Yevamot 190

אלא אמר רבא אשת איש וכן כי אתא רבין א"ר יוחנן אשת איש ומאי קרי לה איסור קל שאין האוסרה אוסרה כל ימיו תניא נמי הכי אבא חנן אמר משום רבי אלעזר אשת איש

— Rather, said Raba, it means a married woman. Similarly when Rabin came<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' From Palestine to Babylon. ');">¹</span> he stated in the name of R. Johanan: A married woman. But why should this<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Illicit intercourse with a married woman. ');">²</span> be described as 'a lighter prohibition'? — Because [her husband] who causes her to be prohibited [to other men] does not cause her to be so prohibited during the whole of his lifetime.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' As soon as be divorces her she is free again. A prohibition of this nature, which may terminate at any time, is regarded as 'lighter' than the prohibition of a man's wife's sister, which remains in force throughout the whole of the lifetime of his wife. ');">³</span> It<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' The lighter prohibition referred to. ');">⁴</span>

ומה במקום הבא על איסור קל שאין האוסרה אוסרה כל ימיו נאסר האוסר הבא על איסור חמור שהאוסרה אוסרה כל ימיו אינו דין שנאסר האוסרה

was taught likewise: Abba Hanan stated in the name of R. Eleazar: [It means] a married man. [And the argument runs thus:] If where a man cohabits with [a woman forbidden by] a lighter prohibition,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' A married woman. The prohibition is considered light for the reason that follows. ');">⁵</span> in which case he<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' The husband. ');">⁶</span> who caused the prohibition of her does not cause her to be prohibited during the whole of his lifetime,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' The prohibition of a married woman terminates with divorce by her husband. ');">⁷</span> [it is nevertheless ruled] that the very person who causes the prohibition becomes prohibited,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' The woman becomes forbidden to her own husband through illicit intercourse. ');">⁸</span>

ת"ל אותה אותה שכיבתה אוסרתה ואין שכיבת אחותה אוסרתה:

then, in a case of cohabiting with [one forbidden] by a graver prohibition,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' His wife's sister. ');">⁹</span> where the person, who causes the prohibition of her,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' I.e., the wife who causes her sister to be prohibited to her husband. ');">¹⁰</span> prohibits her during the whole of her lifetime,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' The prohibition [If a man's wife's sister remains in force throughout the whole of the lifetime of his wife. ');">¹¹</span> how much more should we rule that the very person who causes the prohibition should become prohibited;<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' To her own husband. ');">¹²</span>

רבי יוסי אומר כל שפוסל וכו': מאי קאמר ר' יוסי אילימא דקאמר תנא קמא דאזיל אשתו וגיסו למדינת הים אשת גיסו אסירא ואשתו שריא

hence it was expressly stated, With her,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Num. V, 13. ');">¹³</span> only cohabition<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Of a stranger ');">¹⁴</span> with her<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' His wife. ');">¹⁵</span> causes her to be prohibited<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' To her husband. ');">¹⁶</span>

וקא"ל רבי יוסי כי היכי דאשתו שריא אשת גיסו נמי שריא אי הכי כל שאין פוסל ע"י אחרים אין פוסל ע"י עצמו כל שאין פוסל ע"י עצמו אינו פוסל ע"י אחרים מיבעיא ליה

but cohabitation<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Of her husband. ');">¹⁷</span> with her sister does not cause her<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' The wife. ');">¹⁸</span> to be prohibited.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' To her husband. ');">¹⁶</span> R. JOSE STATED: WHOSOEVER DISQUALIFIES etc. What does R. Jose mean?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' His statement seems to have no apparent connection with the preceding clause. ');">¹⁹</span>

ואלא כי היכי דאשת גיסו אסירא אשתו נמי אסירא התינח כל שפוסל כל שאינו פוסל מאי עבידתיה

If it be suggested that while the first Tanna implied that 'Where a man's wife and his brother-in-law<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' His wife's sister's husband. ');">²⁰</span> went to a country beyond the sea,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' And they both returned after be had married his wife's sister on the strength of the evidence of one witness who testified that they were both dead. ');">²¹</span> the wife of his brother- in-law is forbidden,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' To her husband, his brother-in-law. ');">²²</span> though his own wife is permitted',<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' To him. ');">²³</span>

א"ר אמי ארישא ניסת ע"פ ב"ד תצא ופטורה מן הקרבן על פי עדים תצא וחייבת בקרבן יפה כחו של ב"ד שפטרה מן הקרבן

R. Jose said to him, 'As his own wife is permitted<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' To him. ');">²³</span> so is the wife of his brother-in-law also permitted';<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' To her husband, his brother-in-law. ');">²²</span> if so, [it may be objected, why the expression] WHOSOEVER DOES NOT DISQUALIFY FOR OTHERS DOES NOT DISQUALIFY FOR HIMSELF<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Cases about which R. Jose, according to this suggestion, did not speak. ');">²⁴</span> where it should have been. 'Whosoever does not disqualify<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' His own wife. ');">²⁵</span>

וקאמר ת"ק ל"ש על פי עדים דאשת גיסו שריא ול"ש ע"פ בית דין דאשת גיסו אסירא

for himself, does not disqualify for others'!<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' His wife's sister to her husband. These last mentioned cases being those of which R. Jose presumably spoke. ');">²⁶</span> If, however, [it be suggested that R. Jose implied]. 'As the wife of his brother-in-law is forbidden,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' To her husband, his brother-in- law. ');">²⁷</span> so is his wife also forbidden',<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' To him. ');">²⁸</span> [the expression,] WHOSOEVER DISQUALIFIES would be satisfactorily explained; what, however, would be the purport of WHOSOEVER DOES NOT DISQUALIFY?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Cases about which R. Jose, according to this suggestion, did not speak. ');">²⁴</span>

וקאמר ליה רבי יוסי על פי בית דין דפוסל על ידי אחרים פוסל על ידי עצמו על פי עדים דאינו פוסל על ידי אחרים אינו פוסל על ידי עצמו

— R. Ammi replied: [He<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' R. Jose. ');">²⁹</span> refers] to an earlier clause:<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' In a previous Mishnah. ');">³⁰</span> 'If she married with the authorization of the <i>Beth din</i>, she must leave, but is exempt from an offering. If she married, however, without the authorization of the <i>Beth din</i>, she must leave and is also liable to an offering, the authorization of the <i>Beth din</i> is thus more effective in that it exempts her from the offering.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' V. supra 87b. ');">³¹</span> Concerning this, the first Tanna stated [that his wife may return to him]<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' V. our Mishnah, first clause. ');">³²</span>

רבי יצחק נפחא אמר לעולם אסיפא (הא דנסיב אשת גיסו והא דנסיב ארוסת גיסו) הא דאזלי ארוסתו וגיסו הא דאזלי אשתו וגיסו וקאמר תנא קמא לא שנא אשתו וגיסו ולא שנא ארוסתו וגיסו אשת גיסו אסירא ואשתו שריא

'irrespective of whether [the marriage<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Of the husband (whose wife had gone away) with his wife's sister (whose husband also bad gone away). ');">³³</span> took place] on the evidence of two witnesses,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Who testified that both his wife and brother-in-law were dead. ');">³⁴</span> where the wife of his brother-in-law is permitted,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' To her husband, if be returned. ');">³⁵</span> or whether [it took place] in accordance with a decision of the <i>Beth din</i>,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' On the evidence of one witness. V. supra n. 11. ');">³⁶</span>

וקאמר ליה רבי יוסי אשתו וגיסו דליכא למימר תנאה הוה ליה בנשואין דאינו פוסל על ידי אחר אינו פוסל על ידי עצמו ארוסתו וגיסו דאיכא למימר תנאה הוה ליה בקידושין ופוסל על ידי אחרים אף פוסל על ידי עצמו

where the wife of his brother-in- law is forbidden',<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' To her husband, if be returned. ');">³⁵</span> and [to this] R. Jose replied. '[If the marriage took place] in accordance with a decision of the <i>Beth din</i>,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' On the evidence of one witness. V. supra n. 11. ');">³⁶</span> where he DISQUALIFIES FOR OTHERS<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' He causes his wife's sister to be forbidden to return to her husband owing to his illicit marriage with her. ');">³⁷</span> he DISQUALIFIES FOR HIMSELF;<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' His first wife is forbidden to him also. ');">³⁸</span>

אמר רב יהודה אמר שמואל הלכה כרבי יוסי מתקיף לה רב יוסף ומי אמר שמואל הכי והאתמר יבמה רב אמר הרי היא כאשת איש ושמואל אמר אינה כאשת איש ואמר רב הונא כגון שקדש אחיו את האשה והלך לו למדינת הים ושמע שמת אחיו ועמד ונשא את אשתו

[if, however, it took place] on the basis of the evidence of two witnesses,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Who testified that both his wife and brother-in-law were dead. ');">³⁴</span> where he DOES NOT DISQUALIFY FOR OTHERS<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' His wife's sister being in this case permitted to her husband. ');">³⁹</span> he DOES NOT DISQUALIFY FOR HIMSELF.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' And his first wife may return to him. ');">⁴⁰</span> R. Isaac Nappaha replied: [R. Jose may], in fact, refer to the latter clause,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' I.e., our Mishnah which speaks of a marriage permitted on the evidence of one witness. ');">⁴¹</span>

דרב אמר הרי היא כאשת איש ואסורה ליבם ושמואל אמר אינה כאשת איש ושריא ליה

one<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Lit., 'that'. Cur. edd. insert in parenthesis 'that, where he married the wife of his brother-in-law; and that, where he married the betrothed of his brother-in-law.' ');">⁴²</span> [of his rulings applying] where [the persons who] had gone [were] the man's wife<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' This is the reading of Rashi (a.l. s.v. d" v).="" cur.="" edd.,="" transpose="" 'wife'="" and="" 'betrothed'.="" ');"="">⁴³</span> and his brother-in-law. and the other [applying] where his betrothed and brother-in-law had gone. The first Tanna having ruled that 'irrespective of whether it was his wife and his brother-in-law or whether it was his betrothed and his brother-in-law, the wife of his brother-in-law is forbidden<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' To her husband, if be returned. ');">⁴⁴</span> while his wife is permitted,'<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' To him. ');">⁴⁵</span>

א"ל אביי וממאי דכי אמר שמואל הלכה כרבי יוסי אדרבי יצחק נפחא קאמר דלמא אדרבי אמי קאמר ואי נמי אדרבי יצחק נפחא ממאי דאפוסל

R. Jose said to him, 'In the case of his wife and brother-in-law where no one would assume that he had attached some condition to his marriage<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' With his first wife; since no condition is admissible in a marriage contract. (V., however, supra p. 642, n. 5). ');">⁴⁶</span> and where consequently he does not cause [his sister-in-law] to be prohibited to the other,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Her husband, his brother-in-law. His own first marriage being known to be valid it should be obvious to all that his subsequent marriage with his sister-in-law was invalid. Were it even assumed that his brother-in-law had divorced her, the invalidity of his marriage with his sister-in-law would not thereby be affected since even after her divorce she still remains forbidden to him as his wife's sister. This being the case no one will suspect his brother-in-law when his wife returns to him of having remarried his divorcee. Hence R. Jose's ruling that she is not forbidden to her husband. ');">⁴⁷</span> he does not cause [his first wife] to be prohibited to him either; in the case of his betrothed and his brother-in-law, however, where someone might assume that he had attached some condition to his betrothal<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Which, on non-fulfilment, had rendered the betrothal invalid and thus enabled him lawfully to contract his subsequent marriage; his presumed sister-in-law being to him (owing to the invalidity of her sister's betrothal) no more than a mere stranger. ');">⁴⁸</span> and where, in consequence, he causes [his sister- in-law] to be prohibited to the other,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Her former husband. Were she permitted to return to him it might be assumed that he had divorced her prior to her marriage with her brother-in-law and that the latter had now divorced her; and so it would be concluded that (contrary to Deut. XXIV, 4) a man married again the woman he had once divorced though she had in the meantime been married to another man. ');">⁴⁹</span> he causes [his first wife] also to be prohibited to him. Rab Judah Stated in the name of Samuel: The <i>halachah</i> is in agreement with R. Jose. R. Joseph demurred: Could Samuel have said this?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Lit., 'thus', that the halachah is in agreement with the full statement of R. Jose, including the part relating to the marriage with the sister of one's betrothed, it being necessary in case of betrothal to provide against the erroneous assumption that the betrothal was invalid and that consequently a man's divorcee had been married again by him. Cf. p. 650, nn. 8 and 9. ');">⁵⁰</span> Surely it was stated: A <i>yebamah</i>,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' This is explained anon. ');">⁵¹</span> Rab said, has the status of a married woman; and Samuel said: She has not the status of a married woman. And R. Huna said: Where, for instance, a man's brother betrothed a woman<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Had he married her there would have been no question that she may return to him. Cf. supra p. 650, n. 7. ');">⁵²</span> and then went to a country beyond the sea, and he,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' The brother at home. ');">⁵³</span> on hearing that his brother was dead, married his wife. [It is in such a case] that Rab ruled that 'she has the status of a married woman' and is consequently forbidden to the brother-inlaw;<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' I.e., to the man who first betrothed her and then left her and now returned, and who, owing to his brother's marriage with her, has become her brother-in-law. Were she to be permitted to return to him it might be assumed that his original betrothal was invalid owing to some disqualifying condition, that his brother's marriage was, therefore, valid, and that be now married his brother's wife. ');">⁵⁴</span> and Samuel ruled that 'she has not the status of a married woman' and is, therefore, permitted to him!<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Because, in the opinion of Samuel, no provision need be made against the erroneous assumption that the betrothal was invalid (cf. supra n. 5). How, then, could it be said that Samuel adopted the complete statement of R. Jose. ');">⁵⁵</span> Said Abaye to him:<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' R. Joseph. ');">⁵⁶</span> Whence [do you infer] that when Samuel stated that 'the <i>halachah</i> is in agreement with R. Jose', he was referring to R. Isaac Nappaha's interpretation? Is it not possible that he was referring to that of R. Ammi!<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' So that the question of the assumption of a disqualifying condition in a betrothal would not at all arise. ');">⁵⁷</span> And even if he refers to that of R. Isaac Nappaha, whence the proof that [he referred to the ruling] 'DISQUALIFIED'?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' The case of one's betrothed and brother-in-law. ');">⁵⁸</span>