Yevamot 23a (כג.) — the Talmud in English

And we still challenge this: From where do we derive that it is specifically permitted to marry one’s sister who was born to a maidservant?

And say: Exclude

his sister from a woman who is

forbidden by a prohibition?

For example, if his father married a mamzeret and had a daughter from her, she is not considered his sister. For it may be said that with women who are forbidden by a prohibition, betrothal does not take effect, and therefore the verse excludes her by stating “the daughter of your father’s wife,” since she was born to a woman who is not his father’s wife

?

Rav Pappa said: Women forbidden by a prohibition

do indeed

have betrothal take effect with them.

Because

it is written: “When a man has two wives, the one beloved and the other hated

, and they bear him sons, the beloved and the hated, and the firstborn son is the son of the hated one.

And it shall be, on the day that he causes his sons to inherit all that he has, that he may not give the right of the firstborn to the son of the beloved before the son of the hated, who is the firstborn.

For he must acknowledge the firstborn, the son of the hated one, to give him a double portion of all that is found to be his, for he is the first fruit of his strength; the right of the firstborn is his.”

. There would have been no need to state that there is no difference in the law of the firstborn’s inheritance whether the man loved the woman who bore him his firstborn or loved the second woman, because that is obvious.

Necessarily, then, the intent of the verse is to teach that there is no difference in the law of the firstborn’s inheritance whether his mother was beloved in the eyes of the Omnipresent or hated in His eyes.

This requires examination:

Is there

a

woman beloved before the Omnipresent, and is there

a

woman hated before the Omnipresent?

Why did the verse call one of them beloved and the other hated?

Rather

, necessarily,

“beloved”

means

beloved

by the Omnipresent

in her marriage

, meaning that her marriage was valid.

And

“hated”

, that she is

hated

by the Omnipresent

in her marriage

. That is, her marriage to her husband involved a violation of a prohibition, which is something hated before the Holy One, blessed be He.

In any event,

the Merciful One said

regarding both of them,

“When they have

children.” This indicates that they have the status of a union for marriage, and that the betrothal took effect despite the fact that the marriage involved a transgression.

And from here it is proven that betrothal takes effect with women forbidden by a prohibition. If so, it is impossible to exclude one’s sister who is the daughter of a woman forbidden by a prohibition by means of the verse “the daughter of your father’s wife,” since she has the status of a marital relationship with his father.

But we still challenge this:

And say

, the phrase “the daughter of your father’s wife” comes to exclude the following:

Exclude

one’s sister who was born to his father from a woman who is

forbidden to him by a prohibition carrying karet

, with whom betrothal does not take effect, so that his father has no marital relationship with her mother.

Rava

answered:

He said

: Indeed, this verse speaks of one’s sister who was born to his father from a woman who is forbidden to his father by a prohibition carrying karet, in order to prohibit her.

For

the verse says: “The nakedness of your sister, the daughter of your father or the daughter of your mother, born in the house or born outside

”

. The explanation of the verse is: Whether they say to your father, “Keep

his wife, the mother of your sister,

or whether they say to your father, “Take her out

[the mother of your sister] because of the prohibition carrying karet,

the Merciful One said

that in every case—

“she is your sister!”

Necessarily, then, the exclusion in the phrase “the daughter of your father’s wife” applies only to one’s sister born to a maidservant!

And we challenge this:

Say

the opposite: The verse indeed comes to say

whether they say

say

to him

—

“Your father should keep her,” or whether they say

say

to him

—

“Your father should take her out.”

And

regarding both of them

the Merciful One said: “She is your sister.”

Rather, the verse comes

to include

for prohibition both

one’s sister born to a maidservant and

his sister born to a

gentile

, but not his sister born to a woman forbidden by a prohibition carrying karet!

And what did you see

that led you to include his sister born to his mother, who is forbidden to his father by a prohibition carrying karet, and to exclude his sister born to a maidservant or a gentile?

We answer:

It is logical

to include his sister born to a woman

forbidden by a prohibition carrying karet, since betrothal takes effect with such women with regard to others

. Therefore, a sister born to such a mother is considered his sister to a greater degree than a sister born to a maidservant, with whom his father has no possibility of betrothal at all.

We refute this:

On the contrary! It would have been more appropriate to include a maidservant and a gentile

and to obligate him for a sister born to either of them, since the possibility of betrothal applies more to them,

as, if she converts

, meaning if the maidservant or gentile converts, then

with regard to him

, his father,

too, betrothal takes effect with her.

Whereas with a woman forbidden by a prohibition carrying karet, betrothal will never be possible for his father

! And we conclude: It is preferable to include those forbidden by a prohibition carrying karet, since in the case of a maidservant there is currently no possibility of betrothal at all, and the fact that betrothal would apply to her if she converted is not a reason to include her. For

once she converts

, when she converts,

she is a different person altogether!

And it is not considered that, while she is presently a gentile, she possesses any aspect of the possibility of betrothal.

Therefore, “the daughter of your father’s wife” excludes one’s sister born to a maidservant or a gentile, with neither of whom can anyone effect betrothal.

The Gemara now returns to discuss the dispute between the Rabbis and Rabbi Yosei, son of Rabbi Yehuda, as to whether one is liable twice for a sister who is the daughter of his father’s wife—both for being his sister and for being the daughter of his father’s wife.

We inquire:

And according to the Rabbis

, who obligate one also for the daughter of his father’s wife and therefore need the verse for its straightforward meaning, and do not derive from it Rabbi Yosei, son of Rabbi Yehuda’s exclusion of a sister born to a maidservant or a gentile—

To exclude

a sister born to a

maidservant or a gentile—

from where do they derive it?

And we answer: The Rabbis

derive it

, they learn this,

from “The woman and her children shall belong to her master.”

This indicates that her children are not attributed to her husband, and that his sons and daughters do not have sibling relations with the maidservant’s sons and daughters.

And as for Rabbi Yosei, son of Rabbi Yehuda

—why did he need to exclude this from “the daughter of your father’s wife,” rather than learn it as the Rabbis did?

Because he maintains that two verses are needed for the exclusions:

One is for a maidservant

: The verse “The woman and her children shall belong to her master” comes to exclude a sister born to a maidservant.

And one is for a gentile

: The verse “the daughter of your father’s wife” comes to exclude a sister born to a gentile.

And they are both necessary

, as separate verses are needed to exclude both of them.

For if it had informed us

that there is no sibling relationship with those born to a

maidservant

, I might have said that there is no sibling relationship only with those born to a maidservant

because she has no lineage

, but is likened to a donkey, and her children have no lineage.

Therefore, his sons and daughters have no sibling relationship with the sons and daughters born to the maidservant.

But

with those born to a

gentile, who has lineage

, as she is attributed to her father,

say that they were not

excluded. And they do have a sibling relationship with his sons.

And, by contrast,

conversely,

if it had informed us

that there is no sibling relationship with those born to him from a

gentile

, I might have said that there is no sibling relationship only with those born to her

because a

gentile

does not participate in mitzvot

, and has no connection whatsoever to the Jewish people.

But

those born to him from a

maidservant, who does participate in mitzvot

, since a male slave is obligated in all the mitzvot in which a woman is obligated—

say that they were not

excluded from sibling relations.

Therefore,

both are necessary

: both verses are needed to exclude those born to a maidservant and those born to a gentile from sibling relations.

And we challenge this again:

And according to the Rabbis

, who learned the exclusion from “The woman and her children shall belong to her master,” which is stated with regard to a maidservant, this difficulty may be raised against them:

We have found

in this verse a source to exclude only those born to a

maidservant

, but to exclude sibling relations with those born to him from a

gentile—

from where do

the Rabbis derive it?

And if you would say, let us derive

the law of a gentile

from a maidservant

, Rabbi Yosei, son of Rabbi Yehuda, has already explained that

those

two verses

are both necessary!

The explanation of their necessity is that it is impossible to compare a gentile to a maidservant.

And we answer:

Rabbi Yohanan said in the name of Rabbi Shimon bar Yohai: The verse says

in Deuteronomy [7:3], concerning the seven nations that were in the Land of Israel, whom we were commanded to destroy and not show mercy to. The verse likewise commands: “

Do not intermarry with them.

You shall not give your daughter to his son, and you shall not take his daughter for your son.

For he will turn your son away from Me

, and they will worship other gods.”

The wording of the verse indicates that there is a difference between a gentile who has relations with a Jewish woman and a Jewish man who has relations with a gentile woman.

And it indicates, from the fact that it is written “for he will turn away,” and not “for she will turn away,” that specifically

“your son” born to a Jewish woman is called “your son.”

Therefore, the verse says that a Jewish woman should not intermarry with a gentile, since “your son,” the son born to her from him, will be Jewish and will be called “your son.”

But his gentile father will turn him away from following the Lord, to worship idolatry.

And your son born to a gentile woman is not called “your son,” but “her son”

. Therefore, the Torah did not say that one must also be concerned that the son of a gentile woman who marries a Jewish man might be turned away by her, causing the son born to him from her to cease to be Jewish.

For he is not attributed to his Jewish father, but only to his gentile mother, and there is no concern here that he will be turned away from following the Lord.

If so, it is explicit in the Torah that those born to a Jewish man from a gentile woman are not attributed to him, but to their mother. Therefore, they have no sibling relationship with his sons born to a Jewish woman.

Ravina said: Learn from here

, from the verse speaking of a Jewish woman who married a gentile and stating “for he will turn your son away from Me,” that

the son of your daughter, born to a gentile

is called “your son”!

We inquire:

Shall we say

, do you mean that

Ravina holds: If a gentile or a slave has relations with a Jewish woman, the offspring is fit?

For the unqualified wording—that he is called “your son”—indicates that he is a fully fit Jew, whereas the matter is disputed below [45a], whether he is fit or a mamzer.

And we reject this: There is no proof from his statement that he is entirely fit.

Rather,

although

despite the fact that

he is not a mamzer, he is not fit either.

Rather,

he is called “a disqualified Jew,”

since he was born to a gentile.

And we challenge this: It follows from here that, according to everyone, the son of a Jewish man who has relations with a gentile woman is attributed to his mother, and her offspring is like her.

But apparently there is no proof of this from the verse “for he will turn your son away from Me”!

For

this

verse is written

only concerning the seven nations

—

only.

And we answer: We derive from

“for he will turn away”

to include all who turn one away!

That is, among all nations, the offspring of the woman is like her.

Therefore, if the mother is a gentile, the offspring is not Jewish.

And we challenge this:

This works according to Rabbi Shimon, who expounds the reason of the verse

, and even if the reason had not been written in the verse, he would say that the reason for the prohibition is lest the gentile turn his Jewish son away from following the Lord. Therefore, according to him, when the reason is written in the verse, it is superfluous.

And we derive from it the inclusion of all those who turn one away.

That is, the reason was written in order to prohibit the matter even with the other nations, and from here we learn that among all nations, the offspring of the woman is like her.

But according to the Rabbis

, who do not expound the reason of the verse, it is necessary to write the reason “for he will turn away.”

And from this reason one should learn that the verse speaks only of the seven nations, who were devoted to idolatry, and only with regard to them does the reason “for he will turn away” apply, but not with regard to the other nations.

If so,

from where do

they learn with regard to the other nations that a Jew who has relations with them has a gentile offspring, like the mother?

And we answer:

Who is the tanna

, who is the tanna

who disagrees with Rabbi Yosei, son of Rabbi Yehuda

, and learns the exclusion of sibling relations with a gentile from “for he will turn away”?

It follows that the method is that of

Rabbi Shimon.

And Rabbi Shimon does expound the reason of the verse. Consequently, the reason stated in the verse is superfluous, and he uses it to include all the nations.