Yevamot 49b — the Talmud in English

And

thus everyone agrees, even Rabbi Akiva, who makes a mamzer even from those subject to prohibitions that are not [forbidden because of] kinship, such as one who remarries his divorced wife after she has married

for if the husband came

upon the sotah,

upon his wife after she committed adultery, and even if she certainly committed adultery and is forbidden to him by a prohibition

the child is not a mamzer!

And Abaye explains his statement:

A menstruant,

although intercourse with her is forbidden to her husband by karet, everyone agrees that the child is not a mamzer,

for betrothal takes hold with her

as a woman. For at the time of her menstruation, her betrothal to her husband does not lapse, and therefore the child is not a mamzer.

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

Since the foundation of mamzerut is “foreign defect”: the “foreignness” between the man and the woman, such that a marital bond between them is impossible, but they are forever strangers to one another—that is what causes the mamzerut of the child born from them.

Therefore, if the betrothal of the menstruant does not lapse at the time of her menstruation, this is proof that betrothal with her by the husband is possible even at the time of her menstruation, and only intercourse with her is forbidden; and this is the reason that the child is not a mamzer.

As it is stated

concerning one who has intercourse with a menstruant, that he becomes impure for seven days like the menstruant with whom he has intercourse: [Leviticus 15]

“And her menstruation shall be upon him.”

“Shall be” is an expression of existence; the verse teaches that

even at the time of her menstruation, betrothal takes hold with her.

The sotah likewise,

there is no mamzer from her husband, although he transgresses the prohibition against intercourse with a woman forbidden as an adulteress,

for betrothal takes hold with her.

For 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 words:

Everyone agrees, with regard to

a husband who

has intercourse with a menstruant, and

with regard to a husband who comes

upon the sotah

who committed adultery while married to him,

and

with regard to a foreign man who comes

upon a shomeret yavam—

that the child is not a mamzer.

And the beraita holds that there is no mamzer from a foreign man who comes upon a shomeret yavam, since betrothal by a foreign man takes hold with the yevama.

And they disputed this matter below [92b], Rav and Shmuel.

According to Rav, betrothal does not take hold with a shomeret yavam for a foreign man.

And Rav learned this from the verse, “The wife of the dead shall not be outside to a foreign man,” and Rav holds that the meaning of the verse is: There shall not be an act of existence through betrothal with a shomeret yavam for a foreign man; rather, only the yevama may take her as a wife, and no other man.

And according to Rav, since betrothal by a foreign man does not take hold with her, if a foreign man comes upon her, the child will be a mamzer.

But Shmuel is uncertain whether the intent of the verse is like Rav, to say that there is no act of existence at all with a yevama for a foreign man; or whether it means the opposite: that the prohibition of the act of existence by a foreign man with a shomeret yavam is a prohibition, so that a foreign man who betroths her to himself as a wife transgresses a prohibition by making her exist for himself. And the verse itself reveals that betrothal takes hold with her, for otherwise there would not be a prohibition of taking her.

And the beraita that says there is no mamzer with a shomeret yavam accords with the side of Shmuel that betrothal with a foreign man takes effect with her, because according to the other side of Shmuel, and according to Rav, he is a mamzer.

And we raise an inquiry concerning it:

And Abaye,

who said, “Everyone agrees, with regard to one who comes upon a menstruant and upon the sotah, that the child is not a mamzer”—why did he not also mention a shomeret yavam, as does the beraita?

And we answer:

A shomeret yavam—

it is uncertain to him

to Abaye

whether like Rav,

who holds that he is a mamzer,

or whether like

one side of

Shmuel,

that betrothal takes hold with her, and the child is not a mamzer, as was explained.

We learned in the Mishna:

Rabbi Shimon ben Azzai said,

“I found a genealogy scroll in Jerusalem.”

It was taught,

we learned in a beraita:

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

And

I further found

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

a kab, and clean!

We find his words in a small measure, just as a kab is a small measure; but wherever his words were taught, the halakha is in accordance with him, because his words are clear in their truth, like clean fine flour, free of every impurity.

And

further

written in it: Menasseh killed Isaiah.

Rava said: He judged him,

he judged him in the judgment that will be explained below,

and killed him,

and put him to death.

He said to him

Menasseh to Isaiah:

“Moses your master said [Exodus 33]

‘For man shall not see Me and live.’”

‘For man shall not see Me and live.’”

And

if

you said [Isaiah 6]

“And I saw the Lord sitting upon a throne, high and raised up,”

‘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!’”

‘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.”

‘Seek the Lord when He is found,’

That there is a time when He is found to hear, and a time when He is not found to hear our calling to Him.

“Moses your master said [Exodus 23] in the language of a blessing

‘The number of your days I shall fill.’”

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

That the days allotted to a person should be complete, without diminution on account of sin.

But the wording “I shall fill” implies that, at most, the blessing will be that his days will be full according to what was allotted to him; but an addition of blessing beyond the number of days allotted to a person at the time of his birth is not possible.

And

if

you said to Hezekiah [II Kings 20]

“And I shall add to your days

fifteen years”

[allotted at the time of your birth].

fifteen years.’”

Isaiah said: I know him

in the case of Menasseh,

that he will not accept what I say to him,

that he will not accept what I say and I will answer his arguments.

And if I say it to him, I will make him intentional.

If I tell him and he does not accept my words, and he kills me, then he will be intentional in killing me, whereas now he has the status of one who “says, ‘It is permitted,’” to kill me, for he thinks that he is acting according to law.

And it will turn out that I cause him to stumble by killing me intentionally.

Isaiah said

Isaiah

there

and

I will be swallowed into

the interior of a cedar

tree.

They brought the cedar tree,

they brought the cedar wood,

and they sawed it.

When it reached

when the sawing saw

opposite the mouth,

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

his soul departed,

Isaiah died.

And the reason that he died in this manner was

because he said [Isaiah 6]

“And among a people of impure lips I dwell.”

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

For he spoke of Israel’s disgrace on his own, and the Holy One, blessed is He, did not command him to say this, and he did not say it by way of rebuke.

And now, after the Gemara brought Menasseh’s arguments, and the fact that Isaiah said that the verses must be reconciled, but that Menasseh would not accept the explanation, the Gemara discusses:

In any event, the verses contradict one another!

And the Gemara explains:

a. As for what Isaiah said,

“And I saw the Lord,”

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

as it was taught: All the prophets gazed

upon the Holy One, blessed is He,

through an aspaklaria

[an instrument of vision]

that does not illuminate.

And therefore they thought that they saw the Holy One, blessed is He, but in fact they did not see Him!

Whereas

Moses our teacher gazed through an aspaklaria that illuminates,

and realized that he did not see Him face-to-face!

b. As for what Isaiah said,

“Seek the Lord when He is found,”

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

This refers to an individual,

he is heard only when the Holy One, blessed is He, is “found.”

This refers to the community,

its prayer is heard at all times.

And when does an individual

who has sinned become heard when He is “found”?

Rav Naḥman said in the name of Rabbah bar Avuha: These are the ten days between Rosh Hashanah and Yom Kippur.

c. As for what Isaiah said to Hezekiah, “And I shall add to your days fifteen years,” whereas Moses our teacher said

“The number of your days I shall fill”—

it is a dispute

among the tannaim!

As it was taught: “The number of your days I shall fill.”