Yevamot 5

Chapter 5

א כולהו נמי מדרשא אתו נהי דלענין ייבום אתיין מדרשא עיקר איסורייהו בהדיא כתיב בהו בתו עיקר איסורא מדרשא

1 [The law, surely,] concerning all the others also was arrived at1 by exposition!2 — Granted that in respect of [exemption from] the levirate marriage [the law in relation to them] was arrived at by exposition, the principle of prohibition [of sexual intercourse] with them has been explicitly enunciated in Scripture, [while as regards] his daughter3

ב דאמר רבא אמר לי רב יצחק בר אבדימי אתיא (ויקרא יח, י) הנה (ויקרא יח, יז) הנה

2 the very principle underlying the prohibition [of intercourse with her] has been arrived at by exposition; for Raba4 stated: R. Isaac b. Abdimi told me, 'Hennah<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' [H] ('they' or 'theirs') in Lev. XVIII, 10 which deals according to Talmudic interpretation with the daughter of his son, or of his daughter that was born from an outraged woman, but not with the daughter herself. ');">5 is derived from hennah<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Ibid. v. 17 which places a daughter on the same footing as a son's and a daughter's daughter. By this analogy the inference is arrived at that intercourse even with a daughter from an outraged woman is forbidden. ');">6

ג אתיא (ויקרא יח, יז) זמה (ויקרא כ, יד) זמה

3 and zimmah7 is derived from zimmah'.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Ibid. XX, 14 where the penalty of burning with fire is explicitly stated. Thus it is shown that the very foundation of the prohibition of sexual intercourse with a daughter from an outraged woman, as well as the death penalty of burning which the crime involves, are entirely dependent on inferences arrived at by exposition, v. Sanh. 51a. ');">8 Now that it has been stated that preference is given to whatever is arrived at by exposition, the Tanna should have placed9

ד השתא דאמרת כל מלתא דאתיא מדרשא חביבא ליה ליתני לאחות אשה לבסוף איידי דאיירי באיסור אחוותא תנא אחות אשתו

4 HIS WIFE'S SISTER last!<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' In the list in our Mishnah; since, as will be shewn infra, the exemption from levirate marriage in respect of all the others is derived by exposition from 'his wife's sister'. ');">10 — As he was dealing with a prohibition due to sisterhood11 he mentioned also HIS WIFE'S SISTER. Then let him relegate9

ה וליתנייא להאי בבא לבסוף אלא תנא קורבי קורבי נקט תנא בתו ובת בתו ובת בנו דקרובי עצמו

5 the entire passage12 to the end!13 — But [this is really the explanation]: The Tanna follows the order of the respective degrees of kinship. He, therefore, mentions [first] HIS DAUGHTER, THE DAUGHTER OF HIS DAUGHTER AND THE DAUGHTER OF HIS SON because they are his own next of kin; and since he enumerated three generations of his relatives in descending order he enumerated also three generations of her14

ו ואיידי דתנא שלשה דורות למטה דידיה תנא נמי שלשה דורות למטה דידה ואיידי דתנא שלשה דורות למטה דידה תנא שלשה דורות למעלה דידה

6 relatives in descending order. Having enumerated three generations of her14 relatives in descending order he proceeded to enumerate also three generations of her relatives in ascending order. He then mentions HIS SISTER and HIS MOTHER'S SISTER who are his blood15 relatives;16

ז ותנא אחותו ואחות אמו דקרובי עצמו ואיידי דאיירי באיסור אחוה תנא אחות אשתו ובדין הוא דליקדמה לכלתו מקמי אשת אחיו שלא היה בעולמו דלא משום קורבא הוא דאסירא אלא איידי דאיירי באיסור אחוה תנא אשת אחיו שלא היה בעולמו והדר תנא כלתו

7 and while dealing with prohibitions due to brotherhood he also mentions HIS WIFE'S SISTER. And it would indeed have been proper that HIS DAUGHTER-IN-LAW should be placed before THE WIFE OF HIS BROTHER WHO WAS NOT HIS CONTEMPORARY, since it is not on account of kinship17 that the latter is forbidden, but as he was dealing with a prohibition due to brotherhood he mentioned also THE WIFE OF HIS BROTHER WHO WAS NOT HIS CONTEMPORARY and then mentioned HIS DAUGHTER-IN-LAW. What argument can be advanced for using18

ח ומאי איריא דתנא פוטרות ליתני אוסרות אי תנא אוסרות הוה אמינא אסור לייבם אבל מיחלץ חלצה קמ"ל

8 the expression EXEMPT19 and not that of20 'prohibit'?21

ט וליתני אסורה לחלוץ מאי קעביד אלמה לא אם אתה אומר חולצת מתייבמת

9 — If 'prohibit' had been used it might have been assumed that the levirate marriage only was forbidden but that halizah22 must nevertheless be performed,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Since a prohibition could not very well apply to halizah which is a harmless act, the expression of 'prohibit' in respect of halizah would have been interpreted as a 'prohibition to be married to anyone before halizah had been performed'. ');">23 hence it was taught24

י כיון דבמקום מצוה הוא דאסירה צרה ושלא במקום מצוה שריא משום הכי תני פוטרות

10 [that halizah also need not be performed]. Let it then be stated,25 'She is forbidden to perform halizah!26 — No harm, surely, is thereby done.27

יא ומאי איריא דתני מן החליצה ומן הייבום ליתני מן הייבום לחודיה אי תנא מן הייבום הוה אמינא מיחלץ חלצה יבומי לא מייבמה קמ"ל כל העולה לייבום עולה לחליצה וכל שאינו עולה לייבום אינו עולה לחליצה

11 But why indeed should not [the expression of prohibition be applicable to halizah]? If you were to say that halizah is permissible, [one might say that] levirate marriage is also permitted!28 — As a rival29 is forbidden only where the commandment [of the levirate marriage] is applicable but is permitted where the commandment is not applicable,30

יב וליתני מן הייבום ומן החליצה א"נ מן החליצה לחודה אבא שאול היא דאמר מצות חליצה קודמת למצות ייבום

12 it was therefore necessary to use the expression, EXEMPT.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' 'Prohibit' might have implied that a daughter, e.g., always causes her rival to be prohibited to her father whether the precept of the levirate marriage is applicable or not. ');">31 What justification is there for stating, FROM THE HALIZAH AND FROM THE LEVIRATE MARRIAGE when it would have been sufficient to state32 FROM THE LEVIRATE MARRIAGE only?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' It is obvious that if one is exempt from the levirate marriage there could be no question of being subject to halizah which is only the result of a refusal to contract the prescribed marriage. ');">33

יג מנינא דרישא למעוטי מאי ומנינא דסיפא למעוטי מאי

13 — If FROM THE LEVIRATE MARRIAGE only had been stated it might have been assumed that she must perform halizah34 though she is exempt from the levirate marriage, hence it was taught35 that whoever is subject36 to the obligation of levirate marriage is also subject to halizah and whosoever is not subject to the obligation of the levirate marriage is not subject to halizah. Let it [first] be stated,37 FROM THE LEVIRATE MARRIAGE [and then] FROM THE HALIZAH,38 or else only FROM THE HALIZAH?39 — This Mishnah represents the view of Abba Saul who maintains that the commandment of halizah takes precedence over that of levirate marriage.40 What [was intended] to be excluded [by the] numeral at the beginning41 and what [again was intended] to be excluded [by the] numeral at the end?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Of the list; 'ALL THESE', implying the 'FIFTEEN' mentioned. If nothing were to be excluded, there would be no need for the addition of a cardinal at the beginning, or of a reference to it at the end of a list which presumably enumerated all possible cases. ');">42

Previous Chapter Next Chapter