Yevamot

MISHNAH. WHO IS DEEMED TO BE A BASTARD?  [THE OFFSPRING OF A UNION WITH] ANY CONSANGUINEOUS RELATIVE WITH WHOM COHABITATION IS FORBIDDEN;  THIS IS THE RULING OF R. AKIBA. SIMEON THE TEMANITE SAID: [THE OFFSPRING OF ANY UNION] THE PENALTY FOR WHICH IS KARETH AT THE HANDS OF HEAVEN; AND THE HALACHAH IS IN AGREEMENT WITH HIS VIEW, AND R. JOSHUA SAID: [THE OFFSPRING OF ANY UNION]. THE PENALTY FOR WHICH IS DEATH AT THE HANDS OF BETH DIN. SAID R. SIMEON B. 'AZZAI: I FOUND A ROLL OF GENEALOGICAL RECORDS IN JERUSALEM, AND THEREIN WAS WRITTEN, SO-AND-SO IS A BASTARD [HAVING BEEN BORN] FROM [A FORBIDDEN UNION WITH] A MARRIED WOMAN',  WHICH CONFIRMS THE VIEW OF R. JOSHUA. IF A MAN'S WIFE DIED, HE IS PERMITTED TO MARRY HER SISTER. IF HE DIVORCED HER AND THEN SHE DIED HE IS PERMITTED TO MARRY HER SISTER. IF SHE WAS  MARRIED TO ANOTHER MAN AND DIED, HE IS PERMITTED TO MARRY HER SISTER. IF A MAN'S SISTER-IN-LAW  DIED, HE MAY MARRY HER SISTER. IF HE SUBMITTED TO HER HALIZAH AND THEN SHE DIED, HE IS PERMITTED TO MARRY HER SISTER. IF SHE WAS MARRIED  TO ANOTHER MAN AND THEN DIED HE IS PERMITTED TO MARRY HER SISTER. GEMARA. What is R. Akiba's reason? — Because it is written A man shall not take his father's wife and shall not uncover his father's skirt,  he shall not uncover the skirt which his father saw; and he  holds the same opinion as R. Judah who said that this Scriptural text  speaks of a woman whom his father had outraged,  and who is classed among those forbidden to him under the penalty for a negative precept;  and since close to this [text occurs the commandment], A bastard shall not enter the assembly of the Lord,  it is obvious that the offspring of any such union  is deemed to be a bastard. According to R. Simai also who includes  [the offspring of] any other union that is forbidden by a negative precept even though [the offenders are] not consanguineous relatives,  and according to R. Yeshebab who includes  even the offspring of a union forbidden under a positive commandment,  the deduction  is made from And … not. And Simeon the Temanite?  — He holds the same opinion as the Rabbis who stated that the text  speaks of a woman  awaiting the levirate decision of his father,  the union with such a woman  being forbidden under the penalty of kareth; and since close to this text appears. A bastard shall not enter,  it proves that the offspring of a union forbidden under the penalty of kareth is deemed to be a bastard. And R. Joshua?  — The All Merciful should have written  'Shall not uncover' only!  What need was there for 'Shall not take'?  Must it not, consequently. be concluded that it is this that was meant:  [The offspring] of [a union with her who is explicitly mentioned between] 'Shall not take' and 'Shall not uncover'  is deemed to be a bastard, but no others  are to be regarded as bastards. Abaye said: All agree that if one cohabited with a menstruant