Yevamot 23a — the Talmud in English

And we still ask: From where do we know to permit specifically his sister from a maidservant?

And say: except for

his sister from

those liable for negative commandments!

For if his father married a mamzeret and fathered a daughter from her, she is not considered his sister. For it could be said that with those liable for negative commandments, betrothal does not take effect with them; therefore Scripture excludes her by the verse “the daughter of your father’s wife,” since she was born from a woman who is not his father’s wife!?

And we answer:

Rav Pappa said: Those liable for negative commandments

indeed

betrothal takes effect with them.

Because

it is written: “When a man has two wives, the one beloved and the one 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 when he causes his sons to inherit that which he has, that he may not make the son of the beloved the firstborn before the son of the hated, the firstborn.

For he shall acknowledge the firstborn, the son of the hated one, to give him a double portion of all that is found to belong to him, for he is the beginning of his strength; the right of the firstborn is his.”

And it was unnecessary to say that there is no distinction in the law of the firstborn’s inheritance between whether the man loved the woman who bore him a firstborn, or whether he loved the second woman, for this is obvious.

And necessarily, the intention of Scripture is to teach something new: that there is no distinction in the law of the firstborn’s inheritance between whether his mother was beloved in the eyes of the Almighty or hated in His eyes.

And it requires examination:

And is there

a woman

beloved before the Omnipresent, and is there

a woman

hated before the Omnipresent?

And why did Scripture call one of them beloved and the second hated?

Rather,

necessarily,

“beloved”

means

beloved

by the Omnipresent

in her marriage

, that her marriage was performed in a valid manner.

And

“hated”

, that she is

hated

by the Omnipresent

in her marriage

, that is, there was in her marriage to her husband a transgression of a negative commandment, which is something hated before the Almighty.

And in any event

the Merciful One said

concerning both of them

“When there are

”. And it implies that there is in them marital status, that the betrothal took effect despite the fact that they are a transgression.

And from here it is proven that betrothal takes effect with those liable for negative commandments. And if so, it is impossible to exclude his sister from those liable for negative commandments from the verse “the daughter of your father’s wife,” for she has marital status with his father.

But we still ask:

And say

, “the daughter of your father’s wife” comes to exclude as follows:

except for

his sister who was born to his father from a woman who is

liable to karet

for him, with whom betrothal does not take effect, and his father has no marital status with her mother.

Said

he explained:

Rava

: This verse speaks of his sister who was born to his father from a woman who is liable to karet for his father, 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

”

whether they say to your father, ‘Keep’

his wife, the mother of your sister, and

whether they say to your father, ‘Take out’

[the mother of your sister] because of the prohibition of karet.

And the Merciful One said

in every circumstance—

“she is your sister!”

And necessarily, the exclusion of “the daughter of your father’s wife” applies only to his sister from a maidservant, exclusively!

And we ask:

Say

the opposite, that indeed the verse comes to say

whether they say

to

him

—to

your father, ‘Keep,’ whether they say

to

him

—to

your father, ‘Take out.’

And

concerning them

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

Rather, Scripture came

to include

for prohibition his

sister from a maidservant and

his sister from a

non-Jewish woman, but not his sister from those liable to karet!

And what did you see

to include his sister from his mother, who is liable to karet for his father, and to exclude his sister from a maidservant and from a non-Jewish woman!?

And we answer:

It is reasonable

that his sister from

those liable to karet should have been included, since betrothal takes effect with them for everyone

. Therefore, his sister born from such a mother is considered his sister more than his sister born from a maidservant, with whom his father has no betrothal at all.

And we refute:

On the contrary! A maidservant and a non-Jewish woman should have been included

—that he should be liable for his sister born from them, since with them the possibility of betrothal applies more,

for if she converts

, if the maidservant or the non-Jewish woman converts, then

for him

, for his father,

too, betrothal takes effect with her.

Whereas with those liable to karet, his father will never have betrothal with her!?

And we conclude: It is preferable to include those liable to karet, since with a maidservant there is presently no possibility of betrothal at all, and the fact that betrothal applies to her when she converts is not a reason to include her. For

when she converts

, when she converts—

she is a different person!

And this is not considered that she presently, while she is in her non-Jewish state, has some aspect of the possibility of betrothal.

Therefore, “the daughter of your father’s wife” excludes his sister born from a maidservant and a non-Jewish woman, with neither of whom does the possibility of betrothal apply to anyone.

And now the Gemara returns to discuss the dispute between the Sages and Rabbi Yosei bar Rabbi Yehuda: whether one is liable for his sister who is the daughter of his father’s wife twice, both for his sister and for the daughter of his father’s wife.

And we inquire:

And the Sages

, who hold one liable also for the daughter of his father’s wife, and require the verse for itself, and do not expound from it the exclusion of Rabbi Yosei bar Rabbi Yehuda, to exclude his sister born from a maidservant and from a non-Jewish woman—

To exclude

his sister born from a

maidservant and a non-Jewish woman—

from where do they derive it?

And we answer: The Sages

derive it

, they learn this,

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

For it implies from here that her children are not attributed to her husband, and that his sons or daughters have no brotherhood with the maidservant’s children.

And Rabbi Yosei bar Rabbi Yehuda

—why did he need to exclude this from “the daughter of your father’s wife,” and not learn as the Sages?

Since he holds that it is necessary to exclude it from two verses:

One concerning a maidservant

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

And one concerning a non-Jewish woman

: the verse “the daughter of your father’s wife” comes to exclude his sister born from a non-Jewish woman.

And they are necessary

—separate verses are necessary to exclude both of them.

For if it had informed us

that he has no brotherhood with those born from the

maidservant,

I would have said that he has no brotherhood only with those born from the maidservant,

because she has no lineage

, but she is likened to a donkey, whose children have no lineage.

Therefore, there is no brotherhood between his sons and daughters and the sons and daughters born from the maidservant.

But

with those born from a

non-Jewish woman, who has lineage

, for she is attributed to her father,

say that they were not

excluded. And they have brotherhood with his sons.

And

conversely,

if it had informed us

that there is no brotherhood with those born to him from a

non-Jewish woman,

I would have said that there is no brotherhood only with those from her,

because she has no connection

—the non-Jewish woman—

with mitzvot,

and she has no connection whatsoever to Israel.

But

those born to him from a

maidservant, who has a connection with mitzvot

, for a male slave is liable for all the mitzvot for which a woman is liable—

say that they were not

excluded from brotherhood.

And therefore

it is necessary

to have both verses, to exclude those born from a maidservant and from a non-Jewish woman from brotherhood.

And we ask again:

And the Sages

, who learned the exclusion from “The woman and her children shall belong to her master,” which is stated concerning a maidservant, this is difficult for them: We have

found

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

maidservant, but to exclude brotherhood with those born to him from a

non-Jewish woman—

from where do they derive it

for the Sages?

And if you say, let us derive

it for a non-Jewish woman

from a maidservant

, Rabbi Yosei bar Rabbi Yehuda already explained that

those

two verses

are both necessary!

And the necessity is because it is impossible to compare a non-Jewish woman to a maidservant.

And we answer:

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

in the Book of Deuteronomy [7:3], concerning the seven nations that were in the Land of Israel, and concerning whom we were commanded to destroy them and not show them mercy. And likewise Scripture commanded:

“You shall 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 serve other gods.”

And from the wording of Scripture it implies that there is a distinction between a non-Jewish man who has intercourse with an Israelite woman and an Israelite man who has intercourse with a non-Jewish woman.

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

“your son” born from an Israelite woman is called “your son

”. Therefore Scripture said that an Israelite woman should not intermarry with a non-Jewish man, since “your son,” the son who will be born to her from him, will be Israelite and will be called “your son

”.

Whereas his non-Jewish father will turn him away from following the Lord, to serve idolatry.

And your son who comes from a non-Jewish woman is not called “your son,” but “her son

”. Therefore the Torah did not say that one must also be concerned about the son of a non-Jewish woman married to an Israelite, lest she turn the son born to him from her away from being Israelite.

For he is not attributed to his Israelite father, but only to his non-Jewish mother, and there is no concern here of turning him away from following the Lord.

And if so, it is explicit in the Torah that those born to an Israelite from a non-Jewish woman are not attributed after him, but after the mother. Therefore, they have no brotherhood with his sons born to him from an Israelite woman.

Ravina said: Learn from it

, from the verse speaking of an Israelite daughter who married a non-Jewish man and says, “for he will turn your son away from Me,” that

your daughter’s son, who comes from the non-Jewish man

—

is called “your son

”!

And we inquire:

Let us say: Ravina holds that a non-Jewish man or a slave who has intercourse with an Israelite woman produces offspring who is fit!?

For the unqualified wording, that he is called “your son,” implies that he is a fit Israelite; yet they dispute this matter 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 also not fit.

Rather, he is called

“a disqualified Israelite”

, since he was born from a non-Jewish man.

And we ask: It implies from here that, according to everyone, the son of an Israelite man who has intercourse with a non-Jewish woman is attributed after his mother, that his offspring is like her.

And seemingly there is no proof for this from the verse “for he will turn your son away from Me”!

For

this

verse is written only

concerning the seven nations

exclusively; it is

written.

And we answer: We expound

“for he will turn away”

—

to include all those who turn away!

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

Therefore, if the mother is a non-Jewish woman, the offspring is not Israelite.

And we ask:

This works well 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 non-Jewish man turn his Israelite son away from following the Lord. Therefore, according to him, when the reason is written in the verse, it is superfluous.

And we expound from it to include all those who turn away.

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

But according to the Sages

, who do not expound the reason of the verse, there is a need to write the reason of “for he will turn away” in order to explain it.

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

And if so,

from where do they derive

to learn concerning the other nations that an Israelite who has intercourse with them has a non-Jewish offspring, like the mother?

And we answer:

Who is the tanna

, who is the

one who disputes Rabbi Yosei bar Rabbi Yehuda

and learns to exclude brotherhood with a non-Jewish woman from “for he will turn away”?

The method of

Rabbi Shimon is.