Yevamot 108

ביומי תליא מילתא אשת אח בבנים תליא רחמנא

the prohibition depends on the number of days,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Even after the death of her husband she remains forbidden to marry anyone until the prescribed number of seven unclean days has passed. ');">¹</span> and with a brother's wife the All Merciful made her pro hibition dependent on the birth of children!<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' If she gave birth to any child she remains forbidden to her husband's brothers even after his death. ');">²</span> — But the objection may be raised thus: A menstruant and a brother's wife are different,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' From the other women one is forbidden to marry. ');">³</span>

אלא פריך הכי מה לנדה ואשת אח שכן אין אוסרן מתירן תאמר באשת איש שאוסרה מתירה

since the man who caused them to be forbidden cannot cause them to be permitted.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' The former is dependent on the prescribed number of days and the latter on the absence of any issue. And thus the original question remains: Whence is deduced the prohibition of the first stage of contact in the ease of all forbidden unions? ');">⁴</span> Would you [then] apply their restrictions to a married woman whose permissibility is brought about<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Through divorce. ');">⁵</span> by the man who caused her to be forbidden? But, said R. Johanan, or as some say, R. Huna son of R. Joshua, Scripture stated, For whosoever shall do any of these abominations, even the souls that do them shall be cut off,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Lev. XVIII, 29. ');">⁶</span>

אלא אמר ר' יונה ואיתימא רב הונא בריה דרב יהושע אמר קרא (ויקרא יח, כט) כי כל אשר יעשה מכל התועבות האלה ונכרתו הנפשות העושות הוקשו כל העריות כולן לנדה מה נדה בהעראה אף כל בהעראה

all forbidden unions were compared to the menstruant;<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' who also was mentioned in the same Scriptural section. ');">⁷</span> as the first stage constitutes the offence with the menstruant so does the first stage constitute the offence with all the others. What need, then, was there<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' If all forbidden unions are compared with one another and are consequently equal in their restrictions. ');">⁸</span>

ואלא נדה דכתיבא גבי אשת אח למה לי לכדרב הונא דאמר רב הונא רמז ליבמה מן התורה מנין מנין הא כתיב יבמה יבא עליה אלא רמז ליבמה שאסורה בחיי בעלה מנין

to mention the menstruant in the context of brother's wife?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' From which it was inferred supra that these two were to be compared with one another in respect of the first stage. ');">⁹</span> — For an inference like that of R. Huna. For R. Huna stated: Whence in the Torah may an allusion to the sister-in-law<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' The brother's wife. ');">¹⁰</span> be traced? [You ask,] 'Whence'? Surely it is written in Scripture, Her husband's brother shall go in unto her!<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Deut. XXV, 5. ');">¹¹</span>

האי סברא היא מדאמר רחמנא לאחר מיתת בעלה שריא מכלל דבחיי בעלה אסורה

— [The query is] rather, whence the allusion that a sister-in-law is forbidden<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' To marry her husband's brother. ');">¹²</span> during the lifetime of her husband?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Even if he had divorced her. ');">¹³</span> But surely this is a logical inference: Since the All Merciful said that she<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' The sister-in-law. ');">¹⁴</span>

ודלמא לאחר מיתת בעלה מצוה בחיי בעלה רשות אי נמי לאחר מיתת בעלה אין בחיי בעלה לא ולאו הבא מכלל עשה עשה

is permitted to marry after the death of her husband, it may be inferred that during the lifetime of her husband<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Even if he had divorced her. ');">¹³</span> she is forbidden! — [No] for is it not possible [to maintain] that after the death of her husband it<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Marriage by the levir. ');">¹⁵</span> is a commandment, and during the lifetime of her husband it<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Marriage by the levir. ');">¹⁵</span>

אמר קרא (ויקרא כ, כא) ואיש אשר יקח את אשת אחיו נדה היא וכי אשת אחיו נדה היא אלא כנדה מה נדה אף על פי שיש לה היתר לאחר מכאן בשעת איסורא בכרת אף אשת אח [נמי] אף על פי שיש לה היתר לאחר מכאן בחיי בעלה בכרת

is only optional? Or else, [though] indeed,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Lit., yes. ');">¹⁶</span> only after the death of the husband,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' May the levir marry her. ');">¹⁷</span> and not during the lifetime of her husband; yet being a negative commandment<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Not to marry one's sister-in-law during the lifetime of her husband, his brother. ');">¹⁸</span>

אלא העראה דכתיבא גבי אחות אב ואחות אם למה לי

that is derived from a positive one<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Her husband's brother shall go in unto her after the death of his brother. ');">¹⁹</span> it has only the force of a positive commandment!<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' The penalty for the transgression of which is not that of kareth. Whence therefore can he traced in the Bible that the penalty involved is kareth? ');">²⁰</span> — Scripture stated: <i>And if a man shall take his brother's wife, she is a menstruant</i>.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' V. supra p. 359, n. 5. ');">²¹</span>

לכדבעא מיניה רבינא מרבא המערה בזכור מהו בזכור משכבי אשה כתיבא

Now is a brother's wife always a menstruant?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' V. supra p. 359, n. 6. ');">²²</span> But the meaning is, 'like a menstruant': as a menstruant, although permitted afterwards,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' When the days of her uncleanness are over. ');">²³</span> is forbidden under the penalty of <i>kareth</i> during the period of her prohibition, so also a brother's wife, though permitted afterwards,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' After her husband's death. ');">²⁴</span>

אלא המערה בבהמה מהו אמר ליה אם אינו ענין להעראה דכתיבא גבי אחות אב ואחות אם דאתיא בהקישא מדרבי יונה תנהו ענין להעראה דבהמה

is forbidden under the penalty of <i>kareth</i> during the lifetime of her husband. What need, however, was there to mention the first stage in connection with a father's sister or a mother's sister?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Who also are included among the others and subject, therefore, to the same restrictions and penalties. Cf. supra p. 362, n. 8. ');">²⁵</span> — For an inference like that mentioned in the following question which Rabina addressed to Raba: What is the law if a man passed the first stage in pederasty? [You ask,] 'What is the law in pederasty'? Surely it is written, As with womankind!<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Lev. XVIII, 22. Since pederasty is compared to natural intercourse it is obviously subject to the same restrictions and penalties, including that of the first stage! ');">²⁶</span>

מכדי בהמה חייבי מיתות בית דין היא מאי טעמא כתיב להעראה דידה גבי חייבי כריתות לכתוב גבי מיתת בית דין ונילף מיתת ב"ד ממיתת ב"ד

— But [the query is] what is the law when one passed the first stage with a beast? The other replied: No purpose is served by the text<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Lev. XX, 19. ');">²⁷</span> in [forbidding] the first stage in the case of a father's sister and a mother's sister, since in their case the prohibition is arrived at by the comparison of R. Jonah, apply that text to the first stage with a beast. Observe! Intercourse with a beast is among the offences subject to the death penalties of a <i>Beth din</i>; why then was the first stage in relation to it enumerated among offences that are subject to the penalty of <i>kareth</i>?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Such as intercourse with a father's sister or a mother's sister. ');">²⁸</span>

איידי דכוליה קרא לדרשא אתי כתיב ביה נמי הא מילתא לדרשא

It should rather have been written among those which are subject to the death penalty of the <i>Beth din</i>,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' As, for instance, intercourse with a mother and a mother-in-law. ');">²⁹</span> and thus one offence that is subject to the death penalty of a court would be inferred<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' As supra by R. Jonah's comparison. ');">³⁰</span> from a similar offence that is subject to the death penalty of a court! — Since the entire context<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' In which the cases of father's sister and mother's sister were enumerated. ');">³¹</span>

מאי דרשא דתניא (ויקרא יח, יב) ערות אחות אביך לא תגלה בין מן האב בין מן האם אתה אומר בין מן האב בין מן האם או אינו אלא מן האב ולא מן האם

was to serve the purpose of exposition,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' As will be shewn infra. ');">³²</span> this thing<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' The text from which the first stage with a beast is inferred. ');">³³</span> was also included that it may serve the purpose of exposition.

ודין הוא חייב כאן וחייב באחותו מה אחותו בין מן האב בין מן האם אף כאן בין מן האב בין מן האם

What is the exposition?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Just referred to. ');">³⁴</span> — It was taught, <i>Thou shalt not uncover the nakedness of thy father's sister</i>,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Lev. XVIII, 12. ');">³⁵</span> whether she is paternal or maternal. You say, 'Whether she is paternal or maternal', perhaps it is not so, but only when she is paternal and not when maternal? — This<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' That a maternal sister is subject to the same restrictions as a paternal one. ');">³⁶</span>

או כלך לדרך זו חייב כאן וחייב בדודתו מה דודתו מן האב ולא מן האם אף כאן מן האב ולא מן האם

is only logical: A man is subject to a penalty<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' For intercourse. ');">³⁷</span> in this case and he is also subject to penalty<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' For intercourse. ');">³⁷</span> in the case of his sister; as with his sister it is the same whether she is paternal or maternal, so here also<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' With one's father's sister. ');">³⁸</span>

נראה למי דומה דנין איסור הבא מאליו מאיסור הבא מאליו ואל תוכיח דודתו שאין איסור הבא מאליו

it is the same whether she is paternal or maternal. But might it not be argued<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' [H] = [H] 'cease and go', similar to apage, [G]. ');">³⁹</span> in this way: A man is subject to a penalty<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' For intercourse. ');">³⁷</span> in this case and is also subject to a penalty<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' For intercourse. ');">³⁷</span>

או כלך לדרך זה דנין קרובי האב מקרובי האב ואל תוכיח אחותו שקרובי עצמו

in the case of his aunt;<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' The wife of his father's brother. ');">⁴⁰</span> as his aunt is forbidden only when she is paternal<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' When her husband is his father's paternal brother. ');">⁴¹</span> but not when maternal,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' If her husband was his father's maternal brother she is not forbidden under this category. ');">⁴²</span>

תלמוד לומר ערות אחות אביך לא תגלה בין מן האב בין מן האם ערות אחות אמך לא תגלה בין מן האב בין מן האם

so here also<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' With one's father's sister. ');">³⁸</span> when she is paternal and not when maternal! — Let us consider whom it more closely resembles. A prohibition which is natural<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Due to birth. A father's sister is forbidden from birth. ');">⁴³</span> ought to be inferred from a prohibition which is also natural<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' One's own sister, whose prohibition also begins at birth. ');">⁴⁴</span>

למה לי למכתבא באחות אב למה לי למכתבא באחות אם אמר רבי אבהו צריכי דאי כתב רחמנא באחות אב שכן יש לה חייס אבל אחות אם אימא לא

but let no proof be adduced from an aunt whose prohibition is not natural.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Her prohibition being due to the marriage with his father's brother. ');">⁴⁵</span> But might it not be argued<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Cf. supra note 11. ');">⁴⁶</span> thus: The relatives of a father<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' A father's sister, for instance. ');">⁴⁷</span>

ואי כתב רחמנא באחות אם שכן ודאית אבל אחות אב אימא לא צריכא

should be inferred from the relatives of a father<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' The wife of his father's brother. ');">⁴⁰</span> but let no proof be adduced from a sister who is one's own relative! Hence it was stated,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' In addition to the prohibition in Lev. XX, 19, And thou shalt not uncover the nakedness of thy mother's sister nor of thy father's sister. ');">⁴⁸</span> Thou shalt not uncover the nakedness of thy father's sister,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Lev. XVIII, 12. ');">⁴⁹</span>

ודודתו דפשיטא ליה לתנא דמן האב ולא מן האם מנא ליה

implying<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' By the repetition. ');">⁵⁰</span> whether paternal or maternal, and Thou shalt not uncover the nakedness of thy mother's sister,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Ibid. 13. ');">⁵¹</span> implying also whether paternal or maternal.

אמר רבא אתיא דודו דודו כתיב הכא (ויקרא כ, כ) ערות דודו גלה וכתיב התם (ויקרא כה, מט) או דודו או בן דודו יגאלנו מה להלן מן האב ולא מן האם אף כאן מן האב ולא מן האם

What need was there to write it<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' The repetition. ');">⁵²</span> in respect of a father's sister and also in respect of a mother's sister?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Even if one only had been repeated, the other could have been inferred from it. ');">⁵³</span> — R. Abbahu replied: Both are required. For had the All Merciful written it<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' The repetition. ');">⁵²</span>

והתם מנלן אמר קרא ממשפחתו יגאלנו משפחת אב קרויה משפחה משפחת אם אינה קרויה משפחה

in respect of a father's sister [it might have been assumed to apply to her alone] because her relationship is legally recognized,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Children are legally ascribed to their paternal ancestry. ');">⁵⁴</span> but not to a mother's sister.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Whose relationship is not legally recognized. V. supra note 7. ');">⁵⁵</span> And had the All Merciful written it<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' The repetition. ');">⁵⁶</span>

והדתנן אמרו לו מתה אשתך ונשא אחותה מאביה מתה ונשא אחותה מאמה מתה ונשא אחותה מאביה מתה ונשא אחותה מאמה

in respect of a mother's sister [it might have been assumed to apply to her alone] because her relationship is certain, but not to her father's sister.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Who might not be his sister at all. There is no absolute proof that his father is also her father. ');">⁵⁷</span> [Hence both were] required. As to one's aunt concerning whom the Tanna had no doubt that she must be paternal<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' The wife of his father's paternal brother. ');">⁵⁸</span>

מותר בראשונה ובשלישית ובחמישית ופוטרות צרותיהן ואסור בשניה וברביעית ואין ביאת אחת מהן פוטרת צרתה

and not maternal, whence does he derive it? Raba replied: It is arrived at by a comparison between the words 'His uncle' [in two passages]: Here it is written, He hath uncovered his uncle's nakedness,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Lev. X, 20. ');">⁵⁹</span> and there it is written, Or his uncle or his uncle's son may redeem him,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Ibid. XXV, 49. ');">⁶⁰</span> as there he must be paternal and not [necessarily] maternal<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' As will be shewn anon. ');">⁶¹</span>

ואם בא על השניה לאחר מיתת הראשונה מותר בשניה וברביעית ופוטרות צרותיהן ואסור בשלישית ובחמישית

so here also, he<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' The husband of his aunt. ');">⁶²</span> must be paternal<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' His father's paternal brother. ');">⁶³</span> and not [necessarily] maternal. And whence is it<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' That the relationship must be paternal. ');">⁶⁴</span> proved there? — Scripture stated, Of his family may redeem him,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Ibid. XXV, 49. ');">⁶⁰</span> and only a father's family may be called the proper family, but the mother's family cannot be called the proper family.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' V. supra note 7. ');">⁶⁵</span> But surely we learned: If a man was told, 'Your wife is dead', and he married her paternal sister; [and when he was told] 'She<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' His second wife. ');">⁶⁶</span> also is dead', he married her maternal sister; 'She<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' His third wife. ');">⁶⁷</span> too is dead', and he married her paternal sister; 'She<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' The fourth. ');">⁶⁸</span> also is dead', and he married her maternal sister, he is permitted<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' If it is found that all these are alive. ');">⁶⁹</span> to live with the first,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Since the marriage with her was valid. ');">⁷⁰</span> third<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' As the union with the second was unlawful, on account of her being his wife's sister, the marriage with her had no validity. As she is not his wife, her sister is a perfect stranger to the man who married them both in succession. The marriage with her sister (his third wife) is consequently valid. ');">⁷¹</span> and fifth<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' The union with the fourth being unlawful, owing to the legal marriage with her sister (the third wife) the marriage with the fifth is consequently legal. Cf. note 5. ');">⁷²</span> who also exempt their rivals;<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' If he died without issue, and one of his brothers submitted to halizah from one of them. ');">⁷³</span> but he is forbidden to live with the second and the fourth,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Because the legality of his marriage with the first and third renders them respectively forbidden as 'his wife's sister'. Cf. note 5. ');">⁷⁴</span> and cohabitation with one of these does not exempt her rival. If, however, he cohabited with the second after the death of the first, he is permitted to live with the second<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' As the death of the first has removed from her the prohibition of 'wife's sister', the marriage with her is legal. ');">⁷⁵</span> and with the fourth<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' As the marriage with the second was legally valid, that with the third (as wife's sister) was invalid. The fourth (sister of the third) being in consequence a mere stranger is therefore permitted to be married. Cf. supra note 5. ');">⁷⁶</span> who also exempt their rivals,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' If he died without issue, and one of his brothers submitted to halizah from one of them. ');">⁷³</span> but he is forbidden to live<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Cf. previous notes mutatis mutandis. ');">⁷⁷</span> with the third and with the fifth.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Infra 96a. ');">⁷⁸</span>