Yevamot 41

באלמנה מן הנשואין כולי עלמא לא פליגי דלא פטרה דאין עשה דוחה לא תעשה ועשה כי פליגי באלמנה מן הארוסין מ"ד פוטרת אתי עשה ודחי את לא תעשה ומאן דאמר אינה פוטרת לא אתי עשה ודחי את לא תעשה כיון דאפשר בחליצה

In the case of a nissu'in widow they both agree<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Lit., 'all the world do not differ'. ');">¹</span> that it does not exempt, since no positive precept may override a combination of a positive and a negative precept.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' The levirate marriage is consequently illegal. ');">²</span> They differ, however, in the case of an erusin widow. He who maintains that it<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' The act of intercourse. ');">³</span>

מיתיבי ואם בעלו קנו תיובתא

exempts [does so because] a positive precept supersedes a negative one; and he who maintains that it<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' The act of intercourse. ');">³</span> does not exempt holds that the positive precept here does not supersede the negative one since [in this case] <i>halizah</i> is possible.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Which would not conflict with the negative precept, while the requirements of the positive one would also be complied with. ');">⁴</span> An objection was raised: If they<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' V. supra p. 121, n. 5. ');">⁵</span>

לימא תיהוי נמי תיובתא דר"ל אמר לך ר"ל כי אמינא אנא היכא דמקיימי מצוה אבל הכא חליצה במקום ייבום לאו מצוה היא

had intercourse [with any of the forbidden women] they acquire [her as wife]!<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' V. supra p. 121, n. 12. ');">⁶</span> -This is indeed a refutation. May this<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' The Baraitha cited. ');">⁷</span> be assumed to provide a refutation of the view of Resh Lakish also?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Who stated (supra 20b) that whenever it is possible to observe the positive, as well as the negative precept, the rule of the abrogation of the one by the other is not to be applied. ');">⁸</span>

אמר רבא רמז לשניות מן התורה מנין שנאמר (ויקרא יח, כז) כי את כל התועבות האל עשו אנשי הארץ האל קשות מכלל דאיכא רכות ומאי נינהו שניות

-Resh Lakish can answer you: I said it only in the case where the precept is fulfilled; here, however, <i>halizah</i> as a substitute for the levirate marriage is not a fulfilment of the precept.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' It is only a ritual to be observed where levirate marriage cannot take place. The precept of levirate marriage, however, is not thereby fulfilled. ');">⁹</span> Raba said: Where in the Torah may an allusion be found to [the prohibition of] relations in the second degree?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Lit., 'whence an allusion to seconds from the Torah'. ');">¹⁰</span> It is said, For all these abominations have the men of the land done;<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Lev. XVIII, 27, dealing with incest. ');">¹¹</span>

ומאי משמע דהאל לישנא דקשה הוא דכתיב (יחזקאל יז, יג) ואת אילי הארץ לקח

the expression, these<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' [H] ');">¹²</span> implies grave abominations, from which it may be inferred that there are milder ones. And what are these? The cases of incest of the second degree. What proof is there that 'these'<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' [H] ');">¹²</span> is an expression of gravity? — Because it is written in the Scriptures, And the mighty<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' [H] which is analogous to [H] ');">¹³</span>

לימא פליגא דר' לוי דא"ר לוי קשה עונשין של מדות יותר מעונשין של עריות שזה נאמר בהן אל וזה נאמר בהן אלה אל קשה ואלה קשה מאל

of the land he took away.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Ezek. XVII, 13. describing the serious and grave position of Judah ');">¹⁴</span> May it be assumed that this view<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Of Raba. ');">¹⁵</span> differs from that of R. Levi? For R. Levi said: The punishments for [false] measures are more rigorous than those for [marrying] forbidden relatives; for in the latter case the word used is El,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' [H] ');">¹²</span>

גבי עריות נמי הא כתיב אלה ההוא למעוטי מדות מכרת

but in the former Eleh.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' [H] Deut. XXV, 16. This implies that the sin of incest is of a milder nature. ');">¹⁶</span> — El implies rigour, but Eleh implies greater rigour than El.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' El and Eleh have the same meaning, but the additional eh ([H]) at the end of the latter is taken to imply additional punishment. ');">¹⁷</span> Is not Eleh written also In connection with forbidden relatives?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Lev. XVIII, 26. [H] ');">¹⁸</span>

אלא מאי חומרייהו הני אפשר בתשובה הני לא אפשר בתשובה

-That [Eleh has been written] to exclude [the sin of false] measures from the penalty of <i>kareth</i>.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Since the expression of 'abomination' has been applied in the Pentateuchal text to both false measures and forbidden relations, it might have been assumed that the sin of the former is, like the latter, subject to kareth. Hence the need for the excluding word. ');">¹⁹</span> In what respect, then,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' If the penalty of kareth is inflicted for the sin of incest only and not for that of false measures. ');">²⁰</span> are they<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' The punishments for false measures. ');">²¹</span>

רב יהודה אמר מהכא (קהלת יב, ט) ואזן וחקר תקן משלים הרבה ואמר עולא א"ר אלעזר קודם שבא שלמה היתה תורה דומה לכפיפה שאין לה אזנים עד שבא שלמה ועשה לה אזנים

more rigorous? — In the case of the former,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Incest, so long as there was no Issue. ');">²²</span> repentance is possible; in that of the latter<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' False measures. ');">²³</span> repentance is impossible.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' V. B.B. 88b. One cannot by mere repentance make amends for robbing. The return of the things robbed must precede penitence. In the case of false measures it is practically impossible to trace all the individual members of the public that were defrauded. ');">²⁴</span>

ר' אושעיא אמר מהכא (משלי ד, טו) פרעהו אל תעבר בו שטה מעליו ועבור

Rab Judah said: It<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' An allusion to the prohibition of relations in the second degree. ');">²⁵</span> may be derived from the following: Yea he pondered, and sought out, and set in order many proverbs,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Eccl. XII, 9. ');">²⁶</span> in relation to which 'Ulla said in the name of R. Eleazar, 'Before Solomon appeared, the Torah was like a basket without handles; when<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Lit., 'until'. ');">²⁷</span>

אמר רב אשי משל דר' אושעיא למה הדבר דומה לאדם משמר פרדס משמרו מבחוץ כולו משתמר משמרו מבפנים שלפניו משתמר שלאחריו אינו משתמר והא דרב אשי בדותא היא התם שלפניו מיהא משתמר הכא אי לאו שניות פגע בערוה גופה

Solomon came he affixed handles<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' [H], sing. [H], 'ear' or 'handle'. The Heb. [H] (E.V. he pondered) is regarded as denominative of [H], 'he made handles', i.e., he added restrictions to the commandments of the Torah, such as the prohibitions of incest of the second degree, which helped to preserve the original precepts of the Torah as handles are an aid to the preservation of the basket. ');">²⁸</span> to it. R. Oshaia said: It<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' An allusion to the prohibition of relations in the second degree. ');">²⁵</span>

רב כהנא אמר מהכא (ויקרא יח, ל) ושמרתם את משמרתי עשו משמרת למשמרתי

may be derived from the following: Avoid it, pass not by it; turn from it, and pass on.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Prov. IV, 15; an allusion to the Torah. One must add restrictions to its precepts, such as those of incest of the second degree, in order to keep away from any possible infringement of its original precepts. ');">²⁹</span> Said R. Ashi: R. Oshaia's interpretation may be represented by the simile<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Lit., 'the parable of R. Oshaia, to what may the thing be compared?' ');">³⁰</span> of a man who guards an orchard. If he guards it from without, all of it is protected. If, however, he guards it from within, only that, section in front of him is protected but that which is behind him is not protected. This statement of R. Ashi, however, is mere fiction.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' [H] v. B.M., Sonc. ed. p. 47, n. 1. ');">³¹</span>

א"ל אביי לרב יוסף הא דאורייתא היא דאורייתא ופירשו רבנן כל התורה נמי פירשו רבנן אלא מדרבנן וקרא אסמכתא בעלמא:

There,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' The orchard. ');">³²</span> the section in front of him, at least, is protected; while here were it not for the prohibition of incest of the second degree, one would have encroached upon the very domain of incest. R. Kahana said, it may be derived from here: Therefore shall ye keep My charge,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Lev. XVIII, 30, dealing with incest. ');">³³</span>

ת"ר מה הם שניות אם אמו ואם אביו ואשת אבי אביו ואשת אבי אמו ואשת אחי האב מן האם ואשת אחי האם מן האב וכלת בנו וכלת בתו ומותר אדם באשת חמיו ובאשת חורגו ואסור בבת חורגו וחורגו מותר באשתו ובתו

provide a charge to my charge.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Or 'make a keeping to my keeping', a protection to my protection', i.e., 'add restrictive measures to safeguard my original precept'. ');">³⁴</span> Said Abaye to R. Joseph: This,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' R. Kahana's text. ');">³⁵</span> surely, is Pentateuchal!<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Why then is this class of incest described as of the 'second' degree? ');">³⁶</span>

ואשת חורגו אומרת לו אני מותרת לך ובתי אסורה לך

— It is Pentateuchal' but the Rabbis have expounded it.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Hence it must come under the second degree. ');">³⁷</span> All the Torah, surely- was expounded by the Rabbis!<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' And yet no one would describe those laws as of the second degree! ');">³⁸</span> But [the fact is that the prohibition<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Of incest of the second degree. ');">³⁹</span>

בת חורגו דאורייתא היא דכתיב (ויקרא יח, יז) את בת בנה ואת בת בתה משום דקבעי למיתני סיפא אשת חורגו אומרת לו אני מותרת לך ובתי אסורה לך ואע"ג דבתי אסורה לך מדאורייתא בדידי לא גזור ביה רבנן תנא רישא נמי בת חורגו

is] Rabbinical, while the Scriptural text is [adduced as] a mere prop.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Heb., Asmakta, v. Glos. ');">⁴⁰</span> Our Rabbis taught: Who are the forbidden relatives in the second degree?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Of incest. ');">⁴¹</span> — His mother's mother, his father's mother, his father's father's wife, his mother's fathers wife, the wife of his father's maternal brother, the wife of his mother's paternal brother, the daughter-in-law of his son daughter-in-law his daughter. A man is permitted to marry the wife of his father-in-law and the wife of his step-son but is forbidden to marry the daughter of his step-son. His step-son is permitted to marry his<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' The step-father's. ');">⁴²</span>

אי הכי אשת חמיו נמי תימא אני מותרת לך ובתי אסורה לך דהויא אחות אשתו הא פסיקא ליה הא לא פסיקא ליה:

wife and his<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' The step-father's. ');">⁴²</span> daughter. The wife of his step-son may say to him, 'I am permitted to you though daughter is forbidden to you'. Is not the daughter of, his step-son forbidden, it being written in the Scriptures, Her son's daughter or her daughters daughter?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Lev. XVIII, 17. Why include it among incest of the second degree? ');">⁴³</span>

אמר רב ארבע נשים יש להן הפסק נקיט רב בידיה תלת אשת אחי האם מן האב ואשת אחי האב מן האם וכלתו וזעירי מוסיף אף אשת אבי אמו אמר רב נחמן בר יצחק וסימניך דעילאי דרב

— As he wished to state in the latter clause, 'The wife of his step-son may say to him, "I am permitted to you though my daughter is forbidden to you", and though my daughter is forbidden to you Pentateuchally the Rabbis did not forbid me as a preventive measure', he stated in the previous clause also 'the daughter of his step-son'. If so,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' [If this is the reason for including Pentateuchal prohibition in this list]. ');">⁴⁴</span> could not the wife of his father-In-law also say, 'I am permitted to you and my daughter is forbidden to you', since she is his wife's sister?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' [And thus let him also include the daughter of his mother-in-law.] ');">⁴⁵</span> -The prohibition of the one<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Lit., that', the daughter of his step-son. ');">⁴⁶</span>

ורב מאי טעמא לא חשיב ליה מיחלפא ליה באשת אבי אביו

is permanent;<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Lit., 'it is definite to him'. ');">⁴⁷</span> that of the other is not.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' The daughter of his mother-in-law is permitted to him after the death of her sister, his wife. ');">⁴⁸</span> Rab said: Four [categories of] women [forbidden in the second degree] are subject to a limitation.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Lit., 'break' i.e., only they themselves are forbidden but not their descendants or ancestors in the descending or ascending line. In the case of the other relatives in the second degree of incest the prohibition extends throughout all generations in the ascending. and descending lines. ');">⁴⁹</span>

וזעירי להתם שכיח ואזיל להכא לא שכיח ואזיל

Of these Rab knew<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Lit., 'held in his hand'. ');">⁵⁰</span> three: The wife of a mother's<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' But not, e.g., of a mother's mother's. ');">⁵¹</span> paternal brother, the wife of a father's<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Not of a father's father's. ');">⁵²</span>

כלתו

maternal brother, and one's daughter-in-law.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' This case is discussed infra. ');">⁵³</span> Ze'iri, however, adds also the wife of his mother's father. Said R. Nahman b. Isaac: Your mnemonic sign is, 'Above that of Rab'.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Ze'ri's addition to the limitations is one generation above that of Rab. While the latter stops at the second generation (that of father and mother) the former goes as far as the third (mother's father). ');">⁵⁴</span> Why does not Rab include it?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Ze'ri's addition, a mother's father's wife. ');">⁵⁵</span> — Because she<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Ze'ri's addition, a mother's father's wife. ');">⁵⁵</span> might be mistaken for the wife of one's father's father.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Who is Pentateuchally forbidden. Were a limit to be set in the case of the former, a similar limit would erroneously be set to the latter. ');">⁵⁶</span> And Ze'iri? — Thither<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' To the family of one's father. ');">⁵⁷</span> one usually goes,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' I.e., there is frequent social intercourse between the members of the family on the paternal side. ');">⁵⁸</span> but hither<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' One's mother's family. ');">⁵⁹</span> one does not usually go.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' No mistake, therefore, could occur between a mother's father and a father's father. Hence no preventive measure is necessary. ');">⁶⁰</span> Is not the prohibition of one's daughter-in-law