What makes someone a mamzer? There are three different opinions about whether it is a child born from forbidden relationships that are just negative prohibitions (Rabbi Akiva), ones that are punishable by karet (Shimon HaTimni) and ones that are punishable by death by the court (Rabbi Yehoshua). The Mishna rules like Rabbi Shimon HaTimni but also brings a support for Rabbi Yehoshua’s opinion from a book recording the lineage of people that mentioned a mamzer from a relationship of a man with a married woman which is punishable by the court. If one’s wife or one’s yevama dies, one can marry her sister. That is only permitted upon death, but is not permitted upon divorce or chalitza. There are three different ways to understand Rabbi Akiva’s opinion. How are these different ways, as well as the opinions of Rabbi Shimon HaTimni and Rabbi Yehoshua derived from the verses in the Torah? All opinions agree that one who sleeps with his wife when she is in nidda or his wife after she has been unfaithful, the child is not a mamzer. The reason is because bethrothal takes effect in these situations. Regarding a woman waiting for yibum who is betrothed by a different man, there is a debate if the betrothal is valid. Therefore, it wasn’t mentioned in the list of those whose offspring are not mamzerim. There were three things listed in this scroll with lineages that was mentioned in the Mishna: That a particular person was a mamzer (as mentioned in the Mishna), the Mishna of Rabbi Eliezer ben Yaakov is kav v’naki, and that Menashe the king killed Isaiah. Why did Menashe kill Isaiah? He pronounced him guilty for going against three things that Moshe Rabbeinu said. What were the three things? What could Isaiah have answered to Menashe and why didn’t he? How was Isaiah killed?
Want to dedicate learning? Get started here:
Today’s daily daf tools:
Yevamot 49
מַתְנִי׳ אֵיזֶהוּ מַמְזֵר — כׇּל שְׁאֵר בָּשָׂר שֶׁהוּא בְּ״לֹא יָבֹא״, דִּבְרֵי רַבִּי עֲקִיבָא. שִׁמְעוֹן הַתִּימְנִי אוֹמֵר: כֹּל שֶׁחַיָּיבִים עָלָיו כָּרֵת בִּידֵי שָׁמַיִם, וַהֲלָכָה כִּדְבָרָיו. וְרַבִּי יְהוֹשֻׁעַ אוֹמֵר: כֹּל שֶׁחַיָּיבִין עָלָיו מִיתַת בֵּית דִּין.
MISHNA: Which offspring of forbidden relations have the status of a mamzer? It is the offspring of a union with any next of kin that is subject to a Torah prohibition that he should not engage in sexual relations with them; this is the statement of Rabbi Akiva. Shimon HaTimni says: It is the offspring of a union with any forbidden relation for which one is liable to receive karet at the hand of Heaven. And the halakha is in accordance with his statement. Rabbi Yehoshua says: It is the offspring of a union with any forbidden relation for which one is liable to receive court-imposed capital punishment.
אָמַר רַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן בֶּן עַזַּאי: מָצָאתִי מְגִלַּת יוּחֲסִין בִּירוּשָׁלַיִם, וְכָתוּב בָּהּ: אִישׁ פְּלוֹנִי מַמְזֵר מֵאֵשֶׁת אִישׁ, לְקַיֵּים דִּבְרֵי רַבִּי יְהוֹשֻׁעַ.
Rabbi Shimon ben Azzai said: I found a scroll recording people’s lineages in Jerusalem, and it was written in it that so-and-so is a mamzer from an adulterous union with a married woman, a sin punishable by court-imposed capital punishment. The only reason for the scroll to state the reason that this individual is a mamzer is in order to support the statement of Rabbi Yehoshua.
אִשְׁתּוֹ שֶׁמֵּתָה — מוּתָּר בַּאֲחוֹתָהּ. גֵּרְשָׁהּ וּמֵתָה — מוּתָּר בַּאֲחוֹתָהּ. נִשֵּׂאת לְאַחֵר וּמֵתָה — מוּתָּר בַּאֲחוֹתָהּ. יְבִמְתּוֹ שֶׁמֵּתָה — מוּתָּר בַּאֲחוֹתָהּ. חָלַץ לָהּ וּמֵתָה — מוּתָּר בַּאֲחוֹתָהּ. נִשֵּׂאת לְאַחֵר וּמֵתָה — מוּתָּר בַּאֲחוֹתָהּ.
The mishna delineates the circumstances in which it is prohibited to engage in relations with the sister of one’s wife and the sister of one’s yevama: If a man’s wife died, he is permitted to her sister. If he divorced her and then she died, he is permitted to her sister. If he divorced his wife and then she was married to another and then died, he is permitted to her sister. If his yevama died, he is permitted to her sister. If he performed ḥalitza with her and then she died, he is permitted to her sister. If after ḥalitza she was married to another and then died, he is permitted to her sister. The principle underlying all these cases is that the prohibition against engaging in relations with her sister only applies while the wife or yevama remain alive, irrespective of their current relationship to the man.
גְּמָ׳ מַאי טַעְמָא דְּרַבִּי עֲקִיבָא? דִּכְתִיב: ״לֹא יִקַּח אִישׁ אֶת אֵשֶׁת אָבִיו וְלֹא יְגַלֶּה כְּנַף אָבִיו״. כָּנָף שֶׁרָאָה אָבִיו — לֹא יְגַלֶּה.
GEMARA: What is Rabbi Akiva’s reasoning? As it is written: “A man shall not take his father’s wife, and he shall not uncover his father’s cloak” (Deuteronomy 23:1). This teaches that a cloak that his father saw, i.e., a woman with whom his father engaged in sexual relations, the son may not uncover.
וְסָבַר לַהּ כְּרַבִּי יְהוּדָה, דְּאָמַר: בַּאֲנוּסַת אָבִיו הַכָּתוּב מְדַבֵּר, דְּהָוְיָא לַהּ חַיָּיבֵי לָאוִין,
And in this interpretation of the verse, Rabbi Akiva holds in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yehuda, who said: The verse states only that such relations are forbidden, but they would not render him liable to receive karet; perforce the verse speaks of a woman raped by one’s father, since she is one of the women with whom relations render one liable for violating a prohibition. The verse could not refer to one’s father’s wife since relations with her render one liable to receive karet.
וּסְמִיךְ לֵיהּ: ״לֹא יָבֹא מַמְזֵר בִּקְהַל ה׳״, אַלְמָא מֵהָנֵי הָוֵי מַמְזֵר.
The Gemara completes its explanation of Rabbi Akiva’s opinion: And in close proximity to that verse is the verse: “A mamzer shall not enter into the congregation of the Lord” (Deuteronomy 23:3). Apparently, even from these forbidden relations, which render one liable for the violation of a prohibition, the offspring is a mamzer.
וּלְרַבִּי סִימַאי, דִּמְרַבֵּה שְׁאָר חַיָּיבֵי לָאוִין דְּלָאו דִּ״שְׁאֵר״, וּלְרַבִּי יְשֵׁבָב, דִּמְרַבֵּה אֲפִילּוּ חַיָּיבֵי עֲשֵׂה —
The Gemara asks: But according to Rabbi Simai, who holds that Rabbi Akiva includes as a mamzer the offspring of all other forbidden relations for which one is liable for violation of a prohibition, even those that are not with his next of kin; and also according to Rabbi Yeshevav, who holds that Rabbi Akiva includes even the offspring of relations for which one is liable for the violation of a positive mitzva; since according to them, Rabbi Akiva includes cases that are not similar to the case of a woman raped by his father, what is his source?
נָפְקָא לְהוּ מִ״וְּלֹא״.
The Gemara answers: They derive it from the verse that states: “And he shall not uncover his father’s cloak” (Deuteronomy 23:1). The word “and” is superfluous and serves to include additional cases.
וְשִׁמְעוֹן הַתִּימְנִי סָבַר לַהּ כְּרַבָּנַן, דְּאָמְרִי: בְּשׁוֹמֶרֶת יָבָם שֶׁל אָבִיו הַכָּתוּב מְדַבֵּר, דְּהָוְיָא לַהּ חַיָּיבֵי כָּרֵיתוֹת, וּסְמִיךְ לֵיהּ ״לֹא יָבֹא מַמְזֵר״. אַלְמָא: מֵחַיָּיבֵי כָּרֵיתוֹת הָוֵי מַמְזֵר.
And Shimon HaTimni holds in accordance with the opinion of the Rabbis, who say: It is with regard to the widow waiting for his father to perform levirate marriage that the verse is speaking, and it indicates that she is one of the women with whom relations render one liable to receive karet. And in close proximity to that verse is the verse: “A mamzer shall not enter into the congregation of the Lord” (Deuteronomy 23:3). Apparently, only the offspring of a union for which one is liable to receive karet is a mamzer.
וְרַבִּי יְהוֹשֻׁעַ — לִכְתּוֹב רַחֲמָנָא ״לֹא יְגַלֶּה״. ״לֹא יִקַּח״ (״וְלֹא יְגַלֶּה״) לְמָה לִי? אֶלָּא לָאו, הָכִי קָאָמַר: מִ״לֹּא יִקַּח״ עַד ״לֹא יְגַלֶּה״ — הָוֵי מַמְזֵר, טְפֵי — לָא הָוֵי מַמְזֵר.
And how does Rabbi Yehoshua derive his opinion? If the verses should be derived as Rabbi Akiva and Shimon HaTimni suggest, let the Merciful One write only: “He shall not uncover his father’s cloak.” It is unnecessary for the verse to mention the prohibition with regard to one’s father’s wife, as the fact that the offspring of that union is a mamzer would be known through an a fortiori inference, since that prohibition is more stringent than the one derived from the verse: “And shall not uncover his father’s cloak.” Why do I need both the clause “a man shall not take his father’s wife” and the clause “and shall not uncover his father’s cloak”? Rather, is it not that this is what the Torah is saying: Only the offspring of relations with the woman mentioned in the verse after the words “a man shall not take” until the words “he shall not uncover,” i.e., his father’s wife, is a mamzer, but the offspring of relations with the woman mentioned beyond that point, i.e., the woman referred to as “his father’s cloak,” is not a mamzer.
אָמַר אַבָּיֵי: הַכֹּל מוֹדִים בְּבָא עַל הַנִּדָּה
§ Abaye said: All tanna’im in the mishna agree with regard to one who engages in sexual relations with a menstruating woman,
וְעַל הַסּוֹטָה — שֶׁאֵין הַוָּלָד מַמְזֵר.
or with a sota, that the offspring is not a mamzer.
נִדָּה, דְּהָא תָּפְסִי בַּהּ קִידּוּשִׁין, שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר: ״וּתְהִי נִדָּתָהּ עָלָיו״, אֲפִילּוּ בִּשְׁעַת נִדָּתָהּ תָּפְסִי בַּהּ קִידּוּשִׁין.
With regard to a menstruating woman the offspring is not a mamzer because one’s betrothal of her takes effect, as it is stated: “And her impurity shall be upon him” (Leviticus 15:24). The phrase “shall be” alludes to the fact that a betrothal with her takes effect. The verse teaches that even at the time of her menstrual impurity, betrothal with her takes effect.
סוֹטָה נָמֵי, דְּהָא תָּפְסִי בַּהּ קִידּוּשִׁין.
With regard to a sota, too, the offspring is not a mamzer because one’s betrothal of her takes effect.
תַּנְיָא נָמֵי הָכִי: הַכֹּל מוֹדִים בְּבָא עַל הַנִּדָּה וְעַל הַסּוֹטָה וְעַל שׁוֹמֶרֶת יָבָם, שֶׁאֵין הַוָּלָד מַמְזֵר.
The Gemara notes: This teaching of Abaye is also taught in a baraita: All agree with regard to one who engages in sexual relations with a menstruating woman, or with a sota, or with a widow waiting for her yavam to perform levirate marriage, that the offspring is not a mamzer.
וְאַבָּיֵי, שׁוֹמֶרֶת יָבָם — מְסַפְּקָא לֵיהּ אִי כְּרַב אִי כִּשְׁמוּאֵל.
The Gemara explains: And Abaye did not mention the case of a widow waiting for her yavam because he is uncertain whether, if someone other than the yavam betrothed her, the halakha is in accordance with the opinion of Rav that it does not take effect or in accordance with the opinion of Shmuel that it might take effect.
אָמַר רַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן בֶּן עַזַּאי כּוּ׳. תָּנֵי, שִׁמְעוֹן בֶּן עַזַּאי אוֹמֵר: מָצָאתִי מְגִלַּת יוּחֲסִין בִּירוּשָׁלַיִם, וְכָתוּב בָּהּ: אִישׁ פְּלוֹנִי מַמְזֵר מֵאֵשֶׁת אִישׁ, וְכָתוּב בָּהּ: מִשְׁנַת רַבִּי אֱלִיעֶזֶר בֶּן יַעֲקֹב קַב וְנָקִי. וְכָתוּב בָּהּ: מְנַשֶּׁה הָרַג אֶת יְשַׁעְיָה.
§ The mishna states: Rabbi Shimon ben Azzai said: I found a scroll recording people’s lineages. The Gemara cites an expanded version of the contents of the scroll. It is taught in a baraita that Rabbi Shimon ben Azzai said: I found a scroll recording people’s lineages, in Jerusalem, and it was written in it that so-and-so is a mamzer from an adulterous union with a married woman. And it was also written in it: The teachings of Rabbi Eliezer ben Ya’akov measure only a kav but are clean and accurate, and so the halakha is decided in accordance with his opinions. And it was written in it: Manasseh, king of Israel, killed Isaiah the prophet.
אָמַר רָבָא: מֵידָן דַּיְינֵיהּ וְקַטְלֵיהּ. אֲמַר לֵיהּ, מֹשֶׁה רַבְּךָ אָמַר: ״כִּי לֹא יִרְאַנִי הָאָדָם וָחָי״, וְאַתְּ אָמְרַתְּ: ״וָאֶרְאֶה אֶת ה׳ יוֹשֵׁב עַל כִּסֵּא רָם וְנִשָּׂא״. מֹשֶׁה רַבְּךָ אָמַר: ״מִי כַּה׳ אֱלֹהֵינוּ בְּכׇל קׇרְאֵנוּ אֵלָיו״, וְאַתְּ אָמְרַתְּ: ״דִּרְשׁוּ ה׳ בְּהִמָּצְאוֹ״. מֹשֶׁה רַבְּךָ אָמַר: ״אֶת מִסְפַּר יָמֶיךָ אֲמַלֵּא״, וְאַתְּ אָמְרַתְּ: ״וְהוֹסַפְתִּי עַל יָמֶיךָ חֲמֵשׁ עֶשְׂרֵה שָׁנָה״!
The Gemara expands on the events surrounding Isaiah’s death: Rava said: Manasseh judged him as a false witness for issuing statements contradicting the Torah and only then killed him. Manasseh said to Isaiah: Moses your master said in the Torah: “And He said: You cannot see My face, for man cannot see Me and live” (Exodus 33:20), and yet you said: “I saw the Lord sitting upon a high and lofty throne” (Isaiah 6:1). Moses your master said: “For which great nation is there, that has God so near to it, as the Lord our God is, whenever we call upon Him?” (Deuteronomy 4:7), and yet you said: “Seek the Lord while He may be found, call upon Him while He is near” (Isaiah 55:6), which implies that God is not always near. Moses your master said: “I will fulfill the number of your days” (Exodus 23:26), which implies that each individual has a preordained allotted lifespan that he cannot outlive, and yet you said in a prophecy to King Hezekiah: “And I will add to your days, fifteen years” (II Kings 20:6).
אָמַר יְשַׁעְיָה: יָדַעְנָא בֵּיהּ דְּלָא מְקַבֵּל מָה דְּאֵימָא לֵיהּ, וְאִי אֵימָא לֵיהּ — אֶישַּׁוְּיֵיהּ מֵזִיד. אֲמַר שֵׁם אִיבְּלַע בְּאַרְזָא, אַתְיוּהּ לְאַרְזָא וְנַסְּרוּהּ. כִּי מְטָא לַהֲדֵי פּוּמָּא, נָח נַפְשֵׁיהּ. מִשּׁוּם דַּאֲמַר: ״וּבְתוֹךְ עַם טְמֵא שְׂפָתַיִם אָנֹכִי יוֹשֵׁב״.
Isaiah said to himself: I know him, i.e., Manasseh, that he will not accept whatever explanation that I will say to him to resolve my prophecies with the words of the Torah. And even if I say it to him, I will make him into an intentional transgressor since he will kill me anyway. Therefore, in order to escape, he uttered a divine name and was swallowed within a cedar tree. Manasseh’s servants brought the cedar tree and sawed through it in order to kill him. When the saw reached to where his mouth was, Isaiah died. He died specifically at this point due to that which he said: “In the midst of a people of unclean lips, I dwell” (Isaiah 6:5). He was punished for referring to the Jewish people in a derogatory manner.
מִכׇּל מָקוֹם קָשׁוּ קְרָאֵי אַהֲדָדֵי?
The Gemara asks: In any case, as Manasseh pointed out, these verses contradict each other; how are these contradictions to be resolved?
״וָאֶרְאֶה אֶת ה׳״, כִּדְתַנְיָא: כׇּל הַנְּבִיאִים נִסְתַּכְּלוּ בְּאַסְפַּקְלַרְיָא שֶׁאֵינָהּ מְאִירָה, מֹשֶׁה רַבֵּינוּ נִסְתַּכֵּל בְּאַסְפַּקְלַרְיָא הַמְּאִירָה.
The Gemara resolves the first contradiction: “I saw the Lord” is to be understood as it is taught in a baraita: All of the prophets observed their prophecies through an obscure looking glass [aspaklaria], i.e., their prophecies were given as metaphoric visions but were not a direct perception of the matter. However, Moses our master observed his prophecies through a clear looking glass, i.e., he gained a direct and accurate perception of the matter.
״דִּרְשׁוּ ה׳ בְּהִמָּצְאוֹ״ — הָא בְּיָחִיד, הָא בְּצִבּוּר. וְיָחִיד אֵימַת? אָמַר רַב נַחְמָן אָמַר רַבָּה בַּר אֲבוּהּ: אֵלּוּ עֲשָׂרָה יָמִים שֶׁבֵּין רֹאשׁ הַשָּׁנָה לְיוֹם הַכִּפּוּרִים.
The Gemara resolves the second contradiction: Isaiah’s prophecy: “Seek the Lord while He may be found,” does not contradict the verse in the Torah that God is near to His nation “whenever we call upon Him,” because this prophecy of Isaiah was made with regard to the individual and this verse in the Torah is stated with regard to a community, as the prayer of the community is always accepted. The Gemara asks: And when is the time that God is to be found near the individual? Rav Naḥman said Rabba bar Avuh said: These are the ten days between Rosh HaShana and Yom Kippur.
״אֶת מִסְפַּר יָמֶיךָ אֲמַלֵּא״ — תַּנָּאֵי הִיא, דְּתַנְיָא: ״אֶת מִסְפַּר יָמֶיךָ אֲמַלֵּא״,
The resolution of the third contradiction from the verse: “I will fulfill the number of your days,” is subject to a dispute between tanna’im, as it is taught in a baraita: The verse states: “I will fulfill the number of your days”;
Today’s daily daf tools:
Delve Deeper
Broaden your understanding of the topics on this daf with classes and podcasts from top women Talmud scholars.
Through the Prism of Law and Narrative: Yibum and the Biblical Woman with Dean Rachel Friedman
Reflections on Masechet Yevamot with Elizabeth Kirshner (a Daf Yomi Learner)
Modern Applications of Masechet Yevamot in Israel’s Rabbinical Courts with Rabbi Seth Farber
Yevamot 119: Starting with Co-wives, Ending with Co-wives
New to Talmud?
Check out our resources designed to help you navigate a page of Talmud – and study at the pace, level and style that fits you.
The Hadran Women’s Tapestry
Meet the diverse women learning Gemara at Hadran and hear their stories.
I started learning at the start of this cycle, and quickly fell in love. It has become such an important part of my day, enriching every part of my life.
Toronto, Canada
תמיד רציתי. למדתי גמרא בבית ספר בטורונטו קנדה. עליתי ארצה ולמדתי שזה לא מקובל. הופתעתי.
יצאתי לגימלאות לפני שנתיים וזה מאפשר את המחוייבות לדף יומי.
עבורי ההתמדה בלימוד מעגן אותי בקשר שלי ליהדות. אני תמיד מחפשת ותמיד. מוצאת מקור לקשר. ללימוד חדש ומחדש. קשר עם נשים לומדות מעמיק את החוויה ומשמעותית מאוד.
מיתר, ישראל
I went to day school in Toronto but really began to learn when I attended Brovenders back in the early 1980’s. Last year after talking to my sister who was learning Daf Yomi, inspired, I looked on the computer and the Hadran site came up. I have been listening to each days shiur in the morning as I work. I emphasis listening since I am not sitting with a Gamara. I listen while I work in my studio.
Tekoa, Israel
It happened without intent (so am I yotzei?!) – I watched the women’s siyum live and was so moved by it that the next morning, I tuned in to Rabbanit Michelle’s shiur, and here I am, still learning every day, over 2 years later. Some days it all goes over my head, but others I grasp onto an idea or a story, and I ‘get it’ and that’s the best feeling in the world. So proud to be a Hadran learner.
Zichron Yaakov, Israel
See video
Raanana, Israel
I started learning Gemara at the Yeshivah of Flatbush. And I resumed ‘ברוך ה decades later with Rabbanit Michele at Hadran. I started from Brachot and have had an exciting, rewarding experience throughout seder Moed!
Maale Adumim, Israel
As Jewish educator and as a woman, I’m mindful that Talmud has been kept from women for many centuries. Now that we are privileged to learn, and learning is so accessible, it’s my intent to complete Daf Yomi. I am so excited to keep learning with my Hadran community.
Denver, United States
Philadelphia, United States
Retirement and Covid converged to provide me with the opportunity to commit to daily Talmud study in October 2020. I dove into the middle of Eruvin and continued to navigate Seder Moed, with Rabannit Michelle as my guide. I have developed more confidence in my learning as I completed each masechet and look forward to completing the Daf Yomi cycle so that I can begin again!
San Diego, United States
Blacksburg, United States
I had tried to start after being inspired by the hadran siyum, but did not manage to stick to it. However, just before masechet taanit, our rav wrote a message to the shul WhatsApp encouraging people to start with masechet taanit, so I did! And this time, I’m hooked! I listen to the shiur every day , and am also trying to improve my skills.
Yad Binyamin, Israel
I began my journey two years ago at the beginning of this cycle of the daf yomi. It has been an incredible, challenging experience and has given me a new perspective of Torah Sh’baal Peh and the role it plays in our lives
Efrat, Israel
Tel Aviv, Israel
Mamaroneck, NY, United States
I decided to give daf yomi a try when I heard about the siyum hashas in 2020. Once the pandemic hit, the daily commitment gave my days some much-needed structure. There have been times when I’ve felt like quitting- especially when encountering very technical details in the text. But then I tell myself, “Look how much you’ve done. You can’t stop now!” So I keep going & my Koren bookshelf grows…
Huntington, United States
I started learning at the beginning of the cycle after a friend persuaded me that it would be right up my alley. I was lucky enough to learn at Rabbanit Michelle’s house before it started on zoom and it was quickly part of my daily routine. I find it so important to see for myself where halachot were derived, where stories were told and to get more insight into how the Rabbis interacted.
Ra’anana, Israel
My husband learns Daf, my son learns Daf, my son-in-law learns Daf.
When I read about Hadran’s Siyyum HaShas 2 years ago, I thought- I can learn Daf too!
I had learned Gemara in Hillel HS in NJ, & I remembered loving it.
Rabbanit Michelle & Hadran have opened my eyes & expanding my learning so much in the past few years. We can now discuss Gemara as a family.
This was a life saver during Covid
Brooklyn, NY, United States
I started learning Daf in Jan 2020 with Brachot b/c I had never seen the Jewish people united around something so positive, and I wanted to be a part of it. Also, I wanted to broaden my background in Torah Shebal Peh- Maayanot gave me a great gemara education, but I knew that I could hold a conversation in most parts of tanach but almost no TSB. I’m so thankful for Daf and have gained immensely.
NJ, United States
Ontario, Canada
I attended the Siyum so that I could tell my granddaughter that I had been there. Then I decided to listen on Spotify and after the siyum of Brachot, Covid and zoom began. It gave structure to my day. I learn with people from all over the world who are now my friends – yet most of us have never met. I can’t imagine life without it. Thank you Rabbanit Michelle.
Raanana, Israel
Yevamot 49
מַתְנִי׳ אֵיזֶהוּ מַמְזֵר — כׇּל שְׁאֵר בָּשָׂר שֶׁהוּא בְּ״לֹא יָבֹא״, דִּבְרֵי רַבִּי עֲקִיבָא. שִׁמְעוֹן הַתִּימְנִי אוֹמֵר: כֹּל שֶׁחַיָּיבִים עָלָיו כָּרֵת בִּידֵי שָׁמַיִם, וַהֲלָכָה כִּדְבָרָיו. וְרַבִּי יְהוֹשֻׁעַ אוֹמֵר: כֹּל שֶׁחַיָּיבִין עָלָיו מִיתַת בֵּית דִּין.
MISHNA: Which offspring of forbidden relations have the status of a mamzer? It is the offspring of a union with any next of kin that is subject to a Torah prohibition that he should not engage in sexual relations with them; this is the statement of Rabbi Akiva. Shimon HaTimni says: It is the offspring of a union with any forbidden relation for which one is liable to receive karet at the hand of Heaven. And the halakha is in accordance with his statement. Rabbi Yehoshua says: It is the offspring of a union with any forbidden relation for which one is liable to receive court-imposed capital punishment.
אָמַר רַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן בֶּן עַזַּאי: מָצָאתִי מְגִלַּת יוּחֲסִין בִּירוּשָׁלַיִם, וְכָתוּב בָּהּ: אִישׁ פְּלוֹנִי מַמְזֵר מֵאֵשֶׁת אִישׁ, לְקַיֵּים דִּבְרֵי רַבִּי יְהוֹשֻׁעַ.
Rabbi Shimon ben Azzai said: I found a scroll recording people’s lineages in Jerusalem, and it was written in it that so-and-so is a mamzer from an adulterous union with a married woman, a sin punishable by court-imposed capital punishment. The only reason for the scroll to state the reason that this individual is a mamzer is in order to support the statement of Rabbi Yehoshua.
אִשְׁתּוֹ שֶׁמֵּתָה — מוּתָּר בַּאֲחוֹתָהּ. גֵּרְשָׁהּ וּמֵתָה — מוּתָּר בַּאֲחוֹתָהּ. נִשֵּׂאת לְאַחֵר וּמֵתָה — מוּתָּר בַּאֲחוֹתָהּ. יְבִמְתּוֹ שֶׁמֵּתָה — מוּתָּר בַּאֲחוֹתָהּ. חָלַץ לָהּ וּמֵתָה — מוּתָּר בַּאֲחוֹתָהּ. נִשֵּׂאת לְאַחֵר וּמֵתָה — מוּתָּר בַּאֲחוֹתָהּ.
The mishna delineates the circumstances in which it is prohibited to engage in relations with the sister of one’s wife and the sister of one’s yevama: If a man’s wife died, he is permitted to her sister. If he divorced her and then she died, he is permitted to her sister. If he divorced his wife and then she was married to another and then died, he is permitted to her sister. If his yevama died, he is permitted to her sister. If he performed ḥalitza with her and then she died, he is permitted to her sister. If after ḥalitza she was married to another and then died, he is permitted to her sister. The principle underlying all these cases is that the prohibition against engaging in relations with her sister only applies while the wife or yevama remain alive, irrespective of their current relationship to the man.
גְּמָ׳ מַאי טַעְמָא דְּרַבִּי עֲקִיבָא? דִּכְתִיב: ״לֹא יִקַּח אִישׁ אֶת אֵשֶׁת אָבִיו וְלֹא יְגַלֶּה כְּנַף אָבִיו״. כָּנָף שֶׁרָאָה אָבִיו — לֹא יְגַלֶּה.
GEMARA: What is Rabbi Akiva’s reasoning? As it is written: “A man shall not take his father’s wife, and he shall not uncover his father’s cloak” (Deuteronomy 23:1). This teaches that a cloak that his father saw, i.e., a woman with whom his father engaged in sexual relations, the son may not uncover.
וְסָבַר לַהּ כְּרַבִּי יְהוּדָה, דְּאָמַר: בַּאֲנוּסַת אָבִיו הַכָּתוּב מְדַבֵּר, דְּהָוְיָא לַהּ חַיָּיבֵי לָאוִין,
And in this interpretation of the verse, Rabbi Akiva holds in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yehuda, who said: The verse states only that such relations are forbidden, but they would not render him liable to receive karet; perforce the verse speaks of a woman raped by one’s father, since she is one of the women with whom relations render one liable for violating a prohibition. The verse could not refer to one’s father’s wife since relations with her render one liable to receive karet.
וּסְמִיךְ לֵיהּ: ״לֹא יָבֹא מַמְזֵר בִּקְהַל ה׳״, אַלְמָא מֵהָנֵי הָוֵי מַמְזֵר.
The Gemara completes its explanation of Rabbi Akiva’s opinion: And in close proximity to that verse is the verse: “A mamzer shall not enter into the congregation of the Lord” (Deuteronomy 23:3). Apparently, even from these forbidden relations, which render one liable for the violation of a prohibition, the offspring is a mamzer.
וּלְרַבִּי סִימַאי, דִּמְרַבֵּה שְׁאָר חַיָּיבֵי לָאוִין דְּלָאו דִּ״שְׁאֵר״, וּלְרַבִּי יְשֵׁבָב, דִּמְרַבֵּה אֲפִילּוּ חַיָּיבֵי עֲשֵׂה —
The Gemara asks: But according to Rabbi Simai, who holds that Rabbi Akiva includes as a mamzer the offspring of all other forbidden relations for which one is liable for violation of a prohibition, even those that are not with his next of kin; and also according to Rabbi Yeshevav, who holds that Rabbi Akiva includes even the offspring of relations for which one is liable for the violation of a positive mitzva; since according to them, Rabbi Akiva includes cases that are not similar to the case of a woman raped by his father, what is his source?
נָפְקָא לְהוּ מִ״וְּלֹא״.
The Gemara answers: They derive it from the verse that states: “And he shall not uncover his father’s cloak” (Deuteronomy 23:1). The word “and” is superfluous and serves to include additional cases.
וְשִׁמְעוֹן הַתִּימְנִי סָבַר לַהּ כְּרַבָּנַן, דְּאָמְרִי: בְּשׁוֹמֶרֶת יָבָם שֶׁל אָבִיו הַכָּתוּב מְדַבֵּר, דְּהָוְיָא לַהּ חַיָּיבֵי כָּרֵיתוֹת, וּסְמִיךְ לֵיהּ ״לֹא יָבֹא מַמְזֵר״. אַלְמָא: מֵחַיָּיבֵי כָּרֵיתוֹת הָוֵי מַמְזֵר.
And Shimon HaTimni holds in accordance with the opinion of the Rabbis, who say: It is with regard to the widow waiting for his father to perform levirate marriage that the verse is speaking, and it indicates that she is one of the women with whom relations render one liable to receive karet. And in close proximity to that verse is the verse: “A mamzer shall not enter into the congregation of the Lord” (Deuteronomy 23:3). Apparently, only the offspring of a union for which one is liable to receive karet is a mamzer.
וְרַבִּי יְהוֹשֻׁעַ — לִכְתּוֹב רַחֲמָנָא ״לֹא יְגַלֶּה״. ״לֹא יִקַּח״ (״וְלֹא יְגַלֶּה״) לְמָה לִי? אֶלָּא לָאו, הָכִי קָאָמַר: מִ״לֹּא יִקַּח״ עַד ״לֹא יְגַלֶּה״ — הָוֵי מַמְזֵר, טְפֵי — לָא הָוֵי מַמְזֵר.
And how does Rabbi Yehoshua derive his opinion? If the verses should be derived as Rabbi Akiva and Shimon HaTimni suggest, let the Merciful One write only: “He shall not uncover his father’s cloak.” It is unnecessary for the verse to mention the prohibition with regard to one’s father’s wife, as the fact that the offspring of that union is a mamzer would be known through an a fortiori inference, since that prohibition is more stringent than the one derived from the verse: “And shall not uncover his father’s cloak.” Why do I need both the clause “a man shall not take his father’s wife” and the clause “and shall not uncover his father’s cloak”? Rather, is it not that this is what the Torah is saying: Only the offspring of relations with the woman mentioned in the verse after the words “a man shall not take” until the words “he shall not uncover,” i.e., his father’s wife, is a mamzer, but the offspring of relations with the woman mentioned beyond that point, i.e., the woman referred to as “his father’s cloak,” is not a mamzer.
אָמַר אַבָּיֵי: הַכֹּל מוֹדִים בְּבָא עַל הַנִּדָּה
§ Abaye said: All tanna’im in the mishna agree with regard to one who engages in sexual relations with a menstruating woman,
וְעַל הַסּוֹטָה — שֶׁאֵין הַוָּלָד מַמְזֵר.
or with a sota, that the offspring is not a mamzer.
נִדָּה, דְּהָא תָּפְסִי בַּהּ קִידּוּשִׁין, שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר: ״וּתְהִי נִדָּתָהּ עָלָיו״, אֲפִילּוּ בִּשְׁעַת נִדָּתָהּ תָּפְסִי בַּהּ קִידּוּשִׁין.
With regard to a menstruating woman the offspring is not a mamzer because one’s betrothal of her takes effect, as it is stated: “And her impurity shall be upon him” (Leviticus 15:24). The phrase “shall be” alludes to the fact that a betrothal with her takes effect. The verse teaches that even at the time of her menstrual impurity, betrothal with her takes effect.
סוֹטָה נָמֵי, דְּהָא תָּפְסִי בַּהּ קִידּוּשִׁין.
With regard to a sota, too, the offspring is not a mamzer because one’s betrothal of her takes effect.
תַּנְיָא נָמֵי הָכִי: הַכֹּל מוֹדִים בְּבָא עַל הַנִּדָּה וְעַל הַסּוֹטָה וְעַל שׁוֹמֶרֶת יָבָם, שֶׁאֵין הַוָּלָד מַמְזֵר.
The Gemara notes: This teaching of Abaye is also taught in a baraita: All agree with regard to one who engages in sexual relations with a menstruating woman, or with a sota, or with a widow waiting for her yavam to perform levirate marriage, that the offspring is not a mamzer.
וְאַבָּיֵי, שׁוֹמֶרֶת יָבָם — מְסַפְּקָא לֵיהּ אִי כְּרַב אִי כִּשְׁמוּאֵל.
The Gemara explains: And Abaye did not mention the case of a widow waiting for her yavam because he is uncertain whether, if someone other than the yavam betrothed her, the halakha is in accordance with the opinion of Rav that it does not take effect or in accordance with the opinion of Shmuel that it might take effect.
אָמַר רַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן בֶּן עַזַּאי כּוּ׳. תָּנֵי, שִׁמְעוֹן בֶּן עַזַּאי אוֹמֵר: מָצָאתִי מְגִלַּת יוּחֲסִין בִּירוּשָׁלַיִם, וְכָתוּב בָּהּ: אִישׁ פְּלוֹנִי מַמְזֵר מֵאֵשֶׁת אִישׁ, וְכָתוּב בָּהּ: מִשְׁנַת רַבִּי אֱלִיעֶזֶר בֶּן יַעֲקֹב קַב וְנָקִי. וְכָתוּב בָּהּ: מְנַשֶּׁה הָרַג אֶת יְשַׁעְיָה.
§ The mishna states: Rabbi Shimon ben Azzai said: I found a scroll recording people’s lineages. The Gemara cites an expanded version of the contents of the scroll. It is taught in a baraita that Rabbi Shimon ben Azzai said: I found a scroll recording people’s lineages, in Jerusalem, and it was written in it that so-and-so is a mamzer from an adulterous union with a married woman. And it was also written in it: The teachings of Rabbi Eliezer ben Ya’akov measure only a kav but are clean and accurate, and so the halakha is decided in accordance with his opinions. And it was written in it: Manasseh, king of Israel, killed Isaiah the prophet.
אָמַר רָבָא: מֵידָן דַּיְינֵיהּ וְקַטְלֵיהּ. אֲמַר לֵיהּ, מֹשֶׁה רַבְּךָ אָמַר: ״כִּי לֹא יִרְאַנִי הָאָדָם וָחָי״, וְאַתְּ אָמְרַתְּ: ״וָאֶרְאֶה אֶת ה׳ יוֹשֵׁב עַל כִּסֵּא רָם וְנִשָּׂא״. מֹשֶׁה רַבְּךָ אָמַר: ״מִי כַּה׳ אֱלֹהֵינוּ בְּכׇל קׇרְאֵנוּ אֵלָיו״, וְאַתְּ אָמְרַתְּ: ״דִּרְשׁוּ ה׳ בְּהִמָּצְאוֹ״. מֹשֶׁה רַבְּךָ אָמַר: ״אֶת מִסְפַּר יָמֶיךָ אֲמַלֵּא״, וְאַתְּ אָמְרַתְּ: ״וְהוֹסַפְתִּי עַל יָמֶיךָ חֲמֵשׁ עֶשְׂרֵה שָׁנָה״!
The Gemara expands on the events surrounding Isaiah’s death: Rava said: Manasseh judged him as a false witness for issuing statements contradicting the Torah and only then killed him. Manasseh said to Isaiah: Moses your master said in the Torah: “And He said: You cannot see My face, for man cannot see Me and live” (Exodus 33:20), and yet you said: “I saw the Lord sitting upon a high and lofty throne” (Isaiah 6:1). Moses your master said: “For which great nation is there, that has God so near to it, as the Lord our God is, whenever we call upon Him?” (Deuteronomy 4:7), and yet you said: “Seek the Lord while He may be found, call upon Him while He is near” (Isaiah 55:6), which implies that God is not always near. Moses your master said: “I will fulfill the number of your days” (Exodus 23:26), which implies that each individual has a preordained allotted lifespan that he cannot outlive, and yet you said in a prophecy to King Hezekiah: “And I will add to your days, fifteen years” (II Kings 20:6).
אָמַר יְשַׁעְיָה: יָדַעְנָא בֵּיהּ דְּלָא מְקַבֵּל מָה דְּאֵימָא לֵיהּ, וְאִי אֵימָא לֵיהּ — אֶישַּׁוְּיֵיהּ מֵזִיד. אֲמַר שֵׁם אִיבְּלַע בְּאַרְזָא, אַתְיוּהּ לְאַרְזָא וְנַסְּרוּהּ. כִּי מְטָא לַהֲדֵי פּוּמָּא, נָח נַפְשֵׁיהּ. מִשּׁוּם דַּאֲמַר: ״וּבְתוֹךְ עַם טְמֵא שְׂפָתַיִם אָנֹכִי יוֹשֵׁב״.
Isaiah said to himself: I know him, i.e., Manasseh, that he will not accept whatever explanation that I will say to him to resolve my prophecies with the words of the Torah. And even if I say it to him, I will make him into an intentional transgressor since he will kill me anyway. Therefore, in order to escape, he uttered a divine name and was swallowed within a cedar tree. Manasseh’s servants brought the cedar tree and sawed through it in order to kill him. When the saw reached to where his mouth was, Isaiah died. He died specifically at this point due to that which he said: “In the midst of a people of unclean lips, I dwell” (Isaiah 6:5). He was punished for referring to the Jewish people in a derogatory manner.
מִכׇּל מָקוֹם קָשׁוּ קְרָאֵי אַהֲדָדֵי?
The Gemara asks: In any case, as Manasseh pointed out, these verses contradict each other; how are these contradictions to be resolved?
״וָאֶרְאֶה אֶת ה׳״, כִּדְתַנְיָא: כׇּל הַנְּבִיאִים נִסְתַּכְּלוּ בְּאַסְפַּקְלַרְיָא שֶׁאֵינָהּ מְאִירָה, מֹשֶׁה רַבֵּינוּ נִסְתַּכֵּל בְּאַסְפַּקְלַרְיָא הַמְּאִירָה.
The Gemara resolves the first contradiction: “I saw the Lord” is to be understood as it is taught in a baraita: All of the prophets observed their prophecies through an obscure looking glass [aspaklaria], i.e., their prophecies were given as metaphoric visions but were not a direct perception of the matter. However, Moses our master observed his prophecies through a clear looking glass, i.e., he gained a direct and accurate perception of the matter.
״דִּרְשׁוּ ה׳ בְּהִמָּצְאוֹ״ — הָא בְּיָחִיד, הָא בְּצִבּוּר. וְיָחִיד אֵימַת? אָמַר רַב נַחְמָן אָמַר רַבָּה בַּר אֲבוּהּ: אֵלּוּ עֲשָׂרָה יָמִים שֶׁבֵּין רֹאשׁ הַשָּׁנָה לְיוֹם הַכִּפּוּרִים.
The Gemara resolves the second contradiction: Isaiah’s prophecy: “Seek the Lord while He may be found,” does not contradict the verse in the Torah that God is near to His nation “whenever we call upon Him,” because this prophecy of Isaiah was made with regard to the individual and this verse in the Torah is stated with regard to a community, as the prayer of the community is always accepted. The Gemara asks: And when is the time that God is to be found near the individual? Rav Naḥman said Rabba bar Avuh said: These are the ten days between Rosh HaShana and Yom Kippur.
״אֶת מִסְפַּר יָמֶיךָ אֲמַלֵּא״ — תַּנָּאֵי הִיא, דְּתַנְיָא: ״אֶת מִסְפַּר יָמֶיךָ אֲמַלֵּא״,
The resolution of the third contradiction from the verse: “I will fulfill the number of your days,” is subject to a dispute between tanna’im, as it is taught in a baraita: The verse states: “I will fulfill the number of your days”;
