## Sanhedrin Daf 53b

###### Sanhedrin 53b:1
[Sanhedrin 53b:1](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Sanhedrin/r/53b:1)

אִיסּוּר מִצְוָה – שְׁנִיּוֹת מִדִּבְרֵי סוֹפְרִים. וְאַמַּאי קָרוּ לְהוּ אִיסּוּר מִצְוָה? שֶׁמִּצְוָה לִשְׁמוֹעַ דִּבְרֵי חֲכָמִים.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The mishna explains: **A prohibition** resulting from **a mitzva** is referring to **secondary** forbidden **relatives,** e.g., one’s son’s daughter-in-law, who are forbidden **by rabbinic law.** The Sages instituted this prohibition in order to distance people from incest. The Gemara explains: **And why do** the Sages **call it a prohibition** resulting from **a mitzva? Because it is a mitzva to listen to the words of the Sages.**


###### Sanhedrin 53b:2
[Sanhedrin 53b:2](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Sanhedrin/r/53b:2)

אִיסּוּר קְדוּשָּׁה – אַלְמָנָה לְכֹהֵן גָּדוֹל, גְּרוּשָׁה וַחֲלוּצָה לְכֹהֵן הֶדְיוֹט. וְאַמַּאי קָרוּ לְהוּ אִיסּוּר קְדוּשָּׁה? דִּכְתִיב: ״קְדֹשִׁים יִהְיוּ לֵאלֹהֵיהֶם״.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The mishna continues: **A prohibition** stemming from **sanctity** is referring to the marriage of **a widow to a High Priest,** or to the marriage of **a divorcée or** of **a woman who has performed *ḥalitza* [*ḥalutza*], to an ordinary priest.** The Gemara explains: **And why do** the Sages **call it a prohibition** stemming from **sanctity? As it is written** with regard to the priests: **“They shall be sanctified to their God”** (Leviticus 21:6).


###### Sanhedrin 53b:3
[Sanhedrin 53b:3](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Sanhedrin/r/53b:3)

וְתַנְיָא עֲלַהּ: רַבִּי יְהוּדָה מַחְלִיף.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**And it is taught** in a *baraita* **with regard to** this mishna: **Rabbi Yehuda switches** the terms; he refers to the marriage of a divorcée or of a *ḥalutza* to a priest as a prohibition resulting from a mitzva, and to the marriage of secondary relatives as a prohibition stemming from sanctity.


###### Sanhedrin 53b:4
[Sanhedrin 53b:4](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Sanhedrin/r/53b:4)

חַלּוֹפֵי הוּא דְּמַחְלֵיף, הָא חֲלִיצָה בָּעֲיָא. וְאִי סָלְקָא דַּעְתָּךְ רַבִּי יְהוּדָה כְּרַבִּי עֲקִיבָא סְבִירָא לֵיהּ, מִכְּדִי חַיָּיבֵי לָאוִין לְרַבִּי עֲקִיבָא כְּחַיָּיבֵי כָרֵיתוֹת דְּמֵי, וְחַיָּיבֵי כָרֵיתוֹת לָאו בְּנֵי חֲלִיצָה וְיִבּוּם נִינְהוּ!

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara infers: **He switches** the terms but does not dispute the *halakha*; **but** even Rabbi Yehuda agrees that if a priest marries a *ḥalutza* and then dies, **she requires *ḥalitza*. And if it enters your mind** that **Rabbi Yehuda holds in accordance with** the opinion of **Rabbi Akiva,** this poses a difficulty; **after all,** those **liable for** violating **prohibitions, according to** the opinion of **Rabbi Akiva, are considered like those liable to** receive ***karet*, and those liable to** receive ***karet* are not capable of** performing ***ḥalitza* and levirate marriage,** as the mitzva of levirate marriage does not apply to such relationships.


###### Sanhedrin 53b:5
[Sanhedrin 53b:5](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Sanhedrin/r/53b:5)

לִדְבָרָיו דְּתַנָּא קַמָּא קָאָמַר, וְלֵיהּ לָא סְבִירָא לֵיהּ.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara resolves the difficulty: Rabbi Yehuda does hold in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Akiva, and as for his comment with regard to the definitions of a prohibition resulting from a mitzva and a prohibition stemming from sanctity, he merely **stated** his opinion **in accordance with the statement of the first *tanna*; but he himself does not hold accordingly.**


###### Sanhedrin 53b:6
[Sanhedrin 53b:6](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Sanhedrin/r/53b:6)

כִּי אֲתָא רַבִּי יִצְחָק, תָּנֵי כְּדִתְנַן: רַבִּי יְהוּדָה אוֹמֵר, אֵינוֹ חַיָּיב אֶלָּא מִשּׁוּם הָאֵם בִּלְבַד.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
§ **When Rav Yitzḥak came** from Eretz Yisrael to Babylonia, **he taught** a *baraita* **as we learned** in the mishna: **Rabbi Yehuda says:** One who engages in intercourse with his mother who is also his father’s wife **is liable** to bring **only** one sin-offering, **due to the** fact that she is his **mother,** whether or not her marriage to his father was legitimate.


###### Sanhedrin 53b:7
[Sanhedrin 53b:7](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Sanhedrin/r/53b:7)

וְטַעְמָא מַאי? אָמַר אַבָּיֵי: דְּאָמַר קְרָא ״אִמְּךָ הִיא״. מִשּׁוּם אִמּוֹ אַתָּה מְחַיְּיבוֹ, וְאִי אַתָּה מְחַיְּיבוֹ מִשּׁוּם אֵשֶׁת אָב.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara asks: **And what is the reason** for this? **Abaye says:** It is **because the verse states:** “The nakedness of your father and the nakedness of your mother you shall not uncover: **She is your mother;** you shall not uncover her nakedness” (Leviticus 18:7). Rabbi Yehuda derives from this verse that **you shall render him liable due to** the fact that she is **his mother, but you shall not render him liable** to bring another sin-offering **due to** the fact that she is his **father’s wife.**


###### Sanhedrin 53b:8
[Sanhedrin 53b:8](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Sanhedrin/r/53b:8)

אֶלָּא מֵעַתָּה, ״עֶרְוַת אֵשֶׁת אָבִיךָ לֹא תְגַלֵּה עֶרְוַת אָבִיךָ הִיא״, מִשּׁוּם אֵשֶׁת אָב אַתָּה מְחַיְּיבוֹ, וְאִי אַתָּה מְחַיְּיבוֹ מִשּׁוּם אִמּוֹ?

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara asks: **If that is so,** it should be derived from the verse: **“The nakedness of your father’s wife you shall not uncover; it is your father’s nakedness”** (Leviticus 18:8), that **you shall render him liable due to** the fact that she is his **father’s wife, but you shall not render him liable due to** the fact that she is **his mother.**


###### Sanhedrin 53b:9
[Sanhedrin 53b:9](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Sanhedrin/r/53b:9)

אֶלָּא אִמּוֹ שֶׁהִיא אֵשֶׁת אָבִיו, קָאֵי הָכָא וּמְמַעֵט לַהּ, קָאֵי הָכָא וּמְמַעֵט לַהּ. הַשְׁתָּא, אִמּוֹ שֶׁאֵינָהּ אֵשֶׁת אָבִיו – מִיחַיַּיב, אֵשֶׁת אָבִיו שֶׁאֵינָהּ אִמּוֹ – מִיחַיַּיב, אִמּוֹ שֶׁהִיא אֵשֶׁת אָבִיו – לָא מִיחַיַּיב כְּלָל?

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**But** if so, with regard to one’s **mother who is his father’s wife,** it is found that the verse **stands,** i.e., is written, **here,** with regard to intercourse with one’s mother, **and excludes** liability due to the fact that she is his father’s wife, and **stands there,** with regard to intercourse with one’s father’s wife, **and excludes** liability due to the fact that she is his mother. The result **now** is that for **his mother who is not his father’s wife he is rendered liable,** and for **his father’s wife who is not his mother he is rendered liable,** but for **his mother who is his father’s wife he is not rendered liable at all,** which seems absurd.


###### Sanhedrin 53b:10
[Sanhedrin 53b:10](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Sanhedrin/r/53b:10)

וְתוּ, לְרַבָּנַן נָמֵי, הָכְתִיב ״אִמְּךָ הִיא״? אֶלָּא, הָהוּא מִיבְּעֵי לֵיהּ לְכִדְרַב שִׁישָׁא בְּרֵיהּ דְּרַב אִידִי. לְרַבִּי יְהוּדָה נָמֵי, הָהוּא מִיבְּעֵי לֵיהּ לְכִדְרַב שִׁישָׁא בְּרֵיהּ דְּרַב אִידִי.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**And furthermore, according to the Rabbis too,** who disagree with Rabbi Yehuda and hold that one who engages in intercourse with his mother who is married to his father is liable to bring two sin-offerings, **isn’t** the verse: **“She is your mother,” written;** i.e., how do they explain this verse? **Rather, that** phrase is **necessary for** the *halakha* derived from it by **Rav Sheisha, son of Rav Idi,** as the Gemara will soon explain (54a). Therefore, **according to Rabbi Yehuda as well, that** phrase is **necessary for** the *halakha* derived by **Rav Sheisha, son of Rav Idi,** and Rabbi Yehuda’s opinion in the mishna cannot be derived from it.


###### Sanhedrin 53b:11
[Sanhedrin 53b:11](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Sanhedrin/r/53b:11)

אֶלָּא אָמַר רַב אַחָא בְּרֵיהּ דְּרַב אִיקָא: אָמַר קְרָא ״עֶרְוָתָהּ״, מִשּׁוּם עֶרְוָה אַחַת אַתָּה מְחַיְּיבוֹ, וְאִי אַתָּה מְחַיְּיבוֹ מִשּׁוּם שְׁתֵּי עֲרָיוֹת.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**Rather, Rav Aḥa, son of Rav Ika, says** that there is a different source for Rabbi Yehuda’s opinion: **The verse states:** “You shall not uncover **her nakedness [*ervatah*],”** in the singular form, from which it is derived that **you shall render him liable for one forbidden sexual relationship [*erva*], but you shall not render him liable for two** types of **forbidden sexual relationships.**


###### Sanhedrin 53b:12
[Sanhedrin 53b:12](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Sanhedrin/r/53b:12)

אֶלָּא מֵעַתָּה: ״עֶרְוַת כַּלָּתְךָ לֹא תְגַלֵּה אֵשֶׁת בִּנְךָ הִיא לֹא תְגַלֶּה עֶרְוָתָהּ״ – הָכִי נָמֵי מִשּׁוּם עֶרְוָה אַחַת אַתָּה מְחַיְּיבוֹ וְאִי אַתָּה מְחַיְּיבוֹ מִשּׁוּם שְׁתֵּי עֲרָיוֹת?

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara asks: **If that is so,** then from the verse: **“You shall not uncover the nakedness of your daughter-in-law; she is your son’s wife, you shall not uncover her nakedness”** (Leviticus 18:15), should it **also** be derived that **you shall render him liable for one forbidden sexual relationship, but you shall not render him liable for two** types of **forbidden sexual relationships?**


###### Sanhedrin 53b:13
[Sanhedrin 53b:13](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Sanhedrin/r/53b:13)

וְהָתְנַן: הַבָּא עַל כַּלָּתוֹ חַיָּיב עָלֶיהָ מִשּׁוּם כַּלָּתוֹ וּמִשּׁוּם אֵשֶׁת אִישׁ, בֵּין בְּחַיֵּי בְנוֹ בֵּין לְאַחַר מִיתַת בְּנוֹ, וְלָא פְּלִיג רַבִּי יְהוּדָה.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**But didn’t we learn** in the mishna: **One who engages in intercourse with his daughter-in-law** is **liable** to bring two sin-offerings **for** his intercourse with **her:** One **due to** the prohibition against engaging in intercourse with one’s **daughter-in-law, and** one **due to** the prohibition against engaging in intercourse with **a married woman;** the former liability applies **both during his son’s lifetime and after his son’s death. And Rabbi Yehuda does not dispute** this *halakha*.


###### Sanhedrin 53b:14
[Sanhedrin 53b:14](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Sanhedrin/r/53b:14)

אֶלָּא, כֵּיוָן דְּחַד גּוּפָא הוּא, אַף עַל גַּב דִּתְרֵי אִיסּוּרֵי נִינְהוּ, כְּתִיב ״עֶרְוָתָהּ״. הָכָא נָמֵי, כֵּיוָן דְּחַד גּוּפָא הוּא, אַף עַל גַּב דִּתְרֵי אִיסּוּרֵי נִינְהוּ, כְּתִיב ״עֶרְוָתָהּ״.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**Rather,** it must be explained that **since** the daughter-in-law has **one body, although** engaging in intercourse with her involves **two prohibitions,** the term **“her nakedness [*ervatah*],”** in the singular, **is written. Here too,** with regard to one’s father’s wife, **since** she has **one body, although** there **are two prohibitions,** the term **“her nakedness [*ervatah*]” is written.**


###### Sanhedrin 53b:15
[Sanhedrin 53b:15](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Sanhedrin/r/53b:15)

אֶלָּא אָמַר רָבָא: קָסָבַר רַבִּי יְהוּדָה ״עֶרְוַת אָבִיךָ״ – זוֹ אֵשֶׁת אָבִיךָ, וּמַיְיתֵי לַהּ בִּגְזֵירָה שָׁוָה.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**Rather, Rava says** that there is an alternative source for Rabbi Yehuda’s opinion: **Rabbi Yehuda holds** that concerning the meaning of the phrase **“the nakedness of your father,” this is** referring to **your father’s wife. And he derives** this interpretation **by means of a verbal analogy** from the verse: “And the man who lies with his father’s wife, he has uncovered his father’s nakedness” (Leviticus 20:11).


###### Sanhedrin 53b:16
[Sanhedrin 53b:16](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Sanhedrin/r/53b:16)

וּמַשְׁמַע, בֵּין אֵשֶׁת אָבִיו שֶׁהִיא אִמּוֹ בֵּין אֵשֶׁת אָבִיו שֶׁאֵינָהּ אִמּוֹ. אִמּוֹ שֶׁאֵינָהּ אֵשֶׁת אָבִיו מִנַּיִין? תַּלְמוּד לוֹמַר: ״עֶרְוַת אִמְּךָ לֹא תְגַלֵּה אִמְּךָ הִיא״. מִשּׁוּם אִמּוֹ אַתָּה מְחַיְּיבוֹ, וְאִי אַתָּה מְחַיְּיבוֹ מִשּׁוּם אֵשֶׁת אָבִיו.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**And** the Torah **indicates** that she is forbidden **whether** she is **his father’s wife who is his mother** or **whether** she is **his father’s wife who is not his mother. From where** is it derived that one who engages in intercourse with **his mother who is not his father’s wife** is liable? **The verse states** subsequently: **“The nakedness of your mother you shall not uncover.”** And from the ensuing phrase: **“She is your mother,”** it is derived that in a case where his mother is also his father’s wife, **you shall render him liable due to** the fact that she is **his mother, but you shall not render him liable due to** the fact that she is **his father’s wife.**