Mesorat%20hashas for Yevamot 80:32

מאי שנא האי ומאי שנא האי

through whom she is his<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' His mother's father's. ');">⁴⁵</span> daughter's daughter-in-law. Come and hear: 'And his son's son'.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' V. supra n. 4. ');">⁴⁸</span> Is not this<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' The prohibition to marry this relative. ');">⁴¹</span> due to the levir who participated in the <i>halizah</i> through whom she is his father's father's wife?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Which proves that, even in respect of a haluzah, relatives of the second degree are prohibited. ');">⁴²</span> — No; it<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' The prohibition to marry this relative. ');">⁴¹</span> is due to the deceased<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' The prohibition being a preventive measure against the infringement of a Pentateuchal law. Consequently it supplies no proof in respect of our enquiry which is concerned with a preventive measure against an infringement of a Rabbinical law. ');">⁴⁷</span> through whom she is his father's father's brother's wife. But, surely, Amemar permitted the marriage of one's father's father's brother's wife!<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' How then could such a case be included among forbidden relatives? ');">⁴⁹</span> — Amemar explains that<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' 'Son's son' in R. Hiyya's Baraitha. ');">⁵⁰</span> to be due to the levir who participated in the <i>halizah</i>,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' The prohibition being that of 'his father's father's wife', as first assumed. ');">⁵¹</span> but is of the opinion that relatives of the second degree were forbidden as a preventive measure even in respect of a <i>haluzah</i>.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' According to those, however, who, contrary to the opinion of Amemar, forbid marriage with a father's father's brother's wife, the prohibition in R. Hiyya's Baraitha might still be attributed to the deceased (v. supra n. 7), and the original enquiry as to whether relatives of the second degree were forbidden in the case of a haluzah still remains unanswered. ');">⁵²</span> Come and hear: 'And the son of his daughter'.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' V. supra n. 4. ');">⁴⁸</span> Is not this<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' The prohibition to marry this relative. ');">⁴¹</span> due to the levir who participated in the <i>halizah</i> through whom she is his mother's father's wife?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Which proves that, even in respect of a haluzah, relatives of the second degree are prohibited. ');">⁴²</span> — No; it<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' The prohibition to marry this relative. ');">⁴¹</span> is due to the deceased<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' The prohibition being a preventive measure against the infringement of a Pentateuchal law. Consequently it supplies no proof in respect of our enquiry which is concerned with a preventive measure against an infringement of a Rabbinical law. ');">⁴⁷</span> through whom she is his mother's father's brother's wife. But, surely, no prohibition as a preventive measure was made in respect of the second degrees of incest!<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' How then could it be suggested that the prohibition is due to the fact that the haluzah is the 'wife of the mother's father's brother' of the deceased? ');">⁵³</span> Consequently<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Lit., 'what, not'? ');">⁵⁴</span> it must be due to the levir who participated in the <i>halizah</i>,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' The prohibition being that of 'his mother's father's wife' who is a relative of the second degree. ');">⁵⁵</span> and thus it may be inferred that relatives of the second degree were forbidden as a preventive measure even in the case of a <i>haluzah</i>. This proves it. A MAN IS PERMITTED etc. R. Tobi b. Kisna said in the name of Samuel: Where a man had intercourse with the rival of his <i>haluzah</i> the child [born from such a union] is a bastard. What is the reason? — Because she<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' The rival. ');">⁵⁶</span> remains under her original prohibition.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Of 'brother's wife', which is subject to the penalty of kareth. Children born from a union that is forbidden under such a penalty are deemed to be bastards. ');">⁵⁷</span> Said R. Joseph: We also have learned [to the same effect]: A MAN IS PERMITTED TO MARRY THE RELATIVE OF THE RIVAL OF HIS <i>HALUZAH</i>. Now, if you grant that the rival is excluded<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' [Lit., 'outside'. Rashi reads: 'Stands outside'.] From the restrictions of the haluzah, the latter not being regarded as her agent or representative. ');">⁵⁸</span> one can well understand why the man is permitted to marry her sister.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Since she herself remains forbidden to the levir as 'brother's wife', her sister is not the 'sister of a haluzah'. ');">⁵⁹</span> If it be maintained, however, that the rival has the same status as the <i>haluzah</i>, why [should her sister] be permitted [to him]?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' She should be forbidden as the sister of a haluzah! As she is permitted, however, it must be granted that the rival of a haluzah remains under the original prohibition of 'brother's wife', which entails the penalty of kareth. (V. supra n. 5). ');">⁶⁰</span> May it be suggested that this<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' The inference from our Mishnah. (V. supra n. 8 second clause). ');">⁶¹</span> furnishes an objection against R. Johanan who stated: Neither he<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' The levir who submitted to halizah. ');">⁶²</span> nor the other brothers are subject to <i>kareth</i> either for [the betrothal of] a <i>haluzah</i> or for [the betrothal of] her rival?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Supra 10b; while from the inference of our Mishnah, as has been proved, the penalty for contracting a union with the rival of a haluzah is kareth! ');">⁶³</span> — R. Johanan can answer you: Do you understand it!<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' R. Joseph's argument. ');">⁶⁴</span> Is the sister of a <i>haluzah</i> Pentateuchally forbidden?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' As R. Joseph implies by his assumption that if the rival had the same status as the haluzah her sister would be forbidden. ');">⁶⁵</span> Surely Resh Lakish said: Here<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' In the following Mishnah to which he refers. ');">⁶⁶</span> it was taught by Rabbi that the prohibition to marry the sister of a divorced wife is Pentateuchal and that that of the sister of a <i>haluzah</i> is Rabbinical!<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' The reason why the sister of a rival of a haluzah is permitted is not that assumed by R. Joseph. but the following: As the prohibition of the sister of a haluzah herself is only Rabbinical, the prohibition was not extended to the sister of the rival of the haluzah also. ');">⁶⁷</span> Why is there a difference [in the law] between the one and the other?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' The first and second case of the final clause of our Mishnah. THE RIVAL OF THE RELATIVE OF HIS HALUZAH is surely as much of a stranger to him as THE RELATIVE OF THE RIVAL OF HIS HALUZAH. ');">⁶⁸</span>

Explore mesorat%20hashas for Yevamot 80:32. In-depth commentary and analysis from classical Jewish sources.