Yevamot 49b (מט:) — the Talmud in English

And

thus everyone agrees—even Rabbi Akiva, who deems a child a mamzer even when he is born from relationships forbidden by ordinary prohibitions that do not involve familial relations, such as one who remarries his divorced wife after she has married another man—

if the husband has relations

with the sota, that is, with his wife after she committed adultery, even if it is certain that she committed adultery and she is forbidden to him by a prohibition—

the child is not a mamzer!

Abaye explains his statement:

With regard to a menstruating woman, although relations with her are forbidden to her husband by karet, everyone agrees that the child is not a mamzer,

because betrothal takes effect with regard to her as a wife. For her betrothal to her husband does not lapse while she is menstruating, and therefore the child is not a mamzer.

For according to everyone, a mamzer is only one born from a woman with whom betrothal does not take effect for him.

For the basis of mamzer status is “a foreign blemish”: the “foreignness” between the man and the woman—that no marital bond can exist between them, and they remain strangers to one another forever—is what causes the child born from them to be a mamzer.

Therefore, if the betrothal of a menstruating woman does not lapse during her menstruation, this proves that betrothal to her husband is possible even while she is menstruating; only intercourse with her is forbidden, and this is why the child is not a mamzer.

As it is stated concerning one who has relations with a menstruating woman, who becomes impure for seven days, like the menstruating woman with whom he had relations: [Leviticus 15

«

“And her menstruation shall be upon him.”]

“And it shall be”—this is an expression of existence; the verse teaches that

even during her menstruation, betrothal takes effect with regard to her.

Likewise, with regard to a sota, the child born from her husband is not a mamzer, although he violates the prohibition against relations with a zona,

because betrothal takes effect with regard to her. Her betrothal to her husband does not lapse because of her adultery, and therefore the child is not a mamzer.

It was taught likewise, in accordance with Abaye’s statement,

as follows:

Everyone agrees with regard to

a husband who

has relations with a menstruating woman, and

with regard to a husband who

has relations with a sota

who committed adultery while married to him,

and

with regard to a man who is a stranger to the woman and has relations

with a yevama awaiting levirate marriage—

the child is not a mamzer.

The beraita maintains that a child born from a stranger who has relations with a yevama awaiting levirate marriage is not a mamzer, since betrothal by a stranger takes effect with regard to the yevama.

Rav and Shmuel disagree about this matter below [92b].

According to Rav, betrothal by a stranger does not take effect with regard to a yevama awaiting levirate marriage.

Rav derives this from the verse, “The wife of the dead shall not be married outside, to a strange man.” Rav understands the verse to mean: there can be no act of betrothal between a yevama awaiting levirate marriage and a strange man; only the yevama’s levirate partner may take her as a wife, and no other man.

According to Rav, since betrothal by a stranger does not take effect with regard to her, if a stranger has relations with her, the child is a mamzer.

Shmuel, however, is uncertain whether the verse means as Rav says—that there can be no act of betrothal whatsoever between a yevama and a stranger—or whether it means the opposite: that the act of betrothal by a stranger to a yevama is prohibited by a regular prohibition, and that a stranger who betroths her as his wife violates this prohibition by effecting her betrothal to himself. The fact that the Torah itself prohibits taking her reveals that betrothal by him does take effect with regard to her, for otherwise there would be no prohibition against taking her.

The beraita that states that a child born from a yevama is not a mamzer accords with the possibility in Shmuel’s view that betrothal by a stranger takes effect with regard to her. According to Shmuel’s other possibility, and according to Rav, the child would be a mamzer.

And we inquire concerning this:

But Abaye, who said, “Everyone agrees with regard to one who has relations with a menstruating woman or with a sota that the child is not a mamzer,” why did he not also mention a yevama, as the beraita does?

And we answer:

With regard to a yevama,

Abaye is uncertain

to

whether the halakha is like Rav,

who holds that the child is a mamzer,

or whether it is like

one possibility in the opinion of

Shmuel,

who holds that betrothal takes effect with regard to her and that the child is not a mamzer, as explained.

We learned in the Mishna:

Rabbi Shimon ben Azzai said:

“I found a genealogical scroll in Jerusalem.”

It was taught:

we learned in a beraita:

“Shimon ben Azzai says: I found a genealogical scroll in Jerusalem, and it was written in it: So-and-so is a mamzer born from a married woman.”

And

I also found

written in it: “The teaching of Rabbi Eliezer ben Yaakov is—

a kav, and pure!”

We find only a small measure of his teachings, just as a kav is a small measure; but wherever his teachings were repeated, the halakha follows him, because his words are clear and true, like fine flour free of every impurity.

And

also

written in it: “Manasseh killed Isaiah.”

Rava said: He judged him,

Manasseh judged him according to the law that will be explained below,

and killed him,

that is, he killed him.

Manasseh said to

Manasseh said to Isaiah:

“Moses, your master, said [Exodus 33

]]

‘For man shall not see Me and live.’”

And

if

you said [Isaiah 6

]:

‘And I saw the Lord sitting upon a high and exalted throne,’

and nevertheless you remained alive!

“Moses, your master, said [Deuteronomy 4

]:

‘For who is like the Lord our God whenever we call to Him!’

meaning that whenever we call to Him, the prayer is heard.

And

if

you said [Isaiah 55

]:

‘Seek the Lord when He is found,’

indicating that there is a time when He is available to hear, and a time when He is not available to hear our call to Him.

“Moses, your master, said [Exodus 23]

in the language of a blessing:

‘I will fill the number of your days.’”

This means that the days allotted to a person will be complete, without diminution on account of sin.

But the expression “I will fill” implies that, at most, the blessing is that his days will be complete, as allotted to him; an additional blessing beyond the number of days allotted to a person at birth is not possible.

And

if

you said to Hezekiah [II Kings 20

]:

‘And I will add to your days

[allotted at the time of your birth]

fifteen years.’”

Isaiah said: “I know him,

Manasseh;

he will not accept what I say to him,

he will not accept what I tell him in response to his arguments.

And if I tell him, I will make him a deliberate transgressor.

If I tell him and he does not accept my words and kills me, he will then be deliberate in killing me, whereas now he has the status of one who “says that it is permitted” for him to kill me, since he believes that he is acting lawfully.

It would thus emerge that I would cause him to stumble by leading him to kill me deliberately.

Isaiah said

Isaiah

there,

and

I will be swallowed up in

inside a

cedar tree.

They brought the cedar,

they brought the cedar tree,

and sawed it.

When

the saw

reached the vicinity of his mouth,

at Isaiah’s mouth, the saw cut through his mouth, and

his soul departed,

Isaiah died.

The reason he died in this manner is

because he said [Isaiah 6

]:

‘And I dwell among a people of impure lips.’”

For he spoke of the disgrace of Israel on his own initiative; the Holy One, blessed be He, had not commanded him to say this, and he did not say it as a rebuke.

And now, after the Gemara has presented Manasseh’s arguments, as well as Isaiah’s statement that the verses can be reconciled, but that Manasseh would not accept the explanation, the Gemara discusses the matter:

In any event, the verses contradict one another!

The Gemara explains:

A. With regard to Isaiah’s statement

“And I saw the Lord,”

while Moses our teacher said, “Man shall not see Me and live,” there is no difficulty—

As it was taught: All the prophets gazed

at the Holy One, blessed be He,

through a speculum [כלי הבטה] [a viewing instrument]

that does not shine.

Therefore, they thought that they had seen the Holy One, blessed be He, but in fact they had not seen Him!

Whereas

Moses our teacher gazed through a shining speculum,

and realized that he had not seen Him face-to-face!

B. With regard to Isaiah’s statement

“Seek the Lord when He is found,”

while Moses our teacher said, “There is none like the Lord our God whenever we call to Him,” there is no difficulty—

This one is referring to an individual,

whose prayer is heard only when the Holy One, blessed be He, is “found.”

That one is referring to the community,

whose prayer is heard at all times.

And when is an individual

whose prayer heard only when He is “found”?

Rav Naḥman said that Rabba bar Avuha said: These are the ten days between Rosh HaShana and Yom Kippur.

C. With regard to Isaiah’s statement to Hezekiah, “And I will add fifteen years to your days,” while Moses our teacher said

“I will fill the number of your days”—

it is a dispute

among tannaim!

As it was taught: “I will fill the number of your days.”