Keritot

GEMARA. But does not R. Meir hold, a prohibition cannot take hold of something already forbidden?1 — Although he generally holds that a prohibition cannot take hold where another prohibition exists, he admits that a prohibition which is more comprehensive or more extensive can take hold [of an already existing prohibition].2 [Our instance is then to be understood thus:] He had intercourse with his mother who bore him a daughter, so that the latter becomes prohibited to him simultaneously as his daughter and his sister. When she marries his brother, since she becomes prohibited also to his other brothers,3 this comprehensive prohibition becomes operative also with reference to himself. When she then4 marries his father's brother, since she becomes prohibited to the other brothers of his father, this comprehensive prohibition becomes operative also with reference to himself. In her capacity now as a married woman, since she becomes prohibited to the whole world, this comprehensive prohibition becomes operative also with regard to himself. Finally as a menstruant woman, since she becomes forbidden even to her own husband, this comprehensive prohibition become operative also with reference to himself. MISHNAH. IF ONE HAD INTERCOURSE WITH HIS DAUGHTER'S DAUGHTER HE MAY THEREBY BECOME GUILTY FOR OFFENDING WITH HIS DAUGHTER'S DAUGHTER, HIS DAUGH TER-IN-LAW, HIS BROTHER'S WIFE, THE WIFE OF HIS FATHER'S BROTHER, HIS WIFE'S SISTER, A MARRIED WOMAN, AND FINALLY A MENSTRUANT WOMAN.5 R. JOSE REMARKED: IF THE GRANDFATHER HAD COMMITTED TRANSGRESSION AND MARRIED HER FIRST, HE MAY THEREBY BECOME GUILTY FOR OFFENDING WITH HIS FATHER'S WIFE. SO TOO, IF ONE HAD CONNECTION WITH HIS WIFE'S DAUGHTER OR HER DAUGHTER'S DAUGHTER. GEMARA. It is stated: HE MAY THEREBY BECOME GUILTY FOR OFFENDING WITH HIS FATHER'S WIFE. Was she then permitted to him?6 — Replied R. Johanan: The case is met if she fell unto him in levirite marriage.7 If so, what means: HAD COMMITTED TRANSGRESSION? — He committed transgression In that she was his son's daughter-in-law, which is a forbidden relation in the second degree,8 as has been taught:9 A daughter-in-law is an incestuous relation [by law of the Torah], the daughter-in-law of a son is forbidden [as a relation] in the second degree. The same distinction is made between the daughter of a son and the daughter of a son's son etc. to the end of all generations.10 But does R. Jose indeed hold that a prohibition can take hold of something already forbidden, have we not learnt:11 If one has committed a sin which involves two death penalties,12 he is condemned to the more stringent [of the two forms of execution]. R. Jose, however, maintains he is sentenced for the sin that took hold first. And it was taught: How is R. Jose's ruling, that he is sentenced for the sin that took hold first, to be understood? If, e.g., she was forbidden to him first as his mother-in-law and then as a married woman,13 he is sentenced for intercourse with a mother-in-law; if she was forbidden to him first as a married woman and then as a mother-in-law, he is sentenced for connection with a married woman! — Answered R. Abbahu: R. Jose admits [an exception to the rule] when the new prohibition is more comprehensive.14 Also when Rabin came15 he said in the name of R. Johanan: R. Jose admitted when the new prohibition was more comprehensive. But in which respect is it more comprehensive here?16 — When the grandfather had another son;17 as the new prohibition comprises also the other son, it becomes operative with regard to [the offender] himself. MISHNAH. IF ONE HAD INTERCOURSE WITH HIS MOTHER-IN-LAW HE MAY THEREBY BECOME GUILTY FOR OFFENDING WITH HIS MOTHER-IN-LAW, HIS DAUGHTER-IN-LAW, HIS BROTHER'S WIFE, THE WIFE OF HIS FATHER'S BROTHER, HIS WIFE'S SISTER, A MARRIED WOMAN, AND FINALLY A MENSTRUANT WOMAN.18 AND SO TOO, IF ONE HAD INTERCOURSE WITH THE MOTHER OF HIS FATHER-IN-LAW OR OF HIS MOTHER-IN-LAW. R. JOHANAN B. NURI REMARKED: IF ONE HAD INTERCOURSE WITH HIS MOTHER-IN-LAW HE MAY THEREBY BECOME GUILTY FOR OFFENDING WITH HIS MOTHER-IN-LAW, THE MOTHER OF HIS MOTHER-IN-LAW, AND THE MOTHER OF HIS FATHER-IN-LAW.19 THEY SAID TO HIM: ALL THESE THREE ARE OF ONE DENOMINATION.20 GEMARA. Said R. Eleazar in the name of R. Hoshaia: R. Johanan b. Nuri and Symmachus adhere to the same rule.21 R. Johanan b. Nuri as stated above.22 As to Symmachus, we have learnt:23 Although the Mishnah is anonymous, it is, according to a general rule, assumed that R. Meir's view is represented therein. except her own father. simultaneously broken in one act, viz., the grand-daughter, now a married woman, had previously wedded one of his sons and after his death the offender's brother and later, after the latter's death, the brother of the offender's father. The offender was at the same time married to his grand-daughter's half-sister, i.e., another daughter of his granddaughter's husband from another wife. The grand-daughter was, in addition, menstruant at the time of contact. father's wife’. her according to the law of levirate marriage, Deut. XXV, 5f. forbidden to him by rabbinical enactment. of execution, cf. Sanh. 49b. case of a married woman is death by strangulation and in that of a mother-in-law death by burning. We learn herefrom, at any rate, that R. Jose holds a new prohibition cannot take hold where another exists. Jose, in the quoted Mishnah, nevertheless holds that only the prohibition which is first established is of avail, (although in the first of the examples the second prohibition, viz.,the one concerning a married woman, which applied to all men, is more comprehensive than the first) is because the penalty of the first transgression is more stringent than that of the second (Rashi). wife. This prohibition does not add to those already in existence. to him as his father's wife. mother-in-law, now a married woman, had previously married his son and after the latter's death his brother, and then his father's brother. The offender himself had also been married to his mother-in-law's sister. If the mother-in-law was menstruant at the time of the union, we find that in one act he transgressed the seven prohibitions enumerated in the Mishnah. daughter, so that she was also his mother-in-law's mother and his father-in-law's mother. separate offering is to be brought for each offence. come under the same designation.