💾 Archived View for scholasticdiversity.us.to › scriptures › jewish › t › Ramban%20on%20Leviticus%20… captured on 2024-05-10 at 12:14:48. Gemini links have been rewritten to link to archived content
-=-=-=-=-=-=-
9 [1] THE NAKEDNESS OF THY SISTER, THE DAUGHTER OF THY FATHER, OR THE DAUGHTER OF THY MOTHER, WHETHER BORN AT HOME, OR BORN ABROAD, EVEN THEIR NAKEDNESS THOU SHALT NOT UNCOVER. “*Whether born at home, or born abroad* — this means whether [the court] says to your father, ‘Keep her mother as your wife,’ or whether it has to say to him, ‘Divorce her mother,’ as for instance when she [i.e., the mother] is a *mamzereth* or a *nethinah*” [a *mamzereth* is the female product from one of the forbidden sexual relationships in this section, and a *nethinah* is a female descendant of the Gibeonites — relationships with these women being in both cases punishable by whipping]. Thus the language of Rashi. But it is not correct, since this interpretation leads to the conclusion that a sister that is born from [a woman who is herself one of] the relations forbidden [to his father], is not included in this prohibition [against marrying one’s sister. For since Rashi explained the expressions *whether born at home, or born abroad* as referring to the *mother*, whether she is a lawful wife or a *mamzereth* or *nethinah*, both of whom are forbidden to the father only by punishment of whipping, and not by excision, unlike all forbidden relations, then the illogical result follows that if the mother *were* one of those relations forbidden to his father by punishment of excision, then the son’s sister born from that union would not be included in this prohibition]! And yet all [sisters] are forbidden by excision [i.e., regardless of whether the sister was born of a union itself permitted, or forbidden by whipping only, or by excision], unless she be born of a bondwoman or a Cuthean woman [in which case she is not considered his sister at all]!
And I wonder at the Rabbi [Rashi]! For in the Gemara of Tractate Yebamoth in the second chapter it is clearly stated: “Perhaps I can say that this excludes a sister born of a union forbidden by whipping [as in the case where his father married a *mamzereth* and she gave birth to a daughter, for I might say that the marriage, being forbidden, had no validity, and she is therefore not his ‘sister’ in the sense that she is included in the prohibition against having intercourse with one’s sister]! Said Rav Papa: In unions punishable by whipping, the marriage, [although forbidden], has legal validity. For it is written, *If a man have two wives, the one beloved, and the other hated*. Now is there before G-d a beloved one and a hated one [i.e., could it be supposed that the law should allow discrimination between the children of a favored wife and those of a hated wife]? Rather, you must say ‘beloved’ denotes ‘beloved for her well-chosen marriage’ [i.e., that it was blameless, since it was within the law], and ‘hated’ means ‘hated for her [illicit] marriage.’ And the Merciful One states, *‘ki thihyena l’ish’* (*if a man ‘have’*) — *two wives*. Perhaps I might say that this excludes a sister born of a union punishable by excision [so that she is not his ‘sister’ in the sense that she is included in the prohibition against having intercourse with one’s sister]! Said Rava: Scripture states, *The nakedness of thy sister, the daughter of thy father, or the daughter of thy mother, whether born at home, or born abroad*, which means whether [the court] can say to your father, ‘Keep [the mother as your wife],’ or whether it has to say to him, *‘Hotzei’* [as explained further on], and yet the Merciful One states that she is *thy sister*!” Now the meaning of the word *hotzei* is that [the court] tells him, “Take her out from your house, for she is not your [legitimate] wife, and the act of marriage has no legal validity in those cases where the union is punishable by excision or by any of the [four] deaths by the hand of the court.” And yet notwithstanding this, one is punished for having intercourse with her because she *is* considered his sister! Only one’s sister born from a bondwoman or a Cuthean woman is not included in this prohibition, since the offspring is of her own [legal] standing.
By way of the plain meaning of Scripture the verse is stating: “*The nakedness of thy sister, the daughter of thy father, or the daughter of thy mother, whether born* of a marriage, as when the father brought the woman into the home as a wife [and she gave birth to a daughter], *or born abroad*, as when the man found her outside, *and lay hold on her, and lie with her* and she gave him birth [to a daughter], *thou shalt not uncover their nakedness*.” Thus He mentioned [the prohibition concerning] a mother’s daughter whether she be born in wedlock or from unchastity. For even though in either case she is only his mother’s daughter and not his father’s daughter, [and if so, why did Scripture have to mention both cases], yet one might have thought that a brotherly relationship [forbidding sexual intercourse] applies only to a sister born in wedlock, but not to one born from unchastity, where everything is “free;” therefore Scripture had to admonish against all [kinds of sisters]. There is yet another verse which He stated with reference to one’s father’s daughter, stating *The nakedness of thy father’s wife’s daughter, begotten of thy father* [*thou shalt not uncover*], this being [a prohibition against having intercourse with] a sister who is one’s father’s daughter born of his legitimate wife. It was necessary that He state this, because having said [in Verse 9 before us], *the nakedness of thy sister, the daughter of thy father*, without any qualification, and then in connection with *the daughter of thy mother* He explained *whether born at home* through marriage, *or born abroad* through unchastity, one might therefore have thought that one’s father’s daughter born in unchastity is permissible to him; for perhaps the Torah was not particular about a man’s offspring born in unchastity, because these are not known to him; therefore He said in explanation, *The nakedness of thy father’s wife’s daughter* [*thou shalt not uncover*], thus declaring that the daughter of one’s father mentioned at first [in Verse 9 before us] is not one’s father’s daughter born of his legitimate wife [since that is specifically mentioned further on in Verse 11]. Also, because in the case of the Noachides the prohibition [against sexual intercourse] was only if the brotherhood was from the same mother, and not [if it was exclusively] from the father, Scripture therefore explains that with respect to Israelites, all are alike in the prohibition [whether they are born of one father or one mother].
The correct interpretation of this verse is what the Sages have said in the Gemara of Tractate Yebamoth; “A man who has intercourse with his sister, who is also the daughter of his father’s wife [through marriage] who is not his mother, is guilty both on account of his sister, and his father’s wife’s daughter.” And there in the Gemara the Rabbis explained the reason: “Observe, it is written, *the nakedness of thy sister, the daughter of thy father* etc.; what need was there for the expression, *the nakedness of thy father’s wife’s daughter* etc.? In order to teach that he is guilty both on account of his sister, and his father’s wife’s daughter.” Thus Scripture repeats certain prohibitions in order to make one [who commits these abominable practices] guilty on many counts, for even with reference to creeping things [which we are forbidden to eat] He has repeated many prohibitions regarding one matter, in order to punish the offender on all counts.
Version: Commentary on the Torah by Ramban (Nachmanides). Translated and annotated by Charles B. Chavel. New York, Shilo Pub. House, 1971-1976
Source: https://www.nli.org.il/he/books/NNL_ALEPH002108945/NLI
License: CC-BY