Keritot 14b — the Talmud in English

Gemara:

And we raised it:

But Rabbi Meir does not hold

that

a prohibition takes effect upon a prohibition

as we established above, that he holds that a prohibition takes effect upon a prohibition specifically in the case of a comprehensive prohibition or an additive prohibition; and if so, how is it possible that there should be several prohibitions upon one woman?

And we answer:

Although he does not hold that a prohibition takes effect upon a prohibition,

in any event

an additive prohibition and a prohibition

that comes

simultaneously he does hold.

How so?

For example,

Reuben

had relations with his mother and she gave birth

from him to a

daughter,

Dinah.

For the prohibition of his daughter and his sister came simultaneously,

and both prohibitions that come simultaneously take effect.

Dinah married

Dinah

to

Shimon, who was

his brother,

Reuben’s brother from the father—for had he been his maternal brother, she would have been forbidden to him as his maternal sister, and betrothal would not take effect with her, and consequently she would not be his brother’s wife with regard to Reuben—

since an additional prohibition was added

to her now,

the prohibition

of a brother’s wife

with regard to the brothers,

Shimon’s other brothers,

there was added

also this

prohibition with regard to him,

Reuben, for this is an additive prohibition.

Shimon died or divorced her, and

she married

afterward

to

Esau, who was

his father’s brother,

Reuben’s father’s brother.

Since an additional prohibition was added

now,

the prohibition

of a father’s brother’s wife

with regard to the other sons of his father’s brother,

for Esau had a third brother [besides Reuben’s father], and she now became forbidden to that brother’s sons as a father’s brother’s wife,

there was added

also this prohibition

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

Afterward she married another man.

She thereby became a married woman; since the prohibition was added

now,

the prohibition

of a married woman

with regard to everyone, it was also added with regard to him. [And likewise, one may explain that she married only the father’s brother, and through this marriage the prohibition of a father’s brother’s wife and the prohibition of a married woman were added to her simultaneously; and see Arukh LaNer.]

She thereby became a menstruating woman,

for she became menstruating.

Since the prohibition

of menstruation

was added with regard to her husband, it was also added with regard to him.

Mishna:

One who has relations with his daughter’s daughter

may possibly become 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 because 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 sister’s daughter]. Jacob is also liable for her because of his daughter-in-law, and this is an additive prohibition, because through Reuben’s marriage Hannah became forbidden to all 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 his daughter-in-law was also added with regard to Jacob. [And this is called an additive prohibition from two different statuses; and from here Tosafot in Yevamot 32b, s.v. “Prohibition,” proved that even in such a case it is an additive prohibition.]

c.

And his wife’s sister:

Jacob had been 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 upon her simultaneously with regard to Jacob: she was his daughter’s daughter and his wife’s paternal sister [Penina’s], since both were daughters of one father, Jacob’s son-in-law [and it is likewise possible that this is a comprehensive prohibition; see Tosafot, s.v. “And his wife’s sister.”]

d.

And his brother’s wife:

Afterward Esau, Jacob’s brother, married Hannah, and she became forbidden to Jacob as his brother’s wife. This prohibition, as well as all the prohibitions below, is an additive prohibition, as explained in the previous Mishna.

e.

And his father’s brother’s wife:

Afterward Ishmael, Isaac’s brother, Jacob’s father, married her, and she became forbidden to Jacob as his father’s brother’s wife.

f.

And a married woman.

g.

And a menstruating woman:

all as above.

Rabbi Yosei says:

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

if

afterward

the elder transgressed:

Isaac, Jacob’s father, transgressed a rabbinic prohibition

and married

Hannah;

Jacob is liable for her

Jacob

because of a father’s wife,

and the Gemara will explain which rabbinic prohibition Isaac transgressed and how it is an additive prohibition with regard to Jacob.

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

may become liable for those same sin-offerings for which one who has relations with his daughter’s daughter is liable—for example, when she is also his daughter-in-law [whom his son married [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, when his wife’s father had relations with his wife and she gave birth to a daughter from him, and she is therefore both his wife’s daughter and his wife’s sister]—and also all those enumerated above, according to Rashi. [And there are those who explain that this refers back to the previous Mishna, that 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 Bertinoro.]

And

likewise it is possible that one who has relations

with his wife’s daughter’s daughter

will become liable for all the sin-offerings for which one who has relations with his daughter’s daughter is liable [for she is also his daughter-in-law and his wife’s sister: his wife’s father had relations with his wife’s daughter, and the daughter who was born is his wife’s daughter’s daughter and also his wife’s sister], and likewise all of them.

Gemara:

And we raised the difficulty:

It teaches:

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

he is liable

Jacob

for her because of a father’s wife.

But

was she permitted to him?

For previously we learned that Ishmael, Jacob’s father’s brother, had married her, and she was therefore his brother’s wife with regard to Isaac. Isaac’s betrothal did 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 fell to him

to Isaac

for levirate marriage,

for Ishmael, who had previously been married to her, died without children, and Isaac performed levirate marriage with her.

And we object:

If so, what is the meaning of

“the elder transgressed,”

which it teaches in the Mishna? What prohibition did Isaac transgress through this marriage? [And one should not object that she was Isaac’s daughter-in-law, having previously been Esau’s wife, for it can be answered that Esau was not Isaac’s son, but Esau and Jacob were maternal brothers only, according to Rashi.]

And we answer:

Rabbi Yaakov said: That he transgressed because of his son’s daughter-in-law,

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

“second,”

that is, relations forbidden by rabbinic enactment, called “second-degree relations forbidden by the Torah.” Even in a case involving the mitzva of levirate marriage, one does not perform levirate marriage with a woman forbidden by rabbinic law; rather, one performs halitza with her. [The same applies to the prohibition because of his son’s son’s daughter, for she was Jacob’s daughter’s daughter; but that too is a rabbinic prohibition, and one of the two was mentioned.]

As it was taught: His daughter-in-law—

a forbidden relation

according to Torah law.

His son’s daughter-in-law—

a second-degree relation

forbidden by rabbinic law.

And likewise you find

a rabbinically forbidden relation

with his

daughter-in-law,

his grandson’s

daughter-in-law, and

his great-grandson’s daughter-in-law, until the end of all generations.

And we object concerning what Rabbi Yosei adds, and likewise concerning all the sin-offerings of the Mishna in which Rabbi Yosei agrees:

Does Rabbi Yosei hold that a prohibition takes effect upon a prohibition?!

But we learned: One who transgressed a sin for which there are two forms of execution

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

is judged by the more severe one,

by burning, which is more severe than strangulation.

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

by the prohibition that took effect upon him first, and regarding which he was required to take care first. He is liable on its account, even if its punishment is lighter than that of the second, since a prohibition does not take effect upon a prohibition, and the second prohibition did not take effect upon him at all.

How so? She was previously

his mother-in-law,

for he married her daughter when she was a widow,

and became

afterward

a married woman; he is judged because of his mother-in-law,

but if she had first been

a married woman

and afterward he married her daughter,

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

even though its punishment is strangulation, which is lighter than burning.

It follows that Rabbi Yosei does not hold that a prohibition takes effect upon a prohibition. How, then, does he say in the Mishna that he is liable for many sin-offerings?

And we answer:

Rabbi Abbahu said: Rabbi Yosei agrees in the case of an additive prohibition

that it takes effect upon a previous prohibition.

And likewise, when Ravin came, he said

in the name of

Rabbi Yohanan: Rabbi Yosei agrees in the case of an additive prohibition

and likewise in the case of a comprehensive prohibition and in the case of simultaneous prohibitions. Therefore, he agrees with regard to all the sin-offerings of the Mishna. [Indeed, in the case of his mother-in-law who becomes a married woman, the prohibition of a married woman is an additive prohibition; nevertheless, he is judged because of his mother-in-law, since that punishment is more severe.]

And we explain:

And what additive prohibition is there here

when the elder transgressed and married her? For example,

that the old man has a son,

Isaac,

since the prohibition was added

of a father’s wife

with regard to his son,

that son,

there was added

also this

prohibition with regard to him,

Jacob. [And in the Shita Mekubetzet, letter yod, they raised the difficulty that she was already forbidden to that son because she was his father’s brother’s wife, since she had been married to Isaac’s brother; how, then, did the prohibition of a father’s wife take effect upon him? And they answered that “the old man” means Isaac’s father, who had a son, and that son was Isaac’s brother. She now became forbidden to him as a brother’s wife after Isaac 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 also added with regard to Jacob. This is an additive prohibition from two statuses.]

Mishna:

One who has relations with his mother-in-law

may possibly become 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 Reuben afterward married Leah, the mother. Jacob had relations with Leah, and he is

liable for her because of his mother-in-law,

for 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 Jacob on account of his brother’s wife, and this is an additional prohibition, as above.

d.

And his paternal uncle’s wife

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

e.

And his wife’s sister

for Jacob married Rachel, Leah’s sister [and she is permitted to him, since there is no prohibition against marrying the sister of his mother-in-law or the sister of his daughter-in-law], and through this there was added upon Leah, with regard to Jacob, the prohibition of a wife’s sister. And it is an inclusive prohibition, since through these marriages all Rachel’s sisters became forbidden to Jacob under the prohibition of a wife’s sister; therefore this prohibition was also added to Leah.

f.

And a married woman.

g.

And a menstruant. And likewise one who has intercourse with his mother-in-law’s mother

it is possible that he will become liable for her on account of all these prohibitions. For example, Jacob married Serah, the daughter of Asher, the son of Zilpah, and Reuven married Zilpah; thus Zilpah is forbidden to Jacob on account of his mother-in-law’s mother and on account of his daughter-in-law. If Jacob afterward married Bilhah, Zilpah’s sister, the prohibition of a wife’s sister was added with regard to Zilpah, and likewise all the prohibitions above.

And his mother-in-law’s mother

for example, Jacob married Dinah’s daughter, and Reuven married Leah; Leah is forbidden to Jacob on account of his mother-in-law’s mother [Dinah] and on account of his daughter-in-law. Jacob married Rachel, Leah’s sister; the prohibition of a wife’s sister was added with regard to Leah, and likewise all of them. [An explanation of the Mishna according to the Shita Mekubetzet, section 11, and according to the Rashash; and the Rambam and the Raavad explain it in another manner].

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

it is possible that he will be

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

for example, Jacob was married to three women: to Dinah, the daughter of Leah; to Hannah, the daughter of Rachel, who was Leah’s daughter; and to Peninah, the daughter of Reuven, who was Leah’s son [and all of them permissibly]. Jacob had intercourse with Leah and was liable for three sin-offerings: on account of his mother-in-law [Dinah’s mother], on account of his mother-in-law’s mother [Rachel’s mother, who was Hannah’s mother], and on account of his father-in-law’s mother [Reuven’s mother]. [See the Rashash for the reason why all the prohibitions take effect upon one another, and this is not a case of a prohibition taking effect upon a prohibition] .

They said to him

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

the three of them are one designation

having been stated in one verse and in one prohibition, as it is said: “The nakedness of a woman and her daughter you shall not uncover; her son’s daughter and her daughter’s daughter you shall not take.” And from this verse we learn the prohibition of his mother-in-law, his mother-in-law’s mother, and his father-in-law’s mother [seemingly, two prohibitions were stated in this verse; rather, below in the Gemara they said that the verse made all of them one lewdness. Rashash].

Gemara:

Rabbi Elazar said in the name of Rabbi Oshaya: Rabbi Yohanan ben Nuri and Sumakhos said one matter 63 .

Rabbi Yohanan ben Nuri: This is what we said

that he makes one liable for three sin-offerings for three transgressions, even though they are of one designation.

What is the matter of Sumakhos?