Yevamot 80

הוא אסור באמה ובאם אמה ובאם אביה ובבתה ובבת בתה ובבת בנה ובאחותה בזמן שהיא קיימת והאחין מותרין

HE IS FORBIDDEN TO MARRY HER MOTHER, HER MOTHER'S MOTHER AND HER FATHER S MOTHER; HER DAUGHTER, HER DAUGHTER'S DAUGHTER AND HER SON'S DAUGHTER; AND ALSO HER SISTER WHILE SHE<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' The haluzah (v. Glos.). ');">¹</span> IS ALIVE. THE OTHER BROTHERS, HOWEVER, ARE PERMITTED.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' To marry the enumerated relatives of the haluzah. ');">²</span>

והיא אסורה באביו ובאבי אביו ובבנו ובבן בנו באחיו ובבן אחיו

SHE<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' The haluzah (v. Glos.). ');">¹</span> IS FORBIDDEN TO MARRY HIS FATHER AND HIS FATHER'S FATHER;<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Bomberg ed. adds, 'and his mother's father'. ');">³</span>

מותר אדם בקרובת צרת חלוצתו ואסור בצרת קרובת חלוצתו:

HIS SON AND HIS SON'S SON; HIS BROTHER AND HIS BROTHER'S SON. A MAN IS PERMITTED TO MARRY THE RELATIVE OF THE RIVAL OF HIS <i>HALUZAH</i> BUT IS FORBIDDEN TO MARRY THE RIVAL OF THE RELATIVE OF HIS <i>HALUZAH</i>.

<big><strong>גמ׳</strong></big> איבעיא להו גזרו שניות בחלוצה או לא

<b><i>GEMARA</i></b>. The question was raised: Were relatives of the second degree<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' E.g., the haluzah's mother's mother's mother or her father's mother's mother (Rashi). Cf. supra 21a. ');">⁴</span> forbidden<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Rabbinically. ');">⁵</span>

בערוה דאורייתא גזרו בהו רבנן שניות בחלוצה לא גזרו רבנן שניות או דלמא לא שנא

in the case of a <i>haluzah</i> as a preventive measure,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Against marriage with relatives of the first degree. ');">⁶</span> or not? Did the Rabbis forbid marriage with relatives of the second degree, as a preventive measure,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Against marriage with relatives of the first degree. ');">⁶</span>

ת"ש הוא אסור באמה ובאם אמה ואילו אם אם אמה לא קתני

only in respect of a relative who is pentateuchally forbidden,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' I.e., a wife's relatives whose prohibition is specifically stated in the Pentateuch. ');">⁷</span> but in respect of a <i>haluzah</i><span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Whose relatives, even of the first degree, are only Rabbinically forbidden. ');">⁸</span>

דלמא היינו טעמא דלא תני משום דקבעי למיתני סיפא והאחין מותרין ואי תנא אם אם אמה ה"א האחין מותרין דוקא באם אם אמה אבל באם אמה ובאמה לא

the Rabbis did not forbid relatives of the second degree as a preventive measure, or is there perhaps no difference?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' In respect of the law of incest, between the relatives of a wife who are Pentateuchally forbidden and those of a haluzah who are only Rabbinically forbidden. ');">⁹</span> — Come and hear: HE IS FORBIDDEN TO MARRY HER MOTHER AND HER MOTHER'S MOTHER, but 'her mother's mother's mother' is not mentioned!<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' V. supra p. 259, n. 9. ');">¹⁰</span>

וליתני אם אם אמה וליתני האחין מותרין בכולן קשיא

[No.] It is possible that the reason why this relative was omitted<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Lit., 'that he did not teach'. ');">¹¹</span> is because it was desired to state in the final clause, THE OTHER BROTHERS, HOWEVER, ARE PERMITTED, and, were 'her mother's mother's mother' also mentioned it might have been presumed that the brothers are permitted [to marry] her mother's mother's mother only<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Because even in the case of one's wife she is not Biblically forbidden. ');">¹²</span>

ת"ש היא אסורה באביו ובאבי אביו קתני מיהא אבי אביו מאי לאו משום חולץ דהויא לה כלת בנו

but not her mother's mother or her mother.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Who, in the case of one's wife, are Pentateuchally prohibited. ');">¹³</span> Then let 'her mother's mother's mother' be mentioned, and let it also be stated: The brothers are permitted to marry all of them!<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' And the possible misinterpretation would thus be avoided. ');">¹⁴</span>

לא משום מיתנא דהויא לה כלת בנו

— This is a difficulty. Come and hear: SHE IS FORBIDDEN TO MARRY HIS FATHER AND HIS FATHER'S FATHER. 'His father's father,' at any rate, was mentioned. Is not this<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Prohibition to marry a father's father. ');">¹⁵</span>

ת"ש ובבן בנו מאי לאו משום חולץ דהויא לה (משום) אשת אבי אביו

due to<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Lit., 'what not, owing to'. ');">¹⁶</span> the levir who participated in the <i>halizah</i>, through whom she is the daughter-in-law of his<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' The father's father. ');">¹⁷</span>

לא משום מיתנא והויא לה אשת אחי אבי אביו

son?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' I.e., a relative of the second degree, which proves that even such relatives were forbidden in respect of a haluzah. ');">¹⁸</span> — No; this<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' V. supra note 9. ');">¹⁹</span>

הא אמימר מכשר באשת אחי אבי אביו

is due to the deceased through whom she is the daughter-in-law of his<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' V. supra n. 20. ');">²⁰</span> son.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' In whose case the prohibition is Pentateuchal and provides no answer to our enquiry. ');">²¹</span>

אמימר מוקי לה בבר ברא דסבא

Come and hear: AND HIS SON'S SON, Is not this<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' V. supra note 9. ');">¹⁹</span> due to the levir who participated in the <i>halizah</i> through whom she is the wife of his<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' The son's son. ');">²²</span>

אי הכי היינו אחיו ובן אחיו תנא אחיו מן האב וקתני אחיו מן האם

father's father?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' I.e., a relative of the second degree, which proves that even such relatives were forbidden in respect of a haluzah. ');">¹⁸</span> — No; it<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' V. supra note 9. ');">¹⁹</span>

ת"ש דתני ר' חייא ארבע מדברי תורה וארבע מדברי סופרים אב ובנו אחיו ובן אחיו מדברי תורה אבי אביו ואבי אמו בן בנו ובן בתו מד"ס

is due to the deceased through whom she is his<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' The son's son. ');">²²</span> father's father's brother's wife.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' In whose case the prohibition is Pentateuchal and provides no answer to our enquiry. ');">²¹</span>

קתני מיהא אבי אביו מאי לאו משום חולץ והויא לה כלת בנו

But, surely, Amemar permitted the marriage of one's father's father's brother's wife!<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Supra 21b. How, then, according to Amemar, could this case be included among forbidden relatives? ');">²³</span> — Amemar interprets that<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' The SON'S SON in our Mishnah. ');">²⁴</span>

לא משום מיתנא דהויא לה כלת בנו

to refer to the son of the grandfather.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' The father of both the deceased and of the levir who submitted to the halizah. Our Mishnah is thus interpreted: HIS FATHER is the father of the deceased and of the levir who participated in the halizah; HIS SON, i.e., the son of the FATHER mentioned, who is the brother of the deceased and of the levir who participated in the halizah; and HIS SON'S SON is the son of the son of the father mentioned, to whom the haluzah is forbidden as the wife of his father's brother. ');">²⁵</span> If so, [HIS SON, AND SON'S SON] are the same as HIS BROTHER AND HIS BROTHER'S SON!<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' V. supra n. 1. ');">²⁶</span>

ת"ש אבי אמו מאי לאו משום חולץ דהויא לה כלת בתו

— Both his paternal brother and his maternal brother were specified.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' The former by HIS SON AND HIS SON'S SON (v. supra n. 1) and the latter by HIS BROTHER AND HIS BROTHER'S SON, the prohibitions being Pentateuchal since they are due to the woman's relationship with the deceased as his wife, and not to her relationship with the levir as haluzah, the prohibitions resulting from which could only be Rabbinical. ');">²⁷</span> Come and hear what R. Hiyya taught:<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' In respect of a haluzah. ');">²⁸</span>

לא משום מיתנא דהויא לה כלת בתו

Four [categories of relatives are forbidden]<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' To marry her. ');">²⁹</span> Pentateuchally<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Lit., 'from the words of the Torah', i.e., owing to their relationship to the haluzah as the wife of the deceased, and the prohibition to marry whom is specifically mentioned in the Pentateuch. ');">³⁰</span>

ת"ש ובן בנו מאי לאו משום חולץ דהויא לה אשת אבי אביו

and four Rabbinically.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Lit., 'from the words of the Scribes'. ');">³¹</span> His<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' The levir's (who participated in the halizah). The prohibition is Pentateuchal, it being due to his brother, the deceased, whose wife and whose father's daughter-in-law the haluzah was. ');">³²</span>

לא משום מיתנא דהויא לה אשת אחי אבי אביו

father and his<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' The levir's (v. supra n. 8). The haluzah is forbidden to him Pentateuchally as the wife of his father's brother. ');">³³</span> son, his<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' The levir's (v. supra n. 8), who is also the brother of the deceased, and the haluzah is forbidden to him Pentateuchally. ');">³⁴</span>

והא אמימר מכשיר באשת אחי אבי אביו אמימר מוקים לה משום חולץ וקסבר גזרו שניות בחלוצה

brother and his<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' The levir's (v supra n. 8), the deceased also having been his father's brother, and the prohibition is consequently Pentateuchal. ');">³⁵</span> brother's son are Pentateuchally forbidden;<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Lit., 'from the words of the Torah', i.e., owing to their relationship to the haluzah as the wife of the deceased, and the prohibition to marry whom is specifically mentioned in the Pentateuch. ');">³⁰</span>

ת"ש ובבן בתו מאי לאו משום חולץ דהויא לה אשת אבי אמו

his father's father<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' To whom the haluzah is forbidden as his son's daughter-in-law. ');">³⁶</span> and his mother's father,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' The prohibition being that of one's daughter's daughter-in-law. ');">³⁷</span>

לא משום מיתנא דהויא לה אשת אחי אבי אמו והא גבי שניות דערוה לא גזרו

his son's son<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' It is now assumed that the prohibition to marry this relative is due to the levir who participated in the halizah through whom she is his father's father's wife. ');">³⁸</span> and his daughter's son<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Whose mother's father's wife she was. ');">³⁹</span>

אלא לאו משום חולץ ושמע מינה גזרו שניות בחלוצה שמע מינה:

are forbidden Rabbinically.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Cf. supra note 7, all being cases of the second degree, forbidden by a provision of the Rabbis only. ');">⁴⁰</span> 'His father's father', at any rate, is mentioned here. Is not this<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' The prohibition to marry this relative. ');">⁴¹</span>

מותר אדם וכו': אמר רב טובי בר קיסנא אמר שמואל הבא על צרת חלוצה הולד ממזר מאי טעמא באיסורה קיימא

due to the levir who participated in the <i>halizah</i> through whom she is his son's daughter-in-law?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Which proves that, even in respect of a haluzah, relatives of the second degree are prohibited. ');">⁴²</span> — No; it<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' The prohibition to marry this relative. ');">⁴¹</span>

אמר רב יוסף אף אנן נמי תנינא מותר אדם בקרובת צרת חלוצתו אי אמרת בשלמא צרה אבראי משום הכי מותר באחותה

is due to the deceased<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' In whose case the prohibition is Pentateuchal, and supplies no answer to our enquiry. ');">⁴³</span> whose son's daughter-in-law she is.

אלא אי אמרת צרה כחלוצה דמיא אמאי מותר

Come and hear: 'His mother's father'.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' This is a citation from R. Hiyya's Baraitha supra. ');">⁴⁴</span> Is not this<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' The prohibition to marry this relative. ');">⁴¹</span>

לימא תיהוי תיובתא דרבי יוחנן דאמר בין הוא בין אחין אין חייבין לא על החלוצה כרת ולא על צרתה כרת

due to the levir who participated in the <i>halizah</i> through whom she is his<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' His mother's father's. ');">⁴⁵</span> daughter's daughter-in-law?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' V. supra n. 2. ');">⁴⁶</span>

אמר לך רבי יוחנן ותסברא אחות חלוצה דאורייתא והאמר ר"ל כאן שנה רבי אחות גרושה מדברי תורה אחות חלוצה מדברי סופרים

— No; it<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' The prohibition to marry this relative. ');">⁴¹</span> is due to the deceased<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' The prohibition being a preventive measure against the infringement of a Pentateuchal law. Consequently it supplies no proof in respect of our enquiry which is concerned with a preventive measure against an infringement of a Rabbinical law. ');">⁴⁷</span>

מאי שנא האי ומאי שנא האי

through whom she is his<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' His mother's father's. ');">⁴⁵</span> daughter's daughter-in-law. Come and hear: 'And his son's son'.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' V. supra n. 4. ');">⁴⁸</span> Is not this<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' The prohibition to marry this relative. ');">⁴¹</span> due to the levir who participated in the <i>halizah</i> through whom she is his father's father's wife?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Which proves that, even in respect of a haluzah, relatives of the second degree are prohibited. ');">⁴²</span> — No; it<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' The prohibition to marry this relative. ');">⁴¹</span> is due to the deceased<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' The prohibition being a preventive measure against the infringement of a Pentateuchal law. Consequently it supplies no proof in respect of our enquiry which is concerned with a preventive measure against an infringement of a Rabbinical law. ');">⁴⁷</span> through whom she is his father's father's brother's wife. But, surely, Amemar permitted the marriage of one's father's father's brother's wife!<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' How then could such a case be included among forbidden relatives? ');">⁴⁹</span> — Amemar explains that<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' 'Son's son' in R. Hiyya's Baraitha. ');">⁵⁰</span> to be due to the levir who participated in the <i>halizah</i>,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' The prohibition being that of 'his father's father's wife', as first assumed. ');">⁵¹</span> but is of the opinion that relatives of the second degree were forbidden as a preventive measure even in respect of a <i>haluzah</i>.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' According to those, however, who, contrary to the opinion of Amemar, forbid marriage with a father's father's brother's wife, the prohibition in R. Hiyya's Baraitha might still be attributed to the deceased (v. supra n. 7), and the original enquiry as to whether relatives of the second degree were forbidden in the case of a haluzah still remains unanswered. ');">⁵²</span> Come and hear: 'And the son of his daughter'.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' V. supra n. 4. ');">⁴⁸</span> Is not this<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' The prohibition to marry this relative. ');">⁴¹</span> due to the levir who participated in the <i>halizah</i> through whom she is his mother's father's wife?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Which proves that, even in respect of a haluzah, relatives of the second degree are prohibited. ');">⁴²</span> — No; it<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' The prohibition to marry this relative. ');">⁴¹</span> is due to the deceased<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' The prohibition being a preventive measure against the infringement of a Pentateuchal law. Consequently it supplies no proof in respect of our enquiry which is concerned with a preventive measure against an infringement of a Rabbinical law. ');">⁴⁷</span> through whom she is his mother's father's brother's wife. But, surely, no prohibition as a preventive measure was made in respect of the second degrees of incest!<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' How then could it be suggested that the prohibition is due to the fact that the haluzah is the 'wife of the mother's father's brother' of the deceased? ');">⁵³</span> Consequently<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Lit., 'what, not'? ');">⁵⁴</span> it must be due to the levir who participated in the <i>halizah</i>,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' The prohibition being that of 'his mother's father's wife' who is a relative of the second degree. ');">⁵⁵</span> and thus it may be inferred that relatives of the second degree were forbidden as a preventive measure even in the case of a <i>haluzah</i>. This proves it. A MAN IS PERMITTED etc. R. Tobi b. Kisna said in the name of Samuel: Where a man had intercourse with the rival of his <i>haluzah</i> the child [born from such a union] is a bastard. What is the reason? — Because she<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' The rival. ');">⁵⁶</span> remains under her original prohibition.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Of 'brother's wife', which is subject to the penalty of kareth. Children born from a union that is forbidden under such a penalty are deemed to be bastards. ');">⁵⁷</span> Said R. Joseph: We also have learned [to the same effect]: A MAN IS PERMITTED TO MARRY THE RELATIVE OF THE RIVAL OF HIS <i>HALUZAH</i>. Now, if you grant that the rival is excluded<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' [Lit., 'outside'. Rashi reads: 'Stands outside'.] From the restrictions of the haluzah, the latter not being regarded as her agent or representative. ');">⁵⁸</span> one can well understand why the man is permitted to marry her sister.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Since she herself remains forbidden to the levir as 'brother's wife', her sister is not the 'sister of a haluzah'. ');">⁵⁹</span> If it be maintained, however, that the rival has the same status as the <i>haluzah</i>, why [should her sister] be permitted [to him]?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' She should be forbidden as the sister of a haluzah! As she is permitted, however, it must be granted that the rival of a haluzah remains under the original prohibition of 'brother's wife', which entails the penalty of kareth. (V. supra n. 5). ');">⁶⁰</span> May it be suggested that this<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' The inference from our Mishnah. (V. supra n. 8 second clause). ');">⁶¹</span> furnishes an objection against R. Johanan who stated: Neither he<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' The levir who submitted to halizah. ');">⁶²</span> nor the other brothers are subject to <i>kareth</i> either for [the betrothal of] a <i>haluzah</i> or for [the betrothal of] her rival?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Supra 10b; while from the inference of our Mishnah, as has been proved, the penalty for contracting a union with the rival of a haluzah is kareth! ');">⁶³</span> — R. Johanan can answer you: Do you understand it!<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' R. Joseph's argument. ');">⁶⁴</span> Is the sister of a <i>haluzah</i> Pentateuchally forbidden?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' As R. Joseph implies by his assumption that if the rival had the same status as the haluzah her sister would be forbidden. ');">⁶⁵</span> Surely Resh Lakish said: Here<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' In the following Mishnah to which he refers. ');">⁶⁶</span> it was taught by Rabbi that the prohibition to marry the sister of a divorced wife is Pentateuchal and that that of the sister of a <i>haluzah</i> is Rabbinical!<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' The reason why the sister of a rival of a haluzah is permitted is not that assumed by R. Joseph. but the following: As the prohibition of the sister of a haluzah herself is only Rabbinical, the prohibition was not extended to the sister of the rival of the haluzah also. ');">⁶⁷</span> Why is there a difference [in the law] between the one and the other?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' The first and second case of the final clause of our Mishnah. THE RIVAL OF THE RELATIVE OF HIS HALUZAH is surely as much of a stranger to him as THE RELATIVE OF THE RIVAL OF HIS HALUZAH. ');">⁶⁸</span>