Please ensure Javascript is enabled for purposes of website accessibility Skip to content

Today's Daf Yomi

May 17, 2016 | 讟壮 讘讗讬讬专 转砖注状讜

  • This month's learning is dedicated by Debbie and Yossi Gevir to Rabbanit Michelle and the Hadran Zoom group for their kindness, support, and care during a medically challenging year.

Kiddushin 67

Study Guide Kiddushin 67. What are the rules in determining the lineage of a child? 聽It depends on the situation – whether the betrothal was permitted or forbidden, as well as other criteria.


If the lesson doesn't play, click "Download"

讙专 砖谞砖讗 诪诪讝专转 讚讬砖 拽讬讚讜砖讬谉 讜讗讬谉 注讘讬专讛 讛讜诇讚 讛讜诇讱 讗讞专 讛驻讙讜诐 讚转谞讬讗 讙专 砖谞砖讗 诪诪讝专转 讛讜诇讚 诪诪讝专 讚讘专讬 专讘讬 讬讜住讬 讗诪专 诇讬讛 诪讬 住讘专转 诪转谞讬转讬谉 专讘讬 讬讜住讬 讛讬讗 诪转谞讬转讬谉 专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 讛讬讗 讚讗诪专 讙专 诇讗 讬砖讗 诪诪讝专转 讜讬砖 拽讬讚讜砖讬谉 讜讬砖 注讘讬专讛 讛讜诇讚 讛讜诇讱 讗讞专 讛驻讙讜诐

there is the case of a convert who married a mamzeret, where there is a valid betrothal and there is no transgression, as they are permitted to marry each other, and yet the offspring follows the flawed lineage and is a mamzer. As it is taught in a baraita: With regard to a convert who married a mamzeret, the offspring is a mamzer. This is the statement of Rabbi Yosei. Rabbi Yo岣nan said to Rabbi Shimon: Do you maintain that the mishna is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yosei? Not so; the mishna is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yehuda, who says: A convert may not marry a mamzeret, and therefore in this case there is betrothal and there is a transgression, which is why the offspring follows the flawed lineage.

讜谞讬转谞讬讬讛 转谞讗 讻诇 诪拽讜诐 讚住讬驻讗 诇讗转讜讬讬

The Gemara asks: But if so, let the mishna teach this case as one of its examples. The Gemara answers: The mishna taught the principle: Any case where there is betrothal and a transgression, in the latter clause, precisely to include this kind of case. There is a guiding principle of the Gemara鈥檚 interpretation of the Mishna that a mishna does not include extraneous phrases. Every apparently superfluous phrase in the context of a principle serves to include or exclude a certain case from that principle. This is the basis of the discussion of the Gemara here and below.

讜讗讬讘注讬转 讗讬诪讗 诇注讜诇诐 专讘讬 讬讜住讬 讛讬讗 讜转谞讗 讗讬讝讜 讝讜 诇诪注讜讟讬

And if you wish, say a different answer: Actually, the mishna is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yosei, and it taught the phrase: In which case is this applicable, to exclude cases of betrothal without a transgression other than those listed in the mishna. The offspring follows the lineage of the father only in those cases specified by the mishna.

讜讗讬讝讜 讝讜 讜转讜 诇讗 讜讛专讬 讞诇诇 砖谞砖讗 讘转 讬砖专讗诇 讚讬砖 拽讬讚讜砖讬谉 讜讗讬谉 注讘讬专讛 讛讜诇讚 讛讜诇讱 讗讞专 讛讝讻专 讛讗 诇讗 拽砖讬讗 讻专讘讬 讚讜住转讗讬 讘谉 专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 住讘讬专讗 诇讬讛

The Gemara asks: But does the list that follows the phrase: In which case is this applicable, include all applicable cases? And are there no more? But there is the example of a 岣lal who married an Israelite woman, where there is betrothal and there is no transgression, and yet the offspring follows the male, as he too is a 岣lal. The Gemara rejects this claim: This is not difficult, as one can say that the tanna of the mishna holds in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Dostai ben Rabbi Yehuda, who maintains that the offspring of this union is entirely fit.

讜讛专讬 讬砖专讗诇 砖谞砖讗 讞诇诇讛 讚讬砖 拽讬讚讜砖讬谉 讜讗讬谉 注讘讬专讛 讛讜诇讚 讛讜诇讱 讗讞专 讛讝讻专 转谞讗 讻诇 诪拽讜诐 讚专讬砖讗 诇讗转讜讬讬

The Gemara asks: But there is the case of an Israelite who married a 岣lala, where there is betrothal and there is no transgression, and the offspring follows the male, and yet this case is not mentioned in the mishna. The Gemara responds: The mishna taught the principle: Any case where there is betrothal and no transgression, in the first clause, to include this situation.

讜谞讬转谞讬讬讛 讘讛讚讬讗 诪砖讜诐 讚诇讗 诪转谞讬 诇讛 讛讬讻讬 谞讬转谞讬 讻讛谞转 讜诇讜讬讛 讜讬砖专讗诇讬转 讜讞诇诇讛 砖谞砖讗转 诇讻讛谉 诇讜讬 讜讬砖专讗诇 讜讞诇诇讛 诇讻讛谉 诪讬 讞讝讬讗

The Gemara asks: But let the tanna of the mishna teach explicitly this example of an Israelite who married a 岣lala. The Gemara answers: He did not do so because he cannot teach it, i.e., the tanna cannot mention this halakha in brief as part of the list. The Gemara clarifies its answer: How can the tanna teach it? He cannot state: A daughter of a priest; and a daughter of a Levite; and a daughter of an Israelite; and a 岣lala, who married a priest, a Levite, or an Israelite, as, is a 岣lala fit for a priest? This marriage involves a transgression. Consequently, the sentence of the mishna cannot be constructed so as to include a 岣lala.

讜讛讗讬讻讗 讚专讘讛 讘专 讘专 讞谞讛 讚讗诪专 专讘讛 讘专 讘专 讞谞讛 讗诪专 专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 诪爪专讬 砖谞讬 砖谞砖讗 诪爪专讬转 专讗砖讜谞讛 讘谞讛 砖诇讬砖讬 讛讜讬

The Gemara asks: But there is also the halakha of Rabba bar bar 岣na, as Rabba bar bar 岣na says that Rabbi Yo岣nan says: With regard to a second-generation Egyptian man, i.e., the son of an Egyptian convert, who married a first-generation Egyptian woman, a woman who herself converted, her son is considered a third-generation Egyptian who may marry a Jew of unflawed lineage. This is an example of a betrothal without a transgression where the offspring follows the father.

转谞讗 讻诇 诪拽讜诐 讚专讬砖讗 诇讗转讜讬讬 讜诇专讘 讚讬诪讬 讚讗诪专 砖谞讬 讛讜讬 转谞讗 讗讬讝讜 讝讜 诇诪注讜讟讬

The Gemara answers: The mishna taught the principle: Any case where there is betrothal and no transgression, in the first clause, to include this example. The Gemara adds: And according to the opinion of Rav Dimi, who said that this son is a second-generation Egyptian, the mishna taught: In which case is this applicable, at its beginning, with regard to betrothal that does not involve a transgression, to exclude this case. Rav Dimi maintains that this son may not marry a Jew of unflawed lineage.

讜讛讗讬讻讗 讚讻讬 讗转讗 专讘讬谉 讗诪专 专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 讘讗讜诪讜转 讛诇讱 讗讞专 讛讝讻专

The Gemara asks: But there is the following case, which apparently contradicts the principle of the mishna: As when Ravin came from Eretz Yisrael he said that Rabbi Yo岣nan says: With regard to the nations, i.e., if members of two different nations married when they were gentiles, follow the male to determine the status of their child. This is the case whether he is a regular gentile, who may marry a Jew of unflawed lineage as soon as he converts, or whether he is an Ammonite or an Egyptian, who may not marry a Jewish woman of unflawed lineage. In either case the child鈥檚 status follows that of the father.

谞转讙讬讬专讜 讛诇讱 讗讞专 讛驻讙讜诐 砖讘砖谞讬讛诐 转谞讗 讗讬讝讜 讝讜 诇诪注讜讟讬

If these members of two different nations converted, follow the flawed lineage of the two. These converts are permitted to marry one another and their betrothal is effective. If either the father or mother is Egyptian, the child follows the parent with the flawed lineage and would be Egyptian, whereas according to the principle stated in the mishna, one should follow the male. The Gemara answers: The mishna taught: In which case is this applicable, in the first clause, to exclude this case.

讛讗讬 诪讗讬 讗讬 讗诪专转 讘砖诇诪讗 诪转谞讬转讬谉 专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 讛讬讗 讻诇 诪拽讜诐 讚专讬砖讗 诇讗转讜讬讬 讬砖专讗诇 砖谞砖讗 讞诇诇讛 讜讚专讘讛 讘专 讘专 讞谞讛 讗讬讝讜 讝讜 诇诪注讜讟讬 讚专讘 讚讬诪讬 讜专讘讬谉

The Gemara returns to an earlier point: What is this claim, that the mishna is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yosei? Granted, if you say that the mishna is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yehuda, one can explain that the phrase: Any case, of the first clause, serves to include an Israelite who married a 岣lala, as the child follows the father in that case too, and also to include the ruling of Rabba bar bar 岣na that the son of a second-generation Egyptian who married a first-generation Egyptian woman is a third-generation Egyptian. Furthermore, the expression: In which case is this applicable, serves to exclude the ruling of Rav Dimi that her son is a second-generation Egyptian, and the statement of Ravin citing Rabbi Yo岣nan.

讻诇 诪拽讜诐 讚住讬驻讗 诇讗转讜讬讬 讙专 砖谞砖讗 诪诪讝专转 讗诇讗 讗讬 讗诪专转 专讘讬 讬讜住讬 讛讬讗 讻诇 诪拽讜诐 讚专讬砖讗 讻讚讗诪专谉 讗讬讝讜 讝讜 讻讚讗诪专谉 讗诇讗 讻诇 诪拽讜诐 讚住讬驻讗 诇讗转讜讬讬 诪讗讬

And the phrase: Any case, of the latter clause, which is referring to betrothal with a transgression, serves to include a convert who married a mamzeret. But if you say that the mishna is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yosei, then granted the phrase: Any case where there is betrothal and no transgression, of the first clause, is as we said, i.e., it includes an Israelite who married a 岣lala; and the phrase: In which case is this applicable, is as we said, i.e., to the exclusion of Ravin or Rav Dimi, and the case of a convert who married a mamzeret. But what does the phrase: Any case, of the latter clause, serve to add?

讜诇讟注诪讬讱 诇专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 讗讬讝讜 讝讜 讚住讬驻讗 诇诪讛 诇讬 讗诇讗 讗讬讬讚讬 讚转谞讗 专讬砖讗 讗讬讝讜 讝讜 转谞讗 住讬驻讗 讗讬讝讜 讝讜 讛讻讬 谞诪讬 讗讬讬讚讬 讚转谞讗 专讬砖讗 讻诇 诪拽讜诐 转谞讗 谞诪讬 住讬驻讗 讻诇 诪拽讜诐

The Gemara responds: And according to your reasoning, the same question applies to Rabbi Yehuda as well: Why do I need the phrase: In which case is this applicable, of the latter clause? Rather, you must say: Since the mishna taught its first clause using the phrase: In which case is this applicable, it also taught its latter clause using the phrase: In which case is this applicable, merely for the sake of stylistic consistency. So too here, with regard to Rabbi Yosei鈥檚 opinion, one can say: Since the mishna taught the first clause with the expression: Any case, it also taught its latter clause with: Any case.

讙讜驻讗 讻讬 讗转讗 专讘讬谉 讗诪专 专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 讘讗讜诪讜转 讛诇讱 讗讞专 讛讝讻专 谞转讙讬讬专讜 讛诇讱 讗讞专 讛驻讙讜诐 砖讘砖谞讬讛诐

搂 The Gemara discusses the aforementioned matter itself: When Ravin came from Eretz Yisrael, he said that Rabbi Yo岣nan says: With regard to the nations, if members of two different nations married when they were gentiles, follow the male to determine the status of their child. If they converted before marriage, follow the flawed lineage of the two.

诪讗讬 讘讗讜诪讜转 讛诇讱 讗讞专 讛讝讻专 讻讚转谞讬讗 诪谞讬谉 诇讗讞讚 诪谉 讛讗讜诪讜转 砖讘讗 注诇 讛讻谞注谞讬转 讜讛讜诇讬讚 讘谉 砖讗转讛 专砖讗讬 诇拽谞讜转讜 讘注讘讚

The Gemara analyzes this statement: What is the meaning of: With regard to the nations, follow the male? As it is taught in a baraita: From where is it derived with regard to one member of the nations outside Eretz Yisrael who engaged in intercourse with a Canaanite woman and fathered a son from her, that you are permitted to purchase the son as a slave, and he is not considered a member of the Canaanite nations, who are not allowed to live in Eretz Yisrael?

转诇诪讜讚 诇讜诪专 讜讙诐 诪讘谞讬 讛转讜砖讘讬诐 讛讙专讬诐 注诪讻诐 诪讛诐 转拽谞讜 讬讻讜诇 讗祝 注讘讚 砖讘讗 注诇 砖驻讞讛 诪谉 讛讗讜诪讜转 讜讛讜诇讬讚 讘谉 砖讗转讛 专砖讗讬 诇拽谞讜转讜 讘注讘讚 转诇诪讜讚 诇讜诪专 讗砖专 讛讜诇讬讚讜 讘讗专爪讻诐 诪谉 讛谞讜诇讚讬谉 讘讗专爪讻诐 讜诇讗 诪谉 讛讙专讬诐 讘讗专爪讻诐

The verse states: 鈥淎nd also of the children of the residents who sojourn with you, of them you may buy鈥 (Leviticus 25:45), which indicates that there is a way in which one may purchase slaves from the inhabitants of Canaan. One might have thought that even with regard to a Canaanite slave who engaged in intercourse with a maidservant from the other nations and fathered a son, that you are permitted to buy the son as a slave. Therefore, the verse states: 鈥淲hich they have begotten in your land鈥 (Leviticus 25:45). This means that one may purchase from those who are merely begotten in your land, whose fathers are not from the Canaanite nations, but not from those who reside in your land, i.e., whose fathers are from the seven Canaanite nations.

谞转讙讬讬专讜 讛诇讱 讗讞专 讛驻讙讜诐 砖讘砖谞讬讛诐 讘诪讗讬 讗讬诇讬诪讗 讘诪爪专讬 砖谞砖讗 注诪讜谞讬转 诪讗讬 驻讙讜诐 讗讬讻讗 注诪讜谞讬 讜诇讗 注诪讜谞讬转

The Gemara discusses the second clause of Rabbi Yo岣nan鈥檚 statement: If they converted, follow the flawed lineage of the two. To which case does this refer? If we say that it is referring to an Egyptian man who married an Ammonite woman, what flawed lineage is there here? The lineage of an Ammonite woman who converts is not flawed at all, as the Sages expounded that the verse: 鈥淎n Ammonite鈥hall not enter into the assembly of the Lord鈥 (Deuteronomy 23:4) is referring to an Ammonite man but not an Ammonite woman, which means that she can marry a Jew of unflawed lineage.

讗诇讗 讘注诪讜谞讬 砖谞砖讗 诪爪专讬转 讜讗讬 讝讻专 讛讜讬 讛讗讬 砖讚讬讗 讗讘转专讬讛 讚讬讚讬讛 讜讗诐 谞拽讘讛 讛讜讬讗 砖讚讬讗 讗讘转专讛 讚讬讚讛

Rather, it must be referring to an Ammonite man who married an Egyptian woman, and in that case if the child is a male, cast him after his father, and render him permanently prohibited from entering the congregation as an Ammonite male. And if the child born to them is a female, cast her after the mother, so that she is considered a second-generation Egyptian, who may not marry a Jew of unflawed lineage.

讻诇 砖讗讬谉 诇讛 注诇讬讜 拽讬讚讜砖讬谉 诪谞讗 讛谞讬 诪讬诇讬 讚讗诪专 专讘讬 讞讬讬讗 讘专 讗讘讗 讗诪专 专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 讜诪讟讜 讘讛 诪砖讜诐 讚专讘讬 讬谞讗讬 讜专讘 讗讞讗 讘专讬讛 讚专讘讗 讜诪讟讜 讘讛 诪砖讜诐 专讘讬 讬讜住讬 讛讙诇讬诇讬 讗诪专 拽专讗 讜讬爪讗讛 诪讘讬转讜 讜讛诇讻讛 讜讛讬转讛 诇讗讬砖 讗讞专 诇讗讞专讬诐 讜诇讗 诇拽专讜讘讬诐

搂 The mishna teaches that in any case where a woman cannot join in betrothal with him, but she can join in betrothal with others, the offspring is a mamzer. The Gemara explains: From where are these matters derived? As Rabbi 岣yya bar Abba says that Rabbi Yo岣nan says, and some determined that it was said in the name of Rabbi Yannai; and Rav A岣, son of Rava, determined that it was said in the name of Rabbi Yosei HaGelili: The verse states with regard to a divorced woman: 鈥淎nd she departs out of his house, and goes and becomes another man鈥檚 wife鈥 (Deuteronomy 24:2). This teaches that she can become the wife of others, but not of relatives, i.e., betrothal to forbidden relatives does not take effect.

诪转拽讬祝 诇讛 专讘讬 讗讘讗 讜讗讬诪讗 诇讗讞专 讜诇讗 诇讘谉 讘谉 讘讛讚讬讗 讻转讬讘 讘讬讛 诇讗 讬拽讞 讗讬砖 讗转 讗砖转 讗讘讬讜 讗讞专 诇诪讛 诇讬 砖诪注 诪讬谞讛 诇讗讞专讬诐 讜诇讗 诇拽专讜讘讬诐

Rabbi Abba objects to this: But one can say and explain that the term 鈥渁nother鈥 in the verse indicates: But not to her husband鈥檚 son, i.e., betrothal is ineffective only in the case of a prohibition that warrants court-imposed capital punishment, not one that warrants karet. The Gemara rejects this suggestion: With regard to a son it is explicitly written: 鈥淎 man shall not take his father鈥檚 wife鈥 (Deuteronomy 23:1), which means that betrothal is ineffective in this situation. If so, why do I need the emphasis of the term 鈥渁nother鈥? Learn from this term that she may marry others but not relatives.

讜讗讬诪讗 讗讬讚讬 讜讗讬讚讬 诇讘谉 讛讗 诇讻转讞讬诇讛 讜讛讗 讚讬注讘讚

The Gemara challenges this explanation: But one can say that both this verse and that verse are referring to a son and yet both are necessary, as this verse: 鈥淪hall not take,鈥 is referring to the halakha ab initio. It does not mean that betrothal is ineffective, but merely that one may not marry his father鈥檚 wife. And that verse: 鈥淎nd becomes another man鈥檚 wife,鈥 teaches that even after the fact, if the son attempted to betroth his father鈥檚 wife, his act is of no consequence.

诇讻转讞讬诇讛 诪讗讞讜转 讗砖讛 谞驻拽讗 讜诪讛 讗讞讜转 讗砖讛 讘讻专转 诇讗 转拽讚砖 讞讬讬讘讬 诪讬转讜转 讘讬转 讚讬谉 诇讗 讻诇 砖讻谉

The Gemara responds: One learns that betrothal is ineffective in this case ab initio from a different source, as it is derived from the prohibition proscribing a wife鈥檚 sister by the following a fortiori inference: If, with regard to the prohibition proscribing a wife鈥檚 sister, whose transgression is punished with karet, she cannot be betrothed by her sister鈥檚 husband, in accordance with the verse: 鈥淎nd you shall not take a woman with her sister鈥 (Leviticus 18:18), then with regard to cases that entail liability to receive court-imposed capital punishment, e.g., intercourse with one鈥檚 father鈥檚 wife, is it not all the more so the case that betrothal does not take effect?

讜讗讬诪讗 讗讬讚讬 讜讗讬讚讬 讘讗讞讜转 讗砖讛 讛讗 诇讻转讞讬诇讛 讛讗 讚讬注讘讚 讗讬谉 讛讻讬 谞诪讬

The Gemara suggests another interpretation of the verses. But as the verse has already prohibited betrothal to a wife鈥檚 sister, one can say as follows: Both this verse: 鈥淵ou shall not take鈥 (Leviticus 18:18), and that one: 鈥淏ecomes another man鈥檚 wife鈥 (Deuteronomy 24:2), are referring to a wife鈥檚 sister, as this one: 鈥淵ou shall not take,鈥 prohibits this relationship ab initio, whereas that verse: 鈥淎nother man鈥檚 wife,鈥 teaches that this betrothal is of no effect even after the fact. The Gemara responds: Yes, it is indeed so. The verse should be interpreted in this manner.

讗砖讻讞谉 讗讞讜转 讗砖讛 砖讗专 注专讬讜转 诪谞诇谉 讬诇驻讬谞谉 诪讗讞讜转 讗砖讛 诪讛 讗讞讜转 讗砖讛 诪讬讜讞讚转 砖讛讬讗 注专讜讛 讜讞讬讬讘讬谉 注诇 讝讚讜谞讛 讻专转 讜注诇 砖讙讙转讛 讞讟讗转 讜诇讗 转驻住讬 讘讛 拽讬讚讜砖讬谉 讗祝 讻诇 砖讛讬讗 注专讜讛 讜讞讬讬讘讬谉 注诇 讝讚讜谞讛 讻专转 讜注诇 砖讙讙转讛 讞讟讗转 诇讗 转驻住讬 讘讛 拽讬讚讜砖讬谉

The Gemara asks: We found a source for the prohibition proscribing a wife鈥檚 sister; from where do we derive that betrothal is also ineffective for the other forbidden relations? The Gemara answers: We derive it from the case of a wife鈥檚 sister, by means of the following analogy: Just as the prohibition with regard to a wife鈥檚 sister, which is specified by the Torah, is a prohibition of a forbidden relative that is punished with karet for its intentional transgression and requires a sin-offering for its unwitting transgression, and betrothal is ineffective in this case, so too, with regard to any prohibition that involves a forbidden relative whose intentional transgression is punished with karet and whose unwitting transgression renders one liable to bring a sin-offering, betrothal is likewise ineffective in those cases.

讘砖诇诪讗 讻讜诇讛讜 讗转讬讬谉 讗诇讗 讗砖转 讗讬砖 讜讗砖转 讗讞 讗讬讻讗 诇诪讬驻专讱 诪讛 诇讗讞讜转 讗砖讛 砖讻谉 讗讬谉 诇讛 讛讬转专 讘诪拽讜诐 诪爪讜讛 转讗诪专 讘讗砖转 讗讞 砖讬砖 诇讛 讛讬转专 讘诪拽讜诐 诪爪讜讛

The Gemara asks: Granted, virtually all other forbidden relatives can be derived in this manner. But the cases of a married woman and a brother鈥檚 wife are exceptions, and the analogy in these cases can be refuted as follows. What is unique about a wife鈥檚 sister is that she is not permitted in the case of a mitzva, as even where the mitzva of levirate marriage would apply, one still may not marry one鈥檚 wife鈥檚 sister. Will you say the same with regard to a brother鈥檚 wife, who is permitted in the case of the mitzva of levirate marriage?

讗砖转 讗讬砖 谞诪讬 讗讬讻讗 诇诪讬驻专讱 诪讛 诇讛谞讱 砖讻谉 讗讬谉 诇讛 讛讬转专 讘讞讬讬 讗讜住专谉 转讗诪专 讘讗砖转 讗讬砖 砖讬砖 诇讛 讛讬转专 讘讞讬讬 讗讜住专谉

With regard to a married woman the interpretation can likewise be refuted: What is unique about these cases of a wife鈥檚 sister and a brother鈥檚 wife is that they cannot be permitted during the lives of those whose existence renders them prohibited, as neither a wife鈥檚 sister nor a brother鈥檚 wife can be permitted while the person who causes the prohibition is alive. This caveat is added because one鈥檚 wife鈥檚 sister does become permitted once his wife has died. Will you say the same with regard to a married woman, who can become permitted during the life of the one who renders her forbidden, by means of a divorce?

讗诇讗 讗诪专 专讘讬 讬讜谞讛 讜讗讬转讬诪讗 专讘 讛讜谞讗 讘专讬讛 讚专讘 讬讛讜砖注 讗诪专 拽专讗 讻诇 讗砖专 讬注砖讛 诪讻诇 讛转讜注讘转 讛讗诇讛 讜谞讻专转讜 讛讜拽砖讜 讻诇 讛注专讬讜转 讻讜诇诐 诇讗讞讜转 讗砖讛 诪讛 讗讞讜转 讗砖讛 诇讗 转驻住讬 讘讛 拽讬讚讜砖讬谉 讗祝 讻诇 注专讬讜转 讻讜诇诐 诇讗 转驻住讬 讘讛 拽讬讚讜砖讬谉

Rather, this halakha, that betrothal is ineffective for other forbidden relatives, is derived from a different source, as Rabbi Yona says, and some say this was taught by Rav Huna, son of Rav Yehoshua: The verse states explicitly in the chapter dealing with forbidden relatives: 鈥淲hoever shall do any of these abominations shall be cut off鈥 (Leviticus 18:29). In this verse all those with whom relations are forbidden are juxtaposed to one another, and therefore also to a wife鈥檚 sister: Just as betrothal is not effective in the case of a wife鈥檚 sister, so too, betrothal is not effective with regard to all those with whom relations are forbidden.

讗讬 讛讻讬

The Gemara asks: If so, that this halakha is derived from here,

  • This month's learning is dedicated by Debbie and Yossi Gevir to Rabbanit Michelle and the Hadran Zoom group for their kindness, support, and care during a medically challenging year.

Want to explore more about the Daf?

See insights from our partners, contributors and community of women learners

Sorry, there aren't any posts in this category yet. We're adding more soon!

Kiddushin 67

The William Davidson Talmud | Powered by Sefaria

Kiddushin 67

讙专 砖谞砖讗 诪诪讝专转 讚讬砖 拽讬讚讜砖讬谉 讜讗讬谉 注讘讬专讛 讛讜诇讚 讛讜诇讱 讗讞专 讛驻讙讜诐 讚转谞讬讗 讙专 砖谞砖讗 诪诪讝专转 讛讜诇讚 诪诪讝专 讚讘专讬 专讘讬 讬讜住讬 讗诪专 诇讬讛 诪讬 住讘专转 诪转谞讬转讬谉 专讘讬 讬讜住讬 讛讬讗 诪转谞讬转讬谉 专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 讛讬讗 讚讗诪专 讙专 诇讗 讬砖讗 诪诪讝专转 讜讬砖 拽讬讚讜砖讬谉 讜讬砖 注讘讬专讛 讛讜诇讚 讛讜诇讱 讗讞专 讛驻讙讜诐

there is the case of a convert who married a mamzeret, where there is a valid betrothal and there is no transgression, as they are permitted to marry each other, and yet the offspring follows the flawed lineage and is a mamzer. As it is taught in a baraita: With regard to a convert who married a mamzeret, the offspring is a mamzer. This is the statement of Rabbi Yosei. Rabbi Yo岣nan said to Rabbi Shimon: Do you maintain that the mishna is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yosei? Not so; the mishna is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yehuda, who says: A convert may not marry a mamzeret, and therefore in this case there is betrothal and there is a transgression, which is why the offspring follows the flawed lineage.

讜谞讬转谞讬讬讛 转谞讗 讻诇 诪拽讜诐 讚住讬驻讗 诇讗转讜讬讬

The Gemara asks: But if so, let the mishna teach this case as one of its examples. The Gemara answers: The mishna taught the principle: Any case where there is betrothal and a transgression, in the latter clause, precisely to include this kind of case. There is a guiding principle of the Gemara鈥檚 interpretation of the Mishna that a mishna does not include extraneous phrases. Every apparently superfluous phrase in the context of a principle serves to include or exclude a certain case from that principle. This is the basis of the discussion of the Gemara here and below.

讜讗讬讘注讬转 讗讬诪讗 诇注讜诇诐 专讘讬 讬讜住讬 讛讬讗 讜转谞讗 讗讬讝讜 讝讜 诇诪注讜讟讬

And if you wish, say a different answer: Actually, the mishna is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yosei, and it taught the phrase: In which case is this applicable, to exclude cases of betrothal without a transgression other than those listed in the mishna. The offspring follows the lineage of the father only in those cases specified by the mishna.

讜讗讬讝讜 讝讜 讜转讜 诇讗 讜讛专讬 讞诇诇 砖谞砖讗 讘转 讬砖专讗诇 讚讬砖 拽讬讚讜砖讬谉 讜讗讬谉 注讘讬专讛 讛讜诇讚 讛讜诇讱 讗讞专 讛讝讻专 讛讗 诇讗 拽砖讬讗 讻专讘讬 讚讜住转讗讬 讘谉 专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 住讘讬专讗 诇讬讛

The Gemara asks: But does the list that follows the phrase: In which case is this applicable, include all applicable cases? And are there no more? But there is the example of a 岣lal who married an Israelite woman, where there is betrothal and there is no transgression, and yet the offspring follows the male, as he too is a 岣lal. The Gemara rejects this claim: This is not difficult, as one can say that the tanna of the mishna holds in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Dostai ben Rabbi Yehuda, who maintains that the offspring of this union is entirely fit.

讜讛专讬 讬砖专讗诇 砖谞砖讗 讞诇诇讛 讚讬砖 拽讬讚讜砖讬谉 讜讗讬谉 注讘讬专讛 讛讜诇讚 讛讜诇讱 讗讞专 讛讝讻专 转谞讗 讻诇 诪拽讜诐 讚专讬砖讗 诇讗转讜讬讬

The Gemara asks: But there is the case of an Israelite who married a 岣lala, where there is betrothal and there is no transgression, and the offspring follows the male, and yet this case is not mentioned in the mishna. The Gemara responds: The mishna taught the principle: Any case where there is betrothal and no transgression, in the first clause, to include this situation.

讜谞讬转谞讬讬讛 讘讛讚讬讗 诪砖讜诐 讚诇讗 诪转谞讬 诇讛 讛讬讻讬 谞讬转谞讬 讻讛谞转 讜诇讜讬讛 讜讬砖专讗诇讬转 讜讞诇诇讛 砖谞砖讗转 诇讻讛谉 诇讜讬 讜讬砖专讗诇 讜讞诇诇讛 诇讻讛谉 诪讬 讞讝讬讗

The Gemara asks: But let the tanna of the mishna teach explicitly this example of an Israelite who married a 岣lala. The Gemara answers: He did not do so because he cannot teach it, i.e., the tanna cannot mention this halakha in brief as part of the list. The Gemara clarifies its answer: How can the tanna teach it? He cannot state: A daughter of a priest; and a daughter of a Levite; and a daughter of an Israelite; and a 岣lala, who married a priest, a Levite, or an Israelite, as, is a 岣lala fit for a priest? This marriage involves a transgression. Consequently, the sentence of the mishna cannot be constructed so as to include a 岣lala.

讜讛讗讬讻讗 讚专讘讛 讘专 讘专 讞谞讛 讚讗诪专 专讘讛 讘专 讘专 讞谞讛 讗诪专 专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 诪爪专讬 砖谞讬 砖谞砖讗 诪爪专讬转 专讗砖讜谞讛 讘谞讛 砖诇讬砖讬 讛讜讬

The Gemara asks: But there is also the halakha of Rabba bar bar 岣na, as Rabba bar bar 岣na says that Rabbi Yo岣nan says: With regard to a second-generation Egyptian man, i.e., the son of an Egyptian convert, who married a first-generation Egyptian woman, a woman who herself converted, her son is considered a third-generation Egyptian who may marry a Jew of unflawed lineage. This is an example of a betrothal without a transgression where the offspring follows the father.

转谞讗 讻诇 诪拽讜诐 讚专讬砖讗 诇讗转讜讬讬 讜诇专讘 讚讬诪讬 讚讗诪专 砖谞讬 讛讜讬 转谞讗 讗讬讝讜 讝讜 诇诪注讜讟讬

The Gemara answers: The mishna taught the principle: Any case where there is betrothal and no transgression, in the first clause, to include this example. The Gemara adds: And according to the opinion of Rav Dimi, who said that this son is a second-generation Egyptian, the mishna taught: In which case is this applicable, at its beginning, with regard to betrothal that does not involve a transgression, to exclude this case. Rav Dimi maintains that this son may not marry a Jew of unflawed lineage.

讜讛讗讬讻讗 讚讻讬 讗转讗 专讘讬谉 讗诪专 专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 讘讗讜诪讜转 讛诇讱 讗讞专 讛讝讻专

The Gemara asks: But there is the following case, which apparently contradicts the principle of the mishna: As when Ravin came from Eretz Yisrael he said that Rabbi Yo岣nan says: With regard to the nations, i.e., if members of two different nations married when they were gentiles, follow the male to determine the status of their child. This is the case whether he is a regular gentile, who may marry a Jew of unflawed lineage as soon as he converts, or whether he is an Ammonite or an Egyptian, who may not marry a Jewish woman of unflawed lineage. In either case the child鈥檚 status follows that of the father.

谞转讙讬讬专讜 讛诇讱 讗讞专 讛驻讙讜诐 砖讘砖谞讬讛诐 转谞讗 讗讬讝讜 讝讜 诇诪注讜讟讬

If these members of two different nations converted, follow the flawed lineage of the two. These converts are permitted to marry one another and their betrothal is effective. If either the father or mother is Egyptian, the child follows the parent with the flawed lineage and would be Egyptian, whereas according to the principle stated in the mishna, one should follow the male. The Gemara answers: The mishna taught: In which case is this applicable, in the first clause, to exclude this case.

讛讗讬 诪讗讬 讗讬 讗诪专转 讘砖诇诪讗 诪转谞讬转讬谉 专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 讛讬讗 讻诇 诪拽讜诐 讚专讬砖讗 诇讗转讜讬讬 讬砖专讗诇 砖谞砖讗 讞诇诇讛 讜讚专讘讛 讘专 讘专 讞谞讛 讗讬讝讜 讝讜 诇诪注讜讟讬 讚专讘 讚讬诪讬 讜专讘讬谉

The Gemara returns to an earlier point: What is this claim, that the mishna is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yosei? Granted, if you say that the mishna is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yehuda, one can explain that the phrase: Any case, of the first clause, serves to include an Israelite who married a 岣lala, as the child follows the father in that case too, and also to include the ruling of Rabba bar bar 岣na that the son of a second-generation Egyptian who married a first-generation Egyptian woman is a third-generation Egyptian. Furthermore, the expression: In which case is this applicable, serves to exclude the ruling of Rav Dimi that her son is a second-generation Egyptian, and the statement of Ravin citing Rabbi Yo岣nan.

讻诇 诪拽讜诐 讚住讬驻讗 诇讗转讜讬讬 讙专 砖谞砖讗 诪诪讝专转 讗诇讗 讗讬 讗诪专转 专讘讬 讬讜住讬 讛讬讗 讻诇 诪拽讜诐 讚专讬砖讗 讻讚讗诪专谉 讗讬讝讜 讝讜 讻讚讗诪专谉 讗诇讗 讻诇 诪拽讜诐 讚住讬驻讗 诇讗转讜讬讬 诪讗讬

And the phrase: Any case, of the latter clause, which is referring to betrothal with a transgression, serves to include a convert who married a mamzeret. But if you say that the mishna is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yosei, then granted the phrase: Any case where there is betrothal and no transgression, of the first clause, is as we said, i.e., it includes an Israelite who married a 岣lala; and the phrase: In which case is this applicable, is as we said, i.e., to the exclusion of Ravin or Rav Dimi, and the case of a convert who married a mamzeret. But what does the phrase: Any case, of the latter clause, serve to add?

讜诇讟注诪讬讱 诇专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 讗讬讝讜 讝讜 讚住讬驻讗 诇诪讛 诇讬 讗诇讗 讗讬讬讚讬 讚转谞讗 专讬砖讗 讗讬讝讜 讝讜 转谞讗 住讬驻讗 讗讬讝讜 讝讜 讛讻讬 谞诪讬 讗讬讬讚讬 讚转谞讗 专讬砖讗 讻诇 诪拽讜诐 转谞讗 谞诪讬 住讬驻讗 讻诇 诪拽讜诐

The Gemara responds: And according to your reasoning, the same question applies to Rabbi Yehuda as well: Why do I need the phrase: In which case is this applicable, of the latter clause? Rather, you must say: Since the mishna taught its first clause using the phrase: In which case is this applicable, it also taught its latter clause using the phrase: In which case is this applicable, merely for the sake of stylistic consistency. So too here, with regard to Rabbi Yosei鈥檚 opinion, one can say: Since the mishna taught the first clause with the expression: Any case, it also taught its latter clause with: Any case.

讙讜驻讗 讻讬 讗转讗 专讘讬谉 讗诪专 专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 讘讗讜诪讜转 讛诇讱 讗讞专 讛讝讻专 谞转讙讬讬专讜 讛诇讱 讗讞专 讛驻讙讜诐 砖讘砖谞讬讛诐

搂 The Gemara discusses the aforementioned matter itself: When Ravin came from Eretz Yisrael, he said that Rabbi Yo岣nan says: With regard to the nations, if members of two different nations married when they were gentiles, follow the male to determine the status of their child. If they converted before marriage, follow the flawed lineage of the two.

诪讗讬 讘讗讜诪讜转 讛诇讱 讗讞专 讛讝讻专 讻讚转谞讬讗 诪谞讬谉 诇讗讞讚 诪谉 讛讗讜诪讜转 砖讘讗 注诇 讛讻谞注谞讬转 讜讛讜诇讬讚 讘谉 砖讗转讛 专砖讗讬 诇拽谞讜转讜 讘注讘讚

The Gemara analyzes this statement: What is the meaning of: With regard to the nations, follow the male? As it is taught in a baraita: From where is it derived with regard to one member of the nations outside Eretz Yisrael who engaged in intercourse with a Canaanite woman and fathered a son from her, that you are permitted to purchase the son as a slave, and he is not considered a member of the Canaanite nations, who are not allowed to live in Eretz Yisrael?

转诇诪讜讚 诇讜诪专 讜讙诐 诪讘谞讬 讛转讜砖讘讬诐 讛讙专讬诐 注诪讻诐 诪讛诐 转拽谞讜 讬讻讜诇 讗祝 注讘讚 砖讘讗 注诇 砖驻讞讛 诪谉 讛讗讜诪讜转 讜讛讜诇讬讚 讘谉 砖讗转讛 专砖讗讬 诇拽谞讜转讜 讘注讘讚 转诇诪讜讚 诇讜诪专 讗砖专 讛讜诇讬讚讜 讘讗专爪讻诐 诪谉 讛谞讜诇讚讬谉 讘讗专爪讻诐 讜诇讗 诪谉 讛讙专讬诐 讘讗专爪讻诐

The verse states: 鈥淎nd also of the children of the residents who sojourn with you, of them you may buy鈥 (Leviticus 25:45), which indicates that there is a way in which one may purchase slaves from the inhabitants of Canaan. One might have thought that even with regard to a Canaanite slave who engaged in intercourse with a maidservant from the other nations and fathered a son, that you are permitted to buy the son as a slave. Therefore, the verse states: 鈥淲hich they have begotten in your land鈥 (Leviticus 25:45). This means that one may purchase from those who are merely begotten in your land, whose fathers are not from the Canaanite nations, but not from those who reside in your land, i.e., whose fathers are from the seven Canaanite nations.

谞转讙讬讬专讜 讛诇讱 讗讞专 讛驻讙讜诐 砖讘砖谞讬讛诐 讘诪讗讬 讗讬诇讬诪讗 讘诪爪专讬 砖谞砖讗 注诪讜谞讬转 诪讗讬 驻讙讜诐 讗讬讻讗 注诪讜谞讬 讜诇讗 注诪讜谞讬转

The Gemara discusses the second clause of Rabbi Yo岣nan鈥檚 statement: If they converted, follow the flawed lineage of the two. To which case does this refer? If we say that it is referring to an Egyptian man who married an Ammonite woman, what flawed lineage is there here? The lineage of an Ammonite woman who converts is not flawed at all, as the Sages expounded that the verse: 鈥淎n Ammonite鈥hall not enter into the assembly of the Lord鈥 (Deuteronomy 23:4) is referring to an Ammonite man but not an Ammonite woman, which means that she can marry a Jew of unflawed lineage.

讗诇讗 讘注诪讜谞讬 砖谞砖讗 诪爪专讬转 讜讗讬 讝讻专 讛讜讬 讛讗讬 砖讚讬讗 讗讘转专讬讛 讚讬讚讬讛 讜讗诐 谞拽讘讛 讛讜讬讗 砖讚讬讗 讗讘转专讛 讚讬讚讛

Rather, it must be referring to an Ammonite man who married an Egyptian woman, and in that case if the child is a male, cast him after his father, and render him permanently prohibited from entering the congregation as an Ammonite male. And if the child born to them is a female, cast her after the mother, so that she is considered a second-generation Egyptian, who may not marry a Jew of unflawed lineage.

讻诇 砖讗讬谉 诇讛 注诇讬讜 拽讬讚讜砖讬谉 诪谞讗 讛谞讬 诪讬诇讬 讚讗诪专 专讘讬 讞讬讬讗 讘专 讗讘讗 讗诪专 专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 讜诪讟讜 讘讛 诪砖讜诐 讚专讘讬 讬谞讗讬 讜专讘 讗讞讗 讘专讬讛 讚专讘讗 讜诪讟讜 讘讛 诪砖讜诐 专讘讬 讬讜住讬 讛讙诇讬诇讬 讗诪专 拽专讗 讜讬爪讗讛 诪讘讬转讜 讜讛诇讻讛 讜讛讬转讛 诇讗讬砖 讗讞专 诇讗讞专讬诐 讜诇讗 诇拽专讜讘讬诐

搂 The mishna teaches that in any case where a woman cannot join in betrothal with him, but she can join in betrothal with others, the offspring is a mamzer. The Gemara explains: From where are these matters derived? As Rabbi 岣yya bar Abba says that Rabbi Yo岣nan says, and some determined that it was said in the name of Rabbi Yannai; and Rav A岣, son of Rava, determined that it was said in the name of Rabbi Yosei HaGelili: The verse states with regard to a divorced woman: 鈥淎nd she departs out of his house, and goes and becomes another man鈥檚 wife鈥 (Deuteronomy 24:2). This teaches that she can become the wife of others, but not of relatives, i.e., betrothal to forbidden relatives does not take effect.

诪转拽讬祝 诇讛 专讘讬 讗讘讗 讜讗讬诪讗 诇讗讞专 讜诇讗 诇讘谉 讘谉 讘讛讚讬讗 讻转讬讘 讘讬讛 诇讗 讬拽讞 讗讬砖 讗转 讗砖转 讗讘讬讜 讗讞专 诇诪讛 诇讬 砖诪注 诪讬谞讛 诇讗讞专讬诐 讜诇讗 诇拽专讜讘讬诐

Rabbi Abba objects to this: But one can say and explain that the term 鈥渁nother鈥 in the verse indicates: But not to her husband鈥檚 son, i.e., betrothal is ineffective only in the case of a prohibition that warrants court-imposed capital punishment, not one that warrants karet. The Gemara rejects this suggestion: With regard to a son it is explicitly written: 鈥淎 man shall not take his father鈥檚 wife鈥 (Deuteronomy 23:1), which means that betrothal is ineffective in this situation. If so, why do I need the emphasis of the term 鈥渁nother鈥? Learn from this term that she may marry others but not relatives.

讜讗讬诪讗 讗讬讚讬 讜讗讬讚讬 诇讘谉 讛讗 诇讻转讞讬诇讛 讜讛讗 讚讬注讘讚

The Gemara challenges this explanation: But one can say that both this verse and that verse are referring to a son and yet both are necessary, as this verse: 鈥淪hall not take,鈥 is referring to the halakha ab initio. It does not mean that betrothal is ineffective, but merely that one may not marry his father鈥檚 wife. And that verse: 鈥淎nd becomes another man鈥檚 wife,鈥 teaches that even after the fact, if the son attempted to betroth his father鈥檚 wife, his act is of no consequence.

诇讻转讞讬诇讛 诪讗讞讜转 讗砖讛 谞驻拽讗 讜诪讛 讗讞讜转 讗砖讛 讘讻专转 诇讗 转拽讚砖 讞讬讬讘讬 诪讬转讜转 讘讬转 讚讬谉 诇讗 讻诇 砖讻谉

The Gemara responds: One learns that betrothal is ineffective in this case ab initio from a different source, as it is derived from the prohibition proscribing a wife鈥檚 sister by the following a fortiori inference: If, with regard to the prohibition proscribing a wife鈥檚 sister, whose transgression is punished with karet, she cannot be betrothed by her sister鈥檚 husband, in accordance with the verse: 鈥淎nd you shall not take a woman with her sister鈥 (Leviticus 18:18), then with regard to cases that entail liability to receive court-imposed capital punishment, e.g., intercourse with one鈥檚 father鈥檚 wife, is it not all the more so the case that betrothal does not take effect?

讜讗讬诪讗 讗讬讚讬 讜讗讬讚讬 讘讗讞讜转 讗砖讛 讛讗 诇讻转讞讬诇讛 讛讗 讚讬注讘讚 讗讬谉 讛讻讬 谞诪讬

The Gemara suggests another interpretation of the verses. But as the verse has already prohibited betrothal to a wife鈥檚 sister, one can say as follows: Both this verse: 鈥淵ou shall not take鈥 (Leviticus 18:18), and that one: 鈥淏ecomes another man鈥檚 wife鈥 (Deuteronomy 24:2), are referring to a wife鈥檚 sister, as this one: 鈥淵ou shall not take,鈥 prohibits this relationship ab initio, whereas that verse: 鈥淎nother man鈥檚 wife,鈥 teaches that this betrothal is of no effect even after the fact. The Gemara responds: Yes, it is indeed so. The verse should be interpreted in this manner.

讗砖讻讞谉 讗讞讜转 讗砖讛 砖讗专 注专讬讜转 诪谞诇谉 讬诇驻讬谞谉 诪讗讞讜转 讗砖讛 诪讛 讗讞讜转 讗砖讛 诪讬讜讞讚转 砖讛讬讗 注专讜讛 讜讞讬讬讘讬谉 注诇 讝讚讜谞讛 讻专转 讜注诇 砖讙讙转讛 讞讟讗转 讜诇讗 转驻住讬 讘讛 拽讬讚讜砖讬谉 讗祝 讻诇 砖讛讬讗 注专讜讛 讜讞讬讬讘讬谉 注诇 讝讚讜谞讛 讻专转 讜注诇 砖讙讙转讛 讞讟讗转 诇讗 转驻住讬 讘讛 拽讬讚讜砖讬谉

The Gemara asks: We found a source for the prohibition proscribing a wife鈥檚 sister; from where do we derive that betrothal is also ineffective for the other forbidden relations? The Gemara answers: We derive it from the case of a wife鈥檚 sister, by means of the following analogy: Just as the prohibition with regard to a wife鈥檚 sister, which is specified by the Torah, is a prohibition of a forbidden relative that is punished with karet for its intentional transgression and requires a sin-offering for its unwitting transgression, and betrothal is ineffective in this case, so too, with regard to any prohibition that involves a forbidden relative whose intentional transgression is punished with karet and whose unwitting transgression renders one liable to bring a sin-offering, betrothal is likewise ineffective in those cases.

讘砖诇诪讗 讻讜诇讛讜 讗转讬讬谉 讗诇讗 讗砖转 讗讬砖 讜讗砖转 讗讞 讗讬讻讗 诇诪讬驻专讱 诪讛 诇讗讞讜转 讗砖讛 砖讻谉 讗讬谉 诇讛 讛讬转专 讘诪拽讜诐 诪爪讜讛 转讗诪专 讘讗砖转 讗讞 砖讬砖 诇讛 讛讬转专 讘诪拽讜诐 诪爪讜讛

The Gemara asks: Granted, virtually all other forbidden relatives can be derived in this manner. But the cases of a married woman and a brother鈥檚 wife are exceptions, and the analogy in these cases can be refuted as follows. What is unique about a wife鈥檚 sister is that she is not permitted in the case of a mitzva, as even where the mitzva of levirate marriage would apply, one still may not marry one鈥檚 wife鈥檚 sister. Will you say the same with regard to a brother鈥檚 wife, who is permitted in the case of the mitzva of levirate marriage?

讗砖转 讗讬砖 谞诪讬 讗讬讻讗 诇诪讬驻专讱 诪讛 诇讛谞讱 砖讻谉 讗讬谉 诇讛 讛讬转专 讘讞讬讬 讗讜住专谉 转讗诪专 讘讗砖转 讗讬砖 砖讬砖 诇讛 讛讬转专 讘讞讬讬 讗讜住专谉

With regard to a married woman the interpretation can likewise be refuted: What is unique about these cases of a wife鈥檚 sister and a brother鈥檚 wife is that they cannot be permitted during the lives of those whose existence renders them prohibited, as neither a wife鈥檚 sister nor a brother鈥檚 wife can be permitted while the person who causes the prohibition is alive. This caveat is added because one鈥檚 wife鈥檚 sister does become permitted once his wife has died. Will you say the same with regard to a married woman, who can become permitted during the life of the one who renders her forbidden, by means of a divorce?

讗诇讗 讗诪专 专讘讬 讬讜谞讛 讜讗讬转讬诪讗 专讘 讛讜谞讗 讘专讬讛 讚专讘 讬讛讜砖注 讗诪专 拽专讗 讻诇 讗砖专 讬注砖讛 诪讻诇 讛转讜注讘转 讛讗诇讛 讜谞讻专转讜 讛讜拽砖讜 讻诇 讛注专讬讜转 讻讜诇诐 诇讗讞讜转 讗砖讛 诪讛 讗讞讜转 讗砖讛 诇讗 转驻住讬 讘讛 拽讬讚讜砖讬谉 讗祝 讻诇 注专讬讜转 讻讜诇诐 诇讗 转驻住讬 讘讛 拽讬讚讜砖讬谉

Rather, this halakha, that betrothal is ineffective for other forbidden relatives, is derived from a different source, as Rabbi Yona says, and some say this was taught by Rav Huna, son of Rav Yehoshua: The verse states explicitly in the chapter dealing with forbidden relatives: 鈥淲hoever shall do any of these abominations shall be cut off鈥 (Leviticus 18:29). In this verse all those with whom relations are forbidden are juxtaposed to one another, and therefore also to a wife鈥檚 sister: Just as betrothal is not effective in the case of a wife鈥檚 sister, so too, betrothal is not effective with regard to all those with whom relations are forbidden.

讗讬 讛讻讬

The Gemara asks: If so, that this halakha is derived from here,

Scroll To Top