Yevamot 6

Chapter 6

א למעוטי דרב ודרב אסי לרב ולרב אסי למעוטי מאי

1 — [They were intended] to exclude the respective rulings of Rab and R. Assi.1 What, [however, do the numerals] exclude according to Rab and R. Assi? — If they share each other's views, one numeral would serve to exclude the rival of one who made a declaration of refusal,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' A minor who was one of the wives of a deceased childless brother, on declaring her refusal to marry the levir, exempts thereby her rivals from the levirate marriage but not from halizah. ');">2

ב אי סבירא להו דהדדי חדא למעוטי צרת ממאנת וחדא למעוטי צרת מחזיר גרושתו

2 and the other to exclude the rival of a wife whom [her husband] remarried after having divorced her.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' If one of the widows of a deceased brother was divorced once, and then remarried to him after she had married another man, she causes the exemption of her rivals from the levirate marriage, v. infra 11b. The halizah, however, must be performed. ');">3 If they do not share the views of each other, [each would regard] one [numeral as serving] to exclude the ruling of his colleague;4

ג ואי לא סבירא להו דהדדי חדא למעוטי דחבריה וחדא למעוטי או צרת ממאנת או צרת מחזיר גרושתו

3 and the other numeral, as serving to exclude either the rival of one who made a declaration of refusal<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' A minor who was one of the wives of a deceased childless brother, on declaring her refusal to marry the levir, exempts thereby her rivals from the levirate marriage but not from halizah. ');">2 or the rival of a wife whom [her husband] remarried after having divorced her.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' If one of the widows of a deceased brother was divorced once, and then remarried to him after she had married another man, she causes the exemption of her rivals from the levirate marriage, v. infra 11b. The halizah, however, must be performed. ');">3

ד לרב ולרב אסי ליתנינהו

4 According to Rab and R. Assi these<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' The subjects of their respective rulings, i.e., the sotah (v. Glos.) and the barren wife, who, they maintain, infra 11a, 11b, exempt their rivals both from the levirate marriage and from halizah. ');">5 should have been enumerated in our Mishnah! — [This could not be done] because the law of the rival's rival6

ה לפי שאינה בצרת צרה

5 is not applicable [to these cases].7 Whence is this law8

ו מנה"מ דת"ר (ויקרא יח, יח) אשה אל אחותה לא תקח לצרור לגלות ערותה עליה בחייה עליה מה ת"ל

6 derived?9 — [From] what our Rabbis taught: And thou shalt not take a woman to her sister, to be a rival to her, to uncover her nakedness, 'aleha [beside her] in her lifetime,10

ז לפי שנאמר (דברים כה, ה) יבמה יבא עליה שומע אני אפי' באחת מכל עריות האמורות בתורה הכתוב מדבר נאמר כאן עליה ונאמר להלן עליה

7 what need was there for the expression ''aleha'?11 Because it was stated, Her husband's brother shall go in 'aleha [unto her],12

ח מה להלן במקום מצוה אף כאן במקום מצוה ואמר רחמנא לא תקח

8 it might have been imagined13 that Scripture14

ט ואין לי אלא היא צרתה מנין ת"ל לצרור ואין לי אלא צרתה צרת צרתה מניין ת"ל לצרור ולא לצור

9 speaks even of any of all the forbidden relatives enumerated in the Torah. Hence it was here10 stated, ''aleha'15

י ואין לי אלא אחות אשה שאר עריות מניין אמרת מה אחות אשה מיוחדת שהיא ערוה וחייבין על זדונה כרת ועל שגגתה חטאת ואסורה ליבם אף כל שהיא ערוה וחייבין על זדונה כרת ועל שגגתה חטאת אסורה ליבם

10 and elsewhere12 it was also stated ''aleha'.16

יא ואין לי אלא הן צרותיהן מניין אמרת מה אחות אשה מיוחדת שהיא ערוה וחייבין על זדונה כרת ועל שגגתה חטאת ואסורה ליבם וצרתה אסורה אף כל שהיא ערוה וחייבין על זדונה כרת ועל שגגתה חטאת ואסורה ליבם צרתה אסורה מכאן אמרו חכמים חמש עשרה נשים פוטרות צרותיהן וצרות צרותיהן מן החליצה ומן הייבום עד סוף העולם

11 Just as elsewhere it is in the case of a precept17 so here also it is in the case of a precept;17

יב יכול שאני מרבה אף שש עריות חמורות מאלו שיהו צרותיהם אסורות

12 and yet did not the All Merciful say, Thou shalt not take.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Two sisters, Lev. XVIII, 18. The verse in Lev. thus means that the prohibition of marrying the wife's sister is in force even where she is his dead brother's widow, in regard to whom the precept, 'her husband's brother shall go in unto her', might apply. ');">18 We are thus in a position to know the law concerning herself;19

יג אמרת מה אחות אשתו מיוחדת שהיא ערוה וחייבין על זדונה כרת ועל שגגתה חטאת ואפשר לינשא לאחים ואסורה ליבם וצרתה אסורה אף כל שהיא ערוה וחייבין על זדונה כרת ועל שגגתה חטאת ואפשר לינשא לאחים ואסורה ליבם צרתה אסורה

13 whence do we derive the law concerning her rival? — From the Scriptural expression, To be a rival to her.10 We have so far deduced the law concerning her rival only. Whence do we arrive at the law concerning her rival's rival? — From the fact that Scripture uses the expression li-zeror20

יד יצאו שש עריות חמורות מאלו הואיל דאי אפשר לינשא לאחים צרותיהן מותרות שאין צרה אלא מאח

14 and not that of la-zor.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' [H] 'to oppress', the longer form li-zeror implies many rivals, i.e., rivals of the rivals. The last question and answer are deleted by R. Tam and Nahmanides. Cf. [H] ');">21 Thus we have deduced the law concerning a wife's sister, whence is the law concerning the other forbidden relatives to be inferred? — It can be answered: As a wife's sister is singled out in that she is a forbidden relative, the penalty for presumptuous intercourse with her is kareth22

טו אזהרה שמענו עונש מניין אמר קרא (ויקרא יח, כט) כי כל (איש) אשר יעשה מכל התועבות וגו'

15 and for unwitting intercourse a sin-offering, and she is forbidden to the levir, so also any woman who is a forbidden relative, and the penalty for presumptuous intercourse with whom is kareth22 and for unwitting intercourse a sin-offering, is forbidden to the levir. Now we know the law concerning themselves only;23

טז טעמא דכתב רחמנא עליה הא לאו הכי ה"א אחות אשה מייבמת מאי טעמא דאמרינן אתי עשה ודחי לא תעשה

16 whence is the law con cerning their rivals deduced? — It may be answered: As a wife's sister is singled out in that she is a forbidden relative, kareth is incurred by presumptuous intercourse with her and a sin-offering for unwitting intercourse, and she is forbidden to the levir, and her rival is forbidden, so also in the case of any woman who is a forbidden relative, and for presumptuous intercourse with whom is incurred the penalty of kareth and for unwitting intercourse a sin-offering, and who is forbidden to the levir, her rival is forbidden. Hence have the Sages said: FIFTEEN [CATEGORIES OF] WOMEN EXEMPT THEIR RIVALS AND THEIR RIVALS' RIVALS, AND SO ON, AD INFINITUM, FROM THE HALIZAH AND FROM THE LEVIRATE MARRIAGE. One might assume that the six more rigidly forbidden relatives24 are also included in the ruling,25

יז אימר דאמרינן אתי עשה ודחי לא תעשה לא תעשה גרידא לא תעשה שיש בו כרת מי דחי ותו לא תעשה גרידא מנלן דדחי

17 so that their rivals also26 are forbidden,27 hence it must be stated:28 As a wife's sister is singled out in that she is a forbidden relative, kareth is incurred for presumptuous intercourse with her and a sin-offering for unwitting intercourse, she may be married to the other brothers, but is forbidden to the levir, and her rival is forbidden, so also in the case of any woman who is a forbidden relative, for presumptuous intercourse with whom is incurred the penalty of kareth and for unwitting intercourse a sin-offering, who may marry one of the other brothers, but is forbidden to the levir, her rival also is forbidden; excluded, however, are the six more rigidly forbidden relatives. Since they may not be married to the other brothers, their rivals are permitted; for [the law of] 'rival'29 is applicable only [to widows] of a brother.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Where one of the widows is a forbidden relative of one of the surviving brothers and no forbidden relative of the deceased. As the relative is forbidden to marry the brother, her rival also is forbidden to him as 'his brother's wife'. Where the relative, however, is married to a stranger, her rival is permitted to those to whom the relative herself is forbidden. ');">30 Thus we have deduced the prohibition. Whence, however, is the penalty inferred? — Scripture said, For whosoever shall do any of these abominations etc. [shall be cut off from among their people.]31 The reason,32 then, is because the All Merciful has written, ''aleha',33 otherwise it would have been said that levirate marriage may be contracted with the wife's sister; what is the reason? Is it because we assume that a positive precept,34 supersedes a negative precept?35 Surely, it is possible that36 the rule that a positive precept supersedes a negative precept applies only where the latter is a mere prohibition; does it, however, supersede a prohibition involving the penalty of kareth?35 Furthermore, whence is it derived that it may supersede even a mere prohibition?

Previous Chapter Next Chapter