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

Today's Daf Yomi

October 7, 2014 | 讬状讙 讘转砖专讬 转砖注状讛

  • This month's learning is sponsored by Terri Krivosha for the Refuah Shlemah of her husband Harav Hayim Yehuda Ben Faiga Rivah.聽

  • 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 3

Study Guide Yevamot 3


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

讻讜诇讛讜 谞诪讬 诪讚专砖讗 讗转讜 谞讛讬 讚诇注谞讬谉 讬讬讘讜诐 讗转讬讬谉 诪讚专砖讗 注讬拽专 讗讬住讜专讬讬讛讜 讘讛讚讬讗 讻转讬讘 讘讛讜 讘转讜 注讬拽专 讗讬住讜专讗 诪讚专砖讗

The Gemara challenges this conclusion: All of the exemptions from levirate marriage for forbidden relatives listed in the mishna are also derived from a homiletical interpretation. The Gemara responds: Although the matter of levirate marriage is derived from a homiletical interpretation, the main aspect of their prohibition is explicitly written. By contrast, with regard to his daughter from a woman he raped but did not marry, the main aspect of this prohibition is derived by homiletical interpretation, as the prohibition itself is not written explicitly in the Torah.

讚讗诪专 专讘讗 讗诪专 诇讬 专讘 讬爪讞拽 讘专 讗讘讚讬诪讬 讗转讬讗 讛谞讛 讛谞讛

As Rava said: Rav Yitz岣k bar Avdimi said to me: This prohibition is derived by means of a verbal analogy between the word hena, in the verse: 鈥淭he nakedness of your son鈥檚 daughter, or of your daughter鈥檚 daughter, even their nakedness you shall not uncover; for theirs [hena] is your own nakedness鈥 (Leviticus 18:10) and the word hena in a different verse: 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, to uncover her nakedness: they [hena] are near kinswomen; it is wickedness鈥 (Leviticus 18:17), indicating that every daughter is prohibited, even one from rape, just like one鈥檚 daughter through his wife.

讗转讬讗 讝诪讛 讝诪讛

Furthermore, it is derived from a verbal analogy between the word 鈥渨ickedness鈥 (Leviticus 18:17) and the word 鈥渨ickedness鈥 in the verse: 鈥淎nd if a man take with his wife also her mother, it is wickedness; they shall be burnt with fire, both he and they, that there be no wickedness among you鈥 (Leviticus 20:14), that one who has sexual intercourse with a daughter from a rape is liable to burning.

讛砖转讗 讚讗诪专转 讻诇 诪诇转讗 讚讗转讬讗 诪讚专砖讗 讞讘讬讘讗 诇讬讛 诇讬转谞讬 诇讗讞讜转 讗砖讛 诇讘住讜祝 讗讬讬讚讬 讚讗讬讬专讬 讘讗讬住讜专 讗讞讜讜转讗 转谞讗 讗讞讜转 讗砖转讜

搂 The Gemara asks: Now that you said that all matters that are derived from a homiletical interpretation are dear to the tanna, and he therefore he gives them precedence, let him teach the case of a wife鈥檚 sister last, as this is the source of the halakha and is therefore the most straightforward case. The Gemara responds: Since the tanna was dealing with the prohibition with regard to different types of sisters, he also taught together with them the prohibition with regard to his wife鈥檚 sister.

讜诇讬转谞讬讬讗 诇讛讗讬 讘讘讗 诇讘住讜祝 讗诇讗 转谞讗 拽讜专讘讬 拽讜专讘讬 谞拽讟 转谞讗 讘转讜 讜讘转 讘转讜 讜讘转 讘谞讜 讚拽专讜讘讬 注爪诪讜

The Gemara asks: But if so, let him teach this entire section involving sisters at the end, when he mentions a wife鈥檚 sister. Rather, the Gemara rejects the above answer in favor of an alternative explanation: The tanna cited the cases in order of closeness, i.e., the mishna is ordered in accordance with the relative closeness of the various incestuous relations. How so? The tanna taught the cases of one鈥檚 daughter, and the daughter of his daughter, and the daughter of his son, who are his own blood relatives.

讜讗讬讬讚讬 讚转谞讗 砖诇砖讛 讚讜专讜转 诇诪讟讛 讚讬讚讬讛 转谞讗 谞诪讬 砖诇砖讛 讚讜专讜转 诇诪讟讛 讚讬讚讛 讜讗讬讬讚讬 讚转谞讗 砖诇砖讛 讚讜专讜转 诇诪讟讛 讚讬讚讛 转谞讗 砖诇砖讛 讚讜专讜转 诇诪注诇讛 讚讬讚讛

And since he taught three generations of one鈥檚 offspring below, i.e., his daughter, his daughter鈥檚 daughter, and his son鈥檚 daughter, he also taught three generations of his wife鈥檚 offspring below, i.e., his wife herself, her daughter, and her daughter鈥檚 daughter. And since he taught three generations of his wife鈥檚 offspring below, he also taught three generations of her family above, i.e., from previous generations, namely herself, her mother, i.e., his mother-in-law, and his mother-in-law鈥檚 mother.

讜转谞讗 讗讞讜转讜 讜讗讞讜转 讗诪讜 讚拽专讜讘讬 注爪诪讜 讜讗讬讬讚讬 讚讗讬讬专讬 讘讗讬住讜专 讗讞讜讛 转谞讗 讗讞讜转 讗砖转讜 讜讘讚讬谉 讛讜讗 讚诇讬拽讚诪讛 诇讻诇转讜 诪拽诪讬 讗砖转 讗讞讬讜 砖诇讗 讛讬讛 讘注讜诇诪讜 讚诇讗 诪砖讜诐 拽讜专讘讗 讛讜讗 讚讗住讬专讗 讗诇讗 讗讬讬讚讬 讚讗讬讬专讬 讘讗讬住讜专 讗讞讜讛 转谞讗 讗砖转 讗讞讬讜 砖诇讗 讛讬讛 讘注讜诇诪讜 讜讛讚专 转谞讗 讻诇转讜

And afterward he taught the case of his sister and his mother鈥檚 sister, who are his own blood relatives but less closely related to him than his daughter. And since he was dealing with the prohibition with regard to sisters, he also taught the case of his wife鈥檚 sister. And by right the tanna should have preceded the case of his daughter-in-law before that of a wife of a brother with whom he did not coexist, as it is not due to their relationship that she is prohibited but rather because she is excluded from the mitzva of levirate marriage. However, since he was dealing with the prohibition with regard to siblings, he taught the case of a wife of a brother with whom he did not coexist, as this also involves a sibling. And then the tanna taught the case of his daughter-in-law.

讜诪讗讬 讗讬专讬讗 讚转谞讗 驻讜讟专讜转 诇讬转谞讬 讗讜住专讜转 讗讬 转谞讗 讗讜住专讜转 讛讜讛 讗诪讬谞讗 讗住讜专 诇讬讬讘诐 讗讘诇 诪讬讞诇抓 讞诇爪讛 拽讗 诪砖诪注 诇谉

搂 The Gemara continues to analyze the language of the mishna: And why does the tanna specifically teach: They exempt their rival wives? Let him teach: They prohibit them, as ultimately the rival wives are not only exempt from levirate marriage but each is actually forbidden to her yavam. The Gemara explains that if he had taught: They prohibit them, I would say that this means it is prohibited to enter into levirate marriage, but she must perform 岣litza. Therefore, it teaches us using the language of exemption to indicate that she is entirely exempt and does not even perform 岣litza.

讜诇讬转谞讬 讗住讜专讛 诇讞诇讜抓 诪讗讬 拽注讘讬讚 讗诇诪讛 诇讗 讗诐 讗转讛 讗讜诪专 讞讜诇爪转 诪转讬讬讘诪转

The Gemara raises a difficulty: If so, let him teach: She is prohibited from performing 岣litza. The Gemara rejects this suggestion: It is impossible to formulate the halakha in this manner, as even if they perform 岣litza, what has he really done? What is wrong with a man allowing a woman to take off his shoe, which is the act of 岣litza? Consequently, it is not possible to state: Prohibited from performing 岣litza. The Gemara asks: Why not? There is in fact a prohibited element here: If you say she performs 岣litza, it might be said that she may also enter into levirate marriage and that in this specific instance he performed 岣litza merely because he did not wish to marry her. In that case, it might erroneously be claimed that if another wished to marry the rival wife of his yevama he is permitted to enter into levirate marriage.

讻讬讜谉 讚讘诪拽讜诐 诪爪讜讛 讛讜讗 讚讗住讬专讛 爪专讛 讜砖诇讗 讘诪拽讜诐 诪爪讜讛 砖专讬讗 诪砖讜诐 讛讻讬 转谞讬 驻讜讟专讜转

In light of the previous argument, the Gemara suggests another reason that the mishna does not use the expression: Prohibited. Since it is only in cases where the mitzva of levirate marriage applies that the rival wife is forbidden to him, and where no mitzva applies she is permitted, as it is permitted for the man to marry the widowed rival wife of a non-relative, due to that reason he taught: They exempt their rival wives, and not: They prohibit them. In other words, the tanna is teaching that they are not prohibited to him in their own right.

讜诪讗讬 讗讬专讬讗 讚转谞讬 诪谉 讛讞诇讬爪讛 讜诪谉 讛讬讬讘讜诐 诇讬转谞讬 诪谉 讛讬讬讘讜诐 诇讞讜讚讬讛 讗讬 转谞讗 诪谉 讛讬讬讘讜诐 讛讜讛 讗诪讬谞讗 诪讬讞诇抓 讞诇爪讛 讬讘讜诪讬 诇讗 诪讬讬讘诪讛 拽讗 诪砖诪注 诇谉 讻诇 讛注讜诇讛 诇讬讬讘讜诐 注讜诇讛 诇讞诇讬爪讛 讜讻诇 砖讗讬谞讜 注讜诇讛 诇讬讬讘讜诐 讗讬谞讜 注讜诇讛 诇讞诇讬爪讛

搂 The Gemara continues its analysis of the wording of the mishna. And why does the tanna specifically teach: Exempt from 岣litza and from levirate marriage? Let him teach: Exempt from levirate marriage, alone. The Gemara answers: If he were to teach: From levirate marriage, I would say that she must perform 岣litza and she must not enter into levirate marriage. The tanna therefore teaches us that every woman who is eligible for levirate marriage is eligible for 岣litza, and anyone who is ineligible for levirate marriage is likewise ineligible for 岣litza, as no obligation of 岣litza applies unless there is an obligation of a levirate marriage.

讜诇讬转谞讬 诪谉 讛讬讬讘讜诐 讜诪谉 讛讞诇讬爪讛 讗讬 谞诪讬 诪谉 讛讞诇讬爪讛 诇讞讜讚讛 讗讘讗 砖讗讜诇 讛讬讗 讚讗诪专 诪爪讜转 讞诇讬爪讛 拽讜讚诪转 诇诪爪讜转 讬讬讘讜诐

搂 The Gemara further inquires: And let him teach: From levirate marriage and from 岣litza, as the Torah states the option of levirate marriage first. Alternatively, let him teach: From 岣litza, alone, as this would indicate that she may not enter into levirate marriage either. The Gemara answers: This mishna is in accordance with the opinion of Abba Shaul, who said: The mitzva of 岣litza takes precedence over the mitzva of levirate marriage, as he maintains that one who does not enter into levirate marriage for the sake of Heaven transgresses the prohibition against marrying one鈥檚 brother鈥檚 wife, and therefore it would be better in every case to perform 岣litza. Consequently, the tanna mentions 岣litza before levirate marriage.

诪谞讬谞讗 讚专讬砖讗 诇诪注讜讟讬 诪讗讬 讜诪谞讬谞讗 讚住讬驻讗 诇诪注讜讟讬 诪讗讬

搂 The Gemara asks another question with regard to the language of the mishna: The enumeration of the first clause of the mishna: Fifteen women, which indicates that those women alone are included in this list, serves to exclude what? Which other cases might have been included? And the enumeration of the latter clause, which states: These exempt their rival wives, again meaning these and no others, serves to exclude what? Since the mishna specifies only these women and no others, the Gemara asks which other women might have been included in these lists.

诇诪注讜讟讬 讚专讘 讜讚专讘 讗住讬 诇专讘 讜诇专讘 讗住讬 诇诪注讜讟讬 诪讗讬

The Gemara answers that these enumerations come to exclude those additions of Rav and of Rav Asi. Rav added the rival wife of a woman suspected by her husband of adultery [sota], while Rav Asi added the rival wife of an aylonit. The Gemara asks: And according to the opinion of Rav and according to the opinion of Rav Asi, the enumeration of the mishna comes to exclude what?

讗讬 住讘讬专讗 诇讛讜 讚讛讚讚讬 讞讚讗 诇诪注讜讟讬 爪专转 诪诪讗谞转 讜讞讚讗 诇诪注讜讟讬 爪专转 诪讞讝讬专 讙专讜砖转讜

The Gemara responds: If each maintains in accordance with the opinion of the other, then one enumeration of the mishna comes to exclude the rival wife of a wife who performed refusal. If the deceased brother had two wives, one of whom was a minor, and she refused the yavam, her rival wife is prohibited from levirate marriage with him. However, the latter is not entirely exempt and must perform 岣litza. And the other one comes to exclude the rival wife of the wife of one who remarries his divorc茅e, i.e., a woman who was illicitly remarried by her former husband after she had been married to another man.

讜讗讬 诇讗 住讘讬专讗 诇讛讜 讚讛讚讚讬 讞讚讗 诇诪注讜讟讬 讚讞讘专讬讛 讜讞讚讗 诇诪注讜讟讬 讗讜 爪专转 诪诪讗谞转 讗讜 爪专转 诪讞讝讬专 讙专讜砖转讜

And if Rav and Rav Asi do not each maintain in accordance with the opinion of the other, then one enumeration comes to exclude the opinion of the other, as they do not agree that the halakha stated by the other should be included in the mishna, and the other one comes to exclude one of the above suggestions, either the rival wife of a wife who performed refusal or the rival wife of the wife of one who remarries his divorc茅e.

诇专讘 讜诇专讘 讗住讬 诇讬转谞讬谞讛讜

The Gemara asks: If so, according to the opinion of Rav and according to the opinion of Rav Asi, let the tanna teach these cases. Since in their opinions there are more than fifteen women to whom the principle of the mishna applies, why weren鈥檛 they all stated by the tanna of the mishna? The Gemara answers: They were not taught because they do not completely fit all of the halakhic rulings here.

诇驻讬 砖讗讬谞讛 讘爪专转 爪专讛

The Gemara elaborates: This is because they do not involve the case of a rival wife of a rival wife. With regard to the fifteen women listed, the discussion of the mishna concerning rival wives and rival wives of rival wives is appropriate. However, the two cases cited by Rav and Rav Asi do not leave room for such deliberations, as both a sota and an aylonit are exempt and forbidden equally to all of the brothers, because their prohibition does not result from a familial relation to one of the living brothers but from a personal issue relating to the women themselves. Since none of the brothers may marry her rival wife, there is no possibility of a rival wife of a rival wife, and consequently these cases were omitted from the mishna鈥檚 list of fifteen women.

诪谞讗 讛谞讬 诪讬诇讬 讚转谞讜 专讘谞谉 讗砖讛 讗诇 讗讞讜转讛 诇讗 转拽讞 诇爪专讜专 诇讙诇讜转 注专讜转讛 注诇讬讛 讘讞讬讬讛 注诇讬讛 诪讛 转诇诪讜讚 诇讜诪专

搂 After analyzing the order and language of the mishna, the Gemara discusses the halakhot themselves. From where are these matters, that if one鈥檚 forbidden relative comes before him for levirate marriage he is prohibited from marrying her or her rival wife, derived? It is as the Sages taught with regard to the verse: 鈥淎nd you shall not take a woman to her sister, to be a rival to her, to uncover her nakedness, with her in her lifetime鈥 (Leviticus 18:18). What is the meaning when the verse states the apparently superfluous phrase: 鈥淲ith her鈥?

诇驻讬 砖谞讗诪专 讬讘诪讛 讬讘讗 注诇讬讛 砖讜诪注 讗谞讬 讗驻讬诇讜 讘讗讞转 诪讻诇 注专讬讜转 讛讗诪讜专讜转 讘转讜专讛 讛讻转讜讘 诪讚讘专 谞讗诪专 讻讗谉 注诇讬讛 讜谞讗诪专 诇讛诇谉 注诇讬讛

The baraita explains: Since it is stated with regard to the wife of a deceased brother: 鈥淗er brother-in-law will have intercourse with her鈥 (Deuteronomy 25:5), I would derive that when the verse speaks of the mitzva of levirate marriage, it includes even any one of those with whom relations are forbidden, as mentioned in the Torah. Therefore, one derives a verbal analogy: It is stated here, with regard to a wife鈥檚 sister: 鈥淲ith her,鈥 and it is stated there, with regard to a levirate marriage: 鈥淲ith her.鈥

诪讛 诇讛诇谉 讘诪拽讜诐 诪爪讜讛 讗祝 讻讗谉 讘诪拽讜诐 诪爪讜讛 讜讗诪专 专讞诪谞讗 诇讗 转拽讞

The baraita explains the verbal analogy. Just as there, a levirate marriage involves the performance of a mitzva, so too, here, the statement 鈥渦ncover her nakedness with her鈥 includes the performance of a mitzva, and the Merciful One states in the Torah: 鈥淵ou shall not take.鈥 The phrase 鈥渨ith her鈥 teaches that even in a case where there is an obligation of levirate marriage, the Torah prohibition proscribing forbidden relatives remains in force.

讜讗讬谉 诇讬 讗诇讗 讛讬讗 爪专转讛 诪谞讬谉 转诇诪讜讚 诇讜诪专 诇爪专讜专 讜讗讬谉 诇讬 讗诇讗 爪专转讛 爪专转 爪专转讛 诪谞讬讬谉 转诇诪讜讚 诇讜诪专 诇爪专讜专 讜诇讗 诇爪讜专

The baraita continues: And I have derived only that she, his wife鈥檚 sister, is exempt from levirate marriage; from where do I derive that her rival wife is also exempt? The verse states: 鈥淭o be a rival to her鈥 (Leviticus 18:18), which indicates that not only is she prohibited, but so too is her rival wife. And I have derived only her rival wife; from where is it derived that the rival wife of her rival wife is also exempt? The verse states: 鈥淭o be a rival [litzror],鈥 using the full spelling with a double reish, and not latzor; this indicates that there are several rival wives, one after another.

讜讗讬谉 诇讬 讗诇讗 讗讞讜转 讗砖讛 砖讗专 注专讬讜转 诪谞讬讬谉 讗诪专转 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 讜讗住讜专讛 诇讬讘诐 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 讗住讜专讛 诇讬讘诐

And I have derived from this verbal analogy only that the mitzva of levirate marriage does not apply to a wife鈥檚 sister. From where is it derived that the same applies to the other women with whom relations are forbidden? You can say as follows: Just as the case of a wife鈥檚 sister is specific in that she is a forbidden relative, and this is a prohibition for whose intentional violation, i.e., for intentional sexual relations with her, one is liable to receive karet, and for whose unwitting violation one is liable to bring a sin-offering, and she is prohibited to the yavam in levirate marriage; so too, with regard to all women with whom relations are forbidden by a prohibition for whose intentional violation one is liable to receive karet and for whose unwitting violation one is liable to bring a sin-offering, they are prohibited to the yavam in levirate marriage.

讜讗讬谉 诇讬 讗诇讗 讛谉 爪专讜转讬讛谉 诪谞讬讬谉 讗诪专转 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 讜讗住讜专讛 诇讬讘诐 讜爪专转讛 讗住讜专讛 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 讜讗住讜专讛 诇讬讘诐 爪专转讛 讗住讜专讛 诪讻讗谉 讗诪专讜 讞讻诪讬诐 讞诪砖 注砖专讛 谞砖讬诐 驻讜讟专讜转 爪专讜转讬讛谉 讜爪专讜转 爪专讜转讬讛谉 诪谉 讛讞诇讬爪讛 讜诪谉 讛讬讬讘讜诐 注讚 住讜祝 讛注讜诇诐

The baraita continues: And I have derived only the cases of those women themselves with whom relations are forbidden; from where is it derived that their rival wives are also exempt from levirate marriage? You can say as follows: Just as a wife鈥檚 sister is specific in that she is a forbidden relative and this is a prohibition for whose intentional violation one is liable to receive karet, and for whose unwitting violation one is liable to bring a sin-offering, and she is prohibited to the yavam in levirate marriage, and her rival wife is likewise prohibited; so too, any woman with whom relations are forbidden and this is a prohibition for whose intentional violation one is liable to receive karet, and for whose unwitting violation one is liable to bring a sin-offering, and this woman is one who is forbidden to the yavam, her rival wife is likewise forbidden. The baraita concludes: From here the Sages stated that fifteen women exempt their rival wives and the rival wives of their rival wives from 岣litza and from levirate marriage forever.

讬讻讜诇 砖讗谞讬 诪专讘讛 讗祝 砖砖 注专讬讜转 讞诪讜专讜转 诪讗诇讜 砖讬讛讜 爪专讜转讬讛诐 讗住讜专讜转

搂 One might have thought that I should include in this principle even the six women with whom relations are forbidden that are more severe than these, i.e., one鈥檚 mother, his father鈥檚 sister, and so on, as stated in a later mishna (13b), since they too are forbidden by a prohibition entailing karet. This would mean that their rival wives should likewise be prohibited to enter into levirate marriage with this yavam as forbidden rival wives.

讗诪专转 诪讛 讗讞讜转 讗砖转讜 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 讜讗驻砖专 诇讬谞砖讗 诇讗讞讬诐 讜讗住讜专讛 诇讬讘诐 讜爪专转讛 讗住讜专讛 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 讜讗驻砖专 诇讬谞砖讗 诇讗讞讬诐 讜讗住讜专讛 诇讬讘诐 爪专转讛 讗住讜专讛

In response, you can say: Just as a wife鈥檚 sister is specific in that she is a forbidden relative and this is a prohibition for whose intentional violation one is liable to receive karet and for whose unwitting violation one is liable to bring a sin-offering, and yet she is permitted to marry one of the brothers but she is prohibited to the yavam in levirate marriage, and her rival wife is likewise prohibited in levirate marriage; so too, with regard to any woman with whom relations are forbidden and this is a prohibition for whose intentional violation one is liable to receive karet and for whose unwitting violation one is liable to bring a sin-offering, and who is permitted to marry one of the brothers but she is prohibited to the yavam in levirate marriage, her rival wife is also prohibited in levirate marriage.

讬爪讗讜 砖砖 注专讬讜转 讞诪讜专讜转 诪讗诇讜 讛讜讗讬诇 讚讗讬 讗驻砖专 诇讬谞砖讗 诇讗讞讬诐 爪专讜转讬讛谉 诪讜转专讜转 砖讗讬谉 爪专讛 讗诇讗 诪讗讞

This excludes the six women with whom relations are forbidden by a more severe prohibition than those, since they may not marry the brothers, i.e., they are forbidden to all of the brothers. One鈥檚 mother may never marry his brother, either because she is also that brother鈥檚 mother, or because she is his father鈥檚 wife. Consequently, their rival wives are permitted, as the halakha with regard to a rival wife applies only due to the brother. In other words, the prohibition against marriage to the rival wife of a forbidden relative is applicable only in instances of levirate bonds. When the levirate bond does not take effect at all, the rival wife is not forbidden.

讗讝讛专讛 砖诪注谞讜 注讜谞砖 诪谞讬讬谉 讗诪专 拽专讗 讻讬 讻诇 (讗讬砖) 讗砖专 讬注砖讛 诪讻诇 讛转讜注讘讜转 讜讙讜壮

The baraita adds: We have learned the warning concerning this prohibition that the yavam may not marry his forbidden relative from the verse: 鈥淎nd you shall not take a woman to her sister, to be a rival to her, to uncover her nakedness, with her in her lifetime鈥 (Leviticus 18:18). From where is the punishment that he incurs if he transgresses and marries her derived? The verse states: 鈥淔or whoever shall do any of these abominations, the souls that do them shall be cut off from among their people鈥 (Leviticus 18:29).

讟注诪讗 讚讻转讘 专讞诪谞讗 注诇讬讛 讛讗 诇讗讜 讛讻讬 讛讜讛 讗诪讬谞讗 讗讞讜转 讗砖讛 诪讬讬讘诪转 诪讗讬 讟注诪讗 讚讗诪专讬谞谉 讗转讬 注砖讛 讜讚讞讬 诇讗 转注砖讛

搂 Up until this point, the Gemara has cited the baraita that interprets the biblical basis for the halakha of the mishna. The Gemara further analyzes the foundational principles of this topic. The reason that these women are exempt from levirate marriage is that the Merciful One writes 鈥渨ith her,鈥 from which it may be inferred that if that was not so, I would say that a wife鈥檚 sister enters into levirate marriage with her sister鈥檚 husband. What is the reason that one would have assumed that this is the case? It is as we say, in accordance with a principle, that a positive mitzva comes and overrides a prohibition. In this case, the positive mitzva to enter into levirate marriage overrides the prohibition against marrying one鈥檚 wife鈥檚 sister.

讗讬诪专 讚讗诪专讬谞谉 讗转讬 注砖讛 讜讚讞讬 诇讗 转注砖讛 诇讗 转注砖讛 讙专讬讚讗 诇讗 转注砖讛 砖讬砖 讘讜 讻专转 诪讬 讚讞讬 讜转讜 诇讗 转注砖讛 讙专讬讚讗 诪谞诇谉 讚讚讞讬

The Gemara asks if that principle is applicable in this case. One can say that we said that a positive mitzva comes and overrides a prohibition only when there is a prohibition for which one is punished by lashes alone. However, with regard to a prohibition that includes the punishment of karet, does a positive mitzva override it? This prohibition is more severe than a regular one, and therefore perhaps a positive mitzva does not override it. And furthermore, with regard to a prohibition for which one is punished by lashes alone, from where do we derive that a positive mitzva overrides it?

  • This month's learning is sponsored by Terri Krivosha for the Refuah Shlemah of her husband Harav Hayim Yehuda Ben Faiga Rivah.聽

  • 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 1 (2-16): 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: 2-8 – Daf Yomi One Week at a Time

This week we will begin learning Masechet Yevamot. We will learn about the mitzvah of Yibum, Levirate Marriage, and who...
Gefet in english with rabbanit yael shimoni

Can a Positive Commandment Override a Negative One? – Gefet 29

Does a Positive Commandment Override a Negative Commandment for Which the Punishment is Karet? Why is One Allowed to Marry...
talking talmud_square

Yevamot 3: When “Exempt” Means Forbidden

Why are the co-wives described as "exempting" one another from yibum, when really those potential cases of yibum are prohibited?...

Yevamot 3

The William Davidson Talmud | Powered by Sefaria

Yevamot 3

讻讜诇讛讜 谞诪讬 诪讚专砖讗 讗转讜 谞讛讬 讚诇注谞讬谉 讬讬讘讜诐 讗转讬讬谉 诪讚专砖讗 注讬拽专 讗讬住讜专讬讬讛讜 讘讛讚讬讗 讻转讬讘 讘讛讜 讘转讜 注讬拽专 讗讬住讜专讗 诪讚专砖讗

The Gemara challenges this conclusion: All of the exemptions from levirate marriage for forbidden relatives listed in the mishna are also derived from a homiletical interpretation. The Gemara responds: Although the matter of levirate marriage is derived from a homiletical interpretation, the main aspect of their prohibition is explicitly written. By contrast, with regard to his daughter from a woman he raped but did not marry, the main aspect of this prohibition is derived by homiletical interpretation, as the prohibition itself is not written explicitly in the Torah.

讚讗诪专 专讘讗 讗诪专 诇讬 专讘 讬爪讞拽 讘专 讗讘讚讬诪讬 讗转讬讗 讛谞讛 讛谞讛

As Rava said: Rav Yitz岣k bar Avdimi said to me: This prohibition is derived by means of a verbal analogy between the word hena, in the verse: 鈥淭he nakedness of your son鈥檚 daughter, or of your daughter鈥檚 daughter, even their nakedness you shall not uncover; for theirs [hena] is your own nakedness鈥 (Leviticus 18:10) and the word hena in a different verse: 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, to uncover her nakedness: they [hena] are near kinswomen; it is wickedness鈥 (Leviticus 18:17), indicating that every daughter is prohibited, even one from rape, just like one鈥檚 daughter through his wife.

讗转讬讗 讝诪讛 讝诪讛

Furthermore, it is derived from a verbal analogy between the word 鈥渨ickedness鈥 (Leviticus 18:17) and the word 鈥渨ickedness鈥 in the verse: 鈥淎nd if a man take with his wife also her mother, it is wickedness; they shall be burnt with fire, both he and they, that there be no wickedness among you鈥 (Leviticus 20:14), that one who has sexual intercourse with a daughter from a rape is liable to burning.

讛砖转讗 讚讗诪专转 讻诇 诪诇转讗 讚讗转讬讗 诪讚专砖讗 讞讘讬讘讗 诇讬讛 诇讬转谞讬 诇讗讞讜转 讗砖讛 诇讘住讜祝 讗讬讬讚讬 讚讗讬讬专讬 讘讗讬住讜专 讗讞讜讜转讗 转谞讗 讗讞讜转 讗砖转讜

搂 The Gemara asks: Now that you said that all matters that are derived from a homiletical interpretation are dear to the tanna, and he therefore he gives them precedence, let him teach the case of a wife鈥檚 sister last, as this is the source of the halakha and is therefore the most straightforward case. The Gemara responds: Since the tanna was dealing with the prohibition with regard to different types of sisters, he also taught together with them the prohibition with regard to his wife鈥檚 sister.

讜诇讬转谞讬讬讗 诇讛讗讬 讘讘讗 诇讘住讜祝 讗诇讗 转谞讗 拽讜专讘讬 拽讜专讘讬 谞拽讟 转谞讗 讘转讜 讜讘转 讘转讜 讜讘转 讘谞讜 讚拽专讜讘讬 注爪诪讜

The Gemara asks: But if so, let him teach this entire section involving sisters at the end, when he mentions a wife鈥檚 sister. Rather, the Gemara rejects the above answer in favor of an alternative explanation: The tanna cited the cases in order of closeness, i.e., the mishna is ordered in accordance with the relative closeness of the various incestuous relations. How so? The tanna taught the cases of one鈥檚 daughter, and the daughter of his daughter, and the daughter of his son, who are his own blood relatives.

讜讗讬讬讚讬 讚转谞讗 砖诇砖讛 讚讜专讜转 诇诪讟讛 讚讬讚讬讛 转谞讗 谞诪讬 砖诇砖讛 讚讜专讜转 诇诪讟讛 讚讬讚讛 讜讗讬讬讚讬 讚转谞讗 砖诇砖讛 讚讜专讜转 诇诪讟讛 讚讬讚讛 转谞讗 砖诇砖讛 讚讜专讜转 诇诪注诇讛 讚讬讚讛

And since he taught three generations of one鈥檚 offspring below, i.e., his daughter, his daughter鈥檚 daughter, and his son鈥檚 daughter, he also taught three generations of his wife鈥檚 offspring below, i.e., his wife herself, her daughter, and her daughter鈥檚 daughter. And since he taught three generations of his wife鈥檚 offspring below, he also taught three generations of her family above, i.e., from previous generations, namely herself, her mother, i.e., his mother-in-law, and his mother-in-law鈥檚 mother.

讜转谞讗 讗讞讜转讜 讜讗讞讜转 讗诪讜 讚拽专讜讘讬 注爪诪讜 讜讗讬讬讚讬 讚讗讬讬专讬 讘讗讬住讜专 讗讞讜讛 转谞讗 讗讞讜转 讗砖转讜 讜讘讚讬谉 讛讜讗 讚诇讬拽讚诪讛 诇讻诇转讜 诪拽诪讬 讗砖转 讗讞讬讜 砖诇讗 讛讬讛 讘注讜诇诪讜 讚诇讗 诪砖讜诐 拽讜专讘讗 讛讜讗 讚讗住讬专讗 讗诇讗 讗讬讬讚讬 讚讗讬讬专讬 讘讗讬住讜专 讗讞讜讛 转谞讗 讗砖转 讗讞讬讜 砖诇讗 讛讬讛 讘注讜诇诪讜 讜讛讚专 转谞讗 讻诇转讜

And afterward he taught the case of his sister and his mother鈥檚 sister, who are his own blood relatives but less closely related to him than his daughter. And since he was dealing with the prohibition with regard to sisters, he also taught the case of his wife鈥檚 sister. And by right the tanna should have preceded the case of his daughter-in-law before that of a wife of a brother with whom he did not coexist, as it is not due to their relationship that she is prohibited but rather because she is excluded from the mitzva of levirate marriage. However, since he was dealing with the prohibition with regard to siblings, he taught the case of a wife of a brother with whom he did not coexist, as this also involves a sibling. And then the tanna taught the case of his daughter-in-law.

讜诪讗讬 讗讬专讬讗 讚转谞讗 驻讜讟专讜转 诇讬转谞讬 讗讜住专讜转 讗讬 转谞讗 讗讜住专讜转 讛讜讛 讗诪讬谞讗 讗住讜专 诇讬讬讘诐 讗讘诇 诪讬讞诇抓 讞诇爪讛 拽讗 诪砖诪注 诇谉

搂 The Gemara continues to analyze the language of the mishna: And why does the tanna specifically teach: They exempt their rival wives? Let him teach: They prohibit them, as ultimately the rival wives are not only exempt from levirate marriage but each is actually forbidden to her yavam. The Gemara explains that if he had taught: They prohibit them, I would say that this means it is prohibited to enter into levirate marriage, but she must perform 岣litza. Therefore, it teaches us using the language of exemption to indicate that she is entirely exempt and does not even perform 岣litza.

讜诇讬转谞讬 讗住讜专讛 诇讞诇讜抓 诪讗讬 拽注讘讬讚 讗诇诪讛 诇讗 讗诐 讗转讛 讗讜诪专 讞讜诇爪转 诪转讬讬讘诪转

The Gemara raises a difficulty: If so, let him teach: She is prohibited from performing 岣litza. The Gemara rejects this suggestion: It is impossible to formulate the halakha in this manner, as even if they perform 岣litza, what has he really done? What is wrong with a man allowing a woman to take off his shoe, which is the act of 岣litza? Consequently, it is not possible to state: Prohibited from performing 岣litza. The Gemara asks: Why not? There is in fact a prohibited element here: If you say she performs 岣litza, it might be said that she may also enter into levirate marriage and that in this specific instance he performed 岣litza merely because he did not wish to marry her. In that case, it might erroneously be claimed that if another wished to marry the rival wife of his yevama he is permitted to enter into levirate marriage.

讻讬讜谉 讚讘诪拽讜诐 诪爪讜讛 讛讜讗 讚讗住讬专讛 爪专讛 讜砖诇讗 讘诪拽讜诐 诪爪讜讛 砖专讬讗 诪砖讜诐 讛讻讬 转谞讬 驻讜讟专讜转

In light of the previous argument, the Gemara suggests another reason that the mishna does not use the expression: Prohibited. Since it is only in cases where the mitzva of levirate marriage applies that the rival wife is forbidden to him, and where no mitzva applies she is permitted, as it is permitted for the man to marry the widowed rival wife of a non-relative, due to that reason he taught: They exempt their rival wives, and not: They prohibit them. In other words, the tanna is teaching that they are not prohibited to him in their own right.

讜诪讗讬 讗讬专讬讗 讚转谞讬 诪谉 讛讞诇讬爪讛 讜诪谉 讛讬讬讘讜诐 诇讬转谞讬 诪谉 讛讬讬讘讜诐 诇讞讜讚讬讛 讗讬 转谞讗 诪谉 讛讬讬讘讜诐 讛讜讛 讗诪讬谞讗 诪讬讞诇抓 讞诇爪讛 讬讘讜诪讬 诇讗 诪讬讬讘诪讛 拽讗 诪砖诪注 诇谉 讻诇 讛注讜诇讛 诇讬讬讘讜诐 注讜诇讛 诇讞诇讬爪讛 讜讻诇 砖讗讬谞讜 注讜诇讛 诇讬讬讘讜诐 讗讬谞讜 注讜诇讛 诇讞诇讬爪讛

搂 The Gemara continues its analysis of the wording of the mishna. And why does the tanna specifically teach: Exempt from 岣litza and from levirate marriage? Let him teach: Exempt from levirate marriage, alone. The Gemara answers: If he were to teach: From levirate marriage, I would say that she must perform 岣litza and she must not enter into levirate marriage. The tanna therefore teaches us that every woman who is eligible for levirate marriage is eligible for 岣litza, and anyone who is ineligible for levirate marriage is likewise ineligible for 岣litza, as no obligation of 岣litza applies unless there is an obligation of a levirate marriage.

讜诇讬转谞讬 诪谉 讛讬讬讘讜诐 讜诪谉 讛讞诇讬爪讛 讗讬 谞诪讬 诪谉 讛讞诇讬爪讛 诇讞讜讚讛 讗讘讗 砖讗讜诇 讛讬讗 讚讗诪专 诪爪讜转 讞诇讬爪讛 拽讜讚诪转 诇诪爪讜转 讬讬讘讜诐

搂 The Gemara further inquires: And let him teach: From levirate marriage and from 岣litza, as the Torah states the option of levirate marriage first. Alternatively, let him teach: From 岣litza, alone, as this would indicate that she may not enter into levirate marriage either. The Gemara answers: This mishna is in accordance with the opinion of Abba Shaul, who said: The mitzva of 岣litza takes precedence over the mitzva of levirate marriage, as he maintains that one who does not enter into levirate marriage for the sake of Heaven transgresses the prohibition against marrying one鈥檚 brother鈥檚 wife, and therefore it would be better in every case to perform 岣litza. Consequently, the tanna mentions 岣litza before levirate marriage.

诪谞讬谞讗 讚专讬砖讗 诇诪注讜讟讬 诪讗讬 讜诪谞讬谞讗 讚住讬驻讗 诇诪注讜讟讬 诪讗讬

搂 The Gemara asks another question with regard to the language of the mishna: The enumeration of the first clause of the mishna: Fifteen women, which indicates that those women alone are included in this list, serves to exclude what? Which other cases might have been included? And the enumeration of the latter clause, which states: These exempt their rival wives, again meaning these and no others, serves to exclude what? Since the mishna specifies only these women and no others, the Gemara asks which other women might have been included in these lists.

诇诪注讜讟讬 讚专讘 讜讚专讘 讗住讬 诇专讘 讜诇专讘 讗住讬 诇诪注讜讟讬 诪讗讬

The Gemara answers that these enumerations come to exclude those additions of Rav and of Rav Asi. Rav added the rival wife of a woman suspected by her husband of adultery [sota], while Rav Asi added the rival wife of an aylonit. The Gemara asks: And according to the opinion of Rav and according to the opinion of Rav Asi, the enumeration of the mishna comes to exclude what?

讗讬 住讘讬专讗 诇讛讜 讚讛讚讚讬 讞讚讗 诇诪注讜讟讬 爪专转 诪诪讗谞转 讜讞讚讗 诇诪注讜讟讬 爪专转 诪讞讝讬专 讙专讜砖转讜

The Gemara responds: If each maintains in accordance with the opinion of the other, then one enumeration of the mishna comes to exclude the rival wife of a wife who performed refusal. If the deceased brother had two wives, one of whom was a minor, and she refused the yavam, her rival wife is prohibited from levirate marriage with him. However, the latter is not entirely exempt and must perform 岣litza. And the other one comes to exclude the rival wife of the wife of one who remarries his divorc茅e, i.e., a woman who was illicitly remarried by her former husband after she had been married to another man.

讜讗讬 诇讗 住讘讬专讗 诇讛讜 讚讛讚讚讬 讞讚讗 诇诪注讜讟讬 讚讞讘专讬讛 讜讞讚讗 诇诪注讜讟讬 讗讜 爪专转 诪诪讗谞转 讗讜 爪专转 诪讞讝讬专 讙专讜砖转讜

And if Rav and Rav Asi do not each maintain in accordance with the opinion of the other, then one enumeration comes to exclude the opinion of the other, as they do not agree that the halakha stated by the other should be included in the mishna, and the other one comes to exclude one of the above suggestions, either the rival wife of a wife who performed refusal or the rival wife of the wife of one who remarries his divorc茅e.

诇专讘 讜诇专讘 讗住讬 诇讬转谞讬谞讛讜

The Gemara asks: If so, according to the opinion of Rav and according to the opinion of Rav Asi, let the tanna teach these cases. Since in their opinions there are more than fifteen women to whom the principle of the mishna applies, why weren鈥檛 they all stated by the tanna of the mishna? The Gemara answers: They were not taught because they do not completely fit all of the halakhic rulings here.

诇驻讬 砖讗讬谞讛 讘爪专转 爪专讛

The Gemara elaborates: This is because they do not involve the case of a rival wife of a rival wife. With regard to the fifteen women listed, the discussion of the mishna concerning rival wives and rival wives of rival wives is appropriate. However, the two cases cited by Rav and Rav Asi do not leave room for such deliberations, as both a sota and an aylonit are exempt and forbidden equally to all of the brothers, because their prohibition does not result from a familial relation to one of the living brothers but from a personal issue relating to the women themselves. Since none of the brothers may marry her rival wife, there is no possibility of a rival wife of a rival wife, and consequently these cases were omitted from the mishna鈥檚 list of fifteen women.

诪谞讗 讛谞讬 诪讬诇讬 讚转谞讜 专讘谞谉 讗砖讛 讗诇 讗讞讜转讛 诇讗 转拽讞 诇爪专讜专 诇讙诇讜转 注专讜转讛 注诇讬讛 讘讞讬讬讛 注诇讬讛 诪讛 转诇诪讜讚 诇讜诪专

搂 After analyzing the order and language of the mishna, the Gemara discusses the halakhot themselves. From where are these matters, that if one鈥檚 forbidden relative comes before him for levirate marriage he is prohibited from marrying her or her rival wife, derived? It is as the Sages taught with regard to the verse: 鈥淎nd you shall not take a woman to her sister, to be a rival to her, to uncover her nakedness, with her in her lifetime鈥 (Leviticus 18:18). What is the meaning when the verse states the apparently superfluous phrase: 鈥淲ith her鈥?

诇驻讬 砖谞讗诪专 讬讘诪讛 讬讘讗 注诇讬讛 砖讜诪注 讗谞讬 讗驻讬诇讜 讘讗讞转 诪讻诇 注专讬讜转 讛讗诪讜专讜转 讘转讜专讛 讛讻转讜讘 诪讚讘专 谞讗诪专 讻讗谉 注诇讬讛 讜谞讗诪专 诇讛诇谉 注诇讬讛

The baraita explains: Since it is stated with regard to the wife of a deceased brother: 鈥淗er brother-in-law will have intercourse with her鈥 (Deuteronomy 25:5), I would derive that when the verse speaks of the mitzva of levirate marriage, it includes even any one of those with whom relations are forbidden, as mentioned in the Torah. Therefore, one derives a verbal analogy: It is stated here, with regard to a wife鈥檚 sister: 鈥淲ith her,鈥 and it is stated there, with regard to a levirate marriage: 鈥淲ith her.鈥

诪讛 诇讛诇谉 讘诪拽讜诐 诪爪讜讛 讗祝 讻讗谉 讘诪拽讜诐 诪爪讜讛 讜讗诪专 专讞诪谞讗 诇讗 转拽讞

The baraita explains the verbal analogy. Just as there, a levirate marriage involves the performance of a mitzva, so too, here, the statement 鈥渦ncover her nakedness with her鈥 includes the performance of a mitzva, and the Merciful One states in the Torah: 鈥淵ou shall not take.鈥 The phrase 鈥渨ith her鈥 teaches that even in a case where there is an obligation of levirate marriage, the Torah prohibition proscribing forbidden relatives remains in force.

讜讗讬谉 诇讬 讗诇讗 讛讬讗 爪专转讛 诪谞讬谉 转诇诪讜讚 诇讜诪专 诇爪专讜专 讜讗讬谉 诇讬 讗诇讗 爪专转讛 爪专转 爪专转讛 诪谞讬讬谉 转诇诪讜讚 诇讜诪专 诇爪专讜专 讜诇讗 诇爪讜专

The baraita continues: And I have derived only that she, his wife鈥檚 sister, is exempt from levirate marriage; from where do I derive that her rival wife is also exempt? The verse states: 鈥淭o be a rival to her鈥 (Leviticus 18:18), which indicates that not only is she prohibited, but so too is her rival wife. And I have derived only her rival wife; from where is it derived that the rival wife of her rival wife is also exempt? The verse states: 鈥淭o be a rival [litzror],鈥 using the full spelling with a double reish, and not latzor; this indicates that there are several rival wives, one after another.

讜讗讬谉 诇讬 讗诇讗 讗讞讜转 讗砖讛 砖讗专 注专讬讜转 诪谞讬讬谉 讗诪专转 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 讜讗住讜专讛 诇讬讘诐 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 讗住讜专讛 诇讬讘诐

And I have derived from this verbal analogy only that the mitzva of levirate marriage does not apply to a wife鈥檚 sister. From where is it derived that the same applies to the other women with whom relations are forbidden? You can say as follows: Just as the case of a wife鈥檚 sister is specific in that she is a forbidden relative, and this is a prohibition for whose intentional violation, i.e., for intentional sexual relations with her, one is liable to receive karet, and for whose unwitting violation one is liable to bring a sin-offering, and she is prohibited to the yavam in levirate marriage; so too, with regard to all women with whom relations are forbidden by a prohibition for whose intentional violation one is liable to receive karet and for whose unwitting violation one is liable to bring a sin-offering, they are prohibited to the yavam in levirate marriage.

讜讗讬谉 诇讬 讗诇讗 讛谉 爪专讜转讬讛谉 诪谞讬讬谉 讗诪专转 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 讜讗住讜专讛 诇讬讘诐 讜爪专转讛 讗住讜专讛 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 讜讗住讜专讛 诇讬讘诐 爪专转讛 讗住讜专讛 诪讻讗谉 讗诪专讜 讞讻诪讬诐 讞诪砖 注砖专讛 谞砖讬诐 驻讜讟专讜转 爪专讜转讬讛谉 讜爪专讜转 爪专讜转讬讛谉 诪谉 讛讞诇讬爪讛 讜诪谉 讛讬讬讘讜诐 注讚 住讜祝 讛注讜诇诐

The baraita continues: And I have derived only the cases of those women themselves with whom relations are forbidden; from where is it derived that their rival wives are also exempt from levirate marriage? You can say as follows: Just as a wife鈥檚 sister is specific in that she is a forbidden relative and this is a prohibition for whose intentional violation one is liable to receive karet, and for whose unwitting violation one is liable to bring a sin-offering, and she is prohibited to the yavam in levirate marriage, and her rival wife is likewise prohibited; so too, any woman with whom relations are forbidden and this is a prohibition for whose intentional violation one is liable to receive karet, and for whose unwitting violation one is liable to bring a sin-offering, and this woman is one who is forbidden to the yavam, her rival wife is likewise forbidden. The baraita concludes: From here the Sages stated that fifteen women exempt their rival wives and the rival wives of their rival wives from 岣litza and from levirate marriage forever.

讬讻讜诇 砖讗谞讬 诪专讘讛 讗祝 砖砖 注专讬讜转 讞诪讜专讜转 诪讗诇讜 砖讬讛讜 爪专讜转讬讛诐 讗住讜专讜转

搂 One might have thought that I should include in this principle even the six women with whom relations are forbidden that are more severe than these, i.e., one鈥檚 mother, his father鈥檚 sister, and so on, as stated in a later mishna (13b), since they too are forbidden by a prohibition entailing karet. This would mean that their rival wives should likewise be prohibited to enter into levirate marriage with this yavam as forbidden rival wives.

讗诪专转 诪讛 讗讞讜转 讗砖转讜 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 讜讗驻砖专 诇讬谞砖讗 诇讗讞讬诐 讜讗住讜专讛 诇讬讘诐 讜爪专转讛 讗住讜专讛 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 讜讗驻砖专 诇讬谞砖讗 诇讗讞讬诐 讜讗住讜专讛 诇讬讘诐 爪专转讛 讗住讜专讛

In response, you can say: Just as a wife鈥檚 sister is specific in that she is a forbidden relative and this is a prohibition for whose intentional violation one is liable to receive karet and for whose unwitting violation one is liable to bring a sin-offering, and yet she is permitted to marry one of the brothers but she is prohibited to the yavam in levirate marriage, and her rival wife is likewise prohibited in levirate marriage; so too, with regard to any woman with whom relations are forbidden and this is a prohibition for whose intentional violation one is liable to receive karet and for whose unwitting violation one is liable to bring a sin-offering, and who is permitted to marry one of the brothers but she is prohibited to the yavam in levirate marriage, her rival wife is also prohibited in levirate marriage.

讬爪讗讜 砖砖 注专讬讜转 讞诪讜专讜转 诪讗诇讜 讛讜讗讬诇 讚讗讬 讗驻砖专 诇讬谞砖讗 诇讗讞讬诐 爪专讜转讬讛谉 诪讜转专讜转 砖讗讬谉 爪专讛 讗诇讗 诪讗讞

This excludes the six women with whom relations are forbidden by a more severe prohibition than those, since they may not marry the brothers, i.e., they are forbidden to all of the brothers. One鈥檚 mother may never marry his brother, either because she is also that brother鈥檚 mother, or because she is his father鈥檚 wife. Consequently, their rival wives are permitted, as the halakha with regard to a rival wife applies only due to the brother. In other words, the prohibition against marriage to the rival wife of a forbidden relative is applicable only in instances of levirate bonds. When the levirate bond does not take effect at all, the rival wife is not forbidden.

讗讝讛专讛 砖诪注谞讜 注讜谞砖 诪谞讬讬谉 讗诪专 拽专讗 讻讬 讻诇 (讗讬砖) 讗砖专 讬注砖讛 诪讻诇 讛转讜注讘讜转 讜讙讜壮

The baraita adds: We have learned the warning concerning this prohibition that the yavam may not marry his forbidden relative from the verse: 鈥淎nd you shall not take a woman to her sister, to be a rival to her, to uncover her nakedness, with her in her lifetime鈥 (Leviticus 18:18). From where is the punishment that he incurs if he transgresses and marries her derived? The verse states: 鈥淔or whoever shall do any of these abominations, the souls that do them shall be cut off from among their people鈥 (Leviticus 18:29).

讟注诪讗 讚讻转讘 专讞诪谞讗 注诇讬讛 讛讗 诇讗讜 讛讻讬 讛讜讛 讗诪讬谞讗 讗讞讜转 讗砖讛 诪讬讬讘诪转 诪讗讬 讟注诪讗 讚讗诪专讬谞谉 讗转讬 注砖讛 讜讚讞讬 诇讗 转注砖讛

搂 Up until this point, the Gemara has cited the baraita that interprets the biblical basis for the halakha of the mishna. The Gemara further analyzes the foundational principles of this topic. The reason that these women are exempt from levirate marriage is that the Merciful One writes 鈥渨ith her,鈥 from which it may be inferred that if that was not so, I would say that a wife鈥檚 sister enters into levirate marriage with her sister鈥檚 husband. What is the reason that one would have assumed that this is the case? It is as we say, in accordance with a principle, that a positive mitzva comes and overrides a prohibition. In this case, the positive mitzva to enter into levirate marriage overrides the prohibition against marrying one鈥檚 wife鈥檚 sister.

讗讬诪专 讚讗诪专讬谞谉 讗转讬 注砖讛 讜讚讞讬 诇讗 转注砖讛 诇讗 转注砖讛 讙专讬讚讗 诇讗 转注砖讛 砖讬砖 讘讜 讻专转 诪讬 讚讞讬 讜转讜 诇讗 转注砖讛 讙专讬讚讗 诪谞诇谉 讚讚讞讬

The Gemara asks if that principle is applicable in this case. One can say that we said that a positive mitzva comes and overrides a prohibition only when there is a prohibition for which one is punished by lashes alone. However, with regard to a prohibition that includes the punishment of karet, does a positive mitzva override it? This prohibition is more severe than a regular one, and therefore perhaps a positive mitzva does not override it. And furthermore, with regard to a prohibition for which one is punished by lashes alone, from where do we derive that a positive mitzva overrides it?

Scroll To Top