Yevamot 49a — the Talmud in English

Mishna:

1.

Who is a mamzer?

Anyone whose other

kinship

of flesh is subject to “shall not enter,”

the words of Rabbi Akiva.

That is, a child born from any of the prohibitions of kinship at the level of “those liable for prohibitions,” [and all the more so a child born from prohibitions of kinship more severe than these], such as the one who violates his father’s raped woman, according to Rabbi Yehuda, which is subject to a prohibition, and such as one who marries his halutza, who is prohibited to him by a prohibition: “Since he did not build, he shall not again build.”

Shimon the Timnite says: Anyone for whom one is liable to karet at the hands of Heaven

the child born from him is a mamzer, but not [a child born] from those liable for prohibitions, such as one who marries his halutza.

And the halakha is in accordance with his words!

And Rabbi Yehoshua says: Anyone for whom one is liable to execution by the court

but not those liable for karet, and all the more so not those liable for prohibitions.

Rabbi Shimon ben Azzai said: I found a genealogical scroll in Jerusalem, and written in it was: So-and-so is a mamzer—

from a married woman!

And it is proven from this wording that he is a mamzer because he came from the transgression involving a married woman, whose punishment is execution by the court, and there is from this wording proof

to uphold the words of Rabbi Yehoshua,

that there is no mamzer except from those liable for executions by the court.

2.

His wife who died—

he is

permitted to her sister.

He divorced

his wife,

and she died—

he is

permitted to her sister.

She married another, and she died—

he is

permitted to her sister.

And likewise with his yevama:

His yevama who died—

he is permitted to her sister,

he performed halitza for her, and she died—

he is permitted to her sister,

she married another, and she died—

he is permitted to her sister.

And it is explained in the Gemara that this is a simple Mishna, and here Rabbi taught a Mishna that is unnecessary.

Gemara:

And we raise an objection concerning it:

What is the reason of Rabbi Akiva

who says that there is a mamzer even from those liable for prohibitions?

And we answer: Because

it is written: [Deuteronomy 23]

“

A man shall not take his father’s wife, and he shall not uncover his father’s wing.”

And we interpret:

The wing that his father saw—

he shall not uncover!

And he holds

Rabbi Akiva

in accordance with Rabbi Yehuda, who said: The verse speaks of his father’s raped woman, who is one of those liable for prohibitions.

And it is adjacent to it

this verse: [Deuteronomy 23]

“A mamzer shall not enter the assembly of Hashem.”

Thus, it follows that from these

those liable for prohibitions,

he is a mamzer.

And the Gemara adds:

And according to Rabbi Simai, who includes the other liable-for-prohibition cases

as [making] a mamzer, one who was born from them, and even prohibitions

that are not prohibitions of kinship,

which are not a prohibition concerning kinship.

For example, one who remarries his divorced wife after she married another, which is a matter of impurity and not a matter of kinship. And for example, marrying a netina, whose prohibition is because of intermarriage with the seven nations, concerning whom it is said: “You shall not intermarry with them.” And for example, an Ammonite who married an Israelite woman, whose sons are mamzerim.

And

likewise

according to Rabbi Yishbav, who includes

mamzerim

even

from

those liable for a positive commandment.

For example, an Egyptian or an Edomite, whose prohibition is not by a prohibition, but only by a positive commandment, as it is said: “The third generation shall enter their assembly.” And this is a “positive-commandment prohibition”: the third generation, but not the second generation—

They derive it from

the letter vav at the beginning of the verse,

“And he shall not

uncover his father’s wing,” which comes to add to this verse, which deals with his father’s raped woman [who is a prohibition of kinship], also those liable for prohibitions that are not of kinship, and also positive-commandment prohibitions, all of which are connected by the force of this verse to the prohibition of a mamzer adjacent to it.

And Shimon the Timnite,

who says that there is no mamzer from those liable for prohibitions, but only from those liable for karet,

holds in accordance with the Rabbis,

according to whom this verse does not deal at all with his father’s raped woman.

For the Rabbis say: “He shall not uncover his father’s wing”—

the verse speaks of his father’s yevama.

For she is

his father’s brother’s wife, who is

a

case liable for karet.

And this prohibition is stated in Leviticus, among the forbidden sexual relations, and the verse repeated it in Deuteronomy,

and it is adjacent to it,

to this verse, “And he shall not uncover his father’s wing,” the verse

“A mamzer shall not enter”—

to teach you that the child born from him is a mamzer.

Thus,

only

from those liable for karet is he a mamzer.

And Rabbi Yehoshua,

who says that only from those liable for executions by the court is he a mamzer—what will he do with the interpretations of the other tannaim?

Rabbi Yehoshua holds: If the verse speaks of his father’s yevama, according to the words of the Rabbis, or the verse speaks of his father’s raped woman, according to the words of Rabbi Yehuda, and it teaches you from the adjacency of the verse to [the verse about] a mamzer that according to the Rabbis there is a mamzer from those liable for karet, or according to Rabbi Yehuda from those liable for prohibitions—

Let the Merciful One write “He shall not uncover

his father’s wing” alone!

For since it deals with his father’s yevama, or with his father’s raped woman, and teaches that there is a mamzer from them, all the more so there is a mamzer from those liable for executions by the court, such as his father’s wife, in which there is also karet and execution by the court.

And if so, this that the verse first said

“He shall not take

a man his father’s wife”—

why do I need it

to write it at all? For we must know that the child born [from her] is a mamzer by a kal va-chomer!?

Rather, is it not

from the fact that the verse took pains to write here the verse “He shall not take his father’s wife,” it follows that

this is what the verse says:

The only one who is a mamzer is one who has relations with his father’s wife during his father’s lifetime, who is a married woman, and whose liability is execution by the court, which is written in the verse

from “He shall not take

a man his father’s wife”

up to “

he shall not uncover

his father’s wing”—

he is a mamzer.

All the more so,

from here onward, in the verse “He shall not uncover his father’s wing,” which according to the Rabbis speaks of his father’s yevama, whose liability is only karet [a father’s wife after the father’s death, who is no longer a married woman], and according to Rabbi Yehuda of his father’s raped woman, who is only one of those liable for prohibitions—

he is not a mamzer!

Abaye said: Everyone agrees,

even Shimon the Timnite, who makes a mamzer from those liable for karet,

in the case of one who has relations with a menstruant,

whose intercourse is prohibited by karet, but it is not among the prohibitions of kinship involving forbidden sexual relations.