## Jerusalem Talmud Yevamot Chapter 11

###### Jerusalem Talmud Yevamot 11:1:1
[Jerusalem Talmud Yevamot 11:1:1](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Jerusalem%20Talmud%20Yevamot/r/11:1:1)

**משנה:** נוֹשְׂאִין עַל הָאֲנוּסָה וְעַל הַמְפוּתָּה. הָאוֹנֵס וְהַמְפַתֶּה עַל הַנְּשׂוּאָה חַיָיב. נוֹשֵׂא אָדָם אֲנוּסַת אָבִיו וּמְפוּתַּת אָבִיו אֲנוּסַת בְּנוֹ וּמְפוּתַּת בְּנוֹ. רִבִּי יְהוּדָה אוֹסֵר בַּאֲנוּסַת אָבִיו וּבִמְפוּתַּת אָבִיו.

**The Jerusalem Talmud, translation and commentary by Heinrich W. Guggenheimer. Berlin, De Gruyter, 1999-2015:**
**MISHNAH:** One may marry [relatives of] a rape victim or a seduced woman¹. He who rapes or seduces [a relative of] a married woman is guilty². 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 woman³. 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..

footnotes:
¹ Incest prohibitions which are not effective at birth can be created only by marriage, not by promiscuity.
² He is liable not only for rape and seduction but also for incest.
³ The majority considers both parts of Deut


###### Jerusalem Talmud Yevamot 11:1:2
[Jerusalem Talmud Yevamot 11:1:2](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Jerusalem%20Talmud%20Yevamot/r/11:1:2)

**הלכה:** נוֹשְׂאִין עַל הָאֲנוּסָה כול׳. כֵּינִי מַתְנִיתִין. נוֹשְׂאִין אַחַר הָאֲנוּסָה וְאַחַר הַמְפוּתָּה. אָנַס אִשָּׁה מוּתָּר בְּאִמָּהּ. פִּיתֶּה אִשָּׁה מוּתָּר בְּבִתָּהּ.

**The Jerusalem Talmud, translation and commentary by Heinrich W. Guggenheimer. Berlin, De Gruyter, 1999-2015:**
**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 woman⁴. If he raped a woman, her mother is permitted; if he seduced a woman, her daughter is permitted⁵ in Babli 97a..

footnotes:
⁴ The language “… נוֹשְׂאִין עַל” may be interpreted to mean “one marries additionally to …” This naturally is not meant here.
⁵ Quoted as baraita


###### Jerusalem Talmud Yevamot 11:1:3
[Jerusalem Talmud Yevamot 11:1:3](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Jerusalem%20Talmud%20Yevamot/r/11:1:3)

הָאוֹנֵס וְהַמְפַתֶּה עַל הַנְּשׂוּאָה חַיָיב. אָמַר רִבִּי יוֹחָנָן. דֶּרֶךְ נִישּׂוּאִין שָׁנוּ. נָשָׂא אִשָּׁה וְאַחַר כָּךְ אָנַס אֶת אִמָּהּ חַיָיב. נָשָׂא אִשָּׁה וְאַחַר כָּךְ פִּיתֶּה אֶת בִּתָּהּ חַיָיב.

**The Jerusalem Talmud, translation and commentary by Heinrich W. Guggenheimer. Berlin, De Gruyter, 1999-2015:**
“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 guilty⁶.

footnotes:
⁶ This is obvious, cf. Chapter 10, Notes 139, 140.


###### Jerusalem Talmud Yevamot 11:1:4
[Jerusalem Talmud Yevamot 11:1:4](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Jerusalem%20Talmud%20Yevamot/r/11:1:4)

תַּמָּן תַּנִּינָן. שְׁחָטָהּ אֶת בַּת בִּתָּהּ וְאַחַר כָּךְ שָׁחַט אֶת בִּתָּהּ. סוֹפֵג אֶת הָאַרְבָּעִים. סוּמָּכוֹס אָמַר מִשּׁוּם רִבִּי מֵאִיר. סוֹפֵג שְׁמוֹנִים. אָמַר רִבִּי. רִבִּי לָעְזָר וְרִבִּי יוֹחָנָן בֶּן נוּרִי שְׁנֵיהֶן אָמְרוּ דָבָר אֶחָד. דְּהָא תַנִּינָן תַּמָּן. רִבִּי יוֹחָנָן בֶּן נוּרִי אוֹמֵר. הַבָּא עַל חֲמוֹתוֹ חַיָיב עָלֶיהָ מִשּׁוּם חֲמוֹתוֹ וְאֵם חֲמוֹתוֹ וְאֵם חָמִיו. אָמְרוּ לוֹ. שְׁלָֹשְׁתָּן שֵׁם אֶחָד הֵן. רִבִּי יוּדָה בַּר פָּזִי בְשֵׁם רִבִּי יוֹחָנָן. מוֹדֶה סוּמָּכוֹס בָּרִאשׁוֹנָה. אַשְׁכַּח תַּנֵּי. עוֹד הִיא מַחֲלוֹקֶת. מַאי טַעֲמָא דְּרִבִּי יוֹחָנָן בֶּן נוּרִי. מַה אִשָּׁה וּבִתָּהּ וּבַת בִּתָּהּ בִּשְׁנֵי לָאוִין. אַף אִשָּׁה וּבַת בְּנָהּ וּבַת בִּתָּהּ בִּשְׁנֵי לָאוִין. מַה טַעֲמוֹן דְּרַבָּנִין. מַה בַּת בְּנָהּ וּבַת בִּתָּהּ בְּלָאו אֶחָד. אַף אִשָּׁה וּבַת בִּתָּהּ וּבַת בְּנָהּ בְּלָאו אֶחָד.

**The Jerusalem Talmud, translation and commentary by Heinrich W. Guggenheimer. Berlin, De Gruyter, 1999-2015:**
There, we have stated⁷ 5:3.: “If he slaughtered her, her daughter’s daughter, and afterwards her daughter, he absorbs forty [lashes].⁸. 25:3). Similarly, Symmachos’s 80 are really 78. Symmachos said in Rebbi Meïr’s name, he absorbs eighty.⁹. 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]¹⁰ and Rebbi Joḥanan ben Nuri said the same thing, since we stated there¹¹ 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 law¹². 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]¹³ 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 dispute¹⁴ 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 prohibitions¹⁵. 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.

footnotes:
⁷ Mishnah Ḥulin
⁸ Really, 39 lashes, the maximum permitted (Deut
⁹ Lev
¹⁰ Missing in the text, required by the context.
¹¹ Mishnah Keritut
¹² The relevant verse is Lev
¹³ Ḥulin
¹⁴ Tosephta Ḥulin
¹⁵ For him, the two parts of Lev


###### Jerusalem Talmud Yevamot 11:1:5
[Jerusalem Talmud Yevamot 11:1:5](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Jerusalem%20Talmud%20Yevamot/r/11:1:5)

כְּתִיב וְאִישׁ אֲשֶּׁר יִקַּח אֶת אִשָּׁה וְאֶת אִמָּהּ זִימָּה הִיא. בְּכוֹלְּהֹן כְּתִיב שְׁכִיבָה וְכָאן כְּתִיב לְקִיחָה. לְלַמְּדָךְ. לְעוֹלָם אֵינוֹ מִתְחַיֵיב עַל הַשְּׁנִיָיה עַד שֶׁתְּהֵא הָרִאשׁוֹנָה זְקוּקָה לוֹ. אוֹ אֵינוֹ אֶלָּא דֶרֶךְ נִישּׂוּאִין. כְּבָר אָמַרְנוּ שֶׁאֵין קִידּוּשִׁין בָּעֲרָיוֹת. וְהָכְתִיב לֹא יִקַּח אִישׁ אֶת אֵשֶּׁת אָבִיו וְלֹא יְגַלֶּה כְּנַף אָבִיו. בָּא לְהוֹדִיעָךְ שֶׁהָיָה מוּתָּר בָּהּ עַד שֶׁלֹּא נִישֵּׂאת לְאָבִיו. וְהָכְתִיב וְאִישׁ אֲשֶּׁר יִקַּח אֶת אֵשֶׁת אָחִיו נִדָּה הִיא. בָּא לְהוֹדִיעָךְ שֶׁהָיָה מוּתָּר בָּהּ עַד שֶׁלֹּא נִישֵּׂאת לְאָחִיו. וְתַנֵּי כֵן. עַל יְדֵי יִיבּוּם. וְהָכְתִיב וְאִשָּׁה אֶל אֲחוֹתָהּ לֹא תִקָּח לִצְרוֹר. בָּא לְהוֹדִיעָךְ שֶׁהָיָה מוּתָּר בָּהּ עַד שֶׁלֹּא נָשָׂא אֶת אֲחוֹתָהּ. וְתַנֵּי כֵן. לְאַחַר מִיתַת אֲחוֹתָהּ. וְהָכְתִיב וְאִישׁ אֲשֶׁר יִקַּח אֶת אֲחוֹתוֹ בַּת אָבִיו אוֹ בַת אִמּוֹ וְרָאָה אֶת עֶרְוָתָהּ וְהִיא תִרְאֶה אֶת עֶרְוָתוֹ חֶסֶד הוּא. אָמַר רִבִּי אָבִין. שֶׁלֹּא תֹאמַר. קַיִן נָשָׂא אֶת אֲחוֹתוֹ. הֶבֶל נָשָׂא אֶת אֲחוֹתוֹ. חֶסֶד הוּא. חֶסֶד עָשִׂיתִי עִם הָרִאשּׁוֹנִים שֶׁיִיבָּנֶה הָעוֹלָם מֵהֶן. אָמַרְתִּי עוֹלָם חֶסֶד יִבָּנֶה. וְהָכְתִיב אַלְמָנָה וּגְרוּשָׁה וַחֲלָלָה זוֹנָה אֶת אֵלֶּה לא יִקָּח. בָּא לְהוֹדִיעָךְ שֶׁאִם קִידְּשָׁהּ שֶׁתּוֹפְסִין בָּהּ קִידּוּשִׁין.

**The Jerusalem Talmud, translation and commentary by Heinrich W. Guggenheimer. Berlin, De Gruyter, 1999-2015:**
It is written¹⁶. 20:14: “If a man takes a woman and her mother, it is taboo.” Everywhere is written “lying with”¹⁷ but here is written “taking”, to teach you that he cannot be guilty for the second [woman] unless the first one is prepared¹⁸ for him. Or maybe only by marriage¹⁹? We already said that there is no incestuous marriage. But is it not written²⁰. 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 her²¹. But is it not written²². 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 levirate²³. But is it not written²⁴. 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 written²⁵. 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 *ḥesed*²⁶. 89:3..” But is it not written²⁷. 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 valid²⁸.

footnotes:
¹⁶ Lev
¹⁷ In the punishment list of Chap. 20. In the prohibition of Chap. 18, the expression used is mostly “uncovering genitals”.
¹⁸ Available 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.
¹⁹ That he had to marry both women. This is impossible since an incestuous marriage has no existence in law.
²⁰ Deut
²¹ The 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.
²² Lev
²³ She again becomes permitted to the levir.
²⁴ Lev
²⁵ Lev
²⁶ Ps
²⁷ Lev
²⁸ The marriages forbidden only to priests, “prohibitions of holiness”, are not incestuous; they are sinful but valid, cf. Halakhah 2:3.


###### Jerusalem Talmud Yevamot 11:1:6
[Jerusalem Talmud Yevamot 11:1:6](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Jerusalem%20Talmud%20Yevamot/r/11:1:6)

רִבִּי חוּנָה שָׁמַע כּוֹלְהוֹן מִן הָדֵין קִרְיָיא. עֶרְוַת אִשָּׁה וּבִתָּהּ לֹא תְגַלֵּה וגו׳. זִמָּה זִמָּה לִגְזֵירָה שָּׁוָה. מַה לְמַטָּן שְׁלֹשָׁה דוֹרוֹת אַף לְמַעֲלָן שְׁלֹשָׁה דוֹרוֹת. מַה לְמַטָּה בְּלֹא תַעֲשֶׂה אַף לְמַעֲלָן בְּלֹא תַעֲשֶׂה. מַה לְמַעֲלָה דֶּרֶךְ נִישּׂוּאִין אַף לְמַטָּה דֶּרֶךְ נִישּׂוּאִין. מַה לְמַעֲלָן בִּשְׂרֵיפָה אַף לְמַטָּן בִּשְׂרֵיפָה. מַה לְמַטָּן עָשָׂה בַת זָכָר כְּבַת נְקֵיבָה אַף לְמַעֲלָן נַעֲשֶׂה אוּם זָכָר אוּם נְקֵיבָה.

**The Jerusalem Talmud, translation and commentary by Heinrich W. Guggenheimer. Berlin, De Gruyter, 1999-2015:**
²⁹ 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.

footnotes:
²⁹ This is from Chapter 2, Notes 104–109.


###### Jerusalem Talmud Yevamot 11:1:7
[Jerusalem Talmud Yevamot 11:1:7](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Jerusalem%20Talmud%20Yevamot/r/11:1:7)

וּכִדְרִבִּי מֵאִיר. דְּרִבִּי מֵאִיר אוֹמֵר. גְּזֵירָה שָׁוָה בְּמָקוֹם שֶׁבָּת. דּוֹר שְׁלִישִׁי שֶׁלְּמַטָּן מְנַיִין שֶׁהוּא בְלֹא תַעֲשֶׂה. וּכְרַבָּנִן דְּאִינּוּן אָמְרִין. גְּזֵירָה שָׁוָה נֶאֱמַר בָּם. דּוֹר שְׁלִישִׁי שֶׁהִיא שֶׁלְּמַעֲלָן מְנַיִין שֶׁהִיא בִשְׂרֵיפָה. בֵּין כְּרִבִּי מֵאִיר בֵּין כְּרַבָּנִן דּוֹר שְׁלִישִׁי שֶׁלְּמַעֲלָן שֶׁהִיא בְלֹא תַעֲשֶׂה. מִכֵּיוָן דִּכְתִיב זִמָּה זִמָּה לִגְזֵירָה שָׁוָה כְּמִי שֶׁכּוּלְהֹן כֵּן. דְּכוּלְּהֹן כֵּן.

**The Jerusalem Talmud, translation and commentary by Heinrich W. Guggenheimer. Berlin, De Gruyter, 1999-2015:**
And following Rebbi Meïr? Since Rebbi Meïr said, a *gezerah šawah*³⁰ 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) forbidden³¹. 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 them³², from where that the third generation above is punished by burning³³? 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 included³⁴ 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..

footnotes:
³⁰ Cf. Chapter 8, Note 195. R. Meïr holds that a gezerah šawah
³¹ Instead of “below” one has to read מלמעל “above”. In Lev
³² It refers to all aspects of the laws involved.
³³ Since she is not mentioned in the verse.
³⁴ In 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


###### Jerusalem Talmud Yevamot 11:1:8
[Jerusalem Talmud Yevamot 11:1:8](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Jerusalem%20Talmud%20Yevamot/r/11:1:8)

עַד כְּדוֹן בַּת בִּתּוֹ מִן הַנִּישּׂוּאִין. בַּת בִּתּוֹ מִן הָאוֹנְסִין. עֶרְוַת בַּת בִּנְךָ אוֹ בַת בִּתְּךָ. מַה נָן קַיָימִין. אִם מִן הַנִּישּׂוּאִין כְּבָר הוּא אָמוּר. אֶלָּא אִם אֵינוֹ עִנְיָין לְנִישּׂוּאִין תְּנֵיהוּ עִנְיָין לְאוֹנְסִין. עַד כְּדוֹן לְאַזְהָרָה. לְעוֹנֵשׁ מְנַיִין. אָמַר רִבִּי שְׁמוּאֵל בַּר רַב יִצְחָק. הֵנָּה מֵהֵנָּה. זִמָּה מִזִּמָּה. עַד כְּדוֹן כְּרִבִּי עֲקִיבָה. כְּרִבִּי יִשְׁמָעֵאל. תַּנֵּי רִבִּי יִשְׁמָעֵאל. הֵנָּה מֵאֶתְהֶן. עַד כְדוֹן בַּת בִּתּוֹ. בִּתּוֹ מְנַיִין. רַב אָמַר. אִם עַל בַּת בִּתּוֹ הוּא מוּזְהָר. לֹא כָּל שֶׁכֵּן עַל בִּתּוֹ. אִם עַל בַּת בִּתּוֹ הוּא עָנוּשׁ. לֹא כָּל שֶׁכֵּן עַל בִּתּוֹ.

**The Jerusalem Talmud, translation and commentary by Heinrich W. Guggenheimer. Berlin, De Gruyter, 1999-2015:**
So far his daughter’s daughter from marriage³⁵. 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 daughter³⁶. 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 punishment³⁷. 18:10 contains no indication of any punishment.? Rebbi Samuel bar Rav Isaac said, “they, they; taboo, taboo”.³⁸ 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 **זִאָה**בְּתוֹכְכֶם “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”³⁹. 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 daughter⁴⁰. 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 daughter⁴¹ 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.!

footnotes:
³⁵ As noted before, both Lev
³⁶ Lev
³⁷ Lev
³⁸ Lev.
³⁹ He makes a direct connection between Lev
⁴⁰ Lev
⁴¹ The Babli, Sanhedrin


###### Jerusalem Talmud Yevamot 11:1:9
[Jerusalem Talmud Yevamot 11:1:9](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Jerusalem%20Talmud%20Yevamot/r/11:1:9)

בְּעוֹן קוֹמֶי רִבִּי אַבָּהוּ. בַּת בִּתּוֹ מִן הַנִּישּׂוּאִין. בַּת בִּתּוֹ מִן הָאוֹנְסִין. אָמַר לוֹן כָּל שֵׁם בַּת בַּת אַחַת. בְּעוֹן קוֹמֵי רִבִּי אַבָּהוּ. הַבָּא עַל אִשָּׁה וְיָלְדָה בַת וְאַחַר כָּךְ בָּא בְעָלָהּ. חַיָיב עָלֶיהָ מִשּׁוּם אִשָּׁה וּבִתָּהּ וּבַת בִּתָּהּ וּבַת בְּנָהּ. אָמַר לוֹן שַׁאֲרָה הֵנָּה זִמָּה הִיא. כּוּלְּהֹן מִשּׁוּם זִימָּה.

**The Jerusalem Talmud, translation and commentary by Heinrich W. Guggenheimer. Berlin, De Gruyter, 1999-2015:**
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 category⁴². They asked before Rebbi Abbahu: If [a man] came to a woman, she had a daughter, and after that he came and copulated with her⁴³. 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 taboo⁴⁴.

footnotes:
⁴² R. 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.
⁴³ Something 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?
⁴⁴ Multiple transgression of the same statute can be punished only once.


###### Jerusalem Talmud Yevamot 11:1:10
[Jerusalem Talmud Yevamot 11:1:10](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Jerusalem%20Talmud%20Yevamot/r/11:1:10)

רִבִּי חַגַּיי בְּעָא קוֹמֵי רִבִּי יוֹסֵי. לָמָּה לֵית אִינּוּן אָמְרִין. בִּתְּךָ לֹא תְגַלֶּה. בַּת בִּתְּךָ לֹא תְגַלֶּה. אָמַר לֵיהּ. אִילּוּ הֲוָה כְתִיב עֶרְוַת אִשָּׁה וּבַת בִּתָּהּ לֹא תְגַלֵּה הֲוִינָן אָמְרִין. בִּתְּךָ לֹא תְגַלֵּה. בַּת בִּתְּךָ לֹא תְגַלֵּה.

**The Jerusalem Talmud, translation and commentary by Heinrich W. Guggenheimer. Berlin, De Gruyter, 1999-2015:**
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”⁴⁵. 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”⁴⁶. 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..

footnotes:
⁴⁵ He questions the position of R. Abbahu; why should one not consider Lev
⁴⁶ If 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


###### Jerusalem Talmud Yevamot 11:1:11
[Jerusalem Talmud Yevamot 11:1:11](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Jerusalem%20Talmud%20Yevamot/r/11:1:11)

רִבִּי אַבָּהוּ רִבִּי לָעְזָר בְשֵׁם רִבִּי הוֹשַׁעְיָה. שְׁנֵי לָאוִין וְכָרֶת אֶחָד לָאוִין חוֹלְקִין כְּרִיתוּת. מַאי טַעֲמָא עַל בְּשַׂר אָדָם לֹא יִיסָךְ וּבְמַתְכּוּנְתָּהּ לֹא תַעֲשׂוּ כָּמוֹהוּ. וּכְתִיב אִישׁ אֲשֶׁר יִרְקַח כָּמוֹהוּ. הֲרֵי כָאן שְׁנֵי לָאוִין וְכָרֶת אֶחָד. לָאוִין חוֹלְקִין כְּרִיתוּת. וּכְרִבִּי יִשְׁמָעֵאל. דְּרִבִּי יִשְׁמָעֵאל אָמַר. לְמֵידִין מִקַּל וָחוֹמֶר וְאֵין עוֹנְשִּׁין מִקַּל וָחוֹמֶר. מְנָן לֵיהּ. וְאַתְיָיא כְהַהִיא דְתַנֵּי חִזְקִיָה. וּבַת כֹּהֵן כִּי תֵחֵל לִזְנוֹת. מַה תַלְמוּד לוֹמַר אִישׁ. לְהָבִיא אֶת הַבָּא עַל בַּת בִּתּוֹ מִן הָאוֹנְסִין שֶׁתְּהֵא בִשְׂרֵיפָה. אָמַר רִבִּי יוֹסֵי בֵּירִבִּי בּוּן. אֲפִילוּ לְאַזְהָרָה אַתְּ שְׁמַע מִינָּהּ. אַל תְּחַלֵּל אֶת בִּתְּךָ.

**The Jerusalem Talmud, translation and commentary by Heinrich W. Guggenheimer. Berlin, De Gruyter, 1999-2015:**
Rebbi Abbahu, Rebbi Eleazar in the name of Rebbi Hoshaiah. If there are two prohibitions and one liability to extirpation, the prohibitions split the extirpation⁴⁷ 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.⁴⁸. 30:32, speaking of the oil used to anoint priests and holy vessels.” And it is written: “A man who would compound like it⁴⁹. 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 majus*⁵⁰ 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 man⁵¹. 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] burning⁵². Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Abun said, one may even understand this from the warning: “Do not desecrate your daughter⁵³. 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..”

footnotes:
⁴⁷ It 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
⁴⁸ Ex
⁴⁹ Ex
⁵⁰ A principle spelled out many times in the Babli, cf. Makkot
⁵¹ Lev
⁵² It 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.
⁵³ Lev


###### Jerusalem Talmud Yevamot 11:1:12
[Jerusalem Talmud Yevamot 11:1:12](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Jerusalem%20Talmud%20Yevamot/r/11:1:12)

וּמַה טַעֲמָא דְרִבִּי יוּדָה. לא יִקַּח אִישׁ אֶת אֵשֶׁת אָבִיו. זוֹ אֵשֶׁת אָבִיו. וְלֹא יְגַלֶּה כְּנַף אָבִיו. זוֹ אֲנוּסָתוֹ. מַה מְקַיְימִין רַבָּנִן כְּנַף אָבִיו. תַּמָּן אָמְרִין וְלָא יָדְעִין מִן מַה שְׁמוּעָה. זוֹ כְנַף הַסְּמוּכָה לְאָבִיו. בְּלֹא כָךְ אֵינוֹ חַיָיב עָלֶיהָ מִשּׁוּם אֵשֶׁת אָב. אָמַר רִבִּי הִילָא. לְהַתְרָיָיה. שֶׁאִם הִתְרוּ בָהּ מִשּׁוּם אֵשֶׁת אָב לוֹקֶה. מִשּׁוּם כְּנַף אָב לוֹקֶה. מוֹדֶה רִבִּי יְהוּדָה בְמַכּוֹת. מוֹדֶה רִבִּי יְהוּדָה בְקָרְבָּן. מוֹדֶה רִבִּי יְהוּדָה בִּשְׁאָר כָּל הַסְּפֵיקוֹת שֶׁהוּא פָטוּר. מוֹדֶה רִבִּי יְהוּדָה שֶׁאִם קִידְּשָׁהּ שֶׁתָּפְסוּ בָהּ קִידּוּשִׁין.

**The Jerusalem Talmud, translation and commentary by Heinrich W. Guggenheimer. Berlin, De Gruyter, 1999-2015:**
What is the reason of Rebbi Jehudah? “⁵⁴. 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”? There⁵⁵ 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 father⁵⁶. Would he not anyhow be guilty for her because of his father’s wife⁵⁷? Rebbi Hila said, because of forewarning⁵⁸, 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 whipped⁵⁹. Rebbi Jehudah agrees about whipping. Rebbi Jehudah agrees about sacrifice⁶⁰. Rebbi Jehudah agrees about all other doubtful cases that he is free⁶¹. Rebbi Jehudah agrees that if he gave her *qiddušin* that these *qiddušin* are legally valid.

footnotes:
⁵⁴ Deut
⁵⁵ Babli Yebamot
⁵⁶ The 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.
⁵⁷ For the rabbis who hold that candidacy counts as betrothal; cf. Chapter 2, Note 27.
⁵⁸ In 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.
⁵⁹ In 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.
⁶⁰ Since 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.
⁶¹ If 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.


###### Jerusalem Talmud Yevamot 11:1:13
[Jerusalem Talmud Yevamot 11:1:13](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Jerusalem%20Talmud%20Yevamot/r/11:1:13)

רִבִּי חַגַּיי בְּעָא קוֹמֵי רִבִּי יוֹסֵי. מַהוּ שֶׁיְּהֵא הַוְולָד מַמְזֶר כְּרִבִּי יוּדָה. אָמַר לֵיהּ. לֹא יָבוֹא פְצוּעַ דַּכָּא וּכְרוּת שָׁפְכָה הִפְסִיק הָעִנְיָין. הִפְסִיק הָעִנְיָין לְעִנְיָין אֵשֶׁת אַב. אָמַר לֵיהּ. אֵשֶׁת אַב בִּכְלַל כָּל הָעֲרָיוֹת הָיְיתָה וְיָצָאת מִכְּלָלָהּ לְלַמֵּד עַל כָּל הָעֲרָיוֹת לְמַמְזֵר. וְתֵצֵא אֵשֶׁת אָב וּתְלַמֵּד עַל כָּל הָעֲרָיוֹת מַּמְזֵר. וְתֵצֵא אֲנוּסָה וּתְלַמֵּד עַל כָּל הָאוֹנְסִין לְאִיסּוּר. אָמַר לֵיהּ. אֵשֶׁת אַב בִּכְלָל כָּל הָעֲרָיוֹת הָיְיתָה וְיָצָאת מִכְּלָלָהּ לְלַמֵּד עַל כָּל הָעֲרָיוֹת לְמַמְזֵר. אִית לָךְ לְמֵימַר הָכָא אֲנוּסָה בִּכְלָל כָּל הָאוֹנְסִין הָיְיתָה וְיָצָאת מִכְּלָלָהּ לְלַמֵּד עַל כָּל הָאוֹנְסִין לְאִיסּוּר. וְתֵצֵא אֵשֶׁת אַב וּתְלַמֵּד עַל כָּל אֲנוּסָתָהּ. אָמַר לֵיהּ. אִם אֵשֶׁת אַב הִיא אֵינָהּ אֲנוּסָה. וְאִם אֲנוּסָה הִיא אֵינָהּ אֵשֶׁת אַב.

**The Jerusalem Talmud, translation and commentary by Heinrich W. Guggenheimer. Berlin, De Gruyter, 1999-2015:**
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 marry⁶². 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 prohibitions⁶³): “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 victims⁶⁴. 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 victims⁶⁵? 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.

footnotes:
⁶² Deut. 23:2
⁶³ This is an application of Rule 9 of R. Ismael (Introduction to Sifra
⁶⁴ R. 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.
⁶⁵ There 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.


###### Jerusalem Talmud Yevamot 11:2:1
[Jerusalem Talmud Yevamot 11:2:1](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Jerusalem%20Talmud%20Yevamot/r/11:2:1)

**משנה:** גִּיּוֹרֶת שֶׁנִּתְגַּיְירוּ בָנֶיהָ עִמָּהּ לֹא חוֹלְצִין וְלֹא מְיַיבְּמִין אֲפִילוּ הוֹרָתוֹ שֶּׁל רִאשׁוֹן שֶׁלֹּא בִקְדוּשָּׁה וְלֵידָתוֹ בִקְדוּשָּׁה וְהַשֵּׁינִי הוֹרָתוֹ וְלֵידָתוֹ בִקְדוּשָּׁה וְכֵן שִׁפְחָה שֶׁנִּשְׁתַּחְרְרוּ בָנֶיהָ עִמָּהּ.

**The Jerusalem Talmud, translation and commentary by Heinrich W. Guggenheimer. Berlin, De Gruyter, 1999-2015:**
**MISHNAH:** The sons of a female convert who converted with her do neither perform *ḥalîṣah* nor levirate⁶⁶ even if a first [son] was not conceived in holiness⁶⁷ but born in holiness and a second [son] was conceived and born in holiness. The same applies to a slave girl⁶⁸ who was freed together with her sons.

footnotes:
⁶⁶ Even if they biologically are children of the same father, they legally are not since the rules of family relationships are restricted to Jews.
⁶⁷ Before conversion.
⁶⁸ Who before manumission already was Jewish as a slave.


###### Jerusalem Talmud Yevamot 11:2:2
[Jerusalem Talmud Yevamot 11:2:2](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Jerusalem%20Talmud%20Yevamot/r/11:2:2)

**הלכה:** גִּיּוֹרֶת שֶׁנִּתְגַּיְירָהּ כול׳. וַהֲלֹא הַגֵּר חַיָיב עַל אִמּוֹ וְאֵינוֹ חַיָיב עַל אָבִיו כְּדִבְרֵי רִבִּי יוֹסֵי הַגָּלִילִי. רִבִּי עֲקִיבָה אוֹמֵר. אָבִיו וְאִמּוֹ קִלֵּל. אֵת שֶׁהוּא חַיָיב עַל אִמּוֹ חַיָיב עַל אָבִיו. וְאֵת שֶׁאֵינוֹ חַיָיב עַל אִמּוֹ אֵינוֹ חַיָיב עַל אָבִיו. מוֹדֶה רִבִּי עֲקִיבָה בִשְׁתּוּקִי שֶׁהוּא חַיָיב עַל אִמּוֹ אַף עַל פִּי שֶׁאֵינוֹ חַיָיב עַל אָבִיו. רִבּי יַעֲקֹב בַּר אָחָא רִבִּי יָסָא בְשֵׁם רִבִּי יוֹחָנָן. מַה פְלִיגִין. בְּגֵר שֶׁהָיְתָה הוֹרָתוֹ שֶּׁלֹּא בִקְדוּשָּׁה וְלֵידָתוֹ בִקְדוּשָּׁה. אֲבָל בְּגֵר שֶׁהָיְתָה הוֹרָתוֹ וְלֵידָתוֹ בִקְדוּשָּׁה אַף רִבִּי יוֹסֵי הַגָּלִילִי מוֹדֶה.

**The Jerusalem Talmud, translation and commentary by Heinrich W. Guggenheimer. Berlin, De Gruyter, 1999-2015:**
**HALAKHAH:** “A female convert who converted,” etc. Is not⁶⁹ text is a copy from *Sifra Qedošim Parašah* 9(9), where the rhetorical question is appropriate. the convert guilty for his mother⁷⁰. 21:15,17). R. Yose the Galilean holds that a Gentile cannot claim relationship with his children, whether the mother is Gentile or Jewish. but not for his father following Rebbi Yose the Galilean? Rebbi Aqiba says, “his father and mother he cursed.⁷¹. 20:9: “Any man who would curse his father and (or) his mother shall certainly die; his father and (or) mother he cursed, his blood is on him.” R. Aqiba infers from “curse his father”, “his mother he cursed”, that the rules for father and mother must be identical.” Anybody potentially guilty for his mother is potentially guilty for his father but nobody who cannot be guilty for his mother can be guilty for his father⁷². Rebbi Aqiba agrees that the “silenced⁷³ by his mother should he adress any man as his father. If his father were known, he would be a normal Jew.” one is potentially guilty for his mother but not for his father. Rebbi Jacob bar Aḥa, Rebbi Yasa in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: Where do they⁷⁴ disagree? About a convert not conceived in holiness but born in holiness. But about a convert conceived and born in holiness even Rebbi Yose the Galilean agrees⁷⁵ 3:12)...

footnotes:
⁶⁹ The interrogative here does not make much sense; the baraita
⁷⁰ If he injures or curses his mother (Ex
⁷¹ Lev
⁷² In fact, the argument goes the other way, anybody who cannot be guilty for his father cannot be guilty for his mother. Therefore, the child who converted with his mother cannot be prosecuted for injuring or cursing his mother.
⁷³ A person of unknown paternity, who is silenced
⁷⁴ R. Yose the Galilean and R. Aqiba.
⁷⁵ There is not much to disagree since the child is born as full Jew (even though he is called a proselyte after his father, Mishna Qiddušin


###### Jerusalem Talmud Yevamot 11:2:3
[Jerusalem Talmud Yevamot 11:2:3](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Jerusalem%20Talmud%20Yevamot/r/11:2:3)

רִבִּי יָסָא אֲזַל לְחָמץ. אַתּוֹן וּשְׁאָלוֹן לֵיהּ. אִילֵּין דְּבַר עַשְׁתֵּין. גֵּירִין מַהוּ שֶׁיִּיבְּמוּ. אָמַר לוֹן. כֵּן אָמַר רִבִּי יוֹחָנָן. אָסוּר. הֲווֹן בְּעָיָין מֵימַר. בְּאִשָּׁה שֶׁיֵּשׁ לָהּ בָּנִים. אֲבָל בְּאִשָּׁה שֶׁאֵין לָהּ בָּנִים. מַה נַפְשֵׁךְ. אֵשֶׁת אָחִיו יִיבֵּם. וְאִם אֵינָהּ אֵשֶׁת אָחִיו יְהֵא כְנוֹשֵׂא אִשָּׁה מִן הַשּׁוּק. אָתָא רִבִּי יַעֲקֹב בַּר אָחָא בְשֵׁם רִבִּי יִצְחָק בַּר נַחְמָן. אֲפִילוּ כֵן אָסוּר. שֶׁלֹּא יְהוּ אוֹמְרִין. מִצְוַת יִיבּוּם רָאִינוּ בְגֵירִים. בַּמֶּה דְבָרִים אֲמוּרִים. בִּזְמָן שֶׁהִכִּירָהּ מִשֶּׁנִּתְגַּיֵיר. אֲבָל אִם לֹא הִכִּירָהּ מִשֶּׁנִּתְגַּיֵיר כָּל עַמָּא מוֹדֵיי שֶׁהוּא כְנוֹשֵׂא אִשָּׁה מִן הַשּׁוּק.

**The Jerusalem Talmud, translation and commentary by Heinrich W. Guggenheimer. Berlin, De Gruyter, 1999-2015:**
Rebbi Yasa went to Ḥomṣ⁷⁶. People came and asked him about the family of Ashtin⁷⁷ Chapter 6 they are called Astor. who were converts, might they marry in levirate? He said to them, so says Rebbi Joḥanan: It is prohibited. They wanted to say, if a woman has children⁷⁸. But if the woman has no children, what can you say? He married his brother’s wife in levirate. If she is not his brother’s wife⁷⁹, should he not be considered as marrying a wife from outside? Rebbi Jacob bar Aḥa came in the name of Rebbi Isaac bar Naḥman: Even so it is forbidden, that people should not say, we saw the commandment of levirate among converts. When has this been said? When he lived with her after he converted⁸⁰. But if he did not live with her after he converted, everybody agrees that it is as if he⁸¹ married a woman from outside.

footnotes:
⁷⁶ The city in Syria.
⁷⁷ In Demai
⁷⁸ The widow had children but all of them were born while she was a Gentile.
⁷⁹ If converts born as Gentile brothers are not legally brothers after conversion, the wife of one cannot be forbidden to the other.
⁸⁰ By the first intercourse after conversion, which certainly was executed as an act between husband and wife, the Gentile marriage became valid in Jewish law.
⁸¹ The surviving brother may marry the woman who never was Jewishly married to his brother even if the relationship of brotherhood remained in effect after conversion.


###### Jerusalem Talmud Yevamot 11:2:4
[Jerusalem Talmud Yevamot 11:2:4](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Jerusalem%20Talmud%20Yevamot/r/11:2:4)

גֵּר שֶׁנִּתְגַּיֵיר וְהָיָה נָשׂוּי אִשָּׁה וּבִתָּהּ אוֹ אִשָּׁה וַאֲחוֹתָהּ כּוֹנֵס אַחַת וּמוֹצִיא אַחַת. בַּמֶּה דְבָרִים אֲמוּרִים. שֶׁלֹּא הִכִּיר אַחַת מֵהֶן מִשְּׁנִּתְגַּיֵיר. אֲבָל הִכִּיר אַחַת מֵהֶן מִשֶּׁנִּתְגַּיֵיר אוֹתָהּ שֶׁהִכִּיר אִשְׁתּוֹ. וְאִם הִכִּיר אֶת שְׁתֵּיהֶן כִּיוָן שֶׁהִכִּיר הִכִּיר.

**The Jerusalem Talmud, translation and commentary by Heinrich W. Guggenheimer. Berlin, De Gruyter, 1999-2015:**
A convert who converted while married to a woman and her daughter, or a woman and her sister, marries one and separates from the other⁸². When has this been said? If he did not live with either of them. But if he lived with one of them after he converted, the one he lived with is his wife. If he lived with both of them, since he lived with them, he lived with them⁸³.

footnotes:
⁸² He marries one in Jewish law and separates from the other or divorces her in Gentile law.
⁸³ Since family relationships are dissolved by conversion, the two co-wives are not related in biblical law and, therefore, not prohibited in biblical law. The Babli, 98b, disagrees and holds that if he comes to ask, one tells him to separate from both of them. If he married one of them, he may keep her. It seems from this that the Babli would not tolerate a man to live with two wives who before conversion were mother and daughter or sisters.


###### Jerusalem Talmud Yevamot 11:2:5
[Jerusalem Talmud Yevamot 11:2:5](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Jerusalem%20Talmud%20Yevamot/r/11:2:5)

גֵּר אֲחוֹתוֹ בֵּין מֵאָב בֵּין מֵאֵם יוֹצִיא. דִּבְרֵי רִבִּי מֵאִיר. רִבִּי יוּדָה אוֹמֵר. אֲחוֹתוֹ מֵאֵם יוֹצִיא מֵאָב יְקַיֵים. אֲחוֹת אִמּוֹ יוֹצִיא אֲחוֹת אָבִיו יְקַיֵים. דִּבְרֵי רִבִּי מֵאִיר. רבִּי יוּדָה אוֹמֵר. אֲחוֹת אִמּוֹ מֵאִמָּהּ יוֹצִיא אֲחוֹת אִמּוֹ מֵאָבִיהָ יְקַיֵים. שְׁאָר כַּל הָעֲרָיוֹת כָּנַס אֵין מוֹצִיאִין מִיָּדוֹ. לֹא אָמַר אֶלָּא כָּנַס. הָא כַתְּחִילָּה אָסוּר.

**The Jerusalem Talmud, translation and commentary by Heinrich W. Guggenheimer. Berlin, De Gruyter, 1999-2015:**
A convert has to separate from his sister, whether paternal or maternal, the words of Rebbi Meïr. Rebbi Jehudah says, he must separate from his maternal halfsister; a paternal halfsister he may keep. He must separate from his mother’s sister but may keep his father’s sister, the words of Rebbi Meïr. Rebbi Jehudah says, he must separate from his mother’s maternal halfsister but may keep his mother’s paternal halfsister⁸⁴ 18(7), the *baraita* is quoted as it is here, only that instead of R. Jehudah one has the anonymous Sages.. If he married any other incest prohibited woman, he may keep her. It was only said, “if he married”. Therefore, not from the start⁸⁵.

footnotes:
⁸⁴ If he was married to any one of them at the moment of his conversion. In the Babli, 98b, R. Meïr is quoted as he is here, but instead of R. Jehudah, the anonymous Sages are quoted as permitting all sisters and aunts. In Gen. Rabba
⁸⁵ If he comes to ask, one does not permit the marriage. In the Babli, all women who are not blood relatives are unconditionally permitted.


###### Jerusalem Talmud Yevamot 11:2:6
[Jerusalem Talmud Yevamot 11:2:6](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Jerusalem%20Talmud%20Yevamot/r/11:2:6)

גּוֹי אֲחוֹתוֹ בֵּין מֵאָב בֵּין מֵאֵם יוֹצִיא. דִּבְרֵי רִבִּי מֵאִיר. רִבִּי יוּדָה אוֹמֵר. אֲחוֹתוֹ מֵאֵם יוֹצִיא אֲחוֹתוֹ מֵאָב יְקַיֵים. אֲחוֹת אִמּוֹ יוֹצִיא אֲחוֹת אָבִיו יְקַיֵים. דִּבְרֵי רִבִּי מֵאִיר. רִבִּי יוּדָה אוֹמֵר. אֲחוֹת אִמּוֹ מֵאִמָּהּ יוֹצִיא אֲחוֹת אִמּוֹ מֵאָבִיהָ יְקַיֵים. אָמַר רַב חָנִין. פָּשַׁט הוּא לֹן עַל דִּבְרֵי רִבִּי מֵאִיר. עַל כֵּן יַעֲזוֹב אִישׁ אֶת אָבִיו וְאֶת אִמּוֹ. בְּסָמוֹךְ לוֹ מֵאָבִיו בְּסָמוֹךְ לוֹ מְאִמּוֹ. רִבִּי בִּיבִי בְּעָא. מֵעַתָּה אֲחוֹת אָבִיו אֲסוּרָה שֶׁהִיא סְמוּכָה לְאָבִיו. אֲחוֹת אִמּוֹ תְּהֵא אֲסוּרָה מִפְּנֵי שֶׁהִיא סְמוּכָה לְאִמּוֹ. הָתִיב רִבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן בְּרֵיהּ דְּרִבִּי אַיְיבוֹ. וְהָכְתִיב וַיִּקַּח עַמְרָם אֶת יוֹכֶבֶד דּוֹדָתוֹ לוֹ לְאִשָּׁה. מֵעַתָּה אֲפִילוּ כִבְנֵי נֹחַ לֹא הָיוּ יִשְׂרָאֵל נוֹהֲגִין. אָמַר רִבִּי הִילָא. בְּסָמוֹךְ לוֹ מֵאָבִיו בְּסָמוֹךְ לוֹ מְאִמּוֹ. מֵתִיבִין לְרִבִּי מֵאִיר. וְהָכְתִיב וְגַם אָמְנָה אֲחוֹתִי בַת אָבִי הִיא אַךְ לֹא בַת אִמִּי. אָמַר לָהֶן רִבִּי מֵאִיר. מִשָּׁם רְאָיָיה. לֹא וַתְּהִי לִי לְאִשָּׁה.

**The Jerusalem Talmud, translation and commentary by Heinrich W. Guggenheimer. Berlin, De Gruyter, 1999-2015:**
A Gentile has to separate from his sister, whether paternal or maternal, the words of Rebbi Meïr. Rebbi Jehudah says, he must separate from his maternal halfsister; a paternal halfsister he may keep. He must separate from his mother’s sister but may keep his father’s sister, the words of Rebbi Meïr. Rebbi Jehudah says, he must separate from his mother’s maternal halfsister but may keep his mother’s paternal halfsister⁸⁶ 58a, identical to the rules given for converts in *Yebamot*98b.. Rav Ḥanin said, he⁸⁷ explained us the words of Rebbi Meïr simply: “Therefore, a man has to abandon his father and his mother⁸⁸. 2:24. The common interpretation of the verse as basis of a “natural law” of incest prohibitions is in the sources [Babli *Sanhedrin* 58a, *Gen. rabba* 18(8)]: “Therefore, a man leaves his father (the father’s wife who might not be his mother) and his mother and clings to his wife (marriage is effected by intercourse, but after the first intercourse of a woman all sex acts with other people are adulterous since there is no divorce; male homosexual activity is also forbidden) and they will be one flesh (only vaginal intercourse is counted as such).” All other incest prohibitions of *Lev*. are for Jews only. (A minority opinion, that of R. Eliezer in the Babli, identifies the “father” as the father’s sisters.).” What is close to him from his father’s side, what is close to him from his mother’s side. Rebbi Vivian asked: Then his father’s sister should be forbidden because she is close to his father! His mother’s sister should be forbidden because she is close to his mother⁸⁹! Rebbi Simeon, the son of Rebbi Ayvo objected: “Amram took his aunt Yokhebed as wife⁹⁰. 6:20. According to the rules promulgated by him, Moses was a bastard. This proves (a) that the incest prohibitions of *Lev*. 18 are introduced because of the holiness of the Land or as prohibition of idolatrous practices and (b) the paternal aunt is permitted to a Gentile..” Does that mean that the Israelites did not even behave as descendants of Noah? Rebbi Hila said, what is close to him from his father’s side, what is close to him from his mother’s side⁹¹. They objected to Rebbi Meïr: “And truly she is my sister, my father’s daughter, but not my mother’s.⁹². 20:12. According to Philo (*Special Laws III*, 22–25), the practice of marrying halfsisters was recognized in Greece and that of marrying full sisters in Egypt.” He said to them: Is a proof from there? Not “she became my wife”⁹³?

footnotes:
⁸⁶ The rules for Gentiles living under Jewish law are identical to those valid for converts; in the Babli they are given in Sanhedrin
⁸⁷ This must be Rav, Rav Ḥanin’s teacher and father-in-law.
⁸⁸ Gen
⁸⁹ This shows that the opinion of R. Eliezer, quoted in the Babli (see the preceding note) was unknown to the editors of the Yerushalmi.
⁹⁰ Ex
⁹¹ Only the father’s wives and the mother.
⁹² Gen
⁹³ I am at a loss to understand the argument. The expedient chosen by the talmudic sources, that Sarah was not Abraham’s sister but his niece, should be excluded out of respect for the biblical text (Cf. Chapter 10, Note 210). This cannot be a general Jewish tradition since Sadducee (Karaite) traditions prohibit the niece to the uncle because the text prohibits the nephew to the aunt.


###### Jerusalem Talmud Yevamot 11:2:7
[Jerusalem Talmud Yevamot 11:2:7](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Jerusalem%20Talmud%20Yevamot/r/11:2:7)

מַאי כְדוֹן. אָמַר רִבִּי יוֹסֵה. כָּל עֶרְוָה שֶׁבֵּית דִּין שֶׁלְּיִשְׂרָאֵל מֵמִיתִין עָלֶיהָ בְּנֵי נֹחַ מוּזְהָרִין עָלֶיהָ. וְכָל עֶרְוָה שֶׁאֵין בֵּית דִּין מֵמִיתִין עָלֶיהָ אֵין בְּנֵי נֹחַ מוּזְהָרִין עָלֶיהָ. הָתִיבוּן. הֲרֵי אֲחוֹתוֹ הֲרֵי בֶית דִּין שֶׁלְּיִשְׂרָאֵל מֵמִיתִין עָלֶיהָ וְאֵין בְּנֵי נֹחַ מוּזְהָרִין עָלֶיהָ. רִבִּי הִילָא בְשֵׁם רִבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן בֶּן לָקִישׁ. וּבִגְלַל הַתּוֹעֵבוֹת הָאֵלֶּה יי אֱלֹהֶיךָ מוֹרִישׁ אוֹתָם מִפָּנֶיךְ. מְלַמֵּד שֶׁאֵין הַקָּדוֹשּׁ בָּרוּךְ הוּא עוֹנֵשׁ אֶלָּא אִם כֵּן הִזְהִיר.

**The Jerusalem Talmud, translation and commentary by Heinrich W. Guggenheimer. Berlin, De Gruyter, 1999-2015:**
What about it⁹⁴? Rebbi Yose said, about any incest prohibition which for a Jewish court is a capital crime, a descendant of Noah⁹⁵ is forewarned; and about any incest prohibition which for a court is not a capital crime, a descendant of Noah is not forewarned⁹⁶ 57b.. They objected: Is not a case involving the sister a capital crime for a Jewish court and the descendants of Noah are not forewarned⁹⁷. 20:17) but is not a capital crime on Earth. Maybe the reference should be to a man married to a woman and her daughter; cf. Note 82.? Rebbi Hila in the name of Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish: “Because of these abominations, the Eternal, your God, uproots them before you.⁹⁸. 18:12, speaking of idolatry.” This teaches that the Holy One, praise to Him, does not punish if He did not warn⁹⁹ 57b). Therefore, Gentiles can be punished for idolatrous practices since they have been warned about them. R. Hila seems to agree that the incest prohibitions which exceed the bare minimum are directed against idolatrous practices..

footnotes:
⁹⁴ What is the practice about prohibited Gentile marriages.
⁹⁵ Any Gentile.
⁹⁶ This is characterized as R. Meïr’s minority opinion in the Babli, Sanhedrin
⁹⁷ The example is exceedingly bad since incest with one’s sister is punished by Heaven with extirpation (Lev
⁹⁸ Deut
⁹⁹ The prohibition of idolatry is universal, valid for all descendants of Noah (Babli Sanhedrin


###### Jerusalem Talmud Yevamot 11:2:8
[Jerusalem Talmud Yevamot 11:2:8](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Jerusalem%20Talmud%20Yevamot/r/11:2:8)

רִבִּי אִידִי אָמַר קוֹמֵי רִבִּי יוֹסֵי בְשֵׁם רַב חִסְדָא. עֶבֶד מוּתָּר בָּאֲחוֹתוֹ. אָמַר לֵיהּ. שָׁמַעְתָּ אֲפִילוּ מֵאֵם. אָמַר לֵיהּ. אִין. אָמַר לֵיהּ. וְהָתַנִּינָן וְכֵן שִׁפְחָה שֶׁנִּשְׁתַּחְרְרוּ בָנֶיהָ עִמָּהּ. לַחֲלִיצָה וּלְיִיבּוּם. רִבִּי פִינְחָס אָמַר קוֹמֵי רִבִּי יוֹסֵי בְשֵׁם רִבִּי יוֹסֵי. עֶבֶד שֶׁבָּא עַל אִמֹּה חַיָיב חַטָּאת. וְאָמַרְתָּ אֲלֵהֶם לְרַבּוֹת עֲבָדִים. אוֹ נֹאמַר. לַחֲלָבִין אִיתְאֲמָרַת. מַה מָצִינוּ בְּזִיקַּת אֵם שֶׁעָשָׂה בָהּ צַד שֶׁנִּתְגַּיְירָה בְּצַד שֶׁלֹּא נִתְגַּיְירָה. אַף שִׁפְחָה נַעֲשֶׂה בָּהּ צַד שֶׁנִּשְׁתַּחְרְרָה בְּצַד שֶׁלּא נִשְׁתַּחְרְרָה.

**The Jerusalem Talmud, translation and commentary by Heinrich W. Guggenheimer. Berlin, De Gruyter, 1999-2015:**
Rebbi Idi said before Rebbi Yose, a slave is permitted his sister¹⁰⁰ 58b), he is no longer a Gentile but not yet a responsible Jew. He cannot be punished in either law and he cannot legally marry.. He said to him, did you hear this even if she is from the same mother? He said, yes. He said to him, but did we not state: “The same applies to a slave girl who was freed together with her sons.” For *ḥalîṣah* and levirate¹⁰¹. Rebbi Phineas said before Rebbi Yose in the name of Rebbi Yasa: A slave who slept with his mother is obligated for a purification sacrifice. “You shall command them¹⁰². 1:2. After the introduction: “Speak to the Children of Israel”, the addition “you shall command them” seems superfluous unless it includes people whose inclusion among the Children of Israel is doubtful.,” including slaves¹⁰³. Or should we say, this was said about fat¹⁰⁴ Chapter 8, Note 247.)? Do we find in his relation to his mother that her converted aspect accompanies the unconverted aspect just as with a slave girl her converted aspect accompanies the unconverted aspect¹⁰⁵. 22:23–24). By contrast, adultery with a half-freed slave girl engaged to be married to a free man (in expectation of her full emancipation; she did belong to two masters one of whom manumitted his share) can be expiated by a reparation offering (*Lev*. 19:20–22; *Sifra Qedošim Pereq* 5). This shows that her semi-free status interferes with the operation of criminal law for free persons. In analogy, we could conjecture that the status of a slave as incompletely converted (since he is not obligated to observe most positive commandments) interferes with the operation of the laws of obligatory sacrifices.
The problem is not resolved, probably because it is not realistic.?

footnotes:
¹⁰⁰ As the Babli explains (Sanhedrin
¹⁰¹ But not for criminal matters. The convert changed from one set of laws to another; the libertine enters a set of laws that previously were not applicable to her.
¹⁰² Lev
¹⁰³ Since in theory anything a slaves owns belongs to his master, any obligation of sacrifice would have to be deferred until after the slave’s manumission.
¹⁰⁴ While a slave is obligated to obey all prohibitions in the Torah, it may be that in matters of sexual relations his status is different. (Since slaves cannot marry, as a matter of principle promiscuity is permitted to them; cf. Terumot
¹⁰⁵ A betrothed girl is a wife for criminal law; adultery with her is a capital crime (Deut


###### Jerusalem Talmud Yevamot 11:3:1
[Jerusalem Talmud Yevamot 11:3:1](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Jerusalem%20Talmud%20Yevamot/r/11:3:1)

**משנה:** חָמֵשׁ נָשִׁים שֶׁנִּתְעָרְבוּ וַולְדוֹתֵיהֶן הִגְדִּילוּ הַתַּעֲרוֹבוֹת וְנָשְׂאוֹ נָשִׁים וָמֵתוּ אַרְבָּעָה חוֹלְצִין לְאַחַת וְאֶחָד מְיַיבֵּם אוֹתָהּ. הוּא וּשְׁלֹשָׁה חוֹלְצִים לְאַחֶרֶת וְאֶחָד מְיַיבֵּם. נִמְצְאוּ אַרְבַּע חֲלִיצוֹת וְיִיבּוּם לְכָל אַחַת וְאַחַת.

**The Jerusalem Talmud, translation and commentary by Heinrich W. Guggenheimer. Berlin, De Gruyter, 1999-2015:**
**MISHNAH:** If the children of five women were mixed up, and the mixed-up became adults, married wives, and died, then four perform *ḥalîṣah* and one marries in levirate¹⁰⁶ with the widow who may be his sister-in-law or four perform *ḥalîṣah* and one marries. The one who marries either performs levirate or he marries an unrelated woman; in both cases the marriage is unquestionably valid.. This one and three others perform *ḥalîṣah* for another one and another one marries in levirate¹⁰⁷ of mixed-up children. The death of a childless man of the mixed-up group causes *n*-1 *ḥalîṣot* and 1 levirate or *n ḥalîṣot*.. It turns out that there are four *ḥaliṣot* and one levirate marriage for every one.

footnotes:
¹⁰⁶ It is assumed that each woman had another child whose family membership is clear. If one of the mixed-up children dies childless, then it is not known whose brother he was. Therefore, one brother known to be from each of the families involved performs ḥalîṣah
¹⁰⁷ The one who married the first widow might also marry the second one. The number five here is irrelevant; the same rules apply to any number n


###### Jerusalem Talmud Yevamot 11:3:2
[Jerusalem Talmud Yevamot 11:3:2](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Jerusalem%20Talmud%20Yevamot/r/11:3:2)

**הלכה:** חָמֵשׁ נָשִׁים שֶׁנִּתְעָרְבוּ וַולְדוֹתֵיהֶן כול׳. בְּכָל אָתָר אַתְּ אָמַר. אֵין חֲלִיצָה אַחַר חֲלִיצָה. וְהָכָא אַתְּ אָמַר הָכֵין. כָּאן בְּוַדַּאי כָּאן בְּסָפֵק. בְּכָל אָתָר אַתְּ אָמַר. בְּכָל מָקוֹם שֶׁאֵין אוֹמְרִים. יַיבֵּם. אֵין אוֹמְרִים. חֲלוֹץ. וְהָכָא אַתְּ אָמַר אָכֵין. כָּאן בְּוַדַּאי כָּאן בְּסָפֵק.

**The Jerusalem Talmud, translation and commentary by Heinrich W. Guggenheimer. Berlin, De Gruyter, 1999-2015:**
**HALAKHAH:** “If the children of five women were mixed up,” etc. ¹⁰⁷ of mixed-up children. The death of a childless man of the mixed-up group causes *n*-1 *ḥalîṣot* and 1 levirate or *n ḥalîṣot*. Everywhere you say, there is no *ḥalîṣah* after *ḥalîṣah*, and here, you say so? There, it is was sure, here it is in doubt. Everywhere you say, if one does not say to him, take in levirate, one does not say, perform *ḥalîṣah*, and here, you say so¹⁰⁸ with her; otherwise he might marry another man’s brother’s widow. That means that the four first men must perform *ḥalîṣah* and are forbidden for levirate.? There, it is was sure, here it is doubtful.

footnotes:
¹⁰⁷ The one who married the first widow might also marry the second one. The number five here is irrelevant; the same rules apply to any number n
¹⁰⁸ The Mishnah is to be interpreted strictly, that the widow is permitted to one of then possible brothers only after all other have performed ḥalîṣah


###### Jerusalem Talmud Yevamot 11:4:1
[Jerusalem Talmud Yevamot 11:4:1](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Jerusalem%20Talmud%20Yevamot/r/11:4:1)

**משנה:** הָאִשָּׁה שֶּׁנִּתְעָרַב וַולְדָּהּ בִּוְולַד כַּלָּתָהּ. הַגְדִּילוּ הַתַּעֲרוֹבוֹת וְנָשְׂאוּ נָשִׁים וָמֵתוּ. בְּנֵי הַכַּלָּה חוֹלְצִין וְלֹא מְיַיבְּמִין שֶׁהוּא סְפֵק אֵשֶׁת אָחִיו סְפֵק אֵשֶׁת אֲחִי אָבִיו. וּבְנֵי הַזְּקֵינָה אוֹ חוֹלְצִין אוֹ מְיַיבְּמִין שֶׁהוּא אֵשֶׁת אָחִיו וְאֵשֶׁת בֶּן אָחִיו. מֵתוּ הַכְּשֵׁרִים בְּנֵי הַתַּעֲרוֹבוֹת לִבְנֵי הַזְּקֵינָה חוֹלְצִין וְלֹא מְיַיבְּמִין שֶׁהוּא וְאֵשֶׁת אָחִיו סְפֵק אֵשֶׁת אֲחִי אָבִיו. וּבְנֵי הַכַּלָּה אֶחָד חוֹלֵץ וְאֶחָד מְיַיבֵּם.

**The Jerusalem Talmud, translation and commentary by Heinrich W. Guggenheimer. Berlin, De Gruyter, 1999-2015:**
**MISHNAH:** If a woman’s child was mixed up with her daughter-in-law’s child, the mixed-up children became adults, married wives, and died¹⁰⁹. The other sons of the daughter-in-law must perform *ḥalîṣah* but not levirate since for them it is doubtful whether [the widow was] a brother’s wife or an uncle’s wife¹¹⁰ with her.. But the sons of the old woman may either perform *ḥalîṣah* or levirate since for them she was either a brother’s wife or a nephew’s wife¹¹¹, then the widow is either the sister-in-law of her husband’s brother and can be married in levirate or she is the widow of a nephew who can be married. “Levirate” in this case has to be taken with a grain of salt since unintentional intercourse (cf. Mishnah 6:1) will only possibly make the widow a wife.. If one of the identified ones died, the mixed-up ones must perform *ḥalîṣah* but not levirate for a son of the old woman since there is a doubt whether [the widow was] a brother’s wife or an uncle’s wife. But for the sons of the daughter-in-law, one performs *ḥalîṣah;* the other may marry in levirate¹¹³, she is either the sister-in-law or the free widow of a nephew and permitted..

footnotes:
¹⁰⁹ One of the mixed-up sons died childless while being married.
¹¹⁰ If the deceased was the son of the daughter-in-law, his widow could be married in levirate but if he was the son of the mother-in-law, she is forbidden to her husband’s nephew. Therefore, one of the other sons of the daughter-in-law must perform ḥalîṣah
¹¹¹ If a son of the daughter-in-law had performed ḥalîṣah
¹¹³ If the widow already had one ḥalîṣah


###### Jerusalem Talmud Yevamot 11:4:2
[Jerusalem Talmud Yevamot 11:4:2](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Jerusalem%20Talmud%20Yevamot/r/11:4:2)

**הלכה:** הָאִשָּׁה שֶׁנִּתְעָרַב וַולְדָּהּ כול׳. אָמַר רִבִּי יוֹחָנָן. כֵּינִי מַתְנִיתָא. לְנָשֵׁי בְנֵי הַכַּלָּה לְנָשֵׁי בְנֵי הַזְּקֵינָה. אָמַר רִבִּי חַגַּיי. זֹאת אוֹמֶרֶת שֶׁמּוּתָּר אָדָם לִישָּׂא אֶת אֵשֶׁת בֶּן אָחִיו.

**The Jerusalem Talmud, translation and commentary by Heinrich W. Guggenheimer. Berlin, De Gruyter, 1999-2015:**
**HALAKHAH:** “If a woman’s child was mixed up,” etc. Rebbi Joḥanan said: So is the Mishnah: The sister-in-law’s sons’ wives, the old woman’s sons’ wives¹¹⁴. Rebbi Ḥaggai said, this implies that a man may marry a nephew’s ex-wife¹¹⁵.

footnotes:
¹¹⁴ An obvious correction of the language of the Mishnah; one does not speak of the sons of mother-in-law or daughter-in-law but of their childless widows.
¹¹⁵ There is no doubt that such a union is permitted by biblical standards; for some reason it was felt necessary to state thaï there is no rabbinic restriction in the case.


###### Jerusalem Talmud Yevamot 11:5:1
[Jerusalem Talmud Yevamot 11:5:1](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Jerusalem%20Talmud%20Yevamot/r/11:5:1)

**משנה:** כֹּהֶנֶת שֶׁנִּתְעָרַב וַולְדָּהּ בִּוְולַד שִׁפְחָתָהּ הֲרֵי אֵילּוּ אוֹכְלִין בַּתְּרוּמָה וְחוֹלְקִין חֶלֶק אֶחָד לַגּוֹרֶן וְאֵינָן מִטַּמְּאִין לַמֵּתִים וְאֵינָן נוֹשְׂאִין נָשִׁים בֵּין כְּשֵׁירוֹת בֵּין פְּסוּלוֹת.

**The Jerusalem Talmud, translation and commentary by Heinrich W. Guggenheimer. Berlin, De Gruyter, 1999-2015:**
**MISHNAH:** If the child of a priestly woman was mixed up with the child of her slave girl then both may eat heave; they together take one part from the threshing floor, they may not defile themselves by becoming impure for the dead, and they may not marry women enabled or disabled [for the priesthood]¹¹⁶.

footnotes:
¹¹⁶ Each of them is a possible Cohen. The details are explained in the Halakhah; the removal of the disabilities is the subject of the next Mishnah.


###### Jerusalem Talmud Yevamot 11:5:2
[Jerusalem Talmud Yevamot 11:5:2](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Jerusalem%20Talmud%20Yevamot/r/11:5:2)

**הלכה:** כֹּהֶנֶת שֶׁנִּתְעָרַב וַולְדָּהּ כול׳. הֲרֵי אֵילּוּ אוֹכְלִין בַּתְּרוּמָה. שֶׁכֵּן עַבְדֵי כֹהֲנִים אוֹכְלִין בַּתְּרוּמָה.

**The Jerusalem Talmud, translation and commentary by Heinrich W. Guggenheimer. Berlin, De Gruyter, 1999-2015:**
**HALAKHAH:** “If the child of a priestly woman was mixed up,” etc. “Both may eat heave”, since slaves of Cohanim eat heave.


###### Jerusalem Talmud Yevamot 11:5:3
[Jerusalem Talmud Yevamot 11:5:3](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Jerusalem%20Talmud%20Yevamot/r/11:5:3)

וְחוֹלְקִין חֶלֶק אֶחָד עַל הַגּוֹרֶן. הָדָא הִיא דְתַנֵּי רִבִּי חִיָיה. נָשִׁים וַעֲבָדִים אֵינָן חוֹלְקִין עַל הַגּוֹרֶן אֲבָל נוֹתְנִין לָהֶן מַתְּנוֹת כְּהוּנָּה וּלְוִיָיה מִתּוֹךְ הַבַּיִת.

**The Jerusalem Talmud, translation and commentary by Heinrich W. Guggenheimer. Berlin, De Gruyter, 1999-2015:**
“They together take one part from the threshing floor,” that is what Rebbi Ḥiyya stated: One does not distribute to women and slaves on the threshing floor¹¹⁷ 2:7,8). but one gives them the gifts of priesthood and/or those due to Levites from the barn¹¹⁸.

footnotes:
¹¹⁷ As the Babli (99b) explains, one does not admit women to the public distribution of heave and tithes since a woman may lose her priestly status from one distribution to the next and still receive heave and/or tithes since the farmer may recognize her from former distributions. Slaves are excluded since the entitlement to heave was counted as a proof of priestly status (cf. Ketubot
¹¹⁸ Privately, where no presumption of priestly status is created.


###### Jerusalem Talmud Yevamot 11:5:4
[Jerusalem Talmud Yevamot 11:5:4](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Jerusalem%20Talmud%20Yevamot/r/11:5:4)

וְאֵין נוֹשְׂאִין נָשִׁים לֹא כְשֵּׁירוֹת וְלֹא פְסוּלוֹת. לֹא כְשֵׁירוֹת מִפְּנֵי הַפָּסוּל. וְלֹא פְסוּלוֹת מִפְּנֵי הַכָּשֵׁר.

**The Jerusalem Talmud, translation and commentary by Heinrich W. Guggenheimer. Berlin, De Gruyter, 1999-2015:**
“They may not marry women, whether enabled or disabled [for the priesthood].” Not enabled ones because of the disabled one. Not disabled ones because of the enabled one¹¹⁹.

footnotes:
¹¹⁹ The slave cannot marry any woman; the priest is forbidden to marry a woman disabled for the priesthood.


###### Jerusalem Talmud Yevamot 11:5:5
[Jerusalem Talmud Yevamot 11:5:5](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Jerusalem%20Talmud%20Yevamot/r/11:5:5)

מַהוּ שֶׁיָּבִיאוּ מִנְחָה אַחַת וּתְהֵא קְרֵיבָה בְכָלִיל. תַּנֵּי. מְבִיאִין מִנְחָה אַחַת וּמַתְנִין עָלֶיהָ וּתְהֵא קְרֵיבָה בְכָלִיל. מַהוּ שֶׁיָּבִיאוּ שְׁתֵּי מְנָחוֹת אַחַת קְרֵיבָה בְכָלִיל וְאַחַת נִקְמֶצֶת וְנֶאֱכֶלֶת. תַּנֵי. מְבִיאִין שְׁתֵּי מְנָחוֹת אַחַת קְרֵיבָה בְּכָלִיל וְאַחַת נִקְמֶצֶת וְנֶאֱכֶלֶת. מַהוּ שֶׁיָּעִידוּ עֵדוּת אַחַת וְתַעֲלֶה לָהֶם עֵדוּת אַחַת. אוֹ יָיבֹא כְהַהִיא דָמַר רִבִּי זְעִירָא רַב יִצְחָק בְּשֵׁם רַב אַסִּי. מֵאַחַר שֶׁאִילּוּ יִמְצְאוּ הָעֵדִים זוֹמְמִין אֵין נֶהֱרָגִין וְאֵין הַהוֹרֵג נֶהֱרָג. אַף הָכָא כֵן.

**The Jerusalem Talmud, translation and commentary by Heinrich W. Guggenheimer. Berlin, De Gruyter, 1999-2015:**
May they bring one cereal offering together that would be totally burned¹²⁰. 6:16). They may bring a cereal offering to the Temple and declare that it should be counted as the offering of the one of them who is a Cohen.? It was stated: They may bring one cereal offering conditionally that would be totally burned. May they bring two cereal offerings one of which should be burned totally and the other have a handful taken and the rest eaten¹²¹. 6:7–11).? It was stated: They may bring two cereal offerings of one which is burned totally and of the other a handful is taken and the rest eaten. May they testify together that it should be counted as testimony of one witness¹²²? That would follow the rule of Rebbi Ze‘ira, Rav Isaac in the name of Rav Assi: Since if they were to be found perjured they could not be executed, the murderer could not be executed¹²³ 41a): Testimony which is not subject to the penalties of perjuty is no testimony. The remark: “This applies here also” shows that the statement of Rav Assi refers to criminal proceedings in general. The murderer cannot be executed if one of the testimonies to his guilt is not subject to the penalties of perjury.. This applies here also.

footnotes:
¹²⁰ The cereal offering of a Cohen in the Temple must be burned completely (Lev
¹²¹ They may bring two cereal offerings to the Temple and declare that one should be counted as the offering of the one of them who is a Cohen and the other one as the offering of the slave. A handful of the second offering together with all its incense is burned on the altar and the rest eaten by the Cohanim under the rules of most holy offerings (Lev
¹²² Slaves are not admitted as formal witnesses. (They are admitted to ascertain facts, such as the death of a man to permit the widow to remarry.) If their testimonies are identical, may the court accept the testimony of the one who really is a Cohen?
¹²³ A false witness must receive the punishment that would have been meted out to the accused had his testimony been accepted by the court. Since a slave cannot be a witness in a criminal proceeding, he cannot be punished as a perjured witness. Since it is not known who of the two is a slave, neither of them can be punished. In the formulation of the Babli (Sanhedrin


###### Jerusalem Talmud Yevamot 11:6:1
[Jerusalem Talmud Yevamot 11:6:1](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Jerusalem%20Talmud%20Yevamot/r/11:6:1)

**משנה:** הִגְדִּילוּ הַתַּעֲרוֹבוֹת וְשִׁחְרְרוּ זֶה אֶת זֶה נוֹשְׂאִין נָשִׁים רְאוּייוֹת לִכְהוּנָּה וְאֵינָן מִיטַּמְּאִין לַמֵּתִים וְאִם נִטְמְאוּ אֵין סוֹפְגִין אֶת הָאַרְבָּעִים. וְאֵינָן אוֹכְלִין בַּתְּרוּמָה וְאִם אָכְלוּ אֵינָן מְשַׁלְּמִין קֶרֶן וָחוֹמֶשׁ. וְאֵינָן חוֹלְקִין עַל הַגּוֹרֶן. וּמוֹכְרִים אֶת הַתְּרוּמָה וְהַדָּמִים שֶׁלָּהֶם. וְאֵינָן חוֹלְקִין בְּקָדְשֵׁי מִקְדָּשׁ. וְאֵין נוֹתְנִין לָהֶם קֳדָשִׁים. וְאֵין מוֹצִיאִין אֶת שֶׁלָּהֶן מִידֵיהֶן. וּפְטוּרִין מִן הַזְּרוֹעַ וּמִן הַלְּחָיַיִם וּמִן הַקֵּיבָה. וּבְכוֹרָן יְהֵא רוֹעֶה עַד שֶׁיִּסְתָּאֵב. וְנוֹתְנִין עֲלֵיהֶן חוּמְרֵי יִשְׂרָאֵל וְחוּמְרֵי כֹהֲנִים.

**The Jerusalem Talmud, translation and commentary by Heinrich W. Guggenheimer. Berlin, De Gruyter, 1999-2015:**
**MISHNAH:** When the mixed-up children became adults and manumitted one another¹²⁴ they may marry women appropriate for the priesthood, may not defile themselves for the dead, but if they became defiled they do not suffer forty lashes¹²⁵. They may not eat heave, but if they ate they do not have to pay its value and and additional fifth¹²⁶ 6:1, 7:1), and no Cohen can successfully sue any of them for payment by proving that he is not a Cohen, they do not have to pay.. They cannot attend distributions on the threshing floor; they have to sell their heave, but the money is theirs¹²⁷. They have no part in the Temple sacrifices, one does not give them sacrifices, but one cannot take theirs from them¹²⁸. They are exempt from the foreleg, the chin, and the first stomach¹²⁹. 18:3.. Their firstborn animal should graze until it develops a blemish¹³⁰. 15:19–23.. One charges them with the disabilities of an Israel and those of Cohanim¹³¹.

footnotes:
¹²⁴ Then the slave is manumitted and becomes a full Israel. The manumission of the Cohen is invalid and does not damage him.
¹²⁵ In order to punish one of them for wilfully desecrating himself, the court would have to prove that the culprit is a Cohen. Since this is impossible, neither of them can ever be punished for any infraction of priestly rules.
¹²⁶ Since the monetary penalty for unauthorized use of heave has to be given to a Cohen (Mishnaiot Terumot
¹²⁷ They may not eat heave since the eater may be the former slave. They keep the money since they cannot be sued for it, cf. Note 126.
¹²⁸ Since a Cohen has the right to sacrifice in the Temple even if he is not on duty there, they have the right to hand over their sacrifices to any certified Cohen and are not obligated to give it to the group of Cohanim currently serving there.
¹²⁹ The gift to the Cohanim from profane slaughter, Deut
¹³⁰ An unblemished firstborn animal must be given to a Cohen to be sacrificed in the Temple and eaten by the Cohen. Once it is blemished it can be slaughtered locally and eaten by anybody, Deut
¹³¹ This gives the rationale for the entire Mishnah.


###### Jerusalem Talmud Yevamot 11:6:2
[Jerusalem Talmud Yevamot 11:6:2](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Jerusalem%20Talmud%20Yevamot/r/11:6:2)

**הלכה:** הִגְדִּילוּ הַתַּעֲרוֹבוֹת כול׳. לְשֶׁעָבַר. הָא לְכַתְּחִילָּה לֹא. כֵּינִי מַתְנִיתָא. מוּתָּר לְשַׁחְרֵר כַּתְּחִילָּה. אַף רִבִּי יוֹסֵי הַגָּלִילִי אָמַר. אָסוּר לְשַׁחְרֵר. מוֹדֶה הוּא הָכָא שֶׁהוּא מוּתָּר. מִפְּנֵי תִיקּוּן הַוְולָד. מַהוּ רְאוּיוֹת. לֹא פְסוּלוֹת.

**The Jerusalem Talmud, translation and commentary by Heinrich W. Guggenheimer. Berlin, De Gruyter, 1999-2015:**
**HALAKHAH:** “If the mixed-up children became adults,” after it happened¹³². Does that mean, not from the start? So is the Mishnah: It is permitted from the start to manumit¹³³. Even Rebbi Yose the Galilean, who said that one is forbidden to manumit¹³⁴. 25:46: “You shall have them work for you forever”. In the Babli, this interpretation is quoted in the name of the Amora Rav Jehudah (*Berakhot* 47b), R. Aqiba (*Soṭah* 3b, against R. Ismael who reads “You may have them work for you forever”), Rav Jehudah in the name of Samuel (*Giṭṭin* 38b)., will agree here that it is permitted for the benefit of children. What means “appropriate”? Not disabled.

footnotes:
¹³² One would have expected the Mishnah to read: Once adults, they manumit one another. Does the formulation of the Mishnah imply that the manumission is not recommended?
¹³³ The Babli, 100a, insists that the court forces them to manumit one another.
¹³⁴ Based on the verse Lev


###### Jerusalem Talmud Yevamot 11:6:3
[Jerusalem Talmud Yevamot 11:6:3](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Jerusalem%20Talmud%20Yevamot/r/11:6:3)

מְנַיִין לְכֹהֵן שֶׁהוּא מַקְרִיב קָרְבְנוֹתָיו בְּכָל מִשְׁמָר שֶׁיִּרְצֶה. תַּלְמוּד לוֹמַר וּבָא בְּכָל אַוַּת נַפְשׁוֹ וְשֵׁרֵת. הָיָה זָקֵן אוֹ חוֹלֶה נוֹתְנוֹ לְכָל מִשְׁמָר שֶׁיִּרְצֶה וְעוֹרָן וּבְשָׂרָן שֶׁלּוֹ. הָיָה טָמֵא וּבַעַל מוּם נוֹתְנִין לְאַנְשֵׁי הַמִּשְׁמָר וְעוֹרָן וּבְשָׂרָן שֶׁלָּהֶן. אִילֵּין בְּנֵי הַתַּעֲרוֹבוֹת מַה אַתְּ עֲבַד לְהוֹן. כְּזָקֵן וּכְחוֹלֶה אוֹ כְטָמֵא וּבַעַל מוּם. מִסְתַּבְּרָא מֵיעַבְּדִינוֹן כְּטָמֵא וּבַעַל מוּם. וּמַתְנִיתָא עַבְדָא לוֹן כְּזָקֵן וּכְחוֹלֶה. דְּתַנִּינָן. אֵין מוֹצִיאִין אֶת שֶׁלּוֹ מִיָּדוֹ.

**The Jerusalem Talmud, translation and commentary by Heinrich W. Guggenheimer. Berlin, De Gruyter, 1999-2015:**
From where that a Cohen presents his sacrifices during [the period of duty of] any watch¹³⁵ from the presentation of the shew-bread on one Sabbath to its removal the next Sabbath). The priests were indemnified for their work by receiving the skins of most holy sacrifices and all gifts to priests during their week of work. A hint of this is found in *Deut*. 18:9.
Even after the destruction of the Temple, the calendar of service of the districts was retained for special occasions, cf. Mishnah *Ta‘aniot* 2:7. he chooses? The verse says, “he may come as his heart desires … and serve”¹³⁶. 18:6–7. Priests acting for themselves are exempt from the obligation to use the watch in charge of the week. The same argument is in Babli *Baba Qama* 109b, where verses are quoted in support of the assertion here that the hide and meat do not belong to the acting watch. In contrast, *Sifry Deut*. 168 restricts the right of the Cohen to participation in the priestly blessing any time he so desires.. If he was old or sick, he may give it to any watch he likes but the hide and meat are his. If he was impure or had a bodily defect, he must give it to the acting watch¹³⁷, and the hide and meat are theirs. These mixed-up ones, how do you treat them? Comparing them to the old or sick, or to the impure or to those with a bodily defect. It seems reasonable to compare them to the impure or those having a bodily defect¹³⁸; but the Mishnah compares them to the old or sick, since we have stated: “One cannot take his from him¹³⁹.”

footnotes:
¹³⁵ The land of Israel was divided into 24 districts and the priests from each district came to the Temple for one week (serving as watch
¹³⁶ Deut
¹³⁷ The old or sick in principle are able to sacrifice by themselves; the impure and disfigured are barred from entering the Temple. The latter cannot sacrifice and in this respect are not different in status from a non-Cohen.
¹³⁸ They could not possibly be accepted as acting priests in the Temple.
¹³⁹ This is the language of Mishnah 8.


###### Jerusalem Talmud Yevamot 11:7:1
[Jerusalem Talmud Yevamot 11:7:1](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Jerusalem%20Talmud%20Yevamot/r/11:7:1)

**משנה:** מִי שֶׁלֹּא שָׁהֲתָה אַחַר בַּעֲלָהּ שְלֹשָׁה חֳדָשִׁים וְנִשֵּׂאת וְיָלְדָה וְאֵין יָדוּעַ אִם בֶּן תִּשְׁעָה לָרִאשׁוֹן. אִם בֶּן שִׁבְעָה לָאַחֲרוֹן. הָיוּ לָהּ בָּנִים מִן הָרִאשׁוֹן בָּנִים מִן הַשֵּׁינִי חוֹלְצִין וְלֹא מְיַיבְּמִין. וְכֵן הוּא לָהֶם חוֹלֵץ וְלֹא מְיַיבֵּם. הָיוּ לוֹ אַחִין מִן הָרִאשׁוֹן וְאַחִין מִן הַשֵּׁינִי. שֶׁלֹּא מֵאוֹתָהּ הָאֵם הוּא חוֹלֵץ וּמְיַיבֵּם. וְהֵן חוֹלְצִין וּמְיַיבְּמין. הָיָה אֶחָד יִשְׂרָאֵל וְאֶחָד כֹּהֶן נוֹשֵׂא אִשָּׁה רְאוּיָיה לַכֹּהֶן וְאִינוֹ מִטַּמֵּא לַמֵּתִים. וְאִם נִטְמָא אֵינוֹ סוֹפֵג אֶת הָאַרְבָּעִים. וְאֵינוֹ אוֹכֵל בַּתְּרוּמָה וְאִם אָכַל אֵינוֹ מְשַּׁלֵּם קֶרֶן וָחוֹמֶשּׁ. וְאֵינוֹ חוֹלֵק עַל הַגּוֹרֶן. וּמוֹכֵר אֶת הַתְּרוּמָה וְהַדָּמִים שֶׁלּוֹ. וְאֵינוֹ חוֹלֵק בְּקָדְשׁי מִקְדָּשׁ. וְאֵין נוֹתְנִין לוֹ אֶת הַקֳּדָשִׁים. וְאֵין מוֹצִיאִין אֶת שֶׁלּוֹ מִיָּדוֹ. וּפָטוּר מִן הַזְּרוֹעַ וּמִן הַלְּחָיַיִם וּמִן הַקֵּיבָה. וּבְכוֹרוֹ יְהֵא רוֹעֶה עַד שֶׁיִּסְתָּאֵב. וְנוֹתְנִין עֲלָיו חוּמְרֵי יִשְׂרָאֵל וְחוּמְרֵי כֹהֲנִים. הָיוּ שְׁנֵיהֶן כֹּהֲנִים הוּא אוֹנֵן עֲלֵיהֶן וְהֵם אוֹנְנִין עָלָיו. הוּא אֵינוֹ מִיטַּמֵּא לָהֶן וְהֵן אֵינָן מִיטַּמְּאִין לוֹ. הוּא לֹא יוֹרֵשׁ אוֹתָן אֲבָל הֵן יוֹרְשִׁין אוֹתוֹ. וּפָטוּר עַל מַכָּתוֹ וְעַל קִלְלָתוֹ שֶׁל זֶה וְשֶׁל זֶה וְעוֹלֶה בְמִשְׁמָרוֹ שֶׁל זֶה וְשֶׁל זֶה וְאֵינוֹ חוֹלֵק. אִם הָיוּ שְׁנֵיהֶן בְּמִשְׁמָר אֶחָד נוֹטֶל חֶלֶק אֶחָד.

**The Jerusalem Talmud, translation and commentary by Heinrich W. Guggenheimer. Berlin, De Gruyter, 1999-2015:**
**MISHNAH:** [A woman] did not wait three months after [the death of] her husband, married, and gave birth, and it is not known whether it is a nine months’ child of the first or a seven months’ child of the second. If she had sons from the first and the second, they perform *ḥalîṣah* but not levirate¹⁴⁰ from both sides. She cannot marry any one of them since her husband might have been the son of the other man and the marriage would then be incestuous.. Similarly, he performs *ḥalîṣah* but not levirate¹⁴¹ for the widow but is forbidden levirate.. If he had brothers from the first or from the second not from the same mother, he may perform *ḥalîṣah* or levirate¹⁴² or levirate if there is another brother who could marry or release a widow without complication. If there was only one brother on one side who died childless, his widow either is a sister-in-law who can be married by the levir or she is an unrelated woman free to marry any man. and they may perform *ḥalîṣah* or levirate¹⁴³ and one may marry in levirate.” In that version, if the questionable son dies childless, a brother from one side must perform *ḥalîṣah*; then one of the other side either may perform *ḥalîṣah* or marry in levirate since either the widow is his sister-in-law or she is unrelated and free to marry any man. One must assume that the version of the Yerushalmi (and a group of independent Mishnah mss.) is shorthand for the version of the Babli..
If one was an Israel and the other a priest¹⁴⁴, he may marry a woman appropriate for the priesthood, may not defile himself for the dead, but if he became defiled he does not suffer forty lashes¹²⁵. He may not eat heave but if he ate, he does not have to pay its value and additional fifth¹²⁶ 6:1, 7:1), and no Cohen can successfully sue any of them for payment by proving that he is not a Cohen, they do not have to pay.. He cannot attend distributions on the threshing floor. He has to sell his heave but the money is his¹²⁷. He has no part in the Temple sacrifices, one does not give him sacrifices but one cannot take his from him¹²⁸. He is exempt from the foreleg, the chin, and the first stomach¹²⁹. 18:3.. His firstborn animal should graze until it develops a blemish¹³⁰. 15:19–23.. One charges him with the disabilities of an Israel and those of Cohanim¹³¹.
If both¹⁴⁴ were Cohanim, he has to mourn intensely for them and they for him¹⁴⁵. 10:6) to continue their Temple service. If it were not forbidden in general, no special permission would have been needed.. He may not defile himself for them, they may not defile themselves for him. He does not inherit from them¹⁴⁶ but they inherit from him¹⁴⁷. He is not prosecutable if he injures or curses either one of them¹⁴⁸. He may serve on the watch of either one but does not participate in distributions¹⁴⁹. If both were of the same watch, he takes one part.

footnotes:
¹⁴⁰ If the questionable child married and died childless, the widow needs ḥalîṣah
¹⁴¹ If he had only one brother on one side and that one died childless, he must perform ḥalîṣah
¹⁴² It is obvious that he is not a candidate for either ḥalîṣah
¹⁴³ In the Babli and a number of independent Mishnah mss.: “One performs ḥalîṣah
¹⁴⁴ The two husbands.
¹²⁵ In order to punish one of them for wilfully desecrating himself, the court would have to prove that the culprit is a Cohen. Since this is impossible, neither of them can ever be punished for any infraction of priestly rules.
¹²⁶ Since the monetary penalty for unauthorized use of heave has to be given to a Cohen (Mishnaiot Terumot
¹²⁷ They may not eat heave since the eater may be the former slave. They keep the money since they cannot be sued for it, cf. Note 126.
¹²⁸ Since a Cohen has the right to sacrifice in the Temple even if he is not on duty there, they have the right to hand over their sacrifices to any certified Cohen and are not obligated to give it to the group of Cohanim currently serving there.
¹²⁹ The gift to the Cohanim from profane slaughter, Deut
¹³⁰ An unblemished firstborn animal must be given to a Cohen to be sacrificed in the Temple and eaten by the Cohen. Once it is blemished it can be slaughtered locally and eaten by anybody, Deut
¹³¹ This gives the rationale for the entire Mishnah.
¹⁴⁴ The two husbands.
¹⁴⁵ On the day of death of one of his possible fathers, he is forbidden to serve in priestly functions. If he dies, both possible fathers are barred. The disability of a priest on the day of death of a close relative is inferred from the command given to Aaron and his sons on the day Nadab and Abihu died (Lev
¹⁴⁶ He cannot prove to the other heirs that he is the son of the deceased.
¹⁴⁷ If he dies without issue, his father should inherit his property. Since neither of them can prove that he is the father, they split his estate between them.
¹⁴⁸ The prosecutor cannot prove that he cursed or injured his father.
¹⁴⁹ He is a Cohen for the divine service but has no property rights since he cannot prove his claim if the fathers belong to different watches.


###### Jerusalem Talmud Yevamot 11:7:2
[Jerusalem Talmud Yevamot 11:7:2](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Jerusalem%20Talmud%20Yevamot/r/11:7:2)

**הלכה:** מִי שֶׁלֹּא שָׁהָת אַחַר בַּעֲלָהּ כול׳. הָיוּ שְׁנֵיהֶם כֹּהֲנִים הוּא אוֹנֵן עֲלֵיהֶם כול׳. מַה נָן קַיָימִין. אִם לְאַחַר מִיתָה לֵית יָכִיל. דְּתַנִּינָן. הוּא אוֹנֵן עֲלֵיהֶן וְהֵן אוֹנְנִין עָלָיו. נִיחָא לַשֵּׁינִי אֵינוֹ מִטַּמֵּא. שֶׁאֲנִי אוֹמֵר. בְּנוֹ שֶׁלָּרִאשׁוֹן הוּא. לָרִאשׁוֹן לָמָּה אֵינוֹ מִטַּמֵּא. אֶלָּא בְּשֶׁגֵּירַשּׁ. מַה נַפְשֵׁךְ. בְּנוֹ הוּא יִטַּמֵּא לוֹ. אִם אֵינוֹ בְנוֹ חָלָל הוּא. וּמַה בְכָךְ שֶׁיִּטַּמֵּא. אֶלָּא בְשֶׁאָנַס. לֹא כֵן אָמַר רַבָּא בְשֵׁם אַבָּא בַּר יִרְמְיָה. אֲנוּסָה אֵינָהּ צְרִיכָה לְהַמְתִּין שְׁלֹשָׁה חֳדָשִים. וְסַבְרִנָן מֵימַר כְרַבָּנִן וְהָכָא כְרִבִּי יוֹסֵי אֲנָן קַיָימִין.

**The Jerusalem Talmud, translation and commentary by Heinrich W. Guggenheimer. Berlin, De Gruyter, 1999-2015:**
**HALAKHAH:** “[A woman] did not wait three months,” etc. “If both were Cohanim, he has to mourn intensely for them,” etc. Where do we hold¹⁵⁰? It is impossible after death [of the first] since we have stated: “He has to mourn intensely for them and they¹⁵¹ for him.” One understands that he does not defile himself for the second [husband], I say that he is the son of the first. But why does he not defile himself for the first one? It must be that he divorced. Then, as you take it, if he is his son, he should defile himself for him. If he is not his son, he is desecrated, and what happens if he defiles himself¹⁵²? It must be that he¹⁵³ raped. Did not Rebbi Abba say in the name of Abba bar Jeremiah that a rape victim does not have to wait three months¹⁵⁴? Should we say, following the rabbis, but we follow Rebbi Yose¹⁵⁵!

footnotes:
¹⁵⁰ Under which circumstances did she separate from the first husband?
¹⁵¹ Including the first husband, who then must be alive.
¹⁵² If the second husband married a divorcee, his child is not a Cohen and not under the disabilities of Cohanim.
¹⁵³ The second man is not a husband; then he did not marry a divorcee and his son is a Cohen. The Babli, 100b, expands on the same arguments and concludes that the first might have been a husband who married after an invalid betrothal, whose wife may walk out on him without a divorce.
¹⁵⁴ Chapter 4, Note 166.
¹⁵⁵ The Mishnah follows the opinion that a rape victim does have to wait three months before marrying but practice does not follow this opinion.


###### Jerusalem Talmud Yevamot 11:7:3
[Jerusalem Talmud Yevamot 11:7:3](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Jerusalem%20Talmud%20Yevamot/r/11:7:3)

תַּנֵּי רִבִּי חִיָיה. אוֹנְנִין וּמִיטַּמְּאִין עַל הַסָּפֵק. אָמַר רִבִּי יוֹסֵי. מַתְנִיתָא אָמְרָה כֵן. הוּא אוֹנֵן עֲלֵיהֶן וְהֵן אוֹנְנִין עָלָיו. רִבִּי אַשְׁיָיאן בַּר יָקִים הֲוָה לֵיהּ עוֹבְדָא. שָׁאַל לְרִבִּי יָסָא אֲמַר לֵיהּ. לֵית צְרִיךְ. אָמַר לֵיהּ. וְהָתַנִּינָן. אָמַר רִבִּי חִיָיה. אוֹנְנִין וּמִיטַּמְּאִין עַל הַסָּפֵק. סֵימָנִין הָיוּ נִיכָּרִין. לֹא כֵן אָמְרִין חֲבֵרַיָיא בְשֵׁם רִבִּי יוֹחָנָן. סֵימָנִין בֶּן שְׁמוֹנֶה אֵין עוֹשִׂין מַעֲשֶׂה. סֵימָן הָיָה לוֹ שֶׁבָּעַל וּפֵירַשׁ.

**The Jerusalem Talmud, translation and commentary by Heinrich W. Guggenheimer. Berlin, De Gruyter, 1999-2015:**
Rebbi Ḥiyya stated: One mourns deeply and defiles himself in a case of doubt¹⁵⁶. Rebbi Yose said, the Mishnah says so: “He has to mourn intensely for them and they for him.” Rebbi Ashian bar Yaqim had a case¹⁵⁷. He asked Rebbi Yose, who told him, you do not have to. He said to him, but did not Rebbi Ḥiyya say, one mourns deeply and defiles himself in a case of doubt? His signs were clear¹⁵⁸ 15:7). In the Babli, 80b, complete hair and fingernails prove that the child is a living seven-months’ baby who just lingered in the womb.. But did not the colleagues say in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: One does not act on the signs of an eight months’ child¹⁵⁹? He had a sign that he had intercourse and then separated¹⁶⁰.

footnotes:
¹⁵⁶ From the following it seems that this covers two different kinds of doubt: A doubt of paternity and a doubt whether a child is a stillbirth or not. The second problem arises when a child is born after eight months of pregnancy and does not live for 30 days (cf. Chapter 4, Note 70).
¹⁵⁷ Of an 8-months’ child who did not live.
¹⁵⁸ R. Ḥiyya requires full mourning if the child had hair and fingernails (following Rebbi in Tosephta Sabbath
¹⁵⁹ The signs does not prove that the child is able to live.
¹⁶⁰ The husband went on a trip after having the last intercourse and did not return before the pregnancy was visible, which gives a lower bound for the duration of pregnancy which came to 8 months and 1 day, i. e., 9 months.


###### Jerusalem Talmud Yevamot 11:7:4
[Jerusalem Talmud Yevamot 11:7:4](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Jerusalem%20Talmud%20Yevamot/r/11:7:4)

בֶּן שְׁמוֹנֶה הֲרֵי הוּא כְאֶבֶן וְאֵין מְטַלְטְלִין אוֹתוֹ בַשַּׁבָּת. אֲבָל אִמּוֹ שׁוֹחָה עָלָיו וּמֵינִיקָתוֹ. רִבִּי יוֹסֵי בָּעֵי. אִילֵּין תִּינּוֹקוֹת סְפֵיקוֹת מַהוּ לְחַלֵּל עֲלֵיהֶן אֶת הַשַּׁבָּת. אָמַר רִבִּי יוֹסֵי בֵּירִבִי בּוּן. וְיֵאוּת. מַה נַפְשֵׁךְ. בֶּן תִּשְּׁעָה הוּא יִמּוֹל. בֶּן שְׁמוֹנֶה נַעֲשֶׂה כִמְחַתֵּךְ בָּשָׂר שֶׁלֹּא לְצוֹרֶךְ. רַבָּנִן דְּקַיסָרִין אָמְרֵי. רִבִּי יַעֲקֹב בַּר דֹּסַיי שָׁאַל. מִי אָמַר שֶׁמּוּתָּר לַחְתּוֹךְ בָּשָׂר שֶׁלֹּא לְצוֹרֶךְ.

**The Jerusalem Talmud, translation and commentary by Heinrich W. Guggenheimer. Berlin, De Gruyter, 1999-2015:**
An eight months’ child is like a stone¹⁶¹ 15:5; Babli *Sabbath* 135a, *Yebamot* 80a, *Baba Batra* 20a. He is considered to be dead. and one does not move him on the Sabbath, but his mother lies down beside him and nurses him. Rebbi Yose asked: May one push aside the Sabbath for babies that are in doubt¹⁶² 15:5 was not known to the Yerushalmi since it clearly states: In case of doubt whether it is a seven or an eight months’ child, one does not push aside the Sabbath.? Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Abun said, it is fine. How you take it, if he is a nine months’ child, he must be circumcised. If he is an eight months’ child, it is as if he cut flesh without need. The rabbis of Caesarea said, Rebbi Jacob ben Dositheos¹⁶³ asked, who permitted to cut flesh without need¹⁶⁴ 136a, in the name of R. Ada bar Ahava, follows R. Yose bar Abun here and explains the Tosephta (Note 162) that one may not push aside the Sabbath if one forgot to bring the necessary implements and would have to carry them in the public domain on the Sabbath.?

footnotes:
¹⁶¹ Tosephta Sabbath
¹⁶² May a child which possibly may be an eight-months’ child be circumcised on the Sabbath if he was born on the Sabbath? It is clear that the Toseptha Sabbath
¹⁶³ It seems that he was an Amora of the fourth generation. In other sources, he is called בן דוסאי, בן דוֹסתאי.
¹⁶⁴ They answer the question in the negative; one has to wait until after the Sabbath. It is clear from the next paragraph that one has to wait 30 days to circumcise an eight months’ baby. The Babli, Sabbath


###### Jerusalem Talmud Yevamot 11:7:5
[Jerusalem Talmud Yevamot 11:7:5](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Jerusalem%20Talmud%20Yevamot/r/11:7:5)

תַּנֵּי. רַבָּן שִׁמְעוֹן בֶּן גַּמְלִיאֵל אָמַר. כָּל הַמִּתְקַיֵים בָּאָדָם שְׁלֹשִׁים יוֹם אֵינוֹ נֶפֶל. וּפְדוּיָיו מִבֶּן חוֹדֶשׁ תִּפְדֶּה. וּבְהֵמָה שְׁמוֹנָה יָמִים אֵין זֶה נֶפֶל. וּמִיּוֹם הַשְּׁמִינִי וְהָלְאָה יֵרָצֶה לְקָרְבַּן אִשֶּׁה לַיי. תַּמָּן אָמְרֵי בְשֵׁם שְׁמוּאֵל. הֲלָכָה כְרַבָּן שִׁמְעוֹן בֶּן גַּמְלִיאֵל. אָמַר רִבִּי בָּא. מַה פְלִיגִין. בְּשֶׁלֹּא נוֹלַד לֶחֳדָשָׁיו. אֲבָל אִם נוֹלַד לְחֳדָשָׁיו אַף רַבָּן שִׁמְעוֹן בֶּן גַּמְלִיאֵל מוֹדֶה.

**The Jerusalem Talmud, translation and commentary by Heinrich W. Guggenheimer. Berlin, De Gruyter, 1999-2015:**
It was stated¹⁶⁵ 15:7; Babli *Sabbath* 135a.: Rebbi Simeon ben Gamliel says, any human who lives for thirty days is not a still birth, “all redeemed you shall redeem at the age of one month¹⁶⁶. 18:16.;” and an animal which lives for eight days is not a still birth, “from the eighth day and further it will be welcome as a sacrifice, a gift to the Eternal¹⁶⁷. 22:27..” There¹⁶⁸ 136a. The rabbis hold that any child born alive frees his mother from levirate and *ḥalîṣah*., they say that practice follows Rabban Simeon ben Gamliel. Rebbi Abba said, where do they disagree? If he was not born in his months¹⁶⁹. But if he was born in his months, even Rabban Simeon ben Gamliel will agree.

footnotes:
¹⁶⁵ Tosephta Sabbath
¹⁶⁶ Num
¹⁶⁷ Lev
¹⁶⁸ Babli Sabbath
¹⁶⁹ 7 or 9 months. The disagreement is only about an 8 months’ child which does not have hair and fingernails. The Babli agrees.


###### Jerusalem Talmud Yevamot 11:7:6
[Jerusalem Talmud Yevamot 11:7:6](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Jerusalem%20Talmud%20Yevamot/r/11:7:6)

הִכָּה אֶת זֶה וְחָזַר וְהִיכָּה אֶת זֶה. קִילֵּל אֶת זֶה וְחָזַר וְקִילֵּל אֶת זֶה פָּטוּר. רִבִּי חֲנַנְיָא בָּעֵי. לֵית הָדָא פְלִיגָי עַל רִבִּי יוֹחָנָן. דְּאִיתְפַּלְּגוֹן בִּשְׁנֵי יָמִים טוֹבִים שֶׁלַּגָּלִיּוֹת. רִבִּי יוֹחָנָן אָמַר. מְקַבְּלִין הַתְרָיָיה עַל הַסָּפֵק. רִבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן בֶּן לָקִישׁ אָמַר. אֵין מְקַבְּלִין הַתְרָיָיה עַל הַסָּפֵק. אָמַר רִבִּי חֲנִינָא אָמַר רִבִּי. לֵית הִיא פְלִיגָא. תַּמָּן אֶיפְשַׁר לָךְ לַעֲמוֹד עָלָיו. בְּרַם הָכָא אֵי אֶיפְשַׁר לָךְ לַעֲמוֹד עָלָיו.

**The Jerusalem Talmud, translation and commentary by Heinrich W. Guggenheimer. Berlin, De Gruyter, 1999-2015:**
“If he injured one and then injured the other, or cursed one and then cursed the other, he cannot be prosecuted.”¹⁷⁰ 16a, *Ḥulin* 82b, 91a. Rebbi Ḥanania asked, does that not disagree with Rebbi Joḥanan? Since they disagree about the second day of holidays in the diaspora. Rebbi Joḥanan said, one accepts forwarning in a case of doubt, Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish said, one does not accept forwarning in a case of doubt¹⁷¹ 5:4 (fol. 32c), *Nazir* 8:1 (fol. 57a); derived from the point of view of R. Jehudah in Babli *Makkot* 16a.. Rebbi Ḥanina said in the name of Rebbi, there is no disagreement. There, it would have been possible to make a determination, here it is impossible to make the determination.

footnotes:
¹⁷⁰ Tosephta 12:7; Babli 101a, Makkot
¹⁷¹ The argument is presented in detail in Pesaḥim


###### Jerusalem Talmud Yevamot 11:7:7
[Jerusalem Talmud Yevamot 11:7:7](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Jerusalem%20Talmud%20Yevamot/r/11:7:7)

הִיכָּה שְׁנֵיהֶן כְּאַחַת קִילֵּל שְׁנֵיהֶן כְּאַחַת חַיָיב. רִבִּי יוּדָה פוֹטֵר. רִבִּי יוֹחָנָן בָּעֵי. מִחְלְפָה שִׁיטָּתֵיהּ דְּרִבִּי יוּדָה. דִּתְנָן תַּמָּן. אָכַל מִזֶּה כְזַיִת וּמִזֶּה כְזַיִת סוֹפֵג שְׁמוֹנִים. רִבִּי יוּדָה אָמַר. אֵינוֹ סוֹפֵג אֶלָּא אַרְבָּעִים. אָמַר רִבִּי קְרוּסְפִּי. אֵינָהּ מוּחְלֶפֶת. תַּמָּן עִיקָּר לָאוִין סָפֵק הָיָה. בְּרַם הָכָא וַודַּאי הָיָה וְנִסְתַּפֵּק לוֹ. רִבִּי יוּדָה בָּעֵי. מֵעַתָּה נְבֵילָה שֶׁבִּיטְּלָהּ בִּשְׁחִיטָה. מֵאַחַר שֶׁוַודַּאי הָיָה וְנִסְתַּפֵּק לוֹ אָכַל מִמֶּנָּה יְהֵא פָטוּר. אָמַר רִבִּי יוֹסֵי. מוֹדֶה רִבִּי יוּדָה בִשְׁאָר כָּל הַסְּפֵיקוֹת שֶׁהוּא פָטוּר. בְּרַם הָכָא קִרְיֵי דָרַשׁ רִבִּי יוּדָה. אָבִיו וַודַּאי וְלֹא הַסָּפֵק. אִמּוֹ וַודַּאי וְלֹא הַסָּפֵק.

**The Jerusalem Talmud, translation and commentary by Heinrich W. Guggenheimer. Berlin, De Gruyter, 1999-2015:**
“If he injured both of them at the same time or cursed them at the same time, he is guilty. Rebbi Jehudah frees him.”¹⁷², and Babli 101a. Rebbi Joḥanan asked: Is not the argument of Rebbi Jehudah inverted? As we have stated there: ¹⁷³ 7:3, speaking of the sinew of the hip which is forbidden as food (*Gen*. 32:33). He ate from both sides but did not know which piece was from what side. For the majority it makes no difference since the sinews on both sides are forbidden. For R. Jehudah, the singular used in the verse, “the sinew of the hip” implies that only one is forbidden; in the opinion of the Babli this must be the one on the right hand side. The Yerushalmi must hold that R. Jehudah holds that clearly one of the two sinews is forbidden but it is not decided which one it is. R. Jehudah holds that since he certainly ate a piece of the forbidden sinew, he is guilty. Then the question is why should the eater be prosecutable when the prosecution could not show which piece was the forbidden one?“If he ate the volume of an olive of one of them and the volume of an olive of the other, he absorbs eighty [lashes]; Rebbi Jehudah says, he absorbs only forty [lashes].” Rebbi Crispus said, it is not inverted. There, it was in doubt what is forbidden. Here, it was certain¹⁷⁴ but it became doubtful for him. Rebbi Judan asked: If it is so, in case carcass meat was mixed up with slaughtered meat, since it was certain but became doubtful for him, should he be free if he ate it¹⁷⁵? Rebbi Yose said, Rebbi Jehudah agrees for all other prohibitions that he is (free)¹⁷⁶. But here, Rebbi Jehudah is interpreting verses: “His father,” certain but not uncertain, “his mother”, certain but not uncertain¹⁷⁷ 9(8), on *Lev*. 20:9..

footnotes:
¹⁷² In the Babylonian tradition, the position of R. Jehudah is uncertain; cf. Tosephta 12:7, readings of Erfurt ms. and editio princeps
¹⁷³ Mishnah Ḥulin
¹⁷⁴ If his mother had waited the prescribed three months, there never would have been any problem.
¹⁷⁵ Would R. Jehudah hold that a person who ate all of a portion of meat, of which it was known that it contained both kosher and non-kosher meat, could not be held responsible and would not have to bring a purification sacrifice?
¹⁷⁶ One has to read “guilty”. The text here is an erroneous copy from Halakhah 1 (Note 61).
¹⁷⁷ Sifra Qedošim Pereq


###### Jerusalem Talmud Yevamot 11:7:8
[Jerusalem Talmud Yevamot 11:7:8](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Jerusalem%20Talmud%20Yevamot/r/11:7:8)

וְעוֹלֶה בְמִשְׁמָרוֹ שֶׁלָּּזֶה וְשֶׁלָּזֶה. לֹא יַעֲלֶה. רִבִּי אָחָא רִבִּי חִינְנָא בְשֵׁם רִבִּי יָסָא. מִפְּנֵי פְגַם הַמִּשְׁפָּחָה.

**The Jerusalem Talmud, translation and commentary by Heinrich W. Guggenheimer. Berlin, De Gruyter, 1999-2015:**
“He may serve in the watch of either one”. He should not serve¹⁷⁸. Rebbi Aḥa, Rebbi Ḥinena in the name of Rebbi Yasa, because of the damage to the family¹⁷⁹.

footnotes:
¹⁷⁸ Why cannot each watch tell him that he does not belong?
¹⁷⁹ If it were known that a certain Cohen was not accepted for service in the Temple, nobody would marry any daughter of that family


###### Jerusalem Talmud Yevamot 11:7:9
[Jerusalem Talmud Yevamot 11:7:9](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Jerusalem%20Talmud%20Yevamot/r/11:7:9)

תַּנֵּי. וְהֵן שֶׁיְּהוּ שְׁנֵיהֶן בֵּית אַב אֶחָד.

**The Jerusalem Talmud, translation and commentary by Heinrich W. Guggenheimer. Berlin, De Gruyter, 1999-2015:**
It was stated: Only if they both belong to the same clan¹⁸⁰.

footnotes:
¹⁸⁰ This refers to the last statement in the Mishnah, that the son may receive part of the sacrifices if both putative fathers belonged to the same watch. Since each watch was divided into six clans of which one each was serving one day and received all the gifts of that day, he may receive a share only if the fathers belonged to the same clan. Only on the Sabbath they all served together but received no gifts.The Babli, 101a, agrees to this ruling.