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

Today's Daf Yomi

October 26, 2014 | 讘壮 讘诪专讞砖讜讜谉 转砖注状讛

  • 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.

  • Masechet Yevamot is sponsored by Ahava Leibtag and family in memory of her grandparents, Leo and Esther Aaron. "They always stressed the importance of a Torah life, mesorah and family. May their memory always be a blessing for their children, grandchildren, great-grandchildren and great-great grandchildren".

Yevamot 22

Study Guide Yevamot 22


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

讛谞讱 转专转讬 讚讚诪讬讬谉 诇讛讚讚讬 讻讞讚讗 讞砖讬讘 诇讛讜 讜讛讗 砖讬转住专讬 讜讛讗 诪讻诇 诪拽讜诐 诇讚讬讚讬 讞讝讬讬谉 诇谉 讚讻转讬讘谉 诇讗讬住讜专讗 讗诪专 诇讬讛 讜诇讬讟注诪讬讱 讗讬 讛讜讛 讻转讬讘 诇讛讬转讬专讗 诪讬 讛讜讜转 住诪讻转 注诇讬讬讛讜 讚诪专 讘专讬讛 讚专讘谞讗 诪讬 讞转讬诐 注诇讬讬讛讜 讛砖转讗 谞诪讬 讚讻转讬讘 诇讗讬住讜专讗 诇讗讜 诪专 讘专讬讛 讚专讘谞讗 讞转讬诐 注诇讬讬讛讜

Those two, the wife of a father鈥檚 father鈥檚 brother and the sister of a father鈥檚 father, are similar to each other and are counted as a single case, and so there are sixteen. The Gemara restates Rav Hillel鈥檚 challenge to Ameimar鈥檚 opinion: But in any case I myself saw them written as prohibited. Rav Ashi said to Rav Hillel: And according to your reasoning, if in the list it was written that they were permitted, would you have relied on that? Is the signature of Mar, son of Rabbana, signed on it? Although you saw the list, you don鈥檛 know for certain who wrote it. Now too, that it is written that they are prohibited, the same holds true; the signature of Mar, son of Rabbana, is not signed on it, and so it cannot be relied upon to reject the opinion of Ameimar.

转谞讬 讚讘讬 专讘讬 讞讬讬讗 砖诇讬砖讬 砖讘讘谞讜 讜砖讘讘转讜 讜砖讘讘谉 讗砖转讜 讜砖讘讘转 讗砖转讜 砖谞讬讛 专讘讬注讬 砖讘讞诪讬讜 讜砖讘讞诪讜转讜 砖谞讬讛

搂 One of the Sages of the school of Rabbi 岣yya taught: The third generation from one鈥檚 son and one鈥檚 daughter, i.e., one鈥檚 great-grandchildren, and the third generation from his wife鈥檚 son and his wife鈥檚 daughter, i.e., one鈥檚 wife鈥檚 great-grandchildren, are all forbidden as secondary forbidden relationships. So too, the fourth generation from his father-in-law and from his mother-in-law, i.e., his wife鈥檚 great-grandmothers, are prohibited as secondary forbidden relationships.

讗诪专 诇讬讛 专讘讬谞讗 诇专讘 讗砖讬 诪讗讬 砖谞讗 诇诪注诇讛 讚拽讞砖讬讘 诇讛 诇讗砖转讜 讜诪讗讬 砖谞讗 诇诪讟讛 讚诇讗 拽讞砖讬讘 诇讛 诇讗砖转讜 诇诪注诇讛 讚讗讬住讜专讗 诪讻讞 讗砖转讜 拽讗 讗转讬 讞砖讬讘 诇讛 诇诪讟讛 讚讗讬住讜专讗 诇讗讜 诪讻讞 讗砖转讜 拽讗转讬 诇讗 拽讞砖讬讘 诇讛

Ravina said to Rav Ashi: What is different between the generations above, referring to his wife鈥檚 great-grandmothers, such that the Sage counts his wife as one of the generations and refers to them as the fourth generation, and what is different with regard to the generations below, referring to his great-granddaughters, such that he did not count his wife and referred to them as only the third generation? The Gemara answers: When counting above, the prohibition stems from his wife, as they are not his blood relatives but his wife鈥檚. Therefore, she is counted. When counting below, however, the prohibition does not stem from his wife, as they are his own blood relatives, and so she was not counted.

讜讛讗 讘谉 讗砖转讜 讜讘转 讗砖转讜 讚讗讬住讜专讗 诪讻讞 讗砖转讜 拽讗转讬 讜诇讗 讞砖讬讘 诇讛 讗讬讬讚讬 讚转谞讗 砖诇砖讛 讚讜专讜转 诇诪讟讛 讚讬讚讬讛 讜诇讗 讞砖讘讛 转谞讗 谞诪讬 砖诇砖讛 讚讜专讜转 诇诪讟讛 讚讬讚讛 讜诇讗 讞砖讘讛

The Gemara objects: But he includes the granddaughter of his wife鈥檚 son and his wife鈥檚 daughter in his list of those forbidden due to his wife, yet he does not count her and refer to this as the fourth generation. The Gemara answers: Since he already taught three generations below himself, i.e., his own great-granddaughter, and there he did not count from his wife because it is his own blood relative, he taught three generations below his wife and did not count her. Instead, he referred to her great-granddaughter also as three generations below to maintain the uniform style of his words.

讗诪专 诇讬讛 专讘 讗砖讬 诇专讘 讻讛谞讗 砖谞讬讜转 讚讘讬 专讘讬 讞讬讬讗 讬砖 诇讛谉 讛驻住拽 讗讜 讗讬谉 诇讛诐 讛驻住拽

Rav Ashi said to Rav Kahana: Do those secondary forbidden relationships taught by one of the Sages of the school of Rabbi 岣yya have a conclusion, or do they not have a conclusion? Are those specified cases alone forbidden, or are all generations above and below also forbidden?

转讗 砖诪注 讚讗诪专 专讘 讗专讘注 谞砖讬诐 讬砖 诇讛诐 讛驻住拽 讜转讜 诇讗 讚诇诪讗 讻讬 拽讗诪专 专讘 诇讛讛讬讗 诪转谞讬转讗 转讗 砖诪注 砖诇讬砖讬 讜专讘讬注讬 砖诇讬砖讬 讜专讘讬注讬 讗讬谉 讟驻讬 诇讗 讚诇诪讗 诪砖诇讬砖讬 讜讗讬诇讱 诪专讘讬注讬 讜讗讬诇讱

Come and hear that which Rav said: Four women have a conclusion. This implies that it is only these four and no more. The Gemara rejects this: Perhaps when Rav said this he was referring only to the relationships listed in the baraita and not to all cases of secondary relationships. The Gemara suggests: Come and hear from the baraita itself, which states: The third generation from his son and his daughter and the fourth generation from his father-in-law and mother-in-law. This implies that with regard to the third and the fourth generations, yes, they are forbidden; but more than that, no. The Gemara rejects this: Perhaps this means from the third onward and from the fourth onward. The Gemara does not resolve this issue.

讗诪专 诇讬讛 专讘讗 诇专讘 谞讞诪谉 讞讝讬 诪专 讛讗讬 诪专讘谞谉 讚讗转讗 诪诪注专讘讗 讜讗诪专 讘注讜 讘诪注专讘讗 讙讝专讜 砖谞讬讜转 讘讙专讬诐 讗讜 诇讗 讙讝专讜 砖谞讬讜转 讘讙专讬诐

Rava said to Rav Na岣an: Did the Master see this one of the Sages who came from the West, Eretz Yisrael, who said: In the West they asked whether the Sages issued a decree prohibiting secondary forbidden relationships for converts, or whether they did not issue a decree prohibiting secondary forbidden relationships for converts?

讗诪专 诇讬讛 讛砖转讗 讜诪讛 注专讜讛 讙讜驻讛 讗讬 诇讗讜 砖诇讗 讬讗诪专讜 讘讗讬谉 诪拽讚讜砖讛 讞诪讜专讛 诇拽讚讜砖讛 拽诇讛 诇讗 讙讝专讜 讘讛讜 专讘谞谉 砖谞讬讜转 诪讬讘注讬讗

Rav Na岣an did not answer whether he had seen this Sage, but said to him: Now, with regard to all the forbidden relationships themselves, were it not for the fact that if converts would find that as Jews they were permitted to enter into relationships that were forbidden to them as gentiles and would say that they went from a state of more stringent sanctity as gentiles to a state of lesser sanctity as Jews, then the Sages would not have decreed to prohibit these relationships. Without the rabbinic decree it would have been permitted for a convert to marry even a close female relative, even his twin sister, who also converted. This is because a convert has the legal status of a newborn, with no family ties. Is it necessary to state that the Sages did not extend that decree to include secondary forbidden relationships? The purpose of the rabbinic prohibitions is to protect the Torah prohibitions, but in the case of converts this particular Torah prohibition does not apply.

讗诪专 专讘 谞讞诪谉 讙专讬诐 讛讜讗讬诇 讜讗转讜 诇讬讚谉 谞讬诪讗 讘讛讜 诪诇转讗 讗讞讬谉 诪谉 讛讗诐 诇讗 讬注讬讚讜 讜讗诐 讛注讬讚讜 注讚讜转谉 注讚讜转 讗讞讬谉 诪谉 讛讗讘 诪注讬讚讬谉 诇讻转讞诇讛 讗诪讬诪专 讗诪专 讗驻讬诇讜 讗讞讬谉 诪谉 讛讗诐 谞诪讬 诪注讬讚讬谉 诇讻转讞诇讛

Rav Na岣an said: Since the issue of converts and their relatives has come to hand and is the topic of discussion, let us say a matter of halakha: Maternal half brothers who both convert may not testify together as a pair of witnesses before the court, but if they did testify, their testimony is valid. Although blood relatives are invalid as witnesses, converts are considered as though they have no relations. Paternal half brothers who both convert may testify together ab initio, since the halakha does not consider paternal half brothers of gentiles to be true relatives. Ameimar said: Even maternal half brothers may also testify together ab initio.

讜诪讗讬 砖谞讗 诪注专讬讜转 注专讜讛 诇讻诇 诪住讜专讛 注讚讜转 诇讘讬转 讚讬谉 诪住讜专讛 讜讙专 砖谞转讙讬讬专 讻拽讟谉 砖谞讜诇讚 讚诪讬

In what way is this case different from forbidden relations, where a convert may not marry his maternal sister due to rabbinic decree? The halakhot of forbidden relations are handed over to all, and every individual chooses his own wife. Therefore, the Sages issued a decree to prevent confusion between the status of a convert and that of a born Jew. However, testimony is handed over to the court, and the court knows to distinguish between the status of a born Jew and that of a convert. And the legal status of a convert who just converted is like that of a child just born, and all previous family ties become irrelevant.

诪转谞讬壮 诪讬 砖讬砖 诇讜 讗讞 诪讻诇 诪拽讜诐 讝讜拽拽 讗转 讗砖转 讗讞讬讜 诇讬讘讜诐 讜讗讞讬讜 讛讜讗 诇讻诇 讚讘专 讞讜抓 诪诪讬 砖讬砖 诇讜 讗讞 诪谉 讛砖驻讞讛 讜诪谉 讛讙讜讬讛 诪讬 砖讬砖 诇讜 讘谉 诪讻诇 诪拽讜诐 驻讜讟专 讗砖转 讗讘讬讜 诪谉 讛讬讘讜诐 讜讞讬讬讘 注诇 诪讻转讜 讜注诇 拽诇诇转讜 讜讘谞讜 诇讻诇 讚讘专 讞讜抓 诪诪讬 砖讬砖 诇讜 讘谉 诪谉 讛砖驻讞讛 讜诪谉 讛讙讜讬讛

MISHNA: In the case of anyone who has a brother of any kind, that brother creates a levirate bond causing his yevama to be required to perform levirate marriage if the first brother dies childless. And he is his brother in all respects, except for one who has a brother born from a Canaanite maidservant or from a gentile woman, as these do not have the legal status of brothers. Similarly, in the case of anyone who has a child of any kind, that child exempts his father鈥檚 wife from levirate marriage, since his father did not die childless. And that child is liable to receive capital punishment if he strikes his father or curses him. And he is his child in all respects, except for whoever has a child born from a Canaanite maidservant or from a gentile woman, as these do not have the halakhic status of children.

讙诪壮 诪讻诇 诪拽讜诐 诇讗转讜讬讬 诪讗讬 讗诪专 专讘 讬讛讜讚讛 诇讗转讜讬讬 诪诪讝专 驻砖讬讟讗 讗讞讬讜 讛讜讗 诪讛讜 讚转讬诪讗 诇讬诇祝 讗讞讜讛 讗讞讜讛 诪讘谞讬 讬注拽讘 诪讛 诇讛诇谉 讻砖专讬谉 讜诇讗 驻住讜诇讬谉 讗祝 讻讗谉 讻砖专讬谉 讜诇讗 驻住讜诇讬谉 拽讗 诪砖诪注 诇谉

GEMARA: The Gemara asks: With regard to the statement that a brother of any kind causes his yevama to be required to perform levirate marriage, what additional case does this come to add? Rav Yehuda said: This adds the case of a mamzer, who, notwithstanding his status, is considered a brother. The Gemara wonders: But isn鈥檛 that obvious? He is his brother. The Gemara explains: This is necessary lest you say: Let us derive a verbal analogy between the word 鈥渂rother鈥 stated in the verse with regard to levirate marriage and 鈥渂rother鈥 stated with regard to the children of Jacob. Just as there, Jacob鈥檚 children are of unflawed lineage and not of flawed lineage and are not mamzerim, so too here, one might think that only brothers of unflawed lineage and not brothers of flawed lineage, i.e., mamzerim, obligate the yevama in levirate marriage. Therefore, this teaches us that a mamzer is considered a brother for the purposes of levirate marriage.

讜讗讬诪讗 讛讻讬 谞诪讬 讻讬讜谉 讚诇注谞讬谉 讬讘讜诐 诪讬驻讟专 谞驻讟专

The Gemara asks: And say that is indeed the halakha. Perhaps a brother who is a mamzer does not obligate his yevama in levirate marriage. The Gemara answers: Since with regard to levirate marriage, if the husband had a child who was a mamzer he would exempt the wife from levirate marriage,

诪讬讝拽拽 谞诪讬 讝拽讬拽

the husband鈥檚 brother also causes a levirate bond with his yevama even if he is a mamzer.

讜讗讞讬讜 讛讜讗 诇讻诇 讚讘专 诇诪讗讬 讛诇讻转讗 诇讬讜专砖讜 讜诇讬讟诪讗 诇讜

搂 The mishna stated that he is his brother in all respects. The Gemara asks: With regard to what halakha was this said? The Gemara answers: To inherit from him, and to become ritually impure for him if he is a priest, as a brother is one of the relations for whom a priest is permitted to become ritually impure by attending his funeral.

驻砖讬讟讗 讗讞讬讜 讛讜讗 住诇拽讗 讚注转讱 讗诪讬谞讗 讛讜讗讬诇 讜讻转讬讘 讻讬 讗诐 诇砖讗专讜 讛拽专讜讘 讗诇讬讜 讜讗诪专 诪专 砖讗专讜 讝讜 讗砖转讜 讜讻转讬讘 诇讗 讬讟诪讗 讘注诇 讘注诪讬讜 诇讛讞诇讜 讬砖 讘注诇 砖诪讟诪讗 讜讬砖 讘注诇 砖讗讬谉 诪讟诪讗 讛讗 讻讬爪讚 诪讟诪讗 讛讜讗 诇讗砖转讜 讻砖专讛 讜讗讬谉 诪讟诪讗 诇讗砖转讜 驻住讜诇讛

The Gemara asks: Isn鈥檛 this obvious, as he is his brother? The Gemara answers: It might enter your mind to say that a priest does not become impure for his brother of flawed lineage, since it is written with regard to priests: 鈥淣one shall defile himself for the dead among his people except for his kin, that is near unto him鈥 (Leviticus 21:1鈥2), and the Master said 鈥渉is kin鈥; this is his wife, and a priest may defile himself for his wife. But it is written: 鈥淗e shall not defile himself, being a husband among his people, to profane himself鈥 (Leviticus 21:4), implying that he may not defile himself for his wife. This apparent contradiction is resolved as follows: There is a husband who does become impure for his wife, and there is a husband who does not become impure. How so? He becomes impure for his wife if she was fit and was permitted to a priest, but he does not become impure for his wife if she was unfit to marry a priest.

讛讻讬 谞诪讬 诪讟诪讗 讛讜讗 诇讗讞 讻砖专 讜讗讬谉 诪讟诪讗 诇讗讞 驻住讜诇 拽讗 诪砖诪注 诇谉 讜讗讬诪讗 讛讻讬 谞诪讬 讛转诐 诇讗驻讜拽讬 拽讬讬诪讗 讛讻讗 讗讞讬讜 讛讜讗

So too, one might have thought that a priest becomes impure for a brother who is of unflawed lineage and not a mamzer, but he does not become impure for a brother of flawed lineage. Therefore, this comes to teach us that he does become impure for a brother who is a mamzer. The Gemara asks: Say this also, that by the same reasoning by which a priest may not become impure for a wife who was unfit for him, he may not become impure for an unfit brother either. Just as he does not become impure for an unfit wife, he should not become impure for an unfit brother? The Gemara answers: The two cases are different, as there, with regard to the unfit wife, she stands to be dismissed, since according to Torah law unfit women must be divorced. For this reason he does not become impure for her. Here, he is his brother.

讞讜抓 诪诪讬 砖讬砖 诇讜 讗讞 诪谉 讛砖驻讞讛 讜诪谉 讛讙讜讬讛 诪讗讬 讟注诪讗 讗诪专 拽专讗 讛讗砖讛 讜讬诇讚讬讛 转讛讬讛 诇讗讚讜谞讬讛

搂 The mishna says: Except for whoever has a brother born from a Canaanite maidservant or from a gentile woman, as in these cases he is not considered a brother. The Gemara asks: What is the reason for this halakha? The Gemara answers: The verse states with regard to a Jewish slave who has children with a Canaanite maidservant: 鈥淭he wife and her children shall be her master鈥檚鈥 (Exodus聽21:4). This means that the children also have the status of Canaanite slaves, which implies that the lineage of a Canaanite maidservant鈥檚 child comes from the mother and not from the father.

诪讬 砖讬砖 诇讜 讘谉 诪讻诇 诪拽讜诐 驻讜讟专 讜讻讜壮 诪讻诇 诪拽讜诐 诇讗转讜讬讬 诪讗讬 讗诪专 专讘 讬讛讜讚讛 诇讗讬转讜讬讬 诪诪讝专 诪讗讬 讟注诪讗 讚讗诪专 拽专讗 讜讘谉 讗讬谉 诇讜 注讬讬谉 注诇讬讜

The mishna states: With regard to anyone who has a son of any kind, that son exempts his father鈥檚 wife from any levirate bond. The Gemara asks: What is added by the phrase: Of any kind? Rav Yehuda said: It adds a child who is a mamzer. What is the reason that a mamzer exempts a woman from any levirate bond? As the verse states with regard to levirate marriage: 鈥淎nd he has no [ain lo] child鈥 (Deuteronomy 25:5). The phrase ain lo can be understood as ayyen alav, meaning investigate him. That is to say, investigate whether he is indeed childless, because any child, even a mamzer, exempts the widow from a levirate bond.

讜讞讬讬讘 注诇 诪讻转讜 讗诪讗讬 拽专讬 讻讗谉 讜谞砖讬讗 讘注诪讱 诇讗 转讗讜专 讘注讜砖讛 诪注砖讛 注诪讱

It states in the mishna that a child who is a mamzer is liable to receive punishment if he strikes his father or curses him. The Gemara asks: Why should he be liable? Read here the verse: 鈥淵ou shall not curse a ruler of your people鈥 (Exodus 22:27), which is interpreted to imply that the prohibition against cursing applies only to one who acts according to the deeds of your people. However, this father must have engaged in sexual relations with a woman who was forbidden to him in order to have a child who is a mamzer. Therefore, he did not act according to the deeds of the people. In that case, why should this son be liable to receive punishment for hitting him or cursing him?

讻讚讗诪专 专讘 驻谞讞住 诪砖诪讬讛 讚专讘 驻驻讗 讘注讜砖讛 转砖讜讘讛 讛讻讗 谞诪讬 讻砖注砖讛 转砖讜讘讛

The Gemara answers: As Rav Pine岣s said in the name of Rav Pappa with regard to a different matter: This is referring to one who performs repentance. Here too, it is referring to one who performed repentance after the mamzer was born. He is thereafter considered to be living in accordance with halakha, and so his mamzer son is liable to receive punishment for cursing him.

讜讛讗讬 讘专 转砖讜讘讛 讛讜讗 讜讛转谞谉 砖诪注讜谉 讘谉 诪谞住讬讗 讗讜诪专 讗讬讝讛讜 诪注讜讜转 诇讗 讬讜讻诇 诇转拽讜谉 讝讛 讛讘讗 注诇 讛注专讜讛 讜讛讜诇讬讚 诪诪谞讛 诪诪讝专 讛砖转讗 诪讬讛讗 注讜砖讛 诪注砖讛 注诪讱 讛讜讗

The Gemara objects: Is he in fact able to repent after fathering a mamzer? Didn鈥檛 we learn in a mishna that Shimon ben Menasya says: Which is: 鈥淭hat which is crooked cannot be made straight鈥 (Ecclesiastes 1:15)? This is referring to one who engaged in intercourse with a relative who is forbidden to him and fathered a mamzer with her. This implies that he has no possibility of achieving total repentance. The Gemara responds: At least now, after repenting, he is considered as one who acts according to the deeds of your people. Although he cannot totally rectify his transgression, his child is liable to receive punishment for cursing or hitting him.

转谞讜 专讘谞谉 讛讘讗 注诇 讗讞讜转讜 讜讛讬讗 讘转 讗砖转 讗讘讬讜 讞讬讬讘 诪砖讜诐 讗讞讜转讜 讜诪砖讜诐 讘转 讗砖转 讗讘讬讜 专讘讬 讬讜住讬 讘谉 讬讛讜讚讛 讗讜诪专 讗讬谞讜 讞讬讬讘 讗诇讗 诪砖讜诐 讗讞讜转讜 讘诇讘讚 讜诇讗 诪驻谞讬 讘转 讗砖转 讗讘讬讜

The Sages taught: He who unwittingly engages in sexual relations with his sister, who is the daughter of his father鈥檚 lawful wife, is liable and must bring two sin-offerings. He must bring one sin-offering because she is his sister and another because she is the daughter of his father鈥檚 wife, which is mentioned in a separate verse in the Torah. Rabbi Yosei ben Yehuda says: He is liable only because she is his sister alone, and not because of the prohibition against engaging in sexual relations with the daughter of his father鈥檚 wife.

诪讗讬 讟注诪讬讬讛讜 讚专讘谞谉 讗诪专讬 诪讻讚讬 讻转讬讘 注专讜转 讗讞讜转讱 讘转 讗讘讬讱 讗讜 讘转 讗诪讱 注专讜转 讘转 讗砖转 讗讘讬讱 诪讜诇讚转 讗讘讬讱 讗讞讜转讱 讛讬讗 诇诪讛 诇讬 砖诪注 诪讬谞讛 诇讞讬讬讘讜 诪砖讜诐 讗讞讜转讜 讜诪砖讜诐 讘转 讗砖转 讗讘讬讜

The Gemara asks: What is the reason for the opinion of the Rabbis, the first tanna of the baraita? They said: Since it is written in the Torah: 鈥淭he nakedness of your sister, the daughter of your father, or the daughter of your mother鈥ou shall not uncover鈥 (Leviticus 18:9), then why do I need the verse: 鈥淭he nakedness of your father鈥檚 wife鈥檚 daughter, begotten of your father, she is your sister鈥ou shall not uncover鈥 (Leviticus 18:11)? Conclude from this that the additional verse serves to make him liable separately due to the fact that she is his sister and due to the fact that she is his father鈥檚 wife鈥檚 daughter.

讜专讘讬 讬讜住讬 讘专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 讗诪专 拽专讗 讗讞讜转讱 讛讬讗 诪砖讜诐 讗讞讜转讜 讗转讛 诪讞讬讬讘讜 讜讗讬 讗转讛 诪讞讬讬讘讜 诪砖讜诐 讘转 讗砖转 讗讘讬讜

And Rabbi Yosei, son of Rabbi Yehuda, says: The verse states: 鈥淪he is your sister,鈥 which comes to limit and emphasize that you hold him liable due to the fact that she is his sister but you do not hold him liable a second time due to the fact that she is also his father鈥檚 wife鈥檚 daughter.

讜专讘谞谉 讛讗讬 讗讞讜转讱 讛讬讗 诪讗讬 注讘讚讬 诇讬讛 诪讬讘注讬 诇讛讜 诇讞讬讬讘讜 注诇 讗讞讜转讜 讘转 讗讘讬讜 讜讘转 讗诪讜 诇讜诪专 砖讗讬谉 诪讝讛讬专讬谉 诪谉 讛讚讬谉

The Gemara asks: And what do the Rabbis do with this verse: 鈥淪he is your sister鈥? They require it in order to hold him liable to receive punishment for having relations with his sister who is both the daughter of his father and the daughter of his mother, to say that the Sages do not derive an additional Torah prohibition by way of a logical derivation, i.e., an a fortiori inference. In other words, although it would seem that since he is liable to receive punishment for having relations with his father鈥檚 daughter and also for his mother鈥檚 daughter, this must be all the more true in a case where she is the daughter of both his father and his mother, yet nevertheless, there is no new prohibition here. Therefore, the matter was taught explicitly in the Torah, to teach that the Sages may not derive additional prohibitions by way of a fortiori inferences.

讜专讘讬 讬讜住讬 讘专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 讗诐 讻谉 诇讻转讜讘 专讞诪谞讗 讗讞讜转讱 讛讬讗 诇诪讛 诇讬 诪砖讜诐 讗讞讜转讱 讗转讛 诪讞讬讬讘讜 讜讗讬 讗转讛 诪讞讬讬讘讜 诪砖讜诐 讘转 讗砖转 讗讘讬讜

And Rabbi Yosei, son of Rabbi Yehuda, says: If so, that the matter was written for this purpose, then the Merciful One should have written only: Your sister. Why do I need the phrase 鈥渟he is鈥? This limits the halakha and teaches that for unintentional intercourse with his sister who is also his father鈥檚 wife鈥檚 daughter you hold him liable because she is his sister; you do not additionally hold him liable because she is his father鈥檚 wife鈥檚 daughter.

讜专讘谞谉 讗祝 注诇 讙讘 讚讻转讬讘 讗讞讜转讱 讗讬爪讟专讬讱 诇诪讻转讘 讛讬讗 砖诇讗 转讗诪专 讘注诇诪讗 诪讝讛讬专讬谉 诪谉 讛讚讬谉

And how do the Rabbis interpret the additional phrase 鈥渟he is鈥? Although 鈥測our sister鈥 is written, it was necessary to write 鈥渟he is鈥 so that you not say that generally the Sages may derive additional prohibitions by way of a logical derivation, i.e., an a fortiori inference.

讜讻讬 转讬诪讗 讗讞讜转讱 讚讻转讘 专讞诪谞讗 诇诪讛 诇讬 诪讬诇转讗 讚讗转讬讗 讘拽诇 讜讞讜诪专 讟专讞 讜讻转讘 诇讛 拽专讗 讻转讘 专讞诪谞讗 讛讬讗

The Gemara explains how this principle is derived from the text. As, if you would say: Why do I need the term 鈥測our sister鈥 that the Merciful One writes in the Torah, since it is possible to derive this by a fortiori inference and it therefore appears redundant? The answer is that the Torah wrote this apparently redundant term to teach the principle that with regard to a matter that could be derived by means of an a fortiori inference, the verse unnecessarily wrote it explicitly. The Merciful One writes the term 鈥渟he is鈥 in order to teach that just as in this case the Sages may not derive additional prohibitions by way of an a fortiori inference, so too, in all other cases they may not derive additional prohibitions that are not stated in the text.

讜专讘讬 讬讜住讬 讘专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 讗诐 讻谉 诇讬讻转讘讬讛 专讞诪谞讗 诇讗讞讜转讱 讛讬讗 讘讗讬讚讱 拽专讗

And Rabbi Yosei, son of Rabbi Yehuda, says: If this is the reason for the verse, then let the Merciful One write: She is your sister, in the other verse, which states: 鈥淭he nakedness of your sister, the daughter of your father, or the daughter of your mother,鈥 and not in the verse that speaks of the daughter of one鈥檚 father鈥檚 wife.

讜专讘讬 讬讜住讬 讘专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 讛讗讬 讘转 讗砖转 讗讘讬讱 诪讗讬 注讘讬讚 诇讬讛 诪讬讘注讬 诇讬讛 诪讬 砖讬砖 诇讜 讗讬砖讜转 诇讗讘讬讱 讘讛 驻专讟 诇讗讞讜转讜 诪砖驻讞讛 讜讙讜讬讛 砖讗讬谉 讗讬砖讜转 诇讗讘讬讱 讘讛

The Gemara asks: And what does Rabbi Yosei, son of Rabbi Yehuda, do with this verse, which states: 鈥淭he daughter of your father鈥檚 wife鈥 (Leviticus 18:9)? He requires it to teach that one is liable only for relations with a half-sister whose mother is someone with whom there is a possibility of forging marital ties with your father, even if she was not in actuality his wife. This comes to exclude his sister from a Canaanite maidservant or a gentile woman, with whom your father cannot have marital ties, since betrothal does not take effect with these women.

讜讗讬诪讗 驻专讟 诇讗讞讜转讜 诪讗谞讜住讛 讛讛讬讗 诇讗 诪爪讬转 讗诪专转 诪讚专讘讗

The Gemara asks: So say: 鈥淵our father鈥檚 wife鈥檚 daughter鈥 comes to teach specifically the case of a daughter from a woman married to his father, thereby excluding from the definition of: His sister, his sister from a woman who had been raped. Perhaps if she was born of a woman who was not married to his father she would not be considered his sister. The Gemara answers: You cannot say that due to the reason said by Rava.

讚专讘讗 专诪讬 讻转讬讘 注专讜转 讘转 讘谞讱 讗讜 讘转 讘转讱 诇讗 转讙诇讛 讛讗 讘转 讘谞讛 讚讬讚讛 讜讘转 讘转讛 讚讬讚讛 砖专讬 讜讻转讬讘 注专讜转 讗砖讛 讜讘转讛 诇讗 转讙诇讛 讗转 讘转 讘谞讛 讜讗转 讘转 讘转讛 讛讗 讻讬爪讚

As Rava raised a contradiction: In one verse it is written: 鈥淭he nakedness of your son鈥檚 daughter, or of your daughter鈥檚 daughter, you shall not uncover鈥 (Leviticus 18:10), which implies, consequently, that her son鈥檚 daughter or her daughter鈥檚 daughter is permitted. And it is written elsewhere: 鈥淵ou shall not uncover the nakedness of a woman and her daughter; you shall not take her son鈥檚 daughter or her daughter鈥檚 daughter鈥 (Leviticus 18:17), which states explicitly that her son鈥檚 daughter and daughter鈥檚 daughter are prohibited. How can these texts be reconciled?

讻讗谉 讘讗讜谞住讬谉 讻讗谉 讘谞砖讜讗讬谉

Here, it is referring to a daughter by a woman whom one raped, in which case he is allowed to marry her daughter provided she is not also his daughter. There, it is referring to a woman whom one married, in which case it is forbidden to marry her daughter under any circumstances. However, even in a case where one鈥檚 father raped a woman, one is still permitted to marry the woman鈥檚 daughter by another man. If one鈥檚 father had a daughter with this woman, one would be prohibited from having a relationship with that daughter, as she is his paternal half-sister.

  • 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.

  • Masechet Yevamot is sponsored by Ahava Leibtag and family in memory of her grandparents, Leo and Esther Aaron. "They always stressed the importance of a Torah life, mesorah and family. May their memory always be a blessing for their children, grandchildren, great-grandchildren and great-great grandchildren".

Want to explore more about the Daf?

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

thumbnail yevamot tools

Chapter 2 (17-25): Visual Tools for Yevamot

For Masechet Yevamot, Hadran's staff has created dynamic presentations to help visualize the cases we will be learning. For Chapter...
learn daf yomi one week at a time with tamara spitz

Yevamot: 16-22 – Daf Yomi One Week at a Time

After finishing the first chapter, we will begin the second chapter of Masechet Yevamot. We will learn about a brother...
talking talmud_square

Yevamot 22: Not My Brother-Not My Father Either

On the status of converts, particularly with regard to the secondary forbidden relationships. Also, a mishnah: how different statuses of...

Yevamot 22

The William Davidson Talmud | Powered by Sefaria

Yevamot 22

讛谞讱 转专转讬 讚讚诪讬讬谉 诇讛讚讚讬 讻讞讚讗 讞砖讬讘 诇讛讜 讜讛讗 砖讬转住专讬 讜讛讗 诪讻诇 诪拽讜诐 诇讚讬讚讬 讞讝讬讬谉 诇谉 讚讻转讬讘谉 诇讗讬住讜专讗 讗诪专 诇讬讛 讜诇讬讟注诪讬讱 讗讬 讛讜讛 讻转讬讘 诇讛讬转讬专讗 诪讬 讛讜讜转 住诪讻转 注诇讬讬讛讜 讚诪专 讘专讬讛 讚专讘谞讗 诪讬 讞转讬诐 注诇讬讬讛讜 讛砖转讗 谞诪讬 讚讻转讬讘 诇讗讬住讜专讗 诇讗讜 诪专 讘专讬讛 讚专讘谞讗 讞转讬诐 注诇讬讬讛讜

Those two, the wife of a father鈥檚 father鈥檚 brother and the sister of a father鈥檚 father, are similar to each other and are counted as a single case, and so there are sixteen. The Gemara restates Rav Hillel鈥檚 challenge to Ameimar鈥檚 opinion: But in any case I myself saw them written as prohibited. Rav Ashi said to Rav Hillel: And according to your reasoning, if in the list it was written that they were permitted, would you have relied on that? Is the signature of Mar, son of Rabbana, signed on it? Although you saw the list, you don鈥檛 know for certain who wrote it. Now too, that it is written that they are prohibited, the same holds true; the signature of Mar, son of Rabbana, is not signed on it, and so it cannot be relied upon to reject the opinion of Ameimar.

转谞讬 讚讘讬 专讘讬 讞讬讬讗 砖诇讬砖讬 砖讘讘谞讜 讜砖讘讘转讜 讜砖讘讘谉 讗砖转讜 讜砖讘讘转 讗砖转讜 砖谞讬讛 专讘讬注讬 砖讘讞诪讬讜 讜砖讘讞诪讜转讜 砖谞讬讛

搂 One of the Sages of the school of Rabbi 岣yya taught: The third generation from one鈥檚 son and one鈥檚 daughter, i.e., one鈥檚 great-grandchildren, and the third generation from his wife鈥檚 son and his wife鈥檚 daughter, i.e., one鈥檚 wife鈥檚 great-grandchildren, are all forbidden as secondary forbidden relationships. So too, the fourth generation from his father-in-law and from his mother-in-law, i.e., his wife鈥檚 great-grandmothers, are prohibited as secondary forbidden relationships.

讗诪专 诇讬讛 专讘讬谞讗 诇专讘 讗砖讬 诪讗讬 砖谞讗 诇诪注诇讛 讚拽讞砖讬讘 诇讛 诇讗砖转讜 讜诪讗讬 砖谞讗 诇诪讟讛 讚诇讗 拽讞砖讬讘 诇讛 诇讗砖转讜 诇诪注诇讛 讚讗讬住讜专讗 诪讻讞 讗砖转讜 拽讗 讗转讬 讞砖讬讘 诇讛 诇诪讟讛 讚讗讬住讜专讗 诇讗讜 诪讻讞 讗砖转讜 拽讗转讬 诇讗 拽讞砖讬讘 诇讛

Ravina said to Rav Ashi: What is different between the generations above, referring to his wife鈥檚 great-grandmothers, such that the Sage counts his wife as one of the generations and refers to them as the fourth generation, and what is different with regard to the generations below, referring to his great-granddaughters, such that he did not count his wife and referred to them as only the third generation? The Gemara answers: When counting above, the prohibition stems from his wife, as they are not his blood relatives but his wife鈥檚. Therefore, she is counted. When counting below, however, the prohibition does not stem from his wife, as they are his own blood relatives, and so she was not counted.

讜讛讗 讘谉 讗砖转讜 讜讘转 讗砖转讜 讚讗讬住讜专讗 诪讻讞 讗砖转讜 拽讗转讬 讜诇讗 讞砖讬讘 诇讛 讗讬讬讚讬 讚转谞讗 砖诇砖讛 讚讜专讜转 诇诪讟讛 讚讬讚讬讛 讜诇讗 讞砖讘讛 转谞讗 谞诪讬 砖诇砖讛 讚讜专讜转 诇诪讟讛 讚讬讚讛 讜诇讗 讞砖讘讛

The Gemara objects: But he includes the granddaughter of his wife鈥檚 son and his wife鈥檚 daughter in his list of those forbidden due to his wife, yet he does not count her and refer to this as the fourth generation. The Gemara answers: Since he already taught three generations below himself, i.e., his own great-granddaughter, and there he did not count from his wife because it is his own blood relative, he taught three generations below his wife and did not count her. Instead, he referred to her great-granddaughter also as three generations below to maintain the uniform style of his words.

讗诪专 诇讬讛 专讘 讗砖讬 诇专讘 讻讛谞讗 砖谞讬讜转 讚讘讬 专讘讬 讞讬讬讗 讬砖 诇讛谉 讛驻住拽 讗讜 讗讬谉 诇讛诐 讛驻住拽

Rav Ashi said to Rav Kahana: Do those secondary forbidden relationships taught by one of the Sages of the school of Rabbi 岣yya have a conclusion, or do they not have a conclusion? Are those specified cases alone forbidden, or are all generations above and below also forbidden?

转讗 砖诪注 讚讗诪专 专讘 讗专讘注 谞砖讬诐 讬砖 诇讛诐 讛驻住拽 讜转讜 诇讗 讚诇诪讗 讻讬 拽讗诪专 专讘 诇讛讛讬讗 诪转谞讬转讗 转讗 砖诪注 砖诇讬砖讬 讜专讘讬注讬 砖诇讬砖讬 讜专讘讬注讬 讗讬谉 讟驻讬 诇讗 讚诇诪讗 诪砖诇讬砖讬 讜讗讬诇讱 诪专讘讬注讬 讜讗讬诇讱

Come and hear that which Rav said: Four women have a conclusion. This implies that it is only these four and no more. The Gemara rejects this: Perhaps when Rav said this he was referring only to the relationships listed in the baraita and not to all cases of secondary relationships. The Gemara suggests: Come and hear from the baraita itself, which states: The third generation from his son and his daughter and the fourth generation from his father-in-law and mother-in-law. This implies that with regard to the third and the fourth generations, yes, they are forbidden; but more than that, no. The Gemara rejects this: Perhaps this means from the third onward and from the fourth onward. The Gemara does not resolve this issue.

讗诪专 诇讬讛 专讘讗 诇专讘 谞讞诪谉 讞讝讬 诪专 讛讗讬 诪专讘谞谉 讚讗转讗 诪诪注专讘讗 讜讗诪专 讘注讜 讘诪注专讘讗 讙讝专讜 砖谞讬讜转 讘讙专讬诐 讗讜 诇讗 讙讝专讜 砖谞讬讜转 讘讙专讬诐

Rava said to Rav Na岣an: Did the Master see this one of the Sages who came from the West, Eretz Yisrael, who said: In the West they asked whether the Sages issued a decree prohibiting secondary forbidden relationships for converts, or whether they did not issue a decree prohibiting secondary forbidden relationships for converts?

讗诪专 诇讬讛 讛砖转讗 讜诪讛 注专讜讛 讙讜驻讛 讗讬 诇讗讜 砖诇讗 讬讗诪专讜 讘讗讬谉 诪拽讚讜砖讛 讞诪讜专讛 诇拽讚讜砖讛 拽诇讛 诇讗 讙讝专讜 讘讛讜 专讘谞谉 砖谞讬讜转 诪讬讘注讬讗

Rav Na岣an did not answer whether he had seen this Sage, but said to him: Now, with regard to all the forbidden relationships themselves, were it not for the fact that if converts would find that as Jews they were permitted to enter into relationships that were forbidden to them as gentiles and would say that they went from a state of more stringent sanctity as gentiles to a state of lesser sanctity as Jews, then the Sages would not have decreed to prohibit these relationships. Without the rabbinic decree it would have been permitted for a convert to marry even a close female relative, even his twin sister, who also converted. This is because a convert has the legal status of a newborn, with no family ties. Is it necessary to state that the Sages did not extend that decree to include secondary forbidden relationships? The purpose of the rabbinic prohibitions is to protect the Torah prohibitions, but in the case of converts this particular Torah prohibition does not apply.

讗诪专 专讘 谞讞诪谉 讙专讬诐 讛讜讗讬诇 讜讗转讜 诇讬讚谉 谞讬诪讗 讘讛讜 诪诇转讗 讗讞讬谉 诪谉 讛讗诐 诇讗 讬注讬讚讜 讜讗诐 讛注讬讚讜 注讚讜转谉 注讚讜转 讗讞讬谉 诪谉 讛讗讘 诪注讬讚讬谉 诇讻转讞诇讛 讗诪讬诪专 讗诪专 讗驻讬诇讜 讗讞讬谉 诪谉 讛讗诐 谞诪讬 诪注讬讚讬谉 诇讻转讞诇讛

Rav Na岣an said: Since the issue of converts and their relatives has come to hand and is the topic of discussion, let us say a matter of halakha: Maternal half brothers who both convert may not testify together as a pair of witnesses before the court, but if they did testify, their testimony is valid. Although blood relatives are invalid as witnesses, converts are considered as though they have no relations. Paternal half brothers who both convert may testify together ab initio, since the halakha does not consider paternal half brothers of gentiles to be true relatives. Ameimar said: Even maternal half brothers may also testify together ab initio.

讜诪讗讬 砖谞讗 诪注专讬讜转 注专讜讛 诇讻诇 诪住讜专讛 注讚讜转 诇讘讬转 讚讬谉 诪住讜专讛 讜讙专 砖谞转讙讬讬专 讻拽讟谉 砖谞讜诇讚 讚诪讬

In what way is this case different from forbidden relations, where a convert may not marry his maternal sister due to rabbinic decree? The halakhot of forbidden relations are handed over to all, and every individual chooses his own wife. Therefore, the Sages issued a decree to prevent confusion between the status of a convert and that of a born Jew. However, testimony is handed over to the court, and the court knows to distinguish between the status of a born Jew and that of a convert. And the legal status of a convert who just converted is like that of a child just born, and all previous family ties become irrelevant.

诪转谞讬壮 诪讬 砖讬砖 诇讜 讗讞 诪讻诇 诪拽讜诐 讝讜拽拽 讗转 讗砖转 讗讞讬讜 诇讬讘讜诐 讜讗讞讬讜 讛讜讗 诇讻诇 讚讘专 讞讜抓 诪诪讬 砖讬砖 诇讜 讗讞 诪谉 讛砖驻讞讛 讜诪谉 讛讙讜讬讛 诪讬 砖讬砖 诇讜 讘谉 诪讻诇 诪拽讜诐 驻讜讟专 讗砖转 讗讘讬讜 诪谉 讛讬讘讜诐 讜讞讬讬讘 注诇 诪讻转讜 讜注诇 拽诇诇转讜 讜讘谞讜 诇讻诇 讚讘专 讞讜抓 诪诪讬 砖讬砖 诇讜 讘谉 诪谉 讛砖驻讞讛 讜诪谉 讛讙讜讬讛

MISHNA: In the case of anyone who has a brother of any kind, that brother creates a levirate bond causing his yevama to be required to perform levirate marriage if the first brother dies childless. And he is his brother in all respects, except for one who has a brother born from a Canaanite maidservant or from a gentile woman, as these do not have the legal status of brothers. Similarly, in the case of anyone who has a child of any kind, that child exempts his father鈥檚 wife from levirate marriage, since his father did not die childless. And that child is liable to receive capital punishment if he strikes his father or curses him. And he is his child in all respects, except for whoever has a child born from a Canaanite maidservant or from a gentile woman, as these do not have the halakhic status of children.

讙诪壮 诪讻诇 诪拽讜诐 诇讗转讜讬讬 诪讗讬 讗诪专 专讘 讬讛讜讚讛 诇讗转讜讬讬 诪诪讝专 驻砖讬讟讗 讗讞讬讜 讛讜讗 诪讛讜 讚转讬诪讗 诇讬诇祝 讗讞讜讛 讗讞讜讛 诪讘谞讬 讬注拽讘 诪讛 诇讛诇谉 讻砖专讬谉 讜诇讗 驻住讜诇讬谉 讗祝 讻讗谉 讻砖专讬谉 讜诇讗 驻住讜诇讬谉 拽讗 诪砖诪注 诇谉

GEMARA: The Gemara asks: With regard to the statement that a brother of any kind causes his yevama to be required to perform levirate marriage, what additional case does this come to add? Rav Yehuda said: This adds the case of a mamzer, who, notwithstanding his status, is considered a brother. The Gemara wonders: But isn鈥檛 that obvious? He is his brother. The Gemara explains: This is necessary lest you say: Let us derive a verbal analogy between the word 鈥渂rother鈥 stated in the verse with regard to levirate marriage and 鈥渂rother鈥 stated with regard to the children of Jacob. Just as there, Jacob鈥檚 children are of unflawed lineage and not of flawed lineage and are not mamzerim, so too here, one might think that only brothers of unflawed lineage and not brothers of flawed lineage, i.e., mamzerim, obligate the yevama in levirate marriage. Therefore, this teaches us that a mamzer is considered a brother for the purposes of levirate marriage.

讜讗讬诪讗 讛讻讬 谞诪讬 讻讬讜谉 讚诇注谞讬谉 讬讘讜诐 诪讬驻讟专 谞驻讟专

The Gemara asks: And say that is indeed the halakha. Perhaps a brother who is a mamzer does not obligate his yevama in levirate marriage. The Gemara answers: Since with regard to levirate marriage, if the husband had a child who was a mamzer he would exempt the wife from levirate marriage,

诪讬讝拽拽 谞诪讬 讝拽讬拽

the husband鈥檚 brother also causes a levirate bond with his yevama even if he is a mamzer.

讜讗讞讬讜 讛讜讗 诇讻诇 讚讘专 诇诪讗讬 讛诇讻转讗 诇讬讜专砖讜 讜诇讬讟诪讗 诇讜

搂 The mishna stated that he is his brother in all respects. The Gemara asks: With regard to what halakha was this said? The Gemara answers: To inherit from him, and to become ritually impure for him if he is a priest, as a brother is one of the relations for whom a priest is permitted to become ritually impure by attending his funeral.

驻砖讬讟讗 讗讞讬讜 讛讜讗 住诇拽讗 讚注转讱 讗诪讬谞讗 讛讜讗讬诇 讜讻转讬讘 讻讬 讗诐 诇砖讗专讜 讛拽专讜讘 讗诇讬讜 讜讗诪专 诪专 砖讗专讜 讝讜 讗砖转讜 讜讻转讬讘 诇讗 讬讟诪讗 讘注诇 讘注诪讬讜 诇讛讞诇讜 讬砖 讘注诇 砖诪讟诪讗 讜讬砖 讘注诇 砖讗讬谉 诪讟诪讗 讛讗 讻讬爪讚 诪讟诪讗 讛讜讗 诇讗砖转讜 讻砖专讛 讜讗讬谉 诪讟诪讗 诇讗砖转讜 驻住讜诇讛

The Gemara asks: Isn鈥檛 this obvious, as he is his brother? The Gemara answers: It might enter your mind to say that a priest does not become impure for his brother of flawed lineage, since it is written with regard to priests: 鈥淣one shall defile himself for the dead among his people except for his kin, that is near unto him鈥 (Leviticus 21:1鈥2), and the Master said 鈥渉is kin鈥; this is his wife, and a priest may defile himself for his wife. But it is written: 鈥淗e shall not defile himself, being a husband among his people, to profane himself鈥 (Leviticus 21:4), implying that he may not defile himself for his wife. This apparent contradiction is resolved as follows: There is a husband who does become impure for his wife, and there is a husband who does not become impure. How so? He becomes impure for his wife if she was fit and was permitted to a priest, but he does not become impure for his wife if she was unfit to marry a priest.

讛讻讬 谞诪讬 诪讟诪讗 讛讜讗 诇讗讞 讻砖专 讜讗讬谉 诪讟诪讗 诇讗讞 驻住讜诇 拽讗 诪砖诪注 诇谉 讜讗讬诪讗 讛讻讬 谞诪讬 讛转诐 诇讗驻讜拽讬 拽讬讬诪讗 讛讻讗 讗讞讬讜 讛讜讗

So too, one might have thought that a priest becomes impure for a brother who is of unflawed lineage and not a mamzer, but he does not become impure for a brother of flawed lineage. Therefore, this comes to teach us that he does become impure for a brother who is a mamzer. The Gemara asks: Say this also, that by the same reasoning by which a priest may not become impure for a wife who was unfit for him, he may not become impure for an unfit brother either. Just as he does not become impure for an unfit wife, he should not become impure for an unfit brother? The Gemara answers: The two cases are different, as there, with regard to the unfit wife, she stands to be dismissed, since according to Torah law unfit women must be divorced. For this reason he does not become impure for her. Here, he is his brother.

讞讜抓 诪诪讬 砖讬砖 诇讜 讗讞 诪谉 讛砖驻讞讛 讜诪谉 讛讙讜讬讛 诪讗讬 讟注诪讗 讗诪专 拽专讗 讛讗砖讛 讜讬诇讚讬讛 转讛讬讛 诇讗讚讜谞讬讛

搂 The mishna says: Except for whoever has a brother born from a Canaanite maidservant or from a gentile woman, as in these cases he is not considered a brother. The Gemara asks: What is the reason for this halakha? The Gemara answers: The verse states with regard to a Jewish slave who has children with a Canaanite maidservant: 鈥淭he wife and her children shall be her master鈥檚鈥 (Exodus聽21:4). This means that the children also have the status of Canaanite slaves, which implies that the lineage of a Canaanite maidservant鈥檚 child comes from the mother and not from the father.

诪讬 砖讬砖 诇讜 讘谉 诪讻诇 诪拽讜诐 驻讜讟专 讜讻讜壮 诪讻诇 诪拽讜诐 诇讗转讜讬讬 诪讗讬 讗诪专 专讘 讬讛讜讚讛 诇讗讬转讜讬讬 诪诪讝专 诪讗讬 讟注诪讗 讚讗诪专 拽专讗 讜讘谉 讗讬谉 诇讜 注讬讬谉 注诇讬讜

The mishna states: With regard to anyone who has a son of any kind, that son exempts his father鈥檚 wife from any levirate bond. The Gemara asks: What is added by the phrase: Of any kind? Rav Yehuda said: It adds a child who is a mamzer. What is the reason that a mamzer exempts a woman from any levirate bond? As the verse states with regard to levirate marriage: 鈥淎nd he has no [ain lo] child鈥 (Deuteronomy 25:5). The phrase ain lo can be understood as ayyen alav, meaning investigate him. That is to say, investigate whether he is indeed childless, because any child, even a mamzer, exempts the widow from a levirate bond.

讜讞讬讬讘 注诇 诪讻转讜 讗诪讗讬 拽专讬 讻讗谉 讜谞砖讬讗 讘注诪讱 诇讗 转讗讜专 讘注讜砖讛 诪注砖讛 注诪讱

It states in the mishna that a child who is a mamzer is liable to receive punishment if he strikes his father or curses him. The Gemara asks: Why should he be liable? Read here the verse: 鈥淵ou shall not curse a ruler of your people鈥 (Exodus 22:27), which is interpreted to imply that the prohibition against cursing applies only to one who acts according to the deeds of your people. However, this father must have engaged in sexual relations with a woman who was forbidden to him in order to have a child who is a mamzer. Therefore, he did not act according to the deeds of the people. In that case, why should this son be liable to receive punishment for hitting him or cursing him?

讻讚讗诪专 专讘 驻谞讞住 诪砖诪讬讛 讚专讘 驻驻讗 讘注讜砖讛 转砖讜讘讛 讛讻讗 谞诪讬 讻砖注砖讛 转砖讜讘讛

The Gemara answers: As Rav Pine岣s said in the name of Rav Pappa with regard to a different matter: This is referring to one who performs repentance. Here too, it is referring to one who performed repentance after the mamzer was born. He is thereafter considered to be living in accordance with halakha, and so his mamzer son is liable to receive punishment for cursing him.

讜讛讗讬 讘专 转砖讜讘讛 讛讜讗 讜讛转谞谉 砖诪注讜谉 讘谉 诪谞住讬讗 讗讜诪专 讗讬讝讛讜 诪注讜讜转 诇讗 讬讜讻诇 诇转拽讜谉 讝讛 讛讘讗 注诇 讛注专讜讛 讜讛讜诇讬讚 诪诪谞讛 诪诪讝专 讛砖转讗 诪讬讛讗 注讜砖讛 诪注砖讛 注诪讱 讛讜讗

The Gemara objects: Is he in fact able to repent after fathering a mamzer? Didn鈥檛 we learn in a mishna that Shimon ben Menasya says: Which is: 鈥淭hat which is crooked cannot be made straight鈥 (Ecclesiastes 1:15)? This is referring to one who engaged in intercourse with a relative who is forbidden to him and fathered a mamzer with her. This implies that he has no possibility of achieving total repentance. The Gemara responds: At least now, after repenting, he is considered as one who acts according to the deeds of your people. Although he cannot totally rectify his transgression, his child is liable to receive punishment for cursing or hitting him.

转谞讜 专讘谞谉 讛讘讗 注诇 讗讞讜转讜 讜讛讬讗 讘转 讗砖转 讗讘讬讜 讞讬讬讘 诪砖讜诐 讗讞讜转讜 讜诪砖讜诐 讘转 讗砖转 讗讘讬讜 专讘讬 讬讜住讬 讘谉 讬讛讜讚讛 讗讜诪专 讗讬谞讜 讞讬讬讘 讗诇讗 诪砖讜诐 讗讞讜转讜 讘诇讘讚 讜诇讗 诪驻谞讬 讘转 讗砖转 讗讘讬讜

The Sages taught: He who unwittingly engages in sexual relations with his sister, who is the daughter of his father鈥檚 lawful wife, is liable and must bring two sin-offerings. He must bring one sin-offering because she is his sister and another because she is the daughter of his father鈥檚 wife, which is mentioned in a separate verse in the Torah. Rabbi Yosei ben Yehuda says: He is liable only because she is his sister alone, and not because of the prohibition against engaging in sexual relations with the daughter of his father鈥檚 wife.

诪讗讬 讟注诪讬讬讛讜 讚专讘谞谉 讗诪专讬 诪讻讚讬 讻转讬讘 注专讜转 讗讞讜转讱 讘转 讗讘讬讱 讗讜 讘转 讗诪讱 注专讜转 讘转 讗砖转 讗讘讬讱 诪讜诇讚转 讗讘讬讱 讗讞讜转讱 讛讬讗 诇诪讛 诇讬 砖诪注 诪讬谞讛 诇讞讬讬讘讜 诪砖讜诐 讗讞讜转讜 讜诪砖讜诐 讘转 讗砖转 讗讘讬讜

The Gemara asks: What is the reason for the opinion of the Rabbis, the first tanna of the baraita? They said: Since it is written in the Torah: 鈥淭he nakedness of your sister, the daughter of your father, or the daughter of your mother鈥ou shall not uncover鈥 (Leviticus 18:9), then why do I need the verse: 鈥淭he nakedness of your father鈥檚 wife鈥檚 daughter, begotten of your father, she is your sister鈥ou shall not uncover鈥 (Leviticus 18:11)? Conclude from this that the additional verse serves to make him liable separately due to the fact that she is his sister and due to the fact that she is his father鈥檚 wife鈥檚 daughter.

讜专讘讬 讬讜住讬 讘专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 讗诪专 拽专讗 讗讞讜转讱 讛讬讗 诪砖讜诐 讗讞讜转讜 讗转讛 诪讞讬讬讘讜 讜讗讬 讗转讛 诪讞讬讬讘讜 诪砖讜诐 讘转 讗砖转 讗讘讬讜

And Rabbi Yosei, son of Rabbi Yehuda, says: The verse states: 鈥淪he is your sister,鈥 which comes to limit and emphasize that you hold him liable due to the fact that she is his sister but you do not hold him liable a second time due to the fact that she is also his father鈥檚 wife鈥檚 daughter.

讜专讘谞谉 讛讗讬 讗讞讜转讱 讛讬讗 诪讗讬 注讘讚讬 诇讬讛 诪讬讘注讬 诇讛讜 诇讞讬讬讘讜 注诇 讗讞讜转讜 讘转 讗讘讬讜 讜讘转 讗诪讜 诇讜诪专 砖讗讬谉 诪讝讛讬专讬谉 诪谉 讛讚讬谉

The Gemara asks: And what do the Rabbis do with this verse: 鈥淪he is your sister鈥? They require it in order to hold him liable to receive punishment for having relations with his sister who is both the daughter of his father and the daughter of his mother, to say that the Sages do not derive an additional Torah prohibition by way of a logical derivation, i.e., an a fortiori inference. In other words, although it would seem that since he is liable to receive punishment for having relations with his father鈥檚 daughter and also for his mother鈥檚 daughter, this must be all the more true in a case where she is the daughter of both his father and his mother, yet nevertheless, there is no new prohibition here. Therefore, the matter was taught explicitly in the Torah, to teach that the Sages may not derive additional prohibitions by way of a fortiori inferences.

讜专讘讬 讬讜住讬 讘专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 讗诐 讻谉 诇讻转讜讘 专讞诪谞讗 讗讞讜转讱 讛讬讗 诇诪讛 诇讬 诪砖讜诐 讗讞讜转讱 讗转讛 诪讞讬讬讘讜 讜讗讬 讗转讛 诪讞讬讬讘讜 诪砖讜诐 讘转 讗砖转 讗讘讬讜

And Rabbi Yosei, son of Rabbi Yehuda, says: If so, that the matter was written for this purpose, then the Merciful One should have written only: Your sister. Why do I need the phrase 鈥渟he is鈥? This limits the halakha and teaches that for unintentional intercourse with his sister who is also his father鈥檚 wife鈥檚 daughter you hold him liable because she is his sister; you do not additionally hold him liable because she is his father鈥檚 wife鈥檚 daughter.

讜专讘谞谉 讗祝 注诇 讙讘 讚讻转讬讘 讗讞讜转讱 讗讬爪讟专讬讱 诇诪讻转讘 讛讬讗 砖诇讗 转讗诪专 讘注诇诪讗 诪讝讛讬专讬谉 诪谉 讛讚讬谉

And how do the Rabbis interpret the additional phrase 鈥渟he is鈥? Although 鈥測our sister鈥 is written, it was necessary to write 鈥渟he is鈥 so that you not say that generally the Sages may derive additional prohibitions by way of a logical derivation, i.e., an a fortiori inference.

讜讻讬 转讬诪讗 讗讞讜转讱 讚讻转讘 专讞诪谞讗 诇诪讛 诇讬 诪讬诇转讗 讚讗转讬讗 讘拽诇 讜讞讜诪专 讟专讞 讜讻转讘 诇讛 拽专讗 讻转讘 专讞诪谞讗 讛讬讗

The Gemara explains how this principle is derived from the text. As, if you would say: Why do I need the term 鈥測our sister鈥 that the Merciful One writes in the Torah, since it is possible to derive this by a fortiori inference and it therefore appears redundant? The answer is that the Torah wrote this apparently redundant term to teach the principle that with regard to a matter that could be derived by means of an a fortiori inference, the verse unnecessarily wrote it explicitly. The Merciful One writes the term 鈥渟he is鈥 in order to teach that just as in this case the Sages may not derive additional prohibitions by way of an a fortiori inference, so too, in all other cases they may not derive additional prohibitions that are not stated in the text.

讜专讘讬 讬讜住讬 讘专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 讗诐 讻谉 诇讬讻转讘讬讛 专讞诪谞讗 诇讗讞讜转讱 讛讬讗 讘讗讬讚讱 拽专讗

And Rabbi Yosei, son of Rabbi Yehuda, says: If this is the reason for the verse, then let the Merciful One write: She is your sister, in the other verse, which states: 鈥淭he nakedness of your sister, the daughter of your father, or the daughter of your mother,鈥 and not in the verse that speaks of the daughter of one鈥檚 father鈥檚 wife.

讜专讘讬 讬讜住讬 讘专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 讛讗讬 讘转 讗砖转 讗讘讬讱 诪讗讬 注讘讬讚 诇讬讛 诪讬讘注讬 诇讬讛 诪讬 砖讬砖 诇讜 讗讬砖讜转 诇讗讘讬讱 讘讛 驻专讟 诇讗讞讜转讜 诪砖驻讞讛 讜讙讜讬讛 砖讗讬谉 讗讬砖讜转 诇讗讘讬讱 讘讛

The Gemara asks: And what does Rabbi Yosei, son of Rabbi Yehuda, do with this verse, which states: 鈥淭he daughter of your father鈥檚 wife鈥 (Leviticus 18:9)? He requires it to teach that one is liable only for relations with a half-sister whose mother is someone with whom there is a possibility of forging marital ties with your father, even if she was not in actuality his wife. This comes to exclude his sister from a Canaanite maidservant or a gentile woman, with whom your father cannot have marital ties, since betrothal does not take effect with these women.

讜讗讬诪讗 驻专讟 诇讗讞讜转讜 诪讗谞讜住讛 讛讛讬讗 诇讗 诪爪讬转 讗诪专转 诪讚专讘讗

The Gemara asks: So say: 鈥淵our father鈥檚 wife鈥檚 daughter鈥 comes to teach specifically the case of a daughter from a woman married to his father, thereby excluding from the definition of: His sister, his sister from a woman who had been raped. Perhaps if she was born of a woman who was not married to his father she would not be considered his sister. The Gemara answers: You cannot say that due to the reason said by Rava.

讚专讘讗 专诪讬 讻转讬讘 注专讜转 讘转 讘谞讱 讗讜 讘转 讘转讱 诇讗 转讙诇讛 讛讗 讘转 讘谞讛 讚讬讚讛 讜讘转 讘转讛 讚讬讚讛 砖专讬 讜讻转讬讘 注专讜转 讗砖讛 讜讘转讛 诇讗 转讙诇讛 讗转 讘转 讘谞讛 讜讗转 讘转 讘转讛 讛讗 讻讬爪讚

As Rava raised a contradiction: In one verse it is written: 鈥淭he nakedness of your son鈥檚 daughter, or of your daughter鈥檚 daughter, you shall not uncover鈥 (Leviticus 18:10), which implies, consequently, that her son鈥檚 daughter or her daughter鈥檚 daughter is permitted. And it is written elsewhere: 鈥淵ou shall not uncover the nakedness of a woman and her daughter; you shall not take her son鈥檚 daughter or her daughter鈥檚 daughter鈥 (Leviticus 18:17), which states explicitly that her son鈥檚 daughter and daughter鈥檚 daughter are prohibited. How can these texts be reconciled?

讻讗谉 讘讗讜谞住讬谉 讻讗谉 讘谞砖讜讗讬谉

Here, it is referring to a daughter by a woman whom one raped, in which case he is allowed to marry her daughter provided she is not also his daughter. There, it is referring to a woman whom one married, in which case it is forbidden to marry her daughter under any circumstances. However, even in a case where one鈥檚 father raped a woman, one is still permitted to marry the woman鈥檚 daughter by another man. If one鈥檚 father had a daughter with this woman, one would be prohibited from having a relationship with that daughter, as she is his paternal half-sister.

Scroll To Top