Kiddushin

even a niddah too?1 Why then did Abaye say: All agree that if one has inter — course with a niddah or a sotah,2 the issue is not mamzer? — Said Hezekiah, Scripture saith, [and if any man lie with her,] and her menstruation3 be upon him:4 even during her ‘menstruation’ betrothal with her is valid. 5 Consider: one can assimilate [all other consanguineous relations] to niddah, and one can assimilate her to a wife's sister:6 what [reason] do you see to assimilate them to a wife's sister:7 assimilate them to niddah? — [In a choice between] leniency and stringency, we assimilate to the case of stringency.8 R. Aha b. Jacob said: It is inferred a minori from yebamah: if kiddushin with a yebamah is invalid,9 though she is [interdicted only] by a negative precept, how much the more so with those who are forbidden on pain of death or kareth! If so, should not others, interdicted [only] by negative precepts. be the same?10 — Said R. Papa, of those interdicted by negative precepts it is explicitly stated: If there be to a man two wives, the one beloved, and the other hated.11 Now is there before the Omnipresent a hated [woman] or a beloved one!12 But ‘beloved’ means beloved in her marriage, and ‘hated’ means hated in her marriage;13 yet the Divine Law states: ‘and if there be.’14 Now R, Akiba, who maintained, kiddushin with those who are interdicted by a negative precept is invalid, — to what does he apply, ‘if there be’? — To [the betrothal of] a widow to a High Priest, and in accordance with R. Simai. For it was taught: R. Simai said: [The issue] of all [marriages forbidden by a negative injunction] R. Akiba declared mamzer, excepting that of a widow [married] to a High Priest, since the Torah said, [a widow . . . he shall not take,] and he shall not profane [his seed]:15 he renders [his seed] profane, but not mamzer. But on the view of R. Yeshebab, who said: Come, and let us cry out against Akiba son of Joseph, who declared: He who has no entry in Israel, the issue is mamzer — it is well if R. Yeshebab comes to combat R. Simai; then it is right. But if he states an independent opinion, this including even those who are interdicted by a positive precept, to what can he apply it?16 — To a non-virgin17 [married] to a High Priest.18 And wherein does it differ?19 — Because it is a positive precept unapplicable20 to all.21 And the Rabbis: instead of explaining [the verse]22 as referring to those forbidden by negative precepts, let them refer it to those forbidden by positive precepts?23 — Those who are forbidden by positive precepts, — how are they conceivable? If both are Egyptian women, both are ‘hated’? If one is an Egyptian woman and the other a Jewess — we require that the ‘two wives’ shall be of one people: if [one is] a non-virgin [married] to a High Priest, — is it then written, [If] there be [two wives] to a priest?24 And R. Akiba?25 — You are forced to leave it to the verse to explain itself. 26 AND WHATEVER [WOMAN] WHO CANNOT CONTRACT KIDDUSHIN etc. How do we know [it of] a Canaanitish bondmaid?27 — Said R. Huna, Scripture saith, Abide ye here with [‘im] the ass28 — it is a people [‘am] like unto an ass.29 We have thus found that kiddushin with her is invalid: conceived during menstruation should be mamzer, these two being interdependent. The prohibition of intercourse with a niddah is also stated in that passage. another! Hence one general law that the firstborn receives a double portion of the patrimony would have sufficed. Hence it must refer exclusively to one of those just mentioned, in spite of their improbability