Yevamot 109

אלמא אחות אשתו בין מן האב בין מן האם אסורות מנלן יליף מאחותו מה אחותו בין מן האב בין מן האם אף כאן בין מן האב בין מן האם

From this it clearly follows that a wife's sister, whether she is paternal or maternal, is forbidden.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Since the third, the maternal sister of the second, is permitted only on account of the illegality of the marriage of the second, but is forbidden where the marriage with the second is legal. ');">¹</span> Whence, however, is this derived? — Deduction is made from one's sister; as a sister [is forbidden] whether she is paternal or maternal, so here also<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' A wife's sister is forbidden. ');">²</span> whether she is paternal or maternal. But let the deduction<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' In respect of a wife's sister. ');">³</span>

ולילף מדודתו מה דודתו מן האב ולא מן האם אף כאן מן האב ולא מן האם מסתברא מאחותו הוה ליה למילף שכן קרובי עצמו מקרובי עצמו

be made from one's aunt; as one's aunt [is forbidden only when she is] paternal<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' When her husband is his father's paternal brother. ');">⁴</span> and not when maternal, so here<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' In respect of a wife's sister. ');">³</span> also [the prohibition should apply when she is] paternal and not when maternal! — It stands to reason that the deduction should be made from one's sister, since [laws concerning] his own relatives<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' A wife's sister whose relationship to him is due to his own (and not his father's) act of marriage with her sister. ');">⁵</span>

אדרבה מדודתו הוה ליה למילף שכן דבר על ידי קדושין מדבר שעל ידי קדושין אלא מאשת אח ילפינן דשכן דבר על ידי קדושין וקרובי עצמו

[should be inferred] from [laws concerning others of] his own relatives.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' His sister. An aunt's relationship, however, is due not to his own, but his father's relationship with her husband. V. supra. ');">⁶</span> On the contrary! Deduction<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' In respect of a wife's sister. ');">⁷</span> should have been made from one's aunt, since a relationship effected through betrothal<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' A man's wife's sister is related to him through betrothal of her sister (his wife). ');">⁸</span>

ואשת אח גופה מנ"ל דתניא (ויקרא יח, טז) ערות אשת אחיך לא תגלה בין מן האב בין מן האם

[should be inferred] from one effected through betrothal!<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' The aunt whose relationship to him is due to her betrothal by his uncle. ');">⁹</span> — The deduction<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' In respect of a wife's sister. ');">⁷</span> is rather made from a brother's wife, since her relationship<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Like that of his wife's sister. ');">¹⁰</span>

אתה אומר בין מן האב בין מן האם או אינו אלא מן האב ולא מן האם ודין הוא חייב כאן וחייב באחותו מה אחותו בין מן האב בין מן האם אף כאן בין מן האב בין מן האם

is through betrothal, and she is of his own relatives. Whence, however, is [the law concerning] a brother's wife herself derived? — From what was taught: Thou shalt not uncover the nakedness of thy brother's wife,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Lev. XVIII, 16. ');">¹¹</span> whether he is paternal or maternal. You say, 'Whether he is paternal or maternal', perhaps it is not so, but only when paternal and not when maternal? This is a matter of logical argument: He is subject to a penalty here<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' For intercourse with a brother's wife. ');">¹²</span>

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

and he is also subject to penalty [for intercourse] with his sister; as [the prohibition of] his sister applies whether she is paternal or maternal, so here also<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' For intercourse with a brother's wife. ');">¹²</span> [the prohibition applies] whether he<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' The brother. ');">¹³</span> was paternal or maternal. But might it not be argued<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' V. supra p. 363, n. 11. ');">¹⁴</span>

נראה למי דומה דנין קרובי עצמו מקרובי עצמו ואל תוכיח דודתו שקרובי האב או כלך לדרך זו דנין דבר שעל ידי קדושין מדבר שעל ידי קדושין ואל תוכיח אחותו שאיסור הבא מאליו

thus: He is subject to a penalty here<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' For intercourse with a brother's wife. ');">¹²</span> and he is also subject to penalty [for intercourse] with his aunt. As therefore [the prohibition of] his aunt applies only when she is paternal<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' When her husband is his father's paternal brother. ');">¹⁵</span> and not when only maternal, so here<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' For intercourse with a brother's wife. ');">¹²</span>

ת"ל ערות אחיך היא בין מן האב בין מן האם

also [the prohibition applies only when he<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' The brother. ');">¹³</span> is] paternal and not when only maternal! Let us observe whom the case<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' A brother's wife. ');">¹⁶</span> more closely resembles. Deduction concerning one's own relatives should be made from one's own relatives, and let no proof be adduced from one's aunt whose relationship is due to his father. But might it not be argued as follows:<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' V. supra p. 363, n. 11. ');">¹⁴</span>

ואימא אידי ואידי באשת אח מן האב חדא דיש לה בנים בחיי בעלה וחדא דאין לה בנים בחיי בעלה אין לה בנים בחיי בעלה מדרב הונא נפקא

Deduction should be made concerning a relationship which is due to betrothal<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' A brother's wife. ');">¹⁶</span> from a relationship that is due to betrothal,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' V. supra note 5. ');">¹⁷</span> but let no proof be adduced from a sister the prohibition of whom is natural!<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' It is due to vicissitudes of birth and not to any act of his. ');">¹⁸</span>

ואימא אידי ואידי באשת אח מן האב חדא דיש לה בנים בחיי בעלה וחדא דיש לה בנים לאחר מיתת בעלה

— For this reason<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' To exclude this argument. ');">¹⁹</span> it was specifically stated in Scriptures, It is thy brother's nakedness,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Lev. XVIII, 16b. ');">²⁰</span> implying<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Since, in view of Lev. XVIII, 16a, it is superfluous. ');">²¹</span>

יש לה בנים לאחר מיתת בעלה לא צריכא קרא מדאמר רחמנא שאין לה בנים מותרת הא יש לה בנים אסורה

whether he is paternal or only maternal. Might it not be suggested that the one as well as the other<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' The two sections of the verse cited. ');">²²</span> speaks of the wife of a paternal brother, the one referring to a brother's wife who had children during the lifetime of her husband,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Who divorced her. ');">²³</span>

ודלמא אין לה בנים אסורה לעלמא ושריא ליבם יש לה בנים שריא לעלמא ושריא ליבם אי נמי אין לה בנים מצוה יש לה בנים רשות

while the other refers to a brother's wife who had no children during the lifetime of her husband! — The case of one who had no children during the lifetime of her husband may be deduced from the statement of R. Huna.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Supra 54b; and no special text is needed for the purpose. ');">²⁴</span> Might not both<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' The two sections of the verse cited. ');">²⁵</span> still speak of the wife of a paternal brother, the one referring to a brother's wife who had children during the lifetime of her husband and the other to one who had children after the death of her husband! — The case of one who had children after the death of her husband requires no Scriptural text; for since the All Merciful said that she who had no children was permitted, it is obvious that if she had children she is forbidden.

אי נמי אין לה בנים אין יש לה בנים לא ולאו הבא מכלל עשה עשה

Is it not possible that she who has no children is forbidden to all men but permitted to the levir while she who has children is permitted both to all men and to the levir! Or else: If she has no children it is a commandment<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' That the levir marries her. ');">²⁶</span> but if she has children it is optional! Or else: [Though indeed] the levir may marry her if<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Lit.,'yes'. ');">²⁷</span> she has no children but he may not if she has children, yet [as the prohibition<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Not to marry a wife of a deceased brother if she has children. ');">²⁸</span>

כתב קרא אחרינא (ויקרא כ, כא) ערות אחיו גלה

is] a negative commandment that is derived from a positive one<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Her husband's brother shall go in unto her if she has no children. ');">²⁹</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! ');">³⁰</span> — For this reason Scripture wrote another text,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Which, in view of the texts from Lev. XVIII, 16a and b, is superfluous. ');">³¹</span>

ואימא אשת אח מן האם כאשת אח מן האב מה אשת אח מן האב לאחר מיתת בעלה שריא אף אשת אח מן האם לאחר מיתת בעלה שריא אמר קרא היא בהוייתה תהא

He hath uncovered his brother's nakedness.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Lev. XX, 21, to indicate that the prohibition is to apply to all cases whether that of a paternal or only that of a maternal brother. ');">³²</span> But might it be said that the wife of a maternal brother is like the wife of a paternal brother, and that as the wife of a paternal brother is permitted<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' To marry the levir if her husband died without issue. ');">³³</span> after the death of her husband, so is also the wife of a maternal brother<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Who died childless. ');">³⁴</span>

אחותו דכתב בה כרת למה לי

permitted after the death of her husband! — Scripture said, She is,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' E.V. 'it is'. Lev. XVIII, 16, which speaks also, as deduced supra, of the wife of a maternal brother. ');">³⁵</span> she retains her status.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' As she was forbidden to the levir during the lifetime of her husband she remains so after his death. ');">³⁶</span> What need was there to specify the penalty of <i>kareth</i> for intercourse with one's sister?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Her case, surely, is included in Lev. XVIII, 29, among all the others with whom intercourse is forbidden under the penalty of kareth! ');">³⁷</span>

לכדרבי יוחנן דאמר ר' יוחנן שאם עשאן כולם בהעלם אחת חייב על כל אחת ואחת

— To infer a ruling like that of R. Johanan. For R. Johanan stated: If one committed all these offences<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Of forbidden intercourse. ');">³⁸</span> in one state of unawareness, he is liable for every one of them.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Mak. 14a, Ker. 2b. Because the penalty of kareth was specifically mentioned in the case of intercourse with a sister who is taken as an example for all the others included in the general statement in Lev. XVIII, 29. This is in accordance with the principle that if any case is included in a general rule and is then made the subject of a special statement, that which is predicated of it is to be applied to the whole of the general rule. Had not the sister been mentioned separately it might have been assumed that as all the offences were included in the general prohibition, and as they were all committed in one state of unawareness, one liability only is incurred for all. ');">³⁹</span> According to R. Isaac, however, who stated, 'All those who are subject to the penalty of <i>kareth</i> were included in the general rule; and why was the penalty of <i>kareth</i> for [intercourse with] a sister stated separately? In order to indicate that his<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' The brother's. ');">⁴⁰</span>

ולרבי יצחק דאמר כל חייבי כריתות בכלל היו ולמה יצתה כרת באחותו לדונו בכרת ולא במלקות לחלק מנלן

penalty is <i>kareth</i> and not flogging',<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Even though he had been duly warned. ');">⁴¹</span> whence is the division<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' That liability is incurred for every single offence even though all were committed in one state of unawareness. ');">⁴²</span> deduced? — It is deduced from, And unto a woman&nbsp;… as long as she is impure by her uncleanness,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Lev. XVIII. 19, emphasis on woman. Since, instead of the longer expression 'A woman&nbsp;… as long as she is impure by her uncleanness', the shorter one, 'a menstruant could have been used. ');">⁴³</span>

נפקא ליה (ויקרא יח, יט) מואל אשה בנדת טומאתה לחייב על כל אשה ואשה

that guilt is incurred for every single woman.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' With whom intercourse took place; v. Mak. Sonc. ed. pp. 97ff. ');">⁴⁴</span> For what purpose did the All Merciful write, <i>They shall be child less</i><span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Lev. XX, 21. ');">⁴⁵</span> in the case of one's aunt?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' By childless [H] the penalty of kareth is understood: Not only the offender but his children also are thereby cut off. ');">⁴⁶</span>

דודתו דכתב בה רחמנא ערירים יהיו ל"ל לכדרבה דרבה רמי כתיב (ויקרא כ, כא) ערירים יהיו וכתיב (ויקרא כ, כ) ערירים ימותו הא כיצד יש לו בנים קוברן אין לו בנים הולך ערירי

— It is required for an exposition like that of Rabbah. For Rabbah pointed out the following contradiction: It is written, They shall be childless,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Lev. XX, 21. ');">⁴⁵</span> and it is also written, They shall die childless!<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Ibid. 20. ');">⁴⁷</span> How [are these two versions to be reconciled]? If he has children he will bury them; if he has no children, he will be childless.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' V. infra nn. 5ff. ');">⁴⁸</span>

ואיצטריך למכתב ערירים יהיו ואיצטריך למכתב ערירים ימותו דאי כתב רחמנא ערירים יהיו ה"א עד חטאיה אבל מחטאיה ואילך לא כתב רחמנא ערירים ימותו ואי כתב רחמנא ערירים ימותו ה"א מחטאיה ואילך אבל מעיקרא לא צריכא:

And it was necessary to write <i>They shall be childless</i>,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Lev. XX, 21. ');">⁴⁵</span> and it was also necessary to write, <i>They shall die childless</i>.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Ibid. 20. ');">⁴⁷</span> For had the All Merciful written only, <i>They shall be childless</i>,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Lev. XX, 21. ');">⁴⁵</span>

העראה דחייבי לאוין מנלן

it might have been assumed to refer to children born before the offence<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' The expression shall be childless would have been taken to imply that the children born prior to the offence would die as a result of the offence. The parents, however, would not die childless because the children born after the offence would live. ');">⁴⁹</span> but not to those born subsequent to the offence,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Who would live. V. supra note 5. ');">⁵⁰</span> hence the All Merciful wrote, <i>They shall die childless</i>.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Ibid. 20. ');">⁴⁷</span>

מדגלי רחמנא (ויקרא יט, כ) שכבת זרע גבי שפחה חרופה מכלל דחייבי לאוין בהעראה

And had the All Merciful written, <i>They shall die childless</i>,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Ibid. 20. ');">⁴⁷</span> it might have been assumed to refer to those born subsequent to the offence,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Shall die childless, being preceded by They shall bear their sin (Lev. XX, 20), implying that the penalty would affect only those children who were born after the sin had been committed. ');">⁵¹</span> but not to those who were born previously,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Who would live. V. supra note 5. ');">⁵⁰</span>

אדרבה מדגלי רחמנא העראה בחייבי כריתות מכלל דחייבי לאוין בגמר ביאה אמר רב אשי אם כן לשתוק קרא משפחה חרופה

[hence both texts were] required. Whence [is the prohibition of] the first stage among those who are subject to the penalty of negative commandments<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' I.e., to flogging but not to kareth. ');">⁵²</span> to be inferred? — As the All Merciful specified carnally<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Lev. XIX, 20, implying the second stage of consummation. ');">⁵³</span>

העראה דחייבי לאוין דכהונה מנלן אתיא (ויקרא כ, יד) קיחה (ויקרא כא, ז) קיחה

in the case of a designated<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' [H] This form of the kinyan by a Jewish slave of a Canaanitish bondwoman takes the place of the ordinary betrothal of a free woman. ');">⁵⁴</span> bondmaid,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Intercourse with whom is forbidden by a negative commandment and is consequently subject to the penalty of flogging, in addition to the prescribed guilt-offering (v. Lev. XIX, 21f). ');">⁵⁵</span> it may be inferred that among all the others who are subject to the penalty of negative commandments,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Such as a bastard and an undesignated bondmaid. ');">⁵⁶</span>

דחייבי עשה מנא לן

the first stage by itself constitutes the offence.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' As only the designated bondmaid must pass the second stage in order to constitute an offence for which liability to a guilt-offering is incurred, it follows that in all the other cases, where no guilt-offering is ever incurred, the offence is constituted with the first stage alone. ');">⁵⁷</span> On the contrary! As the All Merciful specified the first stage in the case of those who are subject to the penalty of <i>kareth</i>,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' In Lev. XVIII, 29. ');">⁵⁸</span> it may be inferred that among those who are subject to the penalty of negative commandments consummation only constitutes the offence! — R. Ashi replied: If so,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' That with all the others who are subject to the penalty of negative commandments the offence is not constituted unless, as with the designated bondmaid, the second stage was passed. ');">⁵⁹</span> Scripture should have omitted [the reference]<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' 'Carnally'. Lit., 'let the text keep silence.' ');">⁶⁰</span> in the case of the designated handmaid.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Since, however, the second stage was specifically postulated in her case, it follows that with all the others the first stage by itself constitutes the offence. ');">⁶¹</span> Whence [is the prohibition of] the first stage inferred in the case of offences for which priests alone are subject to the penalty of negative commandments?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' From the designated maid supra only such prohibitions may he inferred as are applicable to all and not to priests only. ');">⁶²</span> — This is arrived at by an analogy between the expressions of 'taking'.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' The expression of 'taking' is used in the case of intercourse with a sister (Lev. XX, 17) which is punishable by kareth, and a similar expression is used in the case of marriages forbidden to priests under the penalty of a negative commandment (Lev. XXI, 7). ');">⁶³</span> Whence [is the prohibition<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Of the first stage. ');">⁶⁴</span> in respect of] those who are subject<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' For intercourse with an Israelite's daughter. ');">⁶⁵</span> to the penalty of a positive commandment<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' An Egyptian or an Edomite, for instance, (v. Deut. XXIII, 8, 9) whose prohibition to marry an Israelite's daughter is based on the positive precept, The third generation&nbsp;… shall (E.V. may) enter into the assembly of the Lord, which implies that the first and second generations must not. A negative precept derived from a positive one has the force of a positive precept. ');">⁶⁶</span> inferred?