Yevamot 49a (מט.) — the Talmud in English

Mishna:

1.

Who is a mamzer?

Anyone born from a union with

a forbidden degree of

kinship that is subject to the prohibition “he shall not enter”—

the words of Rabbi Akiva.

That is, a child born from any forbidden union categorized as one of the relationships subject to lavin [and all the more so a child born from unions more severe than these], such as the woman violated by his father according to Rabbi Yehuda, which is subject to a lav, or one who marries a woman who performed halitza with him, who is forbidden to him by a lav: “Since he did not build up the house, he shall no longer build it.”

Shimon HaTimni says: Anyone for whom one is liable to receive karet at the hand of Heaven—

the child born from such a union is a mamzer, but not one born from relationships subject to lavin, such as one who marries a woman who performed halitza with him.

And the halakha is in accordance with his statement!

And Rabbi Yehoshua says: Anyone for whom one is liable to receive the death penalty imposed by a court—

but not those subject to karet, and all the more so not those subject to lavin.

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

from a married woman!

This wording demonstrates that he is a mamzer because he derives from the transgression involving a married woman, whose punishment is death imposed by a court; and this wording provides proof

to uphold the statement of Rabbi Yehoshua,

that a mamzer is born only from relationships subject to the death penalty imposed by a court.

2.

If his wife died—

he is

permitted to marry her sister.

If he divorced

his wife,

and she died—

he is

permitted to marry her sister.

If she married another man and died—

he is

permitted to marry her sister.

And likewise with his yevama:

If his yevama died—

he is permitted to marry her sister;

if he performed halitza with her and she died—

he is permitted to marry her sister;

if she married another man and died—

he is permitted to marry her sister.

The Gemara explains that this is a straightforward Mishna, and here Rabbi taught a Mishna that was unnecessary.

Gemara:

We raise a discussion concerning it:

What is the reason for Rabbi Akiva’s view,

who says that even a child born from relationships subject to lavin is a mamzer?

And we answer: It is because

it is written:

Deuteronomy 23]

“A man shall not take his father’s wife, nor shall he uncover his father’s wing.”

And we derive:

The wing that his father saw—

he shall not uncover!

And Rabbi Akiva holds

with

Rabbi Yehuda, who says: The verse is speaking of the woman violated by his father, who is among those subject to lavin.

And it is juxtaposed to this verse:

Deuteronomy 23]

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

Therefore, it follows that from these,

from relationships subject to lavin,

one becomes a mamzer.

The Gemara adds:

And according to Rabbi Simai, who includes the other relationships subject to lavin

as producing mamzerim, meaning those born from them, even prohibitions involving lavin

that are not lavin of kinship,

that is, they are not prohibitions involving a lav concerning a forbidden union.

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

And

likewise

according to Rabbi Yoshevav, who includes

mamzerim

even

from

relationships subject to a positive commandment.

For example, an Egyptian or an Edomite, whose prohibition is not a lav but only a prohibition by a positive commandment, as it is stated: “The third generation may enter their descendants into the assembly of the Lord.” This is a prohibition by a positive commandment: only the third generation, and not the second—

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, dealing with the woman violated by his father [who is subject to a lav of kinship], also those subject to lavin that are not of kinship, and also prohibitions by positive commandments, all of which are linked by this verse to the prohibition concerning a mamzer that follows it.

And Shimon HaTimni,

who says that a mamzer is not born from those subject to lavin but only from those subject to karet,

holds in accordance with the Rabbis,

according to whom this verse is not speaking at all of the woman violated by his father.

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

the verse is speaking of his father’s shomeret yavam.

It is

the wife of his father’s brother,

who is

subject to karet.

This prohibition is stated in Leviticus, among the forbidden sexual relations, and the Torah repeats it in Deuteronomy,

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

“A mamzer shall not enter”—

to teach you

that a child born from such a union is a mamzer.

Therefore,

only

from those subject to karet does one become a mamzer.

And Rabbi Yehoshua,

who says that one becomes a mamzer only from those subject to the death penalty imposed by a court—what will he do with the expositions of the other tannaim?

Rabbi Yehoshua reasons: If the verse is speaking of his father’s shomeret yavam, as the Sages say, or if the verse is speaking of the woman violated by his father, as Rabbi Yehuda says, and the juxtaposition to the verse concerning a mamzer teaches that according to the Rabbis a mamzer is born from those subject to karet, or according to Rabbi Yehuda from those subject to lavin—

Let the Merciful One write only, “He shall not uncover

his father’s wing”!

For since the verse deals with his father’s shomeret yavam, or with the woman violated by his father, and teaches that a mamzer is born from them, all the more so a mamzer is born from those subject to the death penalty imposed by a court, such as a father’s wife, for which there is both karet and death imposed by a court.

If so, the fact that the verse first states

“A man shall not take

his father’s wife”—

why do I need

it to write this at all? We should already know, by means of a kal va-chomer, that the child born from such a union is a mamzer!?

Rather, is it not

from the fact that the verse took the trouble to write here the verse “A man shall not take his father’s wife” that

this is what

the verse is saying:

Only a father’s wife during her husband’s lifetime, who is a married woman and whose liability is death imposed by a court, which is written in the verse

from “A man shall not take

his father’s wife”

until “He shall not uncover

his father’s wing”—

is a mamzer.

All the more so,

from this point onward, in the verse “He shall not uncover his father’s wing,” which according to the Rabbis speaks of his father’s shomeret yavam, whose liability is only karet [a father’s wife after the father’s death, when she is no longer a married woman], and according to Rabbi Yehuda speaks of the woman violated by his father, who is subject only to lavin—

he is not a mamzer!

Abaye said: Everyone agrees,

even Shimon HaTimni, who makes a mamzer from those subject to karet,

that one who engages in intercourse with a menstruating woman

whose intercourse is prohibited by karet, but is not among the forbidden unions involving kinship.