Yevamot 49

מתני׳ איזהו ממזר כל שאר בשר שהוא בלא יבא דברי רבי עקיבא שמעון התימני אומר כל שחייבים עליו כרת בידי שמים והלכה כדבריו ורבי יהושע אומר כל שחייבין עליו מיתת בית דין

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.

אמר רבי שמעון בן עזאי מצאתי מגלת יוחסין בירושלים וכתוב בה איש פלוני ממזר מאשת איש לקיים דברי רבי יהושע

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.

אשתו שמתה מותר באחותה גרשה ומתה מותר באחותה נשאת לאחר ומתה מותר באחותה יבמתו שמתה מותר באחותה חלץ לה ומתה מותר באחותה נשאת לאחר ומתה מותר באחותה:

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.

גמ׳ מאי טעמא דרבי עקיבא דכתיב לא יקח איש את אשת אביו ולא יגלה כנף אביו כנף שראה אביו לא יגלה

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.

וסבר לה כרבי יהודה דאמר באנוסת אביו הכתוב מדבר דהויא לה חייבי לאוין

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.

וסמיך ליה לא יבא ממזר בקהל ה׳ אלמא מהני הוי ממזר

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.

ולרבי סימאי דמרבה שאר חייבי לאוין דלאו דשאר ולרבי ישבב דמרבה אפילו חייבי עשה

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?

נפקא להו מולא

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.

ושמעון התימני סבר לה כרבנן דאמרי בשומרת יבם של אביו הכתוב מדבר דהויא לה חייבי כריתות וסמיך ליה לא יבא ממזר אלמא מחייבי כריתות הוי ממזר

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.

ורבי יהושע לכתוב רחמנא לא יגלה לא יקח (ולא יגלה) למה לי אלא לאו הכי קאמר מלא יקח עד לא יגלה הוי ממזר טפי לא הוי ממזר

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.

אמר אביי הכל מודים בבא על הנדה

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

ועל הסוטה שאין הולד ממזר

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

נדה דהא תפסי בה קידושין שנאמר ותהי נדתה עליו אפילו בשעת נדתה תפסי בה קידושין

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.

סוטה נמי דהא תפסי בה קידושין

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

תניא נמי הכי הכל מודים בבא על הנדה ועל הסוטה ועל שומרת יבם שאין הולד ממזר

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.

ואביי שומרת יבם מספקא ליה אי כרב אי כשמואל:

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.

אמר רבי שמעון בן עזאי כו׳: תני שמעון בן עזאי אומר מצאתי מגלת יוחסין בירושלים וכתוב בה איש פלוני ממזר מאשת איש וכתוב בה משנת רבי אליעזר בן יעקב קב ונקי וכתוב בה מנשה הרג את ישעיה

§ 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.

אמר רבא מידן דייניה וקטליה אמר ליה משה רבך אמר כי לא יראני האדם וחי ואת אמרת ואראה את ה׳ יושב על כסא רם ונשא משה רבך אמר מי כה׳ אלהינו בכל קראנו אליו ואת אמרת דרשו ה׳ בהמצאו משה רבך אמר את מספר ימיך אמלא ואת אמרת והוספתי על ימיך חמש עשרה שנה

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).

אמר ישעיה ידענא ביה דלא מקבל מה דאימא ליה ואי אימא ליה אישוייה מזיד אמר שם איבלע בארזא אתיוה לארזא ונסרוה כי מטא להדי פומא נח נפשיה משום דאמר ובתוך עם טמא שפתים אנכי יושב

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.

מכל מקום קשו קראי אהדדי

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

ואראה את ה׳ כדתניא כל הנביאים נסתכלו באספקלריא שאינה מאירה משה רבינו נסתכל באספקלריא המאירה

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.

דרשו ה׳ בהמצאו הא ביחיד הא בצבור ויחיד אימת אמר רב נחמן אמר רבה בר אבוה אלו עשרה ימים שבין ראש השנה ליום הכפורים

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.

את מספר ימיך אמלא תנאי היא דתניא את מספר ימיך אמלא

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”;