Sanhedrin 58a — the Talmud in English

A convert ![](pamud.bmp "

Exact page location")

whose conception was not in sanctity but whose birth was in sanctity,

for after his mother conceived, she and her fetus converted; and likewise one whose conception and birth were not in sanctity, and he converted:

He has the maternal relatives

because she is forbidden to gentiles,

but

however

he does not have the paternal relatives

because she is permitted to gentiles, as the beraita proceeds to explain:

What are the circumstances? If he married

this convert’s

How so: If he married

this convert

his maternal sister,

this is

he must divorce her,

for she was forbidden to him in his gentile state; but if he married his sister

through the father,

this is

he may retain her, because she was not forbidden to him in his gentile state, for there is siblinghood for descendants of Noah only through the mother and not through the father.

and she is called “maternal relative” in the beraita], must

send her out,

The maternal sister of the father [and she is called in the beraita “a maternal relative”], this is

he must divorce her,

for she too was forbidden to him in his gentile state; but if he married the father’s sister

through the father,

this is

he may retain her,

for she was permitted to him in his gentile state, since there is no paternal siblinghood for descendants of Noah.

The maternal sister of the mother,

this is

he must divorce her, for she was forbidden to him in his gentile state. And if he married

the paternal sister of the mother,

who was permitted to him in his gentile state, since there is no paternal siblinghood for descendants of Noah, the tannaim disagreed concerning it:

Rabbi Meir says: He must divorce her,

although she was permitted to him as a gentile, for she was forbidden because of a decree, as the text proceeds to explain.

And the Sages say: He may retain her,

for she was permitted to him in his gentile state, and the Sages did not decree with the decree of Rabbi Meir.

For Rabbi Meir would say: Every forbidden relation that is because of a maternal relative—

he must divorce her,

that is: since there is here an aspect of a maternal relationship, for she is his mother’s sister, if we permit her to him, he will come to say, “A convert does not even have maternal relatives,” and will come to permit even his maternal sister.

And every forbidden relation that is

because of a paternal relative—

he may retain her.

And it is permitted

for the convert:

to marry his brother’s wife,

even through the mother [after his brother’s death, when she is no longer a married woman], since she was not forbidden to him in his gentile state, and there is no place to decree concerning her, “lest people say...” And since he has converted and is like a child newly born, she is permitted to him,

and his father’s brother’s wife, and

likewise

all other forbidden relations

that arise because of marriage—these are

permitted to him,

for the aforementioned reason.

And we explain: “And all other forbidden relations”

comes to include [to include]

his father’s wife.

his father’s wife.

The beraita further says:

If

he married

a gentile

a woman and her daughter

and he and his wives converted together:

He

This is

he takes one and divorces one.

Here the beraita returns to explain the law of a convert whose conception was not in sanctity but whose birth was in sanctity: “

And

Here the beraita returns to explain the law of a convert whose conception was not in sanctity and whose birth was in sanctity: “

And all those concerning whom we said, ‘He may retain her,’ nevertheless

initially he should not marry.

If his wife dies,

the wife of a convert, and even if he married her again after converting, this is

he is permitted to marry his mother-in-law, for she is not truly his mother-in-law, since she is no longer considered his wife’s mother, as “a convert who converted is like a child newly born”; and because of “lest people say,” she should not be prohibited, since as a gentile he was not warned concerning his mother-in-law

; and some say: He is forbidden to marry his mother-in-law.

It is thus explicit from this beraita that Rabbi Meir permitted to a descendant of Noah his father’s wife and his mother-in-law, even though an Israelite court puts one to death for them, and Rabbi Meir prohibited to a descendant of Noah his sister, his father’s sister, and his mother’s sister, for which an Israelite court does not put one to death, because they are sins punishable by karet—

and this is unlike what is explicit in the earlier beraita: “For every forbidden relation for which an Israelite court puts one to death, a descendant of Noah is warned concerning it; for one for which an Israelite court does not put one to death, a descendant of Noah is not warned concerning it, the words of Rabbi Meir”!?

Rav Yehuda said: It is not difficult,

for:

This—

the beraita concerning the convert—

is Rabbi Meir according to Rabbi Eliezer,

his teacher.

And this—

the beraita of “every forbidden relation”—

is Rabbi Meir according to Rabbi Akiva,

who was also his teacher.

For it was taught:

It is written concerning the first man, that the Holy One, blessed is He, said to him [Genesis 2:24]: “

Therefore a man shall leave his father and his mother

, and cleave to his wife, and they shall become one flesh,” and from this verse we learn to prohibit forbidden relations to a gentile; and the tannaim disagreed in explaining the verse:

Rabbi Eliezer says: “Therefore a man shall leave his

father”:

that is

his father’s sister, [and below the Gemara explains from where they derive the interpretation of the verses as they interpreted them]. “

His mother”

that is

his mother’s sister.

And the beraita concerning the convert follows this method: Since the Torah prohibited his father’s sister and his mother’s sister, all the more so his sister is forbidden to him;

but his father’s wife and his mother-in-law, which are forbidden relations through marriage, the Torah did not prohibit to a descendant of Noah.

The beraita concerning the convert follows this approach: Since the Torah prohibited his father’s sister and his mother’s sister, it follows all the more so that his sister is forbidden to him;

but the Torah did not prohibit a Noahide from marrying his father’s wife or his mother-in-law, since these forbidden relationships result from marriage.

Rabbi Akiva says: “

His father”

that is

his father’s wife. “

His mother”

that is

his actual mother.

And the beraita that we learned follows this method: For every forbidden relation for which an Israelite court puts one to death, a descendant of Noah is warned concerning it; and for one for which an Israelite court does not put one to death, a descendant of Noah is not warned concerning it. Since Scripture taught through these forbidden relations that they are prohibited to a descendant of Noah, and these are relations punishable by death for Israelites, we derive all the other relations punishable by death from them; but relations punishable by karet, no.

The beraita continues: And according to everyone: “

And he shall cleave

to his wife” comes to teach:

and not to a male,

for there is no cleaving with a male, since the one penetrated does not derive pleasure from the intercourse. “

And he shall cleave

to his wife,”

comes to teach:

and not to his fellow’s wife. “

And they shall become one flesh,”

to teach: The Torah permitted intercourse only with

one who becomes one flesh,

that is: through the seed, the flesh of the father and mother become one in the fetus;

excluding cattle and wild animals,

with which a descendant of Noah is not permitted to have intercourse, since

they do not become one flesh,

for the man does not beget from them.

The Master said in

the beraita:

Rabbi Eliezer says: "

his father"

that is

his father's sister:

And we raise an objection:

say "

his father"

literally!?

And we answer: Surely his father literally

is "

and cling"

and not to a male.

And we still raise an objection:

say "

his father" that is

his father's wife!?

And we answer:

that is "

with his wife"

and not with his fellow's wife.

And we raise an objection against it:

say "

his father" comes to include his father's wife

after the death

of his father, for it is no longer relevant to say: that is "and not his fellow's wife"!?

And we answer: Rather, for this reason it is impossible to explain that "his father" is his father's wife, because "his father" implies

similar to "

his mother,"

just as "

his mother"

is not

a kinship that is through

marital relationship

is,

so too "

his father"

is a kinship

that is not

through

marital relationship.

The beraita continues to explain the words of Rabbi Eliezer, who further said: "

his mother"

that is

his mother's sister:

And we raise an objection against it:

and say "

his mother"

literally!?

And we answer:

that is "

with his wife and not with his fellow's wife,"

for she is his father's wife.

And we still raise an objection:

and say "

his mother" comes to include her

after the death

of his father, for it is no longer relevant to say: that is "and not his fellow's wife"!?

And we answer: Rather, for this reason we do not explain that "his mother" is his mother literally, because "his mother" implies

similar to his father; just as "

his father"

is not literally,

for surely that is "and not to a male,"

so too "

his mother"

is not literally.

The Gemara continues to explain the words of Rabbi Akiva in the beraita:

Rabbi Akiva says: "

his father"

that is

his father's wife.

And we raise an objection:

and say "

his father" that is

his father literally!?

And we answer: Surely

that is "

and cling and not to a male."

And we raise an objection against it:

if so,

what Rabbi Akiva explained, that "his father" is

also his father's wife,

you should raise an objection: surely

that is "

with his wife and not with his

fellow's" wife!?

And we answer: What Rabbi Akiva said, that "his father" is his father's wife, is not when she is still his father's wife, but

after the death

of his father.

The Gemara further explains the continuation of Rabbi Akiva's words, who said: "

his mother"

that is

his mother literally:

And we raise an objection: His mother, who is also his father's wife,

is "

with his wife and not with his fellow's wife"!?

And we answer: "His mother," of whom Scripture spoke, did not speak of his father's wife, but of

his mother from his father's rape

of a woman, whom his father raped and from whom he fathered this one, and Scripture prohibited him from having intercourse with his mother.

And we explain:

In what do they disagree,

Rabbi Eliezer and Rabbi Akiva?

Rabbi Eliezer—

who explains both "his father" and "his mother" as his father's and his mother's relatives through sibling relationship, that is, his father's sister and his mother's sister—

holds: