Please ensure Javascript is enabled for purposes of website accessibility Skip to content

Today's Daf Yomi

April 25, 2022 | 讻状讚 讘谞讬住谉 转砖驻状讘

  • This month's learning is sponsored by Terri Krivosha for the Refuah Shlemah of her husband Harav Hayim Yehuda Ben Faiga Rivah.聽

  • This month's learning is dedicated by Debbie and Yossi Gevir to Rabbanit Michelle and the Hadran Zoom group for their kindness, support, and care during a medically challenging year.

  • Masechet Yevamot is sponsored by Ahava Leibtag and family in memory of her grandparents, Leo and Esther Aaron. "They always stressed the importance of a Torah life, mesorah and family. May their memory always be a blessing for their children, grandchildren, great-grandchildren and great-great grandchildren".

Yevamot 49

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鈥檚 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鈥檚 wife or one鈥檚 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鈥檚 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鈥檛 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鈥檔aki, 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鈥檛 he? How was Isaiah killed?

诪转谞讬壮 讗讬讝讛讜 诪诪讝专 讻诇 砖讗专 讘砖专 砖讛讜讗 讘诇讗 讬讘讗 讚讘专讬 专讘讬 注拽讬讘讗 砖诪注讜谉 讛转讬诪谞讬 讗讜诪专 讻诇 砖讞讬讬讘讬诐 注诇讬讜 讻专转 讘讬讚讬 砖诪讬诐 讜讛诇讻讛 讻讚讘专讬讜 讜专讘讬 讬讛讜砖注 讗讜诪专 讻诇 砖讞讬讬讘讬谉 注诇讬讜 诪讬转转 讘讬转 讚讬谉

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.

讗诪专 专讘讬 砖诪注讜谉 讘谉 注讝讗讬 诪爪讗转讬 诪讙诇转 讬讜讞住讬谉 讘讬专讜砖诇讬诐 讜讻转讜讘 讘讛 讗讬砖 驻诇讜谞讬 诪诪讝专 诪讗砖转 讗讬砖 诇拽讬讬诐 讚讘专讬 专讘讬 讬讛讜砖注

Rabbi Shimon ben Azzai said: I found a scroll recording people鈥檚 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.

讗砖转讜 砖诪转讛 诪讜转专 讘讗讞讜转讛 讙专砖讛 讜诪转讛 诪讜转专 讘讗讞讜转讛 谞砖讗转 诇讗讞专 讜诪转讛 诪讜转专 讘讗讞讜转讛 讬讘诪转讜 砖诪转讛 诪讜转专 讘讗讞讜转讛 讞诇抓 诇讛 讜诪转讛 诪讜转专 讘讗讞讜转讛 谞砖讗转 诇讗讞专 讜诪转讛 诪讜转专 讘讗讞讜转讛

The mishna delineates the circumstances in which it is prohibited to engage in relations with the sister of one鈥檚 wife and the sister of one鈥檚 yevama: If a man鈥檚 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 岣litza with her and then she died, he is permitted to her sister. If after 岣litza 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.

讙诪壮 诪讗讬 讟注诪讗 讚专讘讬 注拽讬讘讗 讚讻转讬讘 诇讗 讬拽讞 讗讬砖 讗转 讗砖转 讗讘讬讜 讜诇讗 讬讙诇讛 讻谞祝 讗讘讬讜 讻谞祝 砖专讗讛 讗讘讬讜 诇讗 讬讙诇讛

GEMARA: What is Rabbi Akiva鈥檚 reasoning? As it is written: 鈥淎 man shall not take his father鈥檚 wife, and he shall not uncover his father鈥檚 cloak鈥 (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.

讜住讘专 诇讛 讻专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 讚讗诪专 讘讗谞讜住转 讗讘讬讜 讛讻转讜讘 诪讚讘专 讚讛讜讬讗 诇讛 讞讬讬讘讬 诇讗讜讬谉

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鈥檚 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鈥檚 father鈥檚 wife since relations with her render one liable to receive karet.

讜住诪讬讱 诇讬讛 诇讗 讬讘讗 诪诪讝专 讘拽讛诇 讛壮 讗诇诪讗 诪讛谞讬 讛讜讬 诪诪讝专

The Gemara completes its explanation of Rabbi Akiva鈥檚 opinion: And in close proximity to that verse is the verse: 鈥淎 mamzer shall not enter into the congregation of the Lord鈥 (Deuteronomy 23:3). Apparently, even from these forbidden relations, which render one liable for the violation of a prohibition, the offspring is a mamzer.

讜诇专讘讬 住讬诪讗讬 讚诪专讘讛 砖讗专 讞讬讬讘讬 诇讗讜讬谉 讚诇讗讜 讚砖讗专 讜诇专讘讬 讬砖讘讘 讚诪专讘讛 讗驻讬诇讜 讞讬讬讘讬 注砖讛

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 a woman raped by his father, what is his source?

谞驻拽讗 诇讛讜 诪讜诇讗

The Gemara answers: They derive it from the verse that states: 鈥淎nd he shall not uncover his father鈥檚 cloak鈥 (Deuteronomy 23:1). The word 鈥渁nd鈥 is superfluous and serves to include additional cases.

讜砖诪注讜谉 讛转讬诪谞讬 住讘专 诇讛 讻专讘谞谉 讚讗诪专讬 讘砖讜诪专转 讬讘诐 砖诇 讗讘讬讜 讛讻转讜讘 诪讚讘专 讚讛讜讬讗 诇讛 讞讬讬讘讬 讻专讬转讜转 讜住诪讬讱 诇讬讛 诇讗 讬讘讗 诪诪讝专 讗诇诪讗 诪讞讬讬讘讬 讻专讬转讜转 讛讜讬 诪诪讝专

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: 鈥淎 mamzer shall not enter into the congregation of the Lord鈥 (Deuteronomy 23:3). Apparently, only the offspring of a union for which one is liable to receive karet is a mamzer.

讜专讘讬 讬讛讜砖注 诇讻转讜讘 专讞诪谞讗 诇讗 讬讙诇讛 诇讗 讬拽讞 (讜诇讗 讬讙诇讛) 诇诪讛 诇讬 讗诇讗 诇讗讜 讛讻讬 拽讗诪专 诪诇讗 讬拽讞 注讚 诇讗 讬讙诇讛 讛讜讬 诪诪讝专 讟驻讬 诇讗 讛讜讬 诪诪讝专

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: 鈥淗e shall not uncover his father鈥檚 cloak.鈥 It is unnecessary for the verse to mention the prohibition with regard to one鈥檚 father鈥檚 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: 鈥淎nd shall not uncover his father鈥檚 cloak.鈥 Why do I need both the clause 鈥渁 man shall not take his father鈥檚 wife鈥 and the clause 鈥渁nd shall not uncover his father鈥檚 cloak鈥? 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 鈥渁 man shall not take鈥 until the words 鈥渉e shall not uncover,鈥 i.e., his father鈥檚 wife, is a mamzer, but the offspring of relations with the woman mentioned beyond that point, i.e., the woman referred to as 鈥渉is father鈥檚 cloak,鈥 is not a mamzer.

讗诪专 讗讘讬讬 讛讻诇 诪讜讚讬诐 讘讘讗 注诇 讛谞讚讛

Abaye said: All tanna鈥檌m in the mishna agree with regard to one who engages in sexual relations with a menstruating woman,

讜注诇 讛住讜讟讛 砖讗讬谉 讛讜诇讚 诪诪讝专

or with a sota, that the offspring is not a mamzer.

谞讚讛 讚讛讗 转驻住讬 讘讛 拽讬讚讜砖讬谉 砖谞讗诪专 讜转讛讬 谞讚转讛 注诇讬讜 讗驻讬诇讜 讘砖注转 谞讚转讛 转驻住讬 讘讛 拽讬讚讜砖讬谉

With regard to a menstruating woman the offspring is not a mamzer because one鈥檚 betrothal of her takes effect, as it is stated: 鈥淎nd her impurity shall be upon him鈥 (Leviticus 15:24). The phrase 鈥渟hall be鈥 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.

住讜讟讛 谞诪讬 讚讛讗 转驻住讬 讘讛 拽讬讚讜砖讬谉

With regard to a sota, too, the offspring is not a mamzer because one鈥檚 betrothal of her takes effect.

转谞讬讗 谞诪讬 讛讻讬 讛讻诇 诪讜讚讬诐 讘讘讗 注诇 讛谞讚讛 讜注诇 讛住讜讟讛 讜注诇 砖讜诪专转 讬讘诐 砖讗讬谉 讛讜诇讚 诪诪讝专

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.

讜讗讘讬讬 砖讜诪专转 讬讘诐 诪住驻拽讗 诇讬讛 讗讬 讻专讘 讗讬 讻砖诪讜讗诇

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.

讗诪专 专讘讬 砖诪注讜谉 讘谉 注讝讗讬 讻讜壮 转谞讬 砖诪注讜谉 讘谉 注讝讗讬 讗讜诪专 诪爪讗转讬 诪讙诇转 讬讜讞住讬谉 讘讬专讜砖诇讬诐 讜讻转讜讘 讘讛 讗讬砖 驻诇讜谞讬 诪诪讝专 诪讗砖转 讗讬砖 讜讻转讜讘 讘讛 诪砖谞转 专讘讬 讗诇讬注讝专 讘谉 讬注拽讘 拽讘 讜谞拽讬 讜讻转讜讘 讘讛 诪谞砖讛 讛专讙 讗转 讬砖注讬讛

搂 The mishna states: Rabbi Shimon ben Azzai said: I found a scroll recording people鈥檚 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鈥檚 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鈥檃kov 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.

讗诪专 专讘讗 诪讬讚谉 讚讬讬谞讬讛 讜拽讟诇讬讛 讗诪专 诇讬讛 诪砖讛 专讘讱 讗诪专 讻讬 诇讗 讬专讗谞讬 讛讗讚诐 讜讞讬 讜讗转 讗诪专转 讜讗专讗讛 讗转 讛壮 讬讜砖讘 注诇 讻住讗 专诐 讜谞砖讗 诪砖讛 专讘讱 讗诪专 诪讬 讻讛壮 讗诇讛讬谞讜 讘讻诇 拽专讗谞讜 讗诇讬讜 讜讗转 讗诪专转 讚专砖讜 讛壮 讘讛诪爪讗讜 诪砖讛 专讘讱 讗诪专 讗转 诪住驻专 讬诪讬讱 讗诪诇讗 讜讗转 讗诪专转 讜讛讜住驻转讬 注诇 讬诪讬讱 讞诪砖 注砖专讛 砖谞讛

The Gemara expands on the events surrounding Isaiah鈥檚 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: 鈥淎nd He said: You cannot see My face, for man cannot see Me and live鈥 (Exodus 33:20), and yet you said: 鈥淚 saw the Lord sitting upon a high and lofty throne鈥 (Isaiah 6:1). Moses your master said: 鈥淔or which great nation is there, that has God so near to it, as the Lord our God is, whenever we call upon Him?鈥 (Deuteronomy 4:7), and yet you said: 鈥淪eek the Lord while He may be found, call upon Him while He is near鈥 (Isaiah 55:6), which implies that God is not always near. Moses your master said: 鈥淚 will fulfill the number of your days鈥 (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: 鈥淎nd I will add to your days, fifteen years鈥 (II聽Kings 20:6).

讗诪专 讬砖注讬讛 讬讚注谞讗 讘讬讛 讚诇讗 诪拽讘诇 诪讛 讚讗讬诪讗 诇讬讛 讜讗讬 讗讬诪讗 诇讬讛 讗讬砖讜讬讬讛 诪讝讬讚 讗诪专 砖诐 讗讬讘诇注 讘讗专讝讗 讗转讬讜讛 诇讗专讝讗 讜谞住专讜讛 讻讬 诪讟讗 诇讛讚讬 驻讜诪讗 谞讞 谞驻砖讬讛 诪砖讜诐 讚讗诪专 讜讘转讜讱 注诐 讟诪讗 砖驻转讬诐 讗谞讻讬 讬讜砖讘

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鈥檚 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 as this point due to that which he said: 鈥淚n the midst of a people of unclean lips, I dwell鈥 (Isaiah 6:5). He was punished for referring to the Jewish people in a derogatory manner.

诪讻诇 诪拽讜诐 拽砖讜 拽专讗讬 讗讛讚讚讬

The Gemara asks: In any case, as Manasseh pointed out, these verses contradict each other; how are these contradictions to be resolved?

讜讗专讗讛 讗转 讛壮 讻讚转谞讬讗 讻诇 讛谞讘讬讗讬诐 谞住转讻诇讜 讘讗住驻拽诇专讬讗 砖讗讬谞讛 诪讗讬专讛 诪砖讛 专讘讬谞讜 谞住转讻诇 讘讗住驻拽诇专讬讗 讛诪讗讬专讛

The Gemara resolves the first contradiction: 鈥淚 saw the Lord鈥 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.

讚专砖讜 讛壮 讘讛诪爪讗讜 讛讗 讘讬讞讬讚 讛讗 讘爪讘讜专 讜讬讞讬讚 讗讬诪转 讗诪专 专讘 谞讞诪谉 讗诪专 专讘讛 讘专 讗讘讜讛 讗诇讜 注砖专讛 讬诪讬诐 砖讘讬谉 专讗砖 讛砖谞讛 诇讬讜诐 讛讻驻讜专讬诐

The Gemara resolves the second contradiction: Isaiah鈥檚 prophecy: 鈥淪eek the Lord while He may be found,鈥 does not contradict the verse in the Torah that God is near to His nation 鈥渨henever we call upon Him,鈥 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 Na岣an said Rabba bar Avuh said: These are the ten days between Rosh HaShana and Yom Kippur.

讗转 诪住驻专 讬诪讬讱 讗诪诇讗 转谞讗讬 讛讬讗 讚转谞讬讗 讗转 诪住驻专 讬诪讬讱 讗诪诇讗

The resolution of the third contradiction from the verse: 鈥淚 will fulfill the number of your days,鈥 is subject to a dispute between tanna鈥檌m, as it is taught in a baraita: The verse states: 鈥淚 will fulfill the number of your days鈥;

  • This month's learning is sponsored by Terri Krivosha for the Refuah Shlemah of her husband Harav Hayim Yehuda Ben Faiga Rivah.聽

  • This month's learning is dedicated by Debbie and Yossi Gevir to Rabbanit Michelle and the Hadran Zoom group for their kindness, support, and care during a medically challenging year.

  • Masechet Yevamot is sponsored by Ahava Leibtag and family in memory of her grandparents, Leo and Esther Aaron. "They always stressed the importance of a Torah life, mesorah and family. May their memory always be a blessing for their children, grandchildren, great-grandchildren and great-great grandchildren".

Want to explore more about the Daf?

See insights from our partners, contributors and community of women learners

learn daf yomi one week at a time with tamara spitz

Yevamot: 44-50 – Daf Yomi One Week at a Time

This week the Gemara describes different prohibited relationships that the resulting child is considered a Mamzer. This has ramifications on...

Yevamot 49

The William Davidson Talmud | Powered by Sefaria

Yevamot 49

诪转谞讬壮 讗讬讝讛讜 诪诪讝专 讻诇 砖讗专 讘砖专 砖讛讜讗 讘诇讗 讬讘讗 讚讘专讬 专讘讬 注拽讬讘讗 砖诪注讜谉 讛转讬诪谞讬 讗讜诪专 讻诇 砖讞讬讬讘讬诐 注诇讬讜 讻专转 讘讬讚讬 砖诪讬诐 讜讛诇讻讛 讻讚讘专讬讜 讜专讘讬 讬讛讜砖注 讗讜诪专 讻诇 砖讞讬讬讘讬谉 注诇讬讜 诪讬转转 讘讬转 讚讬谉

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.

讗诪专 专讘讬 砖诪注讜谉 讘谉 注讝讗讬 诪爪讗转讬 诪讙诇转 讬讜讞住讬谉 讘讬专讜砖诇讬诐 讜讻转讜讘 讘讛 讗讬砖 驻诇讜谞讬 诪诪讝专 诪讗砖转 讗讬砖 诇拽讬讬诐 讚讘专讬 专讘讬 讬讛讜砖注

Rabbi Shimon ben Azzai said: I found a scroll recording people鈥檚 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.

讗砖转讜 砖诪转讛 诪讜转专 讘讗讞讜转讛 讙专砖讛 讜诪转讛 诪讜转专 讘讗讞讜转讛 谞砖讗转 诇讗讞专 讜诪转讛 诪讜转专 讘讗讞讜转讛 讬讘诪转讜 砖诪转讛 诪讜转专 讘讗讞讜转讛 讞诇抓 诇讛 讜诪转讛 诪讜转专 讘讗讞讜转讛 谞砖讗转 诇讗讞专 讜诪转讛 诪讜转专 讘讗讞讜转讛

The mishna delineates the circumstances in which it is prohibited to engage in relations with the sister of one鈥檚 wife and the sister of one鈥檚 yevama: If a man鈥檚 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 岣litza with her and then she died, he is permitted to her sister. If after 岣litza 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.

讙诪壮 诪讗讬 讟注诪讗 讚专讘讬 注拽讬讘讗 讚讻转讬讘 诇讗 讬拽讞 讗讬砖 讗转 讗砖转 讗讘讬讜 讜诇讗 讬讙诇讛 讻谞祝 讗讘讬讜 讻谞祝 砖专讗讛 讗讘讬讜 诇讗 讬讙诇讛

GEMARA: What is Rabbi Akiva鈥檚 reasoning? As it is written: 鈥淎 man shall not take his father鈥檚 wife, and he shall not uncover his father鈥檚 cloak鈥 (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.

讜住讘专 诇讛 讻专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 讚讗诪专 讘讗谞讜住转 讗讘讬讜 讛讻转讜讘 诪讚讘专 讚讛讜讬讗 诇讛 讞讬讬讘讬 诇讗讜讬谉

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鈥檚 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鈥檚 father鈥檚 wife since relations with her render one liable to receive karet.

讜住诪讬讱 诇讬讛 诇讗 讬讘讗 诪诪讝专 讘拽讛诇 讛壮 讗诇诪讗 诪讛谞讬 讛讜讬 诪诪讝专

The Gemara completes its explanation of Rabbi Akiva鈥檚 opinion: And in close proximity to that verse is the verse: 鈥淎 mamzer shall not enter into the congregation of the Lord鈥 (Deuteronomy 23:3). Apparently, even from these forbidden relations, which render one liable for the violation of a prohibition, the offspring is a mamzer.

讜诇专讘讬 住讬诪讗讬 讚诪专讘讛 砖讗专 讞讬讬讘讬 诇讗讜讬谉 讚诇讗讜 讚砖讗专 讜诇专讘讬 讬砖讘讘 讚诪专讘讛 讗驻讬诇讜 讞讬讬讘讬 注砖讛

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 a woman raped by his father, what is his source?

谞驻拽讗 诇讛讜 诪讜诇讗

The Gemara answers: They derive it from the verse that states: 鈥淎nd he shall not uncover his father鈥檚 cloak鈥 (Deuteronomy 23:1). The word 鈥渁nd鈥 is superfluous and serves to include additional cases.

讜砖诪注讜谉 讛转讬诪谞讬 住讘专 诇讛 讻专讘谞谉 讚讗诪专讬 讘砖讜诪专转 讬讘诐 砖诇 讗讘讬讜 讛讻转讜讘 诪讚讘专 讚讛讜讬讗 诇讛 讞讬讬讘讬 讻专讬转讜转 讜住诪讬讱 诇讬讛 诇讗 讬讘讗 诪诪讝专 讗诇诪讗 诪讞讬讬讘讬 讻专讬转讜转 讛讜讬 诪诪讝专

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: 鈥淎 mamzer shall not enter into the congregation of the Lord鈥 (Deuteronomy 23:3). Apparently, only the offspring of a union for which one is liable to receive karet is a mamzer.

讜专讘讬 讬讛讜砖注 诇讻转讜讘 专讞诪谞讗 诇讗 讬讙诇讛 诇讗 讬拽讞 (讜诇讗 讬讙诇讛) 诇诪讛 诇讬 讗诇讗 诇讗讜 讛讻讬 拽讗诪专 诪诇讗 讬拽讞 注讚 诇讗 讬讙诇讛 讛讜讬 诪诪讝专 讟驻讬 诇讗 讛讜讬 诪诪讝专

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: 鈥淗e shall not uncover his father鈥檚 cloak.鈥 It is unnecessary for the verse to mention the prohibition with regard to one鈥檚 father鈥檚 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: 鈥淎nd shall not uncover his father鈥檚 cloak.鈥 Why do I need both the clause 鈥渁 man shall not take his father鈥檚 wife鈥 and the clause 鈥渁nd shall not uncover his father鈥檚 cloak鈥? 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 鈥渁 man shall not take鈥 until the words 鈥渉e shall not uncover,鈥 i.e., his father鈥檚 wife, is a mamzer, but the offspring of relations with the woman mentioned beyond that point, i.e., the woman referred to as 鈥渉is father鈥檚 cloak,鈥 is not a mamzer.

讗诪专 讗讘讬讬 讛讻诇 诪讜讚讬诐 讘讘讗 注诇 讛谞讚讛

Abaye said: All tanna鈥檌m in the mishna agree with regard to one who engages in sexual relations with a menstruating woman,

讜注诇 讛住讜讟讛 砖讗讬谉 讛讜诇讚 诪诪讝专

or with a sota, that the offspring is not a mamzer.

谞讚讛 讚讛讗 转驻住讬 讘讛 拽讬讚讜砖讬谉 砖谞讗诪专 讜转讛讬 谞讚转讛 注诇讬讜 讗驻讬诇讜 讘砖注转 谞讚转讛 转驻住讬 讘讛 拽讬讚讜砖讬谉

With regard to a menstruating woman the offspring is not a mamzer because one鈥檚 betrothal of her takes effect, as it is stated: 鈥淎nd her impurity shall be upon him鈥 (Leviticus 15:24). The phrase 鈥渟hall be鈥 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.

住讜讟讛 谞诪讬 讚讛讗 转驻住讬 讘讛 拽讬讚讜砖讬谉

With regard to a sota, too, the offspring is not a mamzer because one鈥檚 betrothal of her takes effect.

转谞讬讗 谞诪讬 讛讻讬 讛讻诇 诪讜讚讬诐 讘讘讗 注诇 讛谞讚讛 讜注诇 讛住讜讟讛 讜注诇 砖讜诪专转 讬讘诐 砖讗讬谉 讛讜诇讚 诪诪讝专

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.

讜讗讘讬讬 砖讜诪专转 讬讘诐 诪住驻拽讗 诇讬讛 讗讬 讻专讘 讗讬 讻砖诪讜讗诇

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.

讗诪专 专讘讬 砖诪注讜谉 讘谉 注讝讗讬 讻讜壮 转谞讬 砖诪注讜谉 讘谉 注讝讗讬 讗讜诪专 诪爪讗转讬 诪讙诇转 讬讜讞住讬谉 讘讬专讜砖诇讬诐 讜讻转讜讘 讘讛 讗讬砖 驻诇讜谞讬 诪诪讝专 诪讗砖转 讗讬砖 讜讻转讜讘 讘讛 诪砖谞转 专讘讬 讗诇讬注讝专 讘谉 讬注拽讘 拽讘 讜谞拽讬 讜讻转讜讘 讘讛 诪谞砖讛 讛专讙 讗转 讬砖注讬讛

搂 The mishna states: Rabbi Shimon ben Azzai said: I found a scroll recording people鈥檚 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鈥檚 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鈥檃kov 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.

讗诪专 专讘讗 诪讬讚谉 讚讬讬谞讬讛 讜拽讟诇讬讛 讗诪专 诇讬讛 诪砖讛 专讘讱 讗诪专 讻讬 诇讗 讬专讗谞讬 讛讗讚诐 讜讞讬 讜讗转 讗诪专转 讜讗专讗讛 讗转 讛壮 讬讜砖讘 注诇 讻住讗 专诐 讜谞砖讗 诪砖讛 专讘讱 讗诪专 诪讬 讻讛壮 讗诇讛讬谞讜 讘讻诇 拽专讗谞讜 讗诇讬讜 讜讗转 讗诪专转 讚专砖讜 讛壮 讘讛诪爪讗讜 诪砖讛 专讘讱 讗诪专 讗转 诪住驻专 讬诪讬讱 讗诪诇讗 讜讗转 讗诪专转 讜讛讜住驻转讬 注诇 讬诪讬讱 讞诪砖 注砖专讛 砖谞讛

The Gemara expands on the events surrounding Isaiah鈥檚 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: 鈥淎nd He said: You cannot see My face, for man cannot see Me and live鈥 (Exodus 33:20), and yet you said: 鈥淚 saw the Lord sitting upon a high and lofty throne鈥 (Isaiah 6:1). Moses your master said: 鈥淔or which great nation is there, that has God so near to it, as the Lord our God is, whenever we call upon Him?鈥 (Deuteronomy 4:7), and yet you said: 鈥淪eek the Lord while He may be found, call upon Him while He is near鈥 (Isaiah 55:6), which implies that God is not always near. Moses your master said: 鈥淚 will fulfill the number of your days鈥 (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: 鈥淎nd I will add to your days, fifteen years鈥 (II聽Kings 20:6).

讗诪专 讬砖注讬讛 讬讚注谞讗 讘讬讛 讚诇讗 诪拽讘诇 诪讛 讚讗讬诪讗 诇讬讛 讜讗讬 讗讬诪讗 诇讬讛 讗讬砖讜讬讬讛 诪讝讬讚 讗诪专 砖诐 讗讬讘诇注 讘讗专讝讗 讗转讬讜讛 诇讗专讝讗 讜谞住专讜讛 讻讬 诪讟讗 诇讛讚讬 驻讜诪讗 谞讞 谞驻砖讬讛 诪砖讜诐 讚讗诪专 讜讘转讜讱 注诐 讟诪讗 砖驻转讬诐 讗谞讻讬 讬讜砖讘

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鈥檚 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 as this point due to that which he said: 鈥淚n the midst of a people of unclean lips, I dwell鈥 (Isaiah 6:5). He was punished for referring to the Jewish people in a derogatory manner.

诪讻诇 诪拽讜诐 拽砖讜 拽专讗讬 讗讛讚讚讬

The Gemara asks: In any case, as Manasseh pointed out, these verses contradict each other; how are these contradictions to be resolved?

讜讗专讗讛 讗转 讛壮 讻讚转谞讬讗 讻诇 讛谞讘讬讗讬诐 谞住转讻诇讜 讘讗住驻拽诇专讬讗 砖讗讬谞讛 诪讗讬专讛 诪砖讛 专讘讬谞讜 谞住转讻诇 讘讗住驻拽诇专讬讗 讛诪讗讬专讛

The Gemara resolves the first contradiction: 鈥淚 saw the Lord鈥 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.

讚专砖讜 讛壮 讘讛诪爪讗讜 讛讗 讘讬讞讬讚 讛讗 讘爪讘讜专 讜讬讞讬讚 讗讬诪转 讗诪专 专讘 谞讞诪谉 讗诪专 专讘讛 讘专 讗讘讜讛 讗诇讜 注砖专讛 讬诪讬诐 砖讘讬谉 专讗砖 讛砖谞讛 诇讬讜诐 讛讻驻讜专讬诐

The Gemara resolves the second contradiction: Isaiah鈥檚 prophecy: 鈥淪eek the Lord while He may be found,鈥 does not contradict the verse in the Torah that God is near to His nation 鈥渨henever we call upon Him,鈥 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 Na岣an said Rabba bar Avuh said: These are the ten days between Rosh HaShana and Yom Kippur.

讗转 诪住驻专 讬诪讬讱 讗诪诇讗 转谞讗讬 讛讬讗 讚转谞讬讗 讗转 诪住驻专 讬诪讬讱 讗诪诇讗

The resolution of the third contradiction from the verse: 鈥淚 will fulfill the number of your days,鈥 is subject to a dispute between tanna鈥檌m, as it is taught in a baraita: The verse states: 鈥淚 will fulfill the number of your days鈥;

Scroll To Top