Jerusalem Talmud Yevamot 4:15:2-4

הלכה: אֵי זֶהוּ מַמְזֵר כול׳. אָמַר רִבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן בֶּן עַזַּאי כול׳. רִבִּי יוֹסֵי בֶן חֲנִינָה אוֹמֵר. וְכוּלְּהָם מֵאֵשֶׁת אָב לָֽמְדוּ. לֹא יִקַּח אִישׁ אֶת אֵשֶׁת אָבִיו וְלֹא יְגַלֶּה כְּנַף אָבִיו. רִבִּי עֲקִיבָה דוֹרֵשׁ. מַה אֵשֶׁת אָבִיו מְיוּחֶדֶת שֶׁהִיא בְּלֹא יָבוֹא הַװְלָד מַמְזֵר. אַף כָּל־שֶׁהוּא בְּלֹא יָבוֹא הַװְלָד מַמְזֵר. הָתִיבוּן. הֲרֵי אַלְמָנָה לְכֹהֵן גָּדוֹל. שַׁנְייָא הִיא שֶׁפֵּירַשּׁ בָּהּ חָלָל. שִׁמְעוֹן הַתִּימְנִי דָרַשׁ. מַה אֵשֶׁת אָב מְיוּחֶדֶת שֶׁחַייָבִין עָלֶיהָ כָּרֵת בִּידֵי שָׁמַיִם הַװְלָד מַמְזֵר. אַף כָּל־שֶׁחַייָבִין עָלֶיהָ כָּרֵת בִּידֵי שָׁמַיִם הַװְלָד מַמְזֵר. הָתִיבוּן. הֲרֵי נִידָּה. שַׁנְייָא הִיא שֶׁאֵין כָּתוֹב בָּהּ שְׁאֵר בָּשָׂר. רִבִּי יְהוֹשֻׁעַ דָּרַשׁ. מַה אֵשֶׁת אָב מְיוּחֶדֶת שֶׁחַייָבִין עָלֶיהָ מִיתַת בֵּית דִּין וְהַװְלָד מַמְזֵר. אַף כָּל־שֶׁחַייָבִין עָלֶיהָ מִיתַת בֵּית דִּין הַװְלָד מַמְזֵר. HALAKHAH: “What is a bastard,” etc; “Rebbi Simeon ben Azai said,” etc. Rebbi Yose ben Ḥanina said, all of them learned from the father’s wife. “A man shall not take his father’s wife and not uncover his father’s garment’s wing.²¹¹Deut. 23:1. This is only half the basis of the arguments. The other is verse 3: No bastard shall come into the community of the Eternal. Since v. 2 speaks of men who cannot have children, v. 3 is taken to refer to v. 1, that the child of a man and his stepmother is a bastard. This is spelled out in detail in the Babli, 49a.” Rebbi Aqiba explains: Just as his father’s wife is special in that she is a forbidden relation from which the child is a bastard, so in any case there is a forbidden relation, the child is a bastard. They objected, is there not a widow for the High Priest²¹²Lev. 21:14. Everybody agrees that the child is not a bastard from any of the priestly prohibitions since it is spelled out in v. 15 that the children would be desecrated, barred from the priesthood. This case is not discussed in the Babli.? There is a difference, since desecration is spelled out. Simeon from Timna explained: Just as his father’s wife is special in that one is subject to extirpation for her²¹³In case there are no eye witnesses for the forbidden sex act, when there can be no criminal prosecution., the child is a bastard, so in any case that one is subject to extirpation for her, the child is a bastard. They objected, is there not the menstruating woman²¹⁴Lev. 20:18. In the Babli, this refers to an amoraic statement.? There is a difference, since “blood-relation” is not written in reference to her. Rebbi Joshua explained: Just as his father’s wife is special in that one is subject to the death penalty for her, the child is a bastard, so in any case that one is subject to the death penalty for her, the child is a bastard.

אַף עַל גַּב דְּרִבִּי יְהוֹשֻׁעַ אָמַר הַבָּא עַל אֲחוֹתוֹ הַװְלָד כָּשֵׁר. מוֹדֶה שֶׁאִם הָֽיְתָה הַװְלָד נְקֵיבָה שֶׁהִיא פְסוּלָה מִן הַכְּהוּנָּה. אַף עַל גַּב דְּרִבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן בֶּן יְהוּדָה מִשּׁוּם רִבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן. גּוֹי וְעֶבֶד שֶׁבָּאוּ עַל בַּת יִשְׂרָאֵל הַװְלָד כָּשֵׁר. מוֹדֵי שֶׁאִם הָֽיְתָה נְקֵיבָה שֶׁהִיא פְסוּלָה מִן הַכְּהוּנָּה. חַד בַּר נַשׁ אָתָא לְגַבַּת רַב אָמַר. בְּנִין דִּילֵידַת אִמָּה דְהַהוּא גַבְרָא אֲרָמַאי. אָמַר לֵיהּ. כָּשֵׁר. אָמַר לֵיהּ רַב חָמָא בַר גּוּרְיָא. הֵן דְּעַייְמָךְ רַגְלֵיךְ עַד דְּלָא יֵיתֵי שְׁמוּאֵל וִיפְסָלִינָךְ. אַף עַל גַּב דְּרַב אָמַר. גּוֹי וְעֶבֶד שֶׁבָּאוּ עַל בַּת יִשְׂרָאֵל הַווְלָד כָּשֵׁר. מוֹדֵי שֶׁאִם הָֽיְתָה נְקֵיבָה שֶׁהִיא פְסוּלָה מִן הַכְּהוּנָּה. Even though Rebbi Joshua said, the child of him who sleeps with his sister²¹⁶A paradigm for all relations punishable by divine extirpation but not capital crimes. is acceptable, he agrees that if the child was female that she is blemished for the priesthood²¹⁷By rabbinic standards.. Even though Rebbi Simeon ben Jehudah [says] in the name of Rebbi Simeon: If a Gentile or a slave came to a daughter of Israel, the child is acceptable, they agree that if she was female, she is blemished for the priesthood. A man came to Rav and said, since the children of this man’s mother are from an Aramean? He said, acceptable. Rav Ḥama bar Guria said to him, let your feet carry you away before Samuel comes²¹⁸In the Babli, 45a, Samuel agrees with Rav that the child is acceptable. The opinion expressed here, that the child is permitted only to marry outside the priesthood is attributed in the Babli to R. Joshua ben Levi. The Yerushalmi decides here against its own masters, R. Joḥanan and R. Eleazar, who hold in Halakhah 7:6 that the child is a bastard. and declares you blemished. Even though Rav said, if a Gentile or a slave came to a daughter of Israel, the child is acceptable, he agrees that if she was female, she is blemished for the priesthood.

וּמַה רָאוּ לוֹמֵר. הֲלָכָה כְרִבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן הַתִּימְנִי. אָמַר רִבִּי יוֹסֵי בֵּירִבִּי חֲנִינָא. מָקוֹם שֶׁנִּכְלְלוּ כָּל־הָעֲרָיוֹת לְהִיכָּרֵת. יָצָאת אֵשֶׁת אָב לְלַמְּדָךְ עַל הַמַּמְזֵר. מִחְלְפָה שִׁיטָּתֵיהּ דְּרִבִּי יוֹסֵי בֵּירִבִּי חֲנִינָה. תַּמָּן הוּא יְלִיף לֵיהּ מִכְּלָלָא וְהָכָא הוּא יְלִיף לֵיהּ מִפְּרָטָה. דְּתַנֵּי מִצְוֹת יי֨. הָיִיתִי אוֹמֵר. אַף אוֹכְלֵי שְׁקָצִים וּרְמָשִׂים בִּכְלָל. הֲרֵי אַתְּ דָּן לוֹמַר. נֶאֱמַר כָּאן מֵעֵינֵי וְנֶאֱמַר לְהַלָּן מֵעֵינֵי. מַה עֵינֵי שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר לְהַלָּן דָּבָר שֶׁחַייָבִין עַל שִׁגְגָתוֹ חַטָּאת וְעַל זְדוֹנוֹ כָרֵת. אַף מֵעֵינֵי שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר כָּאן חַייָבִין עַל זְדוֹנוֹ כָרֵת וְעַל שִׁגְגָתוֹ חַטָּאת. אִי מַה עֵינֵי שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר לְהַלָּן שֶׁיֵּשׁ בּוֹ מִיתַת בֵּית דִּין אַף מֵעֵינֵי שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר כָּאן דָּבָר שֶׁיֵּשׁ בּוֹ מִיתַת בֵּית דִּין. אָמַר רִבִּי יוֹסֵי בֵּירִבִּי חֲנִינָה. מָקוֹם שֶׁיָּצָאת עֲבוֹדָה זָרָה לְלַמֵּד עַל מְחוּייָבִין כְּרִיתוּת לֹא יָצָא עִמָּם כָּרֵת אֶלָּא כָּרֵת בִּלְבַד. אֲבָל מִיתָה מִמָּקוֹם אַחֵר בָּאת. מִחְלְפָה שִׁיטָּתֵיהּ דְּרִבִּי יוֹסֵי בֵּירִבִּי חֲנִינָה. תַּמָּן הוּא יְלִיף לֵהּ מִכְּלָלָא וְהָכָא הוּא יְלִיף לֵהּ מִפְּרָטָא. תַּמָּן נִכְלְלוּ כָל־הָעֲרָיוֹת לְקָרְבָּן. יָצָאת עֲבוֹדָה זָרָה לְלַמֵּד עַל מְחוּייָבֵי קָרְבָּנוֹת. אִית לָךְ מֵימַר. הָכָא נִכְלְלוּ כָל־הָעֲרָיוֹת לְמַמְזֵר. יָצָאת אֵשֶׁת אָב לְלַמֵּד עַל הַמַּמְזֵר. Why did they say, practice follows Rebbi Simeon from Timna? ²¹⁹A very shortened version is in Horaiot 2:4; much more truncated in Babli Horaiot 8a. Rebbi Yose ben Ḥanina said, from a place where all incest prohibitions were taken as one set [of sins] causing extirpation, the father’s wife came out to tell you about the bastard²²⁰All incest prohibitions (including adultery) promulgated under one heading, as one set, in Lev. Chapter 18 are punishable by divine extirpation as made clear in Chapter 20. The verses about the connection between the father’s wife and the bastard are in Deut. 23. The father’s wife represents a single element of the set of incest prohibitions. Deut. 23 has no penalties spelled out. It is presumed that the penalty common to all sins mentioned in Lev. 18 is also understood in Deut.23. Cf. Chapter 11, Note 63.. The method of Rebbi Yose ben Ḥanina seems inverted. There, he infers from the set and here²²¹The topic of Horaiot 2:4, for which transgressions a purification sacrifice is due, viz., those under penalty of divine extirpation. [Simple transgressions are expiated either by the punishment imposed by the court or by sincere repentance and the Day of Atonement (Mishnah Yoma 8:7)]. he infers from one of its members. As we have stated: “The commandments of the Eternal,²²²Lev. 4:2, the introduction to the laws of the purifying sacrifice: “If a person sins inadvertently against any of the Eternal’s commandments about what should not be done, but he did one of these.” I could think that this includes also those who eat abominations and crawling things²²³Forbidden in Lev. 11; these are simple prohibitions, at most punishable by whipping.. You argue, saying that here it says “from the eyes²²⁴“Here” is the purification offering of the congregation due (Lev. 4:13) “if the entire congregation of Israel errs and something is hidden from the eyes of the community and they do one of the actions which by the commandments of the Eternal should not be done, and they do damage.” This is part of a series of 5 different statements on purification offerings. “There” is the isolated statement about the particular purification offering due for the sin of apostasy (i. e., idolatry, Num. 15:22–28). Num. 15:24 reads: “If from the eyes of the congregation it was done in error.” By the hermeneutic rule of גזירה שוה “equal cut”, parallel expressions imply parallel meanings.” and there it says “from the eyes”. Just as “from the eyes” mentioned there means something for which one is obligated for a purification sacrifice in case of inadvertent sin and extirpation in case of intentional sin, also “from the eyes” mentioned here means something for which one is obligated for a purification sacrifice in case of inadvertent sin and extirpation in case of intentional sin. But since “from the eyes” mentioned there is a case²²⁵Idolatry. involving the death penalty, does “from the eyes” mentioned here involve the death penalty? Rebbi Yose ben Ḥanina said, from the place from which idolatry was singled out to teach about all who are subject to extirpation, there was no mention of anything but extirpation²²⁶The only penalty mentioned is extirpation in Num. 15:30 for the blasphemer and idolator, offenses which at other places are classified as capital crimes.. But the death penalty is written elsewhere. The method of Rebbi Yose ben Ḥanina seems inverted. There, he infers from the set and here he infers from one of its members! There, all incest prohibitions were taken together as to the duty of sacrifice. Idolatry was singled out to teach who is obligated for a sacrifice²²⁷Since for idolatry the sacrifices are different from those for all other sins, it is necessary to treat this separately.. What can you say? Here, all incest prohibitions were taken together concerning of bastards. The father’s wife was singled out to teach about the bastard.