בֵּין כְּרַבָּנִין בֵּין כְּרִבִּי מֵאִיר דּוֹר שְׁלִישִׁי לְמַטָּה מְנַיִין שֶׂהוּא בְלֹא תַעֲשֶׂה. אָמַר רִבִּי יוֹסֵי. מִכֵּיוָן דִכְתִיב זִמָּה זִמָּה כְּמִי שֶׁכּוּלְּהֹם כָּאן. And following Rebbi Meïr? Since Rebbi Meïr said, a gezerah šawah is at the place it comes from, from where is the third generation downwards forbidden? (And following the rabbis, who say, a gezerah šawah is at the place it comes from, from where is the third generation downwards forbidden?)9Missing in Y, probably spurious. And following the rabbis, who say, a gezerah šawah is said about them, from where is the third generation upwards punished by burning? Both for Rebbi Meïr and the rabbis, from where that the third generation downwards is forbidden? (Rebbi Yose said,)9Missing in Y, probably spurious. since it is written taboo-taboo, it is as if all were there.
אָמַר רִבִּי יוֹסֵי בֵּירִבִּי בּוּן. עוֹד הוּא אִית לֵיהּ אַזְהָרָה מִן תַּמָּן. אַל־תְּחַלֵּ֥ל אֶֽת־בִּתְּךָ֖ לְהַזְנוֹתָ֑הּ. 14This sentence is quite out of place here; in Yebamot it follows the paragraph after the next. All sexual offenses against a daughter are covered by Leviticus.19.29">Lev. 19:29; punishment only has to be specified in different cases. Sanhedrin.76a">Babli 76a. Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Abun said, one may even understand this from the warning: Do not desecrate your daughter to force her into prostitution.
רִבִּי חַגַּיי בְּעָא קוֹמֵי רִבִּי יוּסֵי. לָמָּה לֵי נָן אָֽמְרִין. בִּתְּךָ לֹא תְגַלֶּה בַּת בִּתְּךָ לֹא תְגַלֶּה. אָמַר לֵיהּ. וְיֵימַר קִרְייָא עֶרְוַת אִשָּׁה וּבַת בִּתָּהּ לֹא תְגַלֶּה וַאֲנָן אָֽמְרִין. בִּתְּךָ לֹא תְגַלֶּה בַּת בִּתְּךָ לֹא תְגַלֶּה. 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”? He said, 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”.
שְׁנַיִם לָאוִין וְכָרֵת אֶחָד לָאוין חוֹלְקִין אֶת הַהִכָּרֵת. וּמַה טַעֲמָא. עַל־בְּשַׂ֤ר אָדָם֙ לֹ֣א יִיסָ֔ךְ וּבְמַתְכֹּנְתּוֹ לֹ֥א תַֽעֲשׂ֖וּ כָּמוֹהוּ וגו׳. וּכְתִיב אִ֚ישׁ אֲשֶׁ֣ר יִרְקַ֣ח כָּמוֹהוּ וגו׳. הָדָא אָֽמְרָה. שְׁנֵי לָאוִין וְכָרֵת אֶחָד חוֹלְקִין אֶת הַהִכָּרֵת. If there are two prohibitions and one liability to extirpation, the prohibitions split the extirpation. What is the reason? On human flesh it may not be rubbed and in its proportions you should not make [a compound] like it, etc.. And it is written: A man who would compound like it, etc. This implies that for two prohibitions and one liability to extirpation, the prohibitions split the extirpation.
בְּעוֹן קוּמֵי רִבִּי אַבָּהוּ. הַבָּא עַל אִשָׁה וְיָֽלְדָה בַת וְחָזַר וּבָא עָלֶיהָ חַייָב עָלֶיהָ מִשׁוּם אִשָּׁה וּבִתָּהּ וּבַת בִּתָּהּ וּבַת בְּנָהּ. אָמַר לוֹן שַֽׁאֲרָ֥ה הֵנָּ֭ה זִמָּ֥ה הִיא׃ כּוּלְּהֹם מִשׁוּם זִימָּה. They asked before Rebbi Abbahu: If [a man] copulated with a woman, she had a daughter, and after that he came and copulated with the latter. Is he [criminally] liable 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 taboo.
מַה טַעֲמָא דְרִבִּי יְהוּדָה. לֹֽא־יִקַּ֥ח אִ֖ישׁ אֶת־אֵ֣שֶׁת אָבִ֑יו לֹא יְגַלֶּה֖ כֲּנ֥ף אָבִֽיו׃ זוֹ אֲנוּסָתוֹ. מַה מְקַייְמִין רַבָּנִין כְּנַף. תַּמָּן אָֽמְרִין וְלָא יָֽדְעִין אִין שְׁמוּעָה זוֹ. כָּנָף זוֹ שֶׁהִוא זְקוּקָה לְאָבִיו. וְלֹא כָךְ אֵינוֹ חַייָב עָלֶיהָ מִשּׁוּם אֵשֶׁת אָבִיו. אָמַר רִבִּי הִילָא. לְהַתְרָייָה. שֶׁאִם הְתְרוּ בוֹ מִשּׁוּם אֵשֶׁת אָב לוֹקֶה. מִשּׁוּם כָּנָף לוֹקֶה. מוֹדֶה רִבִּי יוּדָה בְמַכּוֹת. מוֹדֶה רִבִּי יוּדָה בְקָרְבָּן. מוֹדֶה רִבִּי יוּדָה בִשְׁאָר כָּל־הָאֲנָשִׁים שֶׁהוּא פָטוּר. מוֹדֶה רִבִּי יוּדָה שֶׁאִם קִידְּשָׁהּ תָּֽפְשׂוּ בָהּ קִידּוּשִׁין. What is the reason of Rebbi Jehudah? A man may not take 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”? There, they say and they do not know the origin of the tradition, that refers to a wing which is in need of his father. Would he not anyhow be [criminally] liable for her because of “his father’s wife”? Rebbi Hila said, because of forewarning; if he was warned because of his father’s wife he will be whipped, and because of his father’s wing he will be whipped. Rebbi Jehudah agrees about whipping. Rebbi Jehudah agrees about sacrifice. Rebbi Jehudah agrees about all other men15Probably for האנשים one should read האנסים “the rapists.” A man can have relations with a woman raped or seduced by any close relative except his father, and even marry her. In Y the reading is הספיקות “the doubts” (see there, Sanhedrin 9:6:3" href="/Jerusalem_Talmud_Sanhedrin.9.6.3">Note 61.) that he is free. Rebbi Jehudah agrees that if he marries her preliminarily that the preliminary marriage is legally valid.
רִבִּי חַגַּיי בְּעָא קוֹמֵי רִבִּי יוֹסֵי. מַהוּ שֶׁיְּהֵא הַווְלָד מַמְזֵר כְּרִבִּי יוּדָה. אָמַר לֵיהּ. לֹֽא־יָבוֹא פְצֽוּעַ־דַּכָּא וּכְר֥וּת שָׁפְכָה֭ בִּקְהַ֥ל יְי הִפְסִיק הָעִנְייָן. וְיַפְסִיק הָעְנְייָן לְעִנְייָן אֵשֶׁת אָב. אֵשֶׁת אָב בִּכְלָל כָּל־הָעֲרָיוֹת הָיְתָה וְיָצָאת מִכְּלָלָהּ לְלַמֵּד עַל כָּל־הָעֲרָיוֹת לְמַמְזֵר. וְתֵצֵא אֲנוּסָה וּתְלַמֵּד עַל כָּל־הָאֲונֻסִים לְאִסּוּר. אֵשֶׁת אָב בִּכְלָל כָּל־הָעֲרָיוֹת הָייָת וְיָצָאת מִכְּלָלָהּ לְלַמֵּד עַל כָּל־הָעֲרָיוֹת לְמַמְזֵר. אִית לָךְ מֵימַר הָכָא. אֲנוּסָה בִּכְלָל הָייָת וְיָצָאת מִכְּלָלָהּ לְלַמֵּד עַל כָּל־הָאֲונֻסִים. וְתֵצֵא אֵשֶׁת אָב וּתְלַמֵּד עַל אֲנוּסָתָהּ. אָמַר לֵיהּ. אִם אֵשֶׁת אָב הִיא אֵינָהּ אֲנוּסָה. וְאִם אֲנוּסָה הִיא אֵינָהּ אֵשֶׁת אָב. 16In this paragraph, the indications of who is the speaker of each sentence are given in Yevamot 11:1:13" href="/Jerusalem_Talmud_Yevamot.11.1.13">Yebamot 11:1, Notes 62–65. 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 marry into the Eternal’s congregation interrupts the argument. It interrupted the argument in the matter of the father’s wife. 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. Similarly, let the rape victim be selected to teach a prohibition concerning all rape victims. 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 here that the rape victim was in the set, that it could teach a prohibition concerning all rape victims? Why cannot the father’s wife be selected to teach about the rape victim in her case? He said to him, if she is his father’s wife, she is not his rape victim; if she is the father’s rape victim, she is not his wife.