Yevamot 189

Chapter 189

א אחות אשה דבמזיד לא אסירא מדאורייתא בשוגג לא גזרו בה רבנן ומנלן דלא אסירא דתניא (במדבר ה, יג) אותה אותה שכיבתה אוסרתה ואין שכיבת אחותה אוסרתה

1 with his wife's sister, however, presumptuous [marriage with whom does] not [cause his first wife to be] forbidden [to him] by Pentateuchal law, no preventive measure has been instituted by the Rabbis in her case where [he acted] unwittingly.1 Whence, however, is it deduced that she2 is not forbidden?3 — [From that] which was taught: With her;4

ב שיכול והלא דין הוא ומה במקום שבא על איסור קל נאסר האוסר מקום שבא על איסור חמור אינו דין שנאסר האוסר

2 only cohabitation5 with her causes her to be prohibited;3 cohabitation6 with her sister, however, does not cause her to be prohibited. [This, Scriptural text was required] since [otherwise] It might have been argued [as follows]: If where a man cohabited with [a woman forbidden by] a lighter prohibition.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' This, as will be explained infra, refers to a married woman, intercourse with whom is regarded as a comparatively lighter prohibition than that of a wife's sister (v. p. 644, n. 5), since it may at any time be raised by means of a letter of divorce severing the relationship between the husband and the wife. ');">7

ג א"ר יהודה לא נחלקו בית שמאי ובית הלל בבא על חמותו שפוסל את אשתו על מה נחלקו בבא על אחות אשתו שב"ש אומרים פוסל וב"ה אומרים לא פוסל א"ר יוסי לא נחלקו ב"ש וב"ה בבא על אחות אשתו שלא פוסל את אשתו על מה נחלקו בבא על חמותו שב"ש אומרים פוסל וב"ה אומרים לא פוסל

3 [the person]8 who caused the prohibition [itself]9 is forbidden [to her],10 how much more should [the person]11

ד לפי שבתחלה הוא מותר בכל הנשים שבעולם והיא מותרת בכל האנשים שבעולם קדשה הוא אוסרה והיא אסרתו מרובה איסור שאסרה מאיסור שאסרתהו שהוא אסרה בכל אנשי' שבעולם והיא לא אסרתהו אלא בקרובותיה

4 who caused the prohibition become forbidden in the case of cohabiting with [one12 forbidden by] a heavier prohibition.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Since his wife causes her sister to be forbidden to him during the whole of her lifetime. Hence It was necessary to have a Scriptural text to shew that the law is not so. ');">13 R. Judah stated: Beth Shammai and Beth Hillel are agreed14 that a man who cohabited with his mother-in-law renders his wife unfit [to live with him]; they only differ where a man cohabited with his wife's sister, in which case Beth Shammai maintain that thereby he causes [his wife] to be unfit for him, while Beth Hillel maintain that he does not thereby cause her to be unfit for him.

ה והלא דין הוא ומה הוא שאסרה בכל אנשים שבעולם שגגה באסור לה אינה נאסרת במותר לה היא שלא אסרתהו אלא בקרובותיה שגג באסור לו אינו דין שלא נאסר לו במותר לו

5 R. Jose stated: Beth Shammai and Beth Hillel are agreed14 that a man who cohabits with his wife's sister does not thereby render his wife unfit for him; they differ only where a man cohabited with his mother-in-law, in which case Beth Shammai maintain that thereby he causes [his wife] to be unfit for him, while Beth Hillel maintain that he does not thereby cause her to be unfit for him. [Both agree]15 for the following reason:16 Originally all the women of the world were permitted to him,17

ו וזה הדין לשוגג למזיד מנין ת"ל אותה אותה שכיבתה אוסרתה ואין שכיבת אחותה אוסרתה

6 and all the men of the world were permitted to her;18 but when he betrothed her he imposed a prohibition upon her and she imposed a prohibition upon him; the prohibition, however, which he imposed upon her is greater than the prohibition which she imposes upon him, since he caused all the men of the world to be forbidden to her, while she caused her relatives only to be forbidden to him. This,19 then, may be arrived at by an inference: If she, to whom he20 caused21

ז אמר רבי אמי אמר ריש לקיש מאי טעמא דרבי יהודה דכתיב (ויקרא כ, יד) באש ישרפו אותו ואתהן וכי כל הבית כולו בשרפה אם אינו ענין לשרפה תנהו ענין לאיסורא

7 all the men in the world to be prohibited, is, if she cohabited unwittingly with one who was forbidden to her,22 not forbidden to the man23 who was permitted to her,24 how much more reason is there why he23

ח אמר רב יהודה אמר שמואל אין הלכה כרבי יהודה ההוא דעבד איסורא בחמתיה אתייה רב יהודה נגדיה אמר ליה אי לאו דאמר שמואל אין הלכה כרבי יהודה אסריתה עלך איסורא דעלם:

8 to whom she25 caused26 the prohibition of her relatives only, should, if he cohabited unwittingly with one who was forbidden to him,27 not be forbidden28

ט מאי איסור קל אמר רב חסדא מחזיר גרושתו משנשאת

9 to her25 who was permitted to him. This argument is applicable to one who acted unwittingly. Whence is it deduced [that the same law29 is applicable] to one who acted wilfully? It was expressly stated With her,30 cohabitation31

י בא עליה האי אסרה עליה דהאי בא עליה אידך אסרה עליה דהאי

10 with her only causes her to be prohibited;32 cohabitation33 with her sister, however, does not cause her to be prohibited.32 Said R. Ammi in the name of Resh Lakish: What is R. Judah's reason?34

יא מה למחזיר גרושתו משנשאת שכן נטמא הגוף ואיסורה ברוב ואיסורה איסור עולם

11 — Because it is written, They shall be burnt with fire. both he and they;35 is the whole household to be burned!36 If this, then, is not a case for burning36 regard the text as indicating a prohibition.37

יב אלא אמר ר"ל יבמה יבמה למאן אילימא לאחר וכדרב המנונא דאמר רב המנונא שומרת יבם שזינתה אסורה ליבמה

12 Rab Judah stated in the name of Samuel: The law is not in agreement with R. Judah.37 A man once committed incest with his mother-in-law, and Rab Judah summoned him and ordered him to receive a flogging. 'Had Samuel not stated', he said to him, 'that the law was not in agreement with R. Judah. I would have forbidden [your wife] to you for all time'. What was meant by a 'lighter prohibition'?38 — R. Hisda replied: Remarrying one's divorced wife after her marriage to another man — 39 When that man40

יג מה ליבמה שכן נטמא הגוף ואיסורה ברוב

13 cohabited with her, he caused her to be prohibited to the other,41 and when the other41 cohabited with her42 he caused her to be prohibited to the former.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' V. supra p. 645, n. 18, the prohibition being due to the prohibitory law in Deut. XXIV, 4. Thus the second husband 'who caused the prohibition of his wife is thereby himself forbidden to her'. ');">43

יד אלא יבמה לאחין עבד בה מאמר האי אסרה עליה דהאי בא עליה אידך אסרה עליה דהאי מאי איריא שבא עליה שני אפי' עבד בה נמי מאמר

14 [But, it may be argued,] remarrying one's divorced wife after her marriage to another man is different44 since her body45 was defiled and she is46 prohibited for all time!<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' To both husbands. A wife's sister, however, is forbidden only during the lifetime of one's wife but permitted after her death, while furthermore the marriage of a wife's sister does not cause the defilement of the wife's body. The latter case cannot, therefore, be compared to the former. What, then, was meant by the 'lighter prohibition'? ');">47

טו הא לא קשיא כר"ג דאמר אין מאמר אחר מאמר אלא אפילו נתן לה גט ואפילו חלץ לה

15 — Rather, said Resh Lakish, [it means] a yebamah.48 A yebamah with whom?49 If it be suggested: With a stranger,50 [the ruling] being in accordance with R. Hamnuna who ruled51

טז אלא אמר רבי יוחנן סוטה סוטה למאן אילימא לבעל בא עליה בעל אסרה עליה דבועל מאי איריא בא עליה אפילו נתן לה גט ואפילו אמר אין אני משקה

16 that a woman awaiting the decision of the levir who played the harlot is forbidden to the levir,52 [it may be objected that] a yebamah is different,44 since her body was defiled and she is prohibited to the majority of men.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' I.e., to everybody except the levir or levirs. A wife's sister, however, is forbidden to him (her sister's husband) alone, and his wife's body is not defiled by his marriage with her sister. The two cases, therefore, cannot be compared. ');">53 If, however, [it be suggested that it refers54

יז אלא סוטה לבועל האי איסור קל הוא איסור חמור הוא דהיינו אשת איש

17 to] a yebamah in relation to [her deceased husband's] brothers: Where one [brother, for instance] addressed to her a ma'amar he caused her to be prohibited to the other,55 and when the other cohabited with her he caused her to be prohibited to the former.56 [But in this case] what point is there, [it may be retorted, in stating]57 that the second cohabited with her,58 [when the same law is applicable] also even where he59 only addressed to her a ma'amar!60 — This is no difficulty; [a ma'amar could not be postulated], in accordance with R. Gamaliel who ruled: There is no validity in a ma'amar that was addressed after a previous ma'amar.61 But [still the objection is that the same law is applicable] even if he59 gave her a letter of divorce and even if he submitted to her halizah! — Rather, said R. Johanan, [it means] a sotah.62 A sotah, with whom?63 If it be suggested: With her husband who, if he cohabited with her,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' After she had been warned by him against intimacy with a stranger, and after she had met that stranger privately, when all connubial intercourse between the woman and her husband is forbidden. ');">64 caused her to be prohibited to her seducer,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Even after his own death or after he had divorced her. Thus, the seducer 'who caused the prohibition' of the woman to her husband becomes 'himself forbidden' to her for all time. ');">65 what point is there, [it may be objected, in stating] that he cohabited with her? Even if he66 only gave her a letter of divorce and even if he only said, 'I am not allowing her to drink',67 [the same law is applicable]!68 [If it be suggested] however: The sotah with the seducer;69 is this70 [it may be objected] a 'lighter prohibition'? It is surely a grave prohibition, since she is a married woman!

Previous Chapter Next Chapter