Why does the Torah see fit to add another Pasuk concerning a sister?


Rashi: To preclude the daughter of his father from a Shifchah Cana'anis and from a Nochris from the law of "Moledes Chutz", 1 since she is not fit to have Kidushin [with any man].


Ramban: Here it says that she is his father's daughter through marriage. We infer that "Moledes Chutz" above is not through marriage. 2


Ramban (citing Yevamos, 22b): To teach us that someone who transgresses, and has relations with his sister who is also the daughter of his father's wife who is not his mother, transgresses two Lavim. 3 ).


Moshav Zekenim: Before we learned about his father's daughter not through marriage. We cannot punish, from a Kal v'Chomer, for his daughter through marriage, therefore this verse teaches it explicitly.


Makos 5b: We already learned (verse 9) about his father's daughter not through marriage. Since the Torah needed to teach about his father's daughter through marriage, we infer that we cannot warn 4 via a Kal v'Chomer.


Who does not therefore fall under the category of "Bas Eshes Avicha". Refer also to 18:9:2:2*. Refer also to 18:9:2:1.


Despite the fact that one is not sure that it is his father's daughter, and despite the fact that a Nochri is permitted to marry his paternal sister (Ramban).


If he was Mezid he gets two sets of lashes; if he was Shogeg, he brings two Chata'os. (PF)


In Makos 5b we infered that we do not punish based on a Kal v'Chomer from the Onesh for a full sister (refer to 20:17:152:1).

Sefer: Perek: Pasuk:
Month: Day: Year:
Month: Day: Year:

KIH Logo
D.A.F. Home Page
Sponsorships & Donations Readers' Feedback Mailing Lists Talmud Archives Ask the Kollel Dafyomi Weblinks Dafyomi Calendar Other Yomi calendars