Yevamot 22b — the Talmud in English

We learned from this that a mamzer brother

also does indeed require

his brother’s wife for halitza.

We learned in the Mishna:

“And he is his brother in every respect.”

And we raised the question concerning it:

For what halakhic matter

is he his brother?

And we answer:

To inherit from him and to become impure for him,

for even a kohen, who is warned not to become impure through the dead, becomes impure for his mamzer brother, and he is included in the permission granted to a kohen to become impure for his seven close relatives.

And we object: With regard to this there is no novelty concerning a mamzer, for

it is obvious—

he is his brother!

And we explain:

It might enter your mind

that a mamzer should not become impure for his brother,

since

we find that

it is written

concerning the impurity of kohanim: “He shall not become impure for a person among his people,

except for his kin who is close to him.”

And the Master said: “His kin”—

this is his wife

[as it is written concerning her: “Her food, her clothing, and her marital relations”].

And

on the other hand

it is written,

there below,

“A husband shall not become impure among his people, to profane himself.”

And there is no contradiction between the verses concerning whether he is permitted to become impure for his wife.

Rather,

there is a husband who becomes impure

for his wife,

and there is a husband who does not become impure

for her.

How so?

He becomes impure

the kohen

for his wife

the

fit one, and he does not become impure

the kohen

for his wife

the

disqualified one.

And just as they expounded this concerning a kohen’s impurity for his wife,

so too

we might have said:

He becomes impure

the kohen only

for a fit brother, and he does not become impure for a disqualified brother.

And therefore

he teaches us

the tannay in our Mishna, that the mamzer is considered a fit brother with regard to the mitzva of a kohen to become impure for him when he dies.

And we object:

But say so also,

that we should learn from the law of impurity for one’s wife that kohanim do not become impure for a mamzer brother!

And we answer:

There,

the disqualified wife—

is destined to be sent away!

For he is obligated to divorce her because of the prohibition, and she is not considered his wife for whom he should become impure upon her death.

But

here,

even his mamzer brother—

he is his brother.

We learned in the Mishna:

“Except for one who has a brother from a maidservant or from a gentile woman.”

And we raised the question concerning it:

What is the reason

that this brother is not considered a brother?

And we answer:

The verse says,

concerning a Hebrew slave whose master gave him a Canaanite maidservant, and whose time came to go free:

“The woman and her children

from the Hebrew slave—

shall belong to her master.”

It follows that her children are ascribed after her, and not after her husband.

We learned in the Mishna:

“One who has a son from any place exempts his father’s wife from yibbum.”

And we raised the question concerning it:

“From any place”—

what does this come to include?

Rav Yehuda said: It comes to include

a

mamzer

son, who exempts his father’s wife from yibbum.

And we explain:

What is the reason

that he exempts her?

For the verse says: “And he has no son.”

And we expound: Since it is not written “and he has no son” without the letter yod, this indicates that Scripture comes to say:

Examine him!

If he has a son anywhere in the world, she is exempt from yibbum, even a son who is not fit seed.

We learned in the Mishna:

“And he is liable for striking him.”

And we object:

Why

is he liable for striking him?

But

here applies

concerning his father who committed a transgression and made him a mamzer, the exposition from the verse

“And you shall not curse a prince among your people,”

that only one who is “among your people” shall you not curse,

who performs the deed of your people.

But concerning this father, who does not perform the deed of your people, why should he be liable for cursing him? And we answer: It may be said

as Rav Pinhas said in the name of Rav Pappa

concerning another matter, that here it is speaking

of one who repented.

Here too,

the mamzer’s liability when he struck his father is in a situation

where

his father

repented,

and he is once again included among those who perform the deed of your people.

And we object:

And

if

such a

father, who fathered a mamzer—

is he capable of repentance!?

But we learned: Shimon ben Menasya says: What is the

sin concerning which it is said

“That which is crooked cannot be made straight”?

This is one who had intercourse with a forbidden woman and fathered a mamzer from her,

for his sin is revealed and endures as long as the mamzer exists; and how can his repentance help!?

And we answer:

Now, in any event,

since he repented of his deed—

he is one who performs the deed of your people!

For although his sin remains, he himself has returned from the path of doing evil.

The Sages taught: One who had intercourse with his sister, and she is his father’s wife’s daughter,

who was born to his father from his wife who was married to him, and not from one whom he had raped—

is liable

for two, both

because of his sister, and

also

because of his father’s wife’s daughter.

Rabbi Yosei ben Yehuda says: He is liable only because of his sister, and not because of his father’s wife’s daughter.

And we explain:

What is the reason of the Rabbis

who hold him liable for two?

They say: It is proven thus from the verse!

Since

it is

written

[Leviticus 18:9]

“The nakedness of your sister, your father’s daughter or your mother’s daughter, born in the house or born outside, you shall not uncover their nakedness.”

— рожденной в доме или рожденной вне дома — не открывай их наготы»».

And it implies your father’s daughter, whether from marriage or from rape.

And if so, this that an additional verse is written

“The nakedness of your father’s wife’s daughter, born of your father; she is your sister”—

why do I need it

to write it? For she too is his sister, his father’s daughter!

Rather,

learn from it

that Scripture came

to make him liable

for two, one

because of his sister and

one

because of his father’s wife’s daughter.

за дочь жены его отца.

And there is a practical difference for an inadvertent act, for he brings two sin-offerings for intercourse with her.

And we explain:

And Rabbi Yosei bar Yehuda,

who holds him liable only because of his sister, his reason is because

the verse says

in the verse “your father’s wife’s daughter”—

“she is your sister”!

And the addition “she is your sister” comes to tell you: only

because of his sister do you make him liable, and you do not make him liable because of his father’s wife’s daughter.

And the Rabbis, this “she is your sister,”

which is stated concerning his father’s wife’s daughter—

what do they do with it?

They need it to make him liable for his sister

from rape, who is

his father’s daughter and his mother’s daughter.

And this is, for example, when the brother and sister were born from one woman who was raped. For although the verse concerning his father’s daughter is also stated concerning his sister from rape, since there it is speaking of his sister who is his father’s daughter but not his mother’s daughter, we would not know to make him liable when she is his father’s daughter and his mother’s daughter, by a kal va-chomer.

For here Scripture came

to say

the principle

“One does not issue a warning from an inference.”

For one may not derive a warning of a prohibition from a kal va-chomer.

For a kal va-chomer would suffice to make him liable for his sister who is both from his father and from his mother, and nevertheless Scripture had to write “she is your sister” again in order to make him liable for such a sister, and to teach that without the special verse she would not be subject to the warning, because one does not derive a warning of a prohibition by a kal va-chomer.

And Rabbi Yosei son of Rabbi Yehuda,

how did he learn from “she is your sister” that he is liable only once? But Scripture came to teach us that one does not issue a warning from an inference.

And we explain: He reasoned:

If so,

that Scripture came to teach that one does not issue warnings from an inference, but rather the prohibition must be specified in every case,

the Merciful One should write

only

“your sister.”

The fact that Scripture added to say

“she”—

why do I need it?

From here you learn that Scripture came to say: only

because of your sister do you make him liable, and you do not make him liable because of his father’s wife’s daughter.

And the Rabbis,

who did not learn from “she” that he should not be liable for two, hold:

Even though it is written “your sister,”

nevertheless

it was necessary to write

also

“she.”

In order

that you should not say, generally,

[apart from his sister]

one does issue warnings from an inference.

For it could have been said that one should not learn from here that one does not issue warnings from an inference, because it is possible that the reason Scripture repeated and wrote his sister from his father and mother, rather than leaving this to be learned by a kal va-chomer, is that “a matter that comes by a kal va-chomer—Scripture took the trouble and wrote it.”

Therefore Scripture wrote “she,” to say that only here, in the case of his sister, is he liable, because there is a verse in her case to prohibit her. But everywhere else, when there is no verse to prohibit, he is exempt, even when there is a kal va-chomer to prohibit, because one does not issue warnings from an inference!

And thus the Gemara explains the matter:

And if you would say

as an objection: If so,

“your sister”

from the father and from the mother,

which the Merciful One wrote—

why do I need it?

For in any event we would know that he is liable for her, since it can be learned by a kal va-chomer from his sister from the father alone.

And necessarily, Scripture came to teach that one does not issue warnings from an inference. For we need the inclusion of “your sister,” and if so, why do I need to write “she” for this purpose?

And we answer: If “she” had not been written, we would not know that one does not issue warnings from an inference from the fact that the inclusion of “your sister,” his father’s daughter and his mother’s daughter, was necessary.

For it could be said:

A matter that comes by a kal va-chomer,

such as liability for his sister who is his father’s wife’s daughter and his mother’s daughter, and she is more severe than his sister who is his father’s daughter alone,

Scripture took the trouble and wrote it.

And it would not be considered superfluous, teaching us that one does not issue warnings from an inference.

Therefore, according to the Rabbis,

the Merciful One wrote

also

“she,”

to teach us that one does not issue warnings from an inference.

And Rabbi Yosei son of Rabbi Yehuda,

who learned from the superfluous word “she” that one is not liable for two concerning his sister, reasoned:

If so,

that this superfluity came only to teach us that one does not issue warnings from an inference—

let the Merciful One write “your sister, she is” in the other verse,

in the verse dealing with your father’s daughter.

And why was this superfluity written in the verse concerning your father’s wife’s daughter?

Necessarily, to tell you that although she is also his father’s wife’s daughter, he is liable only because of his sister.

And we object:

And Rabbi Yosei son of Rabbi Yehuda, this

that Scripture wrote

“your father’s wife’s daughter”—

what does he do with it?

For he is not liable because of his father’s wife’s daughter, and why did Scripture mention that she is her daughter!?

And we explain:

He needs it

for “your father’s wife’s daughter,” in order to tell you: only

one with whom your father has a marital bond

do you become liable for her daughter from him.

Except for his sister from a maidservant and from a gentile woman, with whom your father has no marital bond.

For betrothal does not take effect with them, and their child is not ascribed after the husband, and she is not called his sister from his father’s wife, so as to make him liable for her.

And we object: From where is it established that “your father’s wife’s daughter” comes to exclude only his sister from a maidservant, with whom his father has no marital bond?

But say:

“your father’s wife’s daughter”—

except for his sister from rape,

with whom his father did not have a marital bond, because he did not betroth her!

And we answer:

That one,

his sister from rape—

you cannot say

that he should not be liable for her because of his sister.

And the proof is

from Rava:

For Rava posed

the apparent contradiction between the verses:

It is written: “The nakedness of your son’s daughter or your daughter’s daughter you shall not uncover.”

And it implies

that

the nakedness of

her son’s daughter,

of his wife,

is permitted

to her husband.

And

if, on the other hand,

it were written: “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,”

—

it would follow that his wife’s son’s daughter too is forbidden.

And apparently the verses contradict one another.

And Rava explained:

How so?

Here,

the verse that says that only his son’s daughter is forbidden, but not her son’s daughter, is speaking

of

“his wife”

from rape,

whose son’s daughter, born to her from another man, is permitted to him, for she is not his wife.

Whereas

here,

the verse that forbids also her son’s daughter is speaking

of

his wife’s son’s daughter

from marriage.

And it implies that his daughter, even from rape, is his daughter, and likewise his son.

And if so, also with regard to his sister, it is impossible to distinguish and permit his sister from his father’s raped woman, for in every case, she is his sister.