Keritot 14b (יד:) — the Talmud in English

Gemara:

And we raised an objection:

But does Rabbi Meir not hold

that

one prohibition can take effect upon another prohibition

as we established above, that he holds that a prohibition takes effect upon another prohibition only in the case of an inclusive prohibition or an augmenting prohibition? If so, how is it possible for several prohibitions to apply to one woman?

And we answer:

Although he does not hold that one prohibition takes effect upon another prohibition,

nevertheless,

an augmenting prohibition and a prohibition

that takes effect

simultaneously, he does hold.

How so?

For example,

Reuben

had relations with his mother and she gave birth

to

a daughter,

Dinah.

The prohibitions of his daughter and his sister took effect simultaneously,

and both prohibitions that arose at the same time take effect.

Dinah married

Dinah

to

Shimon, who was

his brother,

Reuben’s brother [paternally, for if he were his maternal brother, she would already be forbidden to him because she would be his maternal sister, and betrothal would not take effect with her; consequently, she would not be considered his brother’s wife with respect to Reuben].

Since there was an addition

to her prohibitions now,

the prohibition

of a brother’s wife

with regard to the brothers

other than Shimon,

there was also an addition

of this

prohibition with regard to him,

Reuben, since this is an augmenting prohibition [and likewise with regard to all the cases listed later in the Mishna].

Shimon died, or divorced her, and

she married

afterward

to

Esav, who was

his paternal uncle

Reuben’s paternal uncle.

Since there was an addition

now

of the prohibition

of a paternal uncle’s wife

with regard to the other sons of his paternal uncle,

as Esav had a third brother [in addition to Reuben’s father], and she now became forbidden to that brother’s sons as a paternal uncle’s wife,

there was also an addition

of this prohibition

with regard to him. [According to the version of the Shita Mekubetzet; see the Arukh LaNer and the Rashash.]

Afterward, she married another man.

She thereby became a married woman; since there was an addition

now

of the prohibition

of a married woman

with regard to everyone, there was also an addition with regard to him [and likewise one may explain that she married only the paternal uncle, and through this marriage the prohibitions of a paternal uncle’s wife and of a married woman were added to her simultaneously; see the Arukh LaNer].

She thereby became a menstruant,

having begun menstruating.

Since there was an addition of the prohibition

of menstruation

with regard to her husband, there was also an addition with regard to him.

Mishna:

One who has relations with his daughter’s daughter

may be liable for seven sin-offerings. How so?

a. Jacob had relations with Hannah, who was the daughter of his daughter Dinah.

He is liable for her on account of his daughter’s daughter.

b.

And his daughter-in-law:

Reuben, Jacob’s son, married Hannah [who was permitted to him, since she was his maternal aunt’s daughter]. Jacob is also liable for having relations with her on account of his daughter-in-law. This is an augmenting prohibition, because through Reuben’s marriage Hannah became forbidden to all of Reuben’s brothers as their brother’s wife; and since the prohibition of a brother’s wife was added with regard to them, the prohibition of a daughter-in-law was likewise added with regard to Jacob. [This is called an augmenting prohibition involving two different names, and from here the Tosafot in Yevamot 32b, s.v. issur, proved that even in such a case it is considered an augmenting prohibition.]

c.

And his wife’s sister:

Jacob was married to Penina, who was the daughter of his son-in-law [Dinah’s husband] from another woman, and she was permitted to Jacob. When Hannah was born, two prohibitions took effect with regard to her and Jacob simultaneously: She was his daughter’s daughter and his wife’s paternal sister, since both were daughters of the same father, Jacob’s son-in-law [and it is likewise possible that this is an inclusive prohibition; see Tosafot, s.v. ve’ahot].

d.

And his brother’s wife:

Afterward, Esav, Jacob’s brother, married Hannah, and she thereby became forbidden to Jacob as his brother’s wife. This prohibition, as well as all the prohibitions listed below, is an augmenting prohibition, as explained in the preceding Mishna.

e.

And his paternal uncle’s wife:

Afterward, Yishmael, the brother of Yitzhak, Jacob’s father, married her, and she became forbidden to Jacob as his paternal uncle’s wife.

f.

And a married woman.

g.

And a menstruant:

all as above.

Rabbi Yosei says:

At times it is possible that Jacob will be liable for an additional sin-offering,

if

afterward

the elder transgressed:

Yitzhak, Jacob’s father, transgressed a rabbinic prohibition

and married

Hannah.

Jacob is liable for her

Jacob

on account of a father’s wife,

and the Gemara will explain which rabbinic prohibition Yitzhak transgressed and how this was an augmenting prohibition with regard to Jacob.

And likewise, one who has relations with his wife’s daughter

may be liable for the same sin-offerings for which one who has relations with his daughter’s daughter is liable. For example, she may also be his daughter-in-law [if his son married her [from another woman], and she is permitted to him, since they are not related to one another], and also his wife’s sister [for example, his wife’s father had relations with his wife and she gave birth to a daughter, who is therefore both his wife’s daughter and his wife’s sister], as well as all those listed above, according to Rashi. [Some explain that this refers back to the preceding Mishna: One who has relations with his wife’s daughter may be liable for all the sin-offerings, as in the case of his daughter; see the Rav of Bartenura.]

And

likewise it is possible that one who has relations

with his wife’s daughter’s daughter

will be liable for all the sin-offerings for which one who has relations with his daughter’s daughter is liable [as she is also his daughter-in-law and his wife’s sister: His wife’s father had relations with his wife, and the daughter born from that union is his wife’s daughter’s daughter as well as his wife’s sister], and likewise in all the other cases.

Gemara:

And we raised an objection:

It teaches:

Rabbi Yosei says: If the elder transgressed and married her,

Jacob is liable

Jacob

for her on account of a father’s wife.

But

was she permitted to him?

To Yitzhak? For earlier we learned that Yishmael, Jacob’s paternal uncle, married her, and she was therefore Yitzhak’s brother’s wife. Yitzhak’s betrothal could not take effect with her, and consequently she was not forbidden to Jacob as a father’s wife.

And we answer:

Rabbi Yohanan said: For example, she had fallen to him

to Yitzhak

for levirate marriage,

since Yishmael, who had previously been married to her, died childless, and Yitzhak performed levirate marriage with her.

And we challenge this:

If so, what

did “the elder transgress”

mean, as it is taught in the Mishna? What rabbinic prohibition did Yitzhak transgress through this marriage? [One cannot challenge that she was Yitzhak’s daughter-in-law, as the former wife of Esav, for one can answer that Esav was not Yitzhak’s son; rather, Esav and Jacob were maternal brothers only, according to Rashi.]

And we answer:

Rabbi Yaakov said: He transgressed on account of his son’s daughter-in-law,

for she was the daughter-in-law of Jacob, his son, and she was forbidden to Yitzhak by the prohibition of a

“second.”

That is, she was one of the forbidden relationships prohibited by rabbinic decree, called “secondary forbidden relationships.” Even where there is a mitzva of levirate marriage, one does not perform levirate marriage with a woman who is forbidden by rabbinic decree; rather, she undergoes halitza [and likewise he transgressed with regard to her on account of his son’s daughter’s daughter, since she was Jacob’s daughter’s daughter, but that too is a rabbinic prohibition, and the Gemara mentions only one of the two].

As it was taught in a beraita: A daughter-in-law

is an erva

by Torah law.

A son’s daughter-in-law

is a secondary forbidden relationship,

forbidden by rabbinic decree.

And likewise you find

a rabbinic prohibition of an erva

with regard to a

daughter-in-law

of a grandson and with regard to a

daughter-in-law

of a great-grandson, until the end of all generations.

And we challenge the statement that Rabbi Yosei adds this prohibition, as well as all the sin-offerings in the Mishna, with regard to which Rabbi Yosei agrees:

Does Rabbi Yosei indeed hold that one prohibition takes effect upon another prohibition?!

But we learned in a Mishna: If one transgressed a prohibition carrying two court-imposed death penalties,

for example, he had relations with his mother-in-law, for which he is liable to burning, and she was also a married woman, for which he is liable to strangulation,

he is judged with the more severe

penalty, burning, which is more severe than strangulation.

Rabbi Yosei says: He is judged according to the first connection,

the prohibition that took effect upon him first and to which he first became obligated to pay attention. He is liable only for that prohibition, even if its punishment is less severe than that of the second, since one prohibition does not take effect upon another, and the second prohibition did not take effect upon him at all.

How so? She was initially

his mother-in-law,

for he married her daughter when she was a widow,

and she became

afterward

a married woman; he is judged on account of his mother-in-law.

But if she was initially

a married woman

and afterward he married her daughter,

and she became his mother-in-law, he is judged on account of a married woman,

even though its punishment is strangulation, which is less severe than burning.

It follows that Rabbi Yosei does not hold that one prohibition takes effect upon another. How, then, does he say in our Mishna that one may be liable for many sin-offerings?

We answer:

Rabbi Abbahu said: Rabbi Yosei concedes with regard to an augmenting prohibition

that it takes effect upon a previous prohibition;

and likewise, when Ravin came, he said

in the name of

Rabbi Yohanan: Rabbi Yosei concedes with regard to an augmenting prohibition,

and likewise with regard to an inclusive prohibition and a prohibition that takes effect simultaneously. Therefore, he concedes with regard to all the sin-offerings in the Mishna [indeed, in the case of his mother-in-law who became a married woman, the prohibition of a married woman is an augmenting prohibition; nevertheless, he is judged on account of his mother-in-law because its punishment is the more severe].

And we explain:

What augmenting prohibition is there here

when the elder transgressed and married her? For example,

the grandfather has a son

Yitzhak’s

since the prohibition

of a father’s wife

was added with regard to his son,

that son,

this

prohibition

was also added with regard to him,

Jacob. [The Shita Mekubetzet, letter yod, asks: She was already forbidden to that son because she was his paternal uncle’s wife, as she had been married to Yitzhak’s brother. How, then, could the prohibition of a father’s wife take effect with regard to him? It answers that “the grandfather” means Yitzhak’s father, who had a son who was Yitzhak’s brother. She became forbidden to him now as a brother’s wife, after Yitzhak performed levirate marriage with her; and since the prohibition of a brother’s wife was added with regard to him, the prohibition of a father’s wife was likewise added with regard to Jacob. This is an augmenting prohibition involving two different names.]

Mishna:

One who has relations with his mother-in-law

may be liable for seven sin-offerings. How so?

a. Jacob and his son Reuben married a mother and her daughter. Jacob first married the daughter, Dinah, and afterward Reuben married Leah, the mother. Jacob had relations with Leah, and therefore he is

liable for her on account of his mother-in-law,

since she is the mother of his wife, Dinah.

b.

And his daughter-in-law

since she is the wife of his son Reuven.

c.

And his brother’s wife

if Reuven died or divorced Leah and Esau married her, she is forbidden to Yaakov because she is his brother’s wife; and this constitutes an issur mosif, as explained above.

d.

And his father’s brother’s wife

whom Yishmael, his father’s brother, subsequently married.

e.

And his wife’s sister

when Yaakov married Rachel, Leah’s sister [and she is permitted to him, as there is no prohibition against marrying his mother-in-law’s sister or his daughter-in-law’s sister], and thereby, with regard to Yaakov, the prohibition of a wife’s sister was added to the prohibition applying to Leah. This is an issur kolel, since through these marriages all Rachel’s sisters became forbidden to Yaakov under the prohibition of a wife’s sister; consequently, this prohibition was also added in Leah’s case.

f.

And a married woman.

g.

And a menstruating woman. And likewise, one who has relations with his father-in-law’s mother

could become liable for all these prohibitions. For example, if Yaakov married Serach, the daughter of Asher, whose mother was Zilpah, and Reuven married Zilpah, then Zilpah is forbidden to Yaakov because she is his father-in-law’s mother and because she is his daughter-in-law. If Yaakov subsequently married Bilhah, Zilpah’s sister, the prohibition of a wife’s sister was added with regard to Zilpah, and likewise with regard to all the prohibitions listed above.

And his mother-in-law’s mother

[for example, if Yaakov married Dinah’s daughter and Reuven married Leah, Leah is forbidden to Yaakov because she is his mother-in-law’s mother [Dinah’s mother] and because she is his daughter-in-law. If Yaakov married Rachel, Leah’s sister, the prohibition of a wife’s sister was added with regard to Leah, and likewise with regard to all the others. [This is the explanation of the Mishna according to the Shita Mekubetzet, note 11, and according to the Rashash; Rambam and the Ra’avad explain it differently].

Rabbi Yohanan ben Nuri says: One who has relations with his mother-in-law

could be

liable for her on account of the prohibition of his mother-in-law, his mother-in-law’s mother, and his father-in-law’s mother,

for example, Yaakov was married to three women: Dinah, Leah’s daughter; Hannah, Rachel’s daughter, who was Leah’s granddaughter; and Peninah, Reuven’s daughter, who was Leah’s granddaughter through her son [and all of them were permitted to him]. Yaakov had relations with Leah and was liable to bring three sin-offerings for her: on account of the prohibition of his mother-in-law [Dinah’s mother], on account of the prohibition of his mother-in-law’s mother [Rachel’s mother, who was Hannah’s mother], and on account of the prohibition of his father-in-law’s mother [Reuven’s mother]. [See the Rashash for the reason that each of these prohibitions can take effect upon the others, rather than being a case in which one prohibition cannot take effect where another prohibition already exists].

They said to him

to Rabbi Yohanan ben Nuri: He is liable to bring only one sin-offering for her, because

the three of them constitute one category

as they are stated in a single passage and in a single prohibition, as it is stated: “You shall not uncover the nakedness of a woman and her daughter; you shall not take her son’s daughter or her daughter’s daughter.” From this passage we learn the prohibitions of one’s mother-in-law, his mother-in-law’s mother, and his father-in-law’s mother [seemingly, two prohibitions are stated in this passage; rather, later the Gemara says that the verse made them all one zimma, one forbidden relationship. Rashash].

Gemara:

Rabbi Elazar said that Rabbi Hoshaya said: Rabbi Yohanan ben Nuri and Sumakhos stated the same principle 63 .

Rabbi Yohanan ben Nuri: This is the case that we stated

that he requires three sin-offerings for three transgressions, even though they belong to one category.

What is Sumakhos’s case?