Sanhedrin 58b (נח:) — the Talmud in English

His father" and "his mother" indicate the same type of relationship, and "

his father"

analogous to "

his mother"; "

and" "

his mother"

analogous to "

his father"

cannot be found [that is, you cannot find such a case]

except among

except among

their relatives through

brotherhood,

namely, his paternal aunt and his maternal aunt.

And because, if you attempt to compare them and say: "His father" means his actual father, and likewise "his mother" means his actual mother, this is impossible. For although "his mother" can be interpreted as referring to his mother after his father's death, in which case she would not be "another man's wife," nevertheless you cannot say that "his father" means his actual father, because if so, this would be the same as "and not with a male"—

And if you attempt to compare them and say that both refer to relationships created through marriage, this too is impossible, because through marriage one can interpret only "his father's wife"; and if you interpret "his father" in this way, you cannot interpret "his mother" in the same way; Consequently, if you attempt to compare them, you can interpret them only as referring to brotherhood, namely, his paternal aunt and his maternal aunt, as Rabbi Eliezer interpreted it.

And Rabbi Akiva—

who interpreted "his father" as meaning his father's wife, and "his mother" as meaning his actual mother, and was not concerned that they be analogous and belong to the same category—held:

It is preferable to establish "his father"

called

as his father's wife, for

she is indeed

called "

his father’s sister is

the nakedness of his father" [as is written concerning Israel—Leviticus 18:8: "You shall not uncover the nakedness of your father's wife; it is your father's nakedness"], and the expression "Therefore a man shall leave his father" applies to her—

“the kinship of his father,” [as it is written, Leviticus 18:12: “You shall not uncover the nakedness of your father’s sister; she is the kin of your father,”] but she is

to exclude [that is, rather than interpreting it as referring to]

“the nakedness of his father,”

his paternal aunt;

and because

his

paternal aunt is

called the kin of his father,

called [as is written—Leviticus 18:12: "You shall not uncover the nakedness of your father's sister; she is the kin of your father"], nevertheless

his father Kohath’s sister,

the nakedness of his father

is not called that, and the expression "Therefore a man shall leave his father" does not apply to her.

Amram’s aunt

And since "his father" can be interpreted only as "his father's wife," it is impossible for "his mother" to be analogous to "his father." For through marriage it is impossible to interpret "his mother" as meaning "his father's wife," since that woman has already been prohibited through "his father." And since in any event they are not analogous, "his mother" is understood to mean his actual mother, and this refers to his mother born to him through rape, who is not his father's wife.

Come and hear

an objection to Rabbi Eliezer, who prohibited a maternal half-sister of one's father to a Noahide!?

For it is written [Exodus 6:20]: "

And Amram took"

[Moses' father]

Jochebed, his paternal aunt

[his father's, Kehat's, sister] "as his wife"—

What, is it not the case that Jochebed was

and she became my wife”—

the paternal aunt

of Amram

through his mother, and if so, this proves that one's paternal aunt, even through one's mother, is permitted to a Noahide? This would be a difficulty for Rabbi Eliezer, who prohibited a paternal aunt to a Noahide!?

maternal sister is

And we answer:

No, Jochebed was not his maternal aunt, but

But can you understand it that way? Do you really think that when Abraham said, “though not my mother’s daughter,” he meant to say: If she had been my mother’s daughter, she would have been prohibited to me?

only his paternal aunt; she was Kehat's sister through his father but not through his mother. And a paternal aunt through one's father is not prohibited to a Noahide; even Rabbi Eliezer agrees with this.

his sister? She was not. She was

Come and hear:

It is written [Genesis 20]: "Abraham said of Sarah his wife, 'She is my sister.' And Abimelech king of Gerar sent and took Sarah... And Abimelech said to Abraham, 'What did you see, that you did this thing?' And Abraham said, 'Because I thought, surely there is no fear of God in this place, and they will kill me because of my wife.'

Moreover, indeed"

[that is, truly]

she is my sister, the daughter of my father, but not the daughter of my mother,

and she became my wife"—

And it follows that Abraham said as follows: This is why I took her as my wife, although she is my sister: because she is my father's daughter and not my mother's daughter, and a paternal sister is permitted—

It follows that

his sister

through his mother

is

prohibited. This works well according to Rabbi Eliezer, who prohibited even one's paternal and maternal aunts; all the more so, he prohibited one's sister, at least when she is his maternal sister. But according to Rabbi Akiva, only those relationships punishable by death according to Israelite law were prohibited to a Noahide, and not one's sister, who is among those punishable by karet!?

Consider the following proof against Rabbi Akiva, who permitted even a maternal sister to a descendant of Noah, from what we learned in a beraita:

And we answer:

Can you really understand it in this way?

Do you truly think that when Abraham said "but not the daughter of my mother," he meant to say: Had she been my mother's daughter, she would have been prohibited to me?

Was Sarah indeed

his sister

of Abraham

? Could we say that his intention was to refer to a prohibition!?

But

she was his brother's daughter,

for Sarah was the daughter of Haran, Abraham's brother.

And since this is so,

since she was only his brother's daughter,

it makes no difference

whether his brother

was his paternal brother, nor does it make a difference

whether his brother

was his maternal brother: his daughter is permitted to him

[permitted]. Therefore, Abraham necessarily did not intend to say that she would have been prohibited to him had she been his mother's daughter—

Rather, this is what he said to him there

Abraham to Abimelech:

This is why I called her "my sister," because

I have a sister-like relationship with her

[I have a relationship with her through brotherhood], since she is my brother's daughter. She is called "my sister" because she is the daughter of my paternal brother, and "grandchildren are considered like children," so she is as though she were my father's daughter, who would be my sister.

And this relationship

through my father

is

and not through my mother,

because Haran was Abraham's brother only through his father, Terah, and not through his mother. It was not because, had she been my relative through my mother, she would have been prohibited to me; it was simply the actual circumstance.

Come and hear

an objection to Rabbi Akiva, who permitted even a maternal sister to a Noahide, from what we learned in a beraita:

Why did the first man not marry

the first man's

daughter?

So that Cain would marry his sister, because "

the world shall be built through kindness"

[the beginning of the world was built through kindness].

It follows:

Were it not so

[if not for the kindness],

she would have been prohibited

for Cain to marry; thus it follows that one's sister is prohibited to a Noahide, which would be a difficulty for Rabbi Akiva, who did not prohibit a sister to a Noahide!?

And we answer:

Once the sister was permitted

to Cain because "the world shall be built through kindness,"

it was permitted

forever.

Rav Huna said: A gentile is permitted to marry his daughter—

And if you say:

If so,

why did the first man not marry his daughter,

since she was permitted to him!?

Your answer is:

So that Cain would marry his sister, because "

the world shall be built through kindness."

There are those who say:

This is what

Rav Huna said:

A gentile is prohibited to marry his daughter; know this from the fact that the first man did not marry his daughter!

The Gemara rejects Rav Huna's statement:

That is not so; there

concerning Adam, who did not marry his daughter—

the reason was that Cain should marry his sister.

Rav Hisda said:

A slave

a Canaanite slave of an Israelite who circumcised and immersed for the sake of slavery—

is permitted to marry his mother, and is permitted to marry his daughter.

Because he

departed

the slave

from the category of gentile, but did not enter the category of Israelite.

That is, we maintain that a convert who converts is considered like a newborn, and according to strict law he is permitted to his relatives. Nevertheless, the Sages decreed that he be prohibited with regard to those forbidden relationships that are also prohibited to a gentile, so that people would not say, "They are moving from greater sanctity to lesser sanctity," as explained in the beraita on the first side. However, a slave who circumcised and immersed for the sake of slavery, although the rule "a convert who converts is considered like a newborn" applies to him, is nevertheless not a full Israelite. The Sages did not impose the decree upon him as they did upon an Israelite, because of the concern that people might say this. Therefore, he is permitted to his relatives, even those who are prohibited to a gentile.

When Rav Dimi came

[when Rav Dimi came from Eretz Yisrael],

Rabbi Elazar said that Rabbi Hanina said: A Noahide who designated a maidservant

to be a wife

for his slave, and

the master

had relations with her,

he

is executed for her.

The Gemara asks:

From when

[from what point] is she considered designated for him?

:

from what time is she permitted to everyone]?

is there something permitted to a Jew but forbidden only to a gentile]? Intercourse in an atypical manner was not forbidden to a Jew, so it cannot be forbidden only to a gentile!?

—

“rise and act”—