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

Today's Daf Yomi

October 12, 2014 | 讬状讞 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 8

Study Guide Yevamot 8


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

转讬谞讞 讛讬讻讗 讚谞砖讗 诪转 讜讗讞专 讻讱 谞砖讗 讞讬 讚诪讙讜 讚讗讬砖转专讬 讗讬住讜专 讗砖转 讗讞 讗讬砖转专讬 谞诪讬 讗讬住讜专 讗讞讜转 讗砖讛

This works out well when the deceased brother had first married one of the sisters, who was thereby rendered prohibited to the yavam as his brother鈥檚 wife, and only afterward had the living brother married her sister, which renders his brother鈥檚 wife forbidden to him on another count, this time as his wife鈥檚 sister. As in that case one can say that since the first prohibition with regard to a brother鈥檚 wife was subsequently nullified and thereby permitted by the mitzva of levirate marriage, the prohibition with regard to a wife鈥檚 sister was also nullified and thereby permitted.

讗诇讗 谞砖讗 讞讬 讜讗讞专 讻讱 谞砖讗 诪转 讗讬住讜专 讗讞讜转 讗砖讛 拽讚讬诐

However, if the reverse occurred, and first the living brother had married his wife and only afterward the deceased brother had married her sister, in this case the prohibition with regard to a wife鈥檚 sister precedes the prohibition proscribing a brother鈥檚 wife, i.e., she was initially forbidden to him as his wife鈥檚 sister. Consequently, even when the second prohibition lapses upon the death of his childless brother, the first prohibition should remain intact.

讜讗驻讬诇讜 谞砖讗 诪转 谞诪讬 转讬谞讞 讛讬讻讗 讚谞砖讗 诪转 讜诪转 讜讗讞专 讻讱 谞砖讗 讞讬 讚讞讝讬讗 诇讬讛 讚讘讬谞讬 讘讬谞讬 讗诇讗 谞砖讗 诪转 讜诇讗 诪转 讜讗讞专 讻讱 谞砖讗 讞讬 诇讗 讗讬讞讝讬讗 诇讬讛 讻诇诇

And furthermore, even in a case where the deceased brother had married first, it works out well only when the deceased brother had married the woman and then died, and only afterward the surviving brother married that brother鈥檚 wife鈥檚 sister. The reason is that in this case, the sister of the wife of the deceased brother was fit for him in between, i.e., during the period from when the deceased brother died until he married that brother鈥檚 wife鈥檚 sister. Therefore, it can be claimed that the second prohibition should not apply. However, if the deceased brother married first, and did not die yet, and afterward, during the deceased brother鈥檚 lifetime, the living brother married the deceased brother鈥檚 sister, she was not fit for him at all, as there was no period of time during which she was permitted to him.

诪讬 诇讗 诪讜讚讬 注讜诇讗 砖讗诐 专讗讛 拽专讬 讘诇讬诇 砖诪讬谞讬 砖讗讬谉 诪讻谞讬住 讬讚讬讜 诇讘讛讜谞讜转 砖诇讗 讬爪讗 讘砖注讛 砖讛讬讗 专讗讜讬讛 诇讛讘讬讗 讘讛 拽专讘谉

The Gemara provides proof for this claim: Doesn鈥檛 Ulla agree that if a leper experienced a seminal emission on the night of the eighth, not on the eighth day but on the previous night, that he may not insert his hands and feet to the thumb and big toe to receive the blood and oil for his purification? The reason is that in this case he is ritually impure due to the emission and he had not yet emerged from the impurity of leprosy at a time that is fitting to bring an offering, as he cannot sacrifice his offerings until the daylight hours of the eighth day. Since there was not a single moment when he was permitted to enter the Temple in his state of ritual impurity, in this case one cannot apply the principle: Since it is permitted, it is permitted.

讗诇讗 讻讬 讗讬爪讟专讬讱 注诇讬讛 讛讬讻讗 讚谞砖讗 诪转 讜诪转 讜讗讞专 讻讱 谞砖讗 讞讬

Rather, the Gemara suggests that the phrase 鈥渨ith her,鈥 which teaches the prohibition with regard to a wife鈥檚 sister in levirate marriage, is necessary for a case where the deceased brother had first married and then died, and only afterward the living brother married the sister of the deceased brother鈥檚 wife, in which case his brother鈥檚 wife was permitted to him for a period of time. Accordingly, one might have applied the principle: Since it is permitted, it is permitted. For this reason it was necessary to write 鈥渨ith her,鈥 to teach that this second woman is nevertheless forbidden as his wife鈥檚 sister.

讜讗讬 讘注讬转 讗讬诪讗 讗转讬讗 讘讛讬拽讬砖讗 诪讚专讘讬 讬讜谞讛 讚讗诪专 专讘讬 讬讜谞讛 讜讗讬转讬诪讗 专讘 讛讜谞讗 讘专讬讛 讚专讘 讬讛讜砖注 讗诪专 拽专讗 讻讬 讻诇 讗砖专 讬注砖讛 诪讻诇 讛转讜注讘讜转 讛讗诇讛 讜谞讻专转讜 讛讜拽砖讜 讻诇 讛注专讬讜转 讻讜诇谉 诇讗砖转 讗讞 诪讛 讗砖转 讗讞 砖专讬讗 讗祝 讻诇 注专讬讜转 谞诪讬 砖专讬讬谉 讻转讘 专讞诪谞讗 注诇讬讛

And if you wish, say instead that the suggestion that other women with whom relations are forbidden are permitted in levirate marriage is derived from the juxtaposition of Rabbi Yona. As Rabbi Yona said, and some say this was stated by Rav Huna, son of Rav Yehoshua: 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). In this verse all of the women with whom relations are forbidden are juxtaposed with the case of a brother鈥檚 wife. Consequently, one might say that just as a brother鈥檚 wife is permitted in levirate marriage, so too, all women with whom relations are forbidden are likewise permitted. Therefore, the Merciful One writes: 鈥淲ith her,鈥 which excludes the prohibition with regard to a wife鈥檚 sister.

讗诪专 诇讬讛 专讘 讗讞讗 诪讚驻转讬 诇专讘讬谞讗 诪讻讚讬 讻诇 注专讬讜转 讗讬讻讗 诇讗拽讜砖讬谞讛讜 诇讗砖转 讗讞 讜讗讬讻讗 诇讗拽讜砖讬谞讛讜 诇讗讞讜转 讗砖讛 诪讗讬 讞讝讬转 讚讗拽砖转 诇讗讞讜转 讗砖讛 讗拽砖讬谞讛讜 诇讗砖转 讗讞

Against this proof, Rav A岣 of Difti said to Ravina: Since the halakha of all women with whom relations are forbidden can be juxtaposed with the case of a brother鈥檚 wife and thereby rendered permitted in levirate marriage, and these cases can equally be juxtaposed with the halakha of a wife鈥檚 sister, which would mean that they are forbidden, what did you see that you juxtaposed them with a wife鈥檚 sister? Juxtapose them instead with a brother鈥檚 wife. If so, the opposite could be derived from the phrase 鈥渨ith her,鈥 i.e., not that all women with whom relations are forbidden are prohibited like a wife鈥檚 sister, but that all these women are permitted in levirate marriage, even a wife鈥檚 sister.

讗讬讘注讬转 讗讬诪讗 诇拽讜诇讗 讜讞讜诪专讗 诇讞讜诪专讗 诪拽砖讬谞谉 讗讬讘注讬转 讗讬诪讗 讛讻讗 转专讬 讗讬住讜专讬 讜讛讻讗 转专讬 讗讬住讜专讬 讜转专讬 诪转专讬 讬诇驻讬谞谉 讗讘诇 讛讻讗 讞讚讗 讗讬住讜专讗 讜转专讬 诪讞讚讗 诇讗 讬诇驻讬谞谉

The Gemara answers: If you wish, say that if one must decide between two possible ways of understanding juxtaposed cases, one of which leads to a lenient ruling and the other to a stringent ruling, we juxtapose to reach the stringent ruling, not the leniency. If you wish, say instead: Here, there are two prohibitions, a brother鈥檚 wife and a wife鈥檚 sister, and there, in the case of all other women with whom relations are forbidden, there are also two prohibitions. And one may derive a case involving two prohibitions from another case that involves two prohibitions. However, here, in the case of a regular levirate marriage that does not involve any other forbidden relation, there is only one prohibition proscribing a brother鈥檚 wife, and one may not derive a case involving two prohibitions from a case that involves only one.

专讘讗 讗诪专 注专讜讛 诇讗 爪专讬讻讗 拽专讗 讚讗讬谉 注砖讛 讚讜讞讛 诇讗 转注砖讛 砖讬砖 讘讜 讻专转 讻讬 讗讬爪讟专讬讱 拽专讗 诇诪讬住专 爪专讛

Rava said that this entire halakha must be understood differently. With regard to a forbidden relation herself, it is not necessary for a verse to teach that she cannot enter into levirate marriage, as a positive mitzva does not override a prohibition that includes karet. Rather, the verse 鈥渨ith her鈥 is necessary to prohibit a rival wife, as a rival wife is not prohibited to the yavam as a forbidden relation.

讜注专讜讛 诇讗 爪专讬讻讗 拽专讗 讜讛讗 转谞讬讗 讗讬谉 诇讬 讗诇讗 讛讬讗

The Gemara asks: And does the tanna in fact maintain with regard to a forbidden relation that it is not necessary for a verse to teach that she is prohibited in levirate marriage? But isn鈥檛 it taught in that same baraita: I have derived nothing other than that this woman is exempt from levirate marriage. From where is it inferred that the same applies to her rival wife? This shows that the case of a forbidden relation does require a special inference from a verse.

诪砖讜诐 爪专转讛

The Gemara answers: It is due to her rival wife, i.e., the baraita does not mean that the halakha of women with whom relations are forbidden is derived from this verse; rather, this case is mentioned only to introduce the case of a rival wife.

讜讛讗 拽转谞讬 讗讬谉 诇讬 讗诇讗 讛谉 诪砖讜诐 爪专讜转讬讛谉

The Gemara raises another difficulty: But it is taught in the baraita: I have derived nothing other than that these sisters are exempt from levirate marriage, which again suggests that the derivation from the verse applies to all of them. This is similarly rejected: This is also stated due to their rival wives.

转讗 砖诪注 专讘讬 讗讜诪专 讜诇拽讞 讜诇拽讞讛 讜讬讘诐 讜讬讘诪讛 诇讗住讜专 爪专讜转 讜注专讬讜转

The Gemara suggests: Come and hear a different baraita that contradicts Rava鈥檚 statement: Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi says that there is a different proof that a forbidden relation and her rival wife are prohibited in levirate marriage. The Torah says: 鈥淗e will have intercourse with her and take her to him to be his wife and consummate the levirate marriage with her鈥 (Deuteronomy 25:5). Since the verse does not say simply: Have intercourse, but: 鈥淗ave intercourse with her,鈥 this indicates that he takes this woman specifically, not a different woman who is forbidden. Furthermore, the verse does not simply state: And consummate the levirate marriage, but: 鈥淎nd consummate the levirate marriage with her.鈥 These additions serve to prohibit rival wives and women with whom relations are forbidden.

讗讬诪讗 诇讗住讜专 爪专讜转 砖诇 注专讬讜转 讜讛讗 转专讬 拽专讗讬 拽谞住讬讘 诇讬讛 诪讗讬 诇讗讜 讞讚 诇注专讜讛 讜讞讚 诇爪专讛

This shows that even the prohibition with regard to women with whom relations are forbidden requires a special inference. The Gemara answers: Amend the language of the baraita and say: To prohibit rival wives of those with whom relations are forbidden, not the women themselves with whom relations are forbidden. The Gemara raises a difficulty: But he brought two proofs from the verse, both 鈥渉ave intercourse with her鈥 and 鈥渁nd consummate the levirate marriage with her.鈥 What, is it not because one phrase is required for the halakha of a woman with whom relations are forbidden and the other one for a rival wife?

诇讗 讗讬讚讬 讜讗讬讚讬 诇爪专讛 讞讚 诇诪讬住专 爪专讛 讘诪拽讜诐 诪爪讜讛 讜讞讚 诇诪讬砖专讬 爪专讛 砖诇讗 讘诪拽讜诐 诪爪讜讛

The Gemara rejects this suggestion: No, this source and that source are necessary for a rival wife, and both phrases are required, for the following reason. One of them comes to prohibit a rival wife in a place where the mitzva of levirate marriage is applicable, and one serves to permit a rival wife in a place where the mitzva is not applicable. If a woman is the rival wife of one of those relatives forbidden to a given man, he is permitted to marry her following the death of her husband, as the prohibition proscribing rival wives of women with whom relations are forbidden pertains only to cases where the halakhot of levirate marriage are applicable, i.e., in the case of a brother鈥檚 wife.

诪讗讬 讟注诪讗 讜讬讘诐 讜讬讘诪讛 讘诪拽讜诐 讬讬讘讜诐 讛讜讗 讚讗住讬专讗 爪专讛 砖诇讗 讘诪拽讜诐 讬讬讘讜诐 砖专讬讗 爪专讛

The Gemara elaborates: What is the reason for this halakha? It is derived from the fact that the verse does not merely state: And consummate the levirate marriage, but instead emphasizes: 鈥淎nd consummate the levirate marriage with her.鈥 This comes to teach: It is in a place where levirate marriage applies that a rival wife is prohibited; however, in a place where the levirate marriage is not applicable, a rival wife is permitted.

讗诪专 专讘 讗砖讬 诪转谞讬转讬谉 谞诪讬 讚讬拽讗 讚拽转谞讬 讞诪砖 注砖专讛 谞砖讬诐 驻讜讟专讜转 爪专讜转讬讛谉 讜讗讬诇讜 驻讟讜专讜转 讜驻讜讟专讜转 诇讗 拽转谞讬 砖诪注 诪讬谞讛

Rav Ashi said: The mishna is also precisely formulated in accordance with the opinion of Rava, as it teaches: Fifteen women exempt their rival wives, whereas the phrase: Are exempt and exempt others, is not taught. This indicates that the exemption of these women who are themselves forbidden relations does not necessitate any special inference, as this is not a novel halakha, and therefore the mishna does not even state this point explicitly. The novelty is that they exempt their rival wives. The Gemara summarizes: Conclude from this that Rava鈥檚 opinion is correct.

讜诪讗讬 砖谞讗 注专讜讛 讚诇讗 爪专讬讻讗 拽专讗 讚讗讬谉 注砖讛 讚讜讞讛 诇讗 转注砖讛 砖讬砖 讘讜 讻专转 爪专讛 谞诪讬 诇讗 转讬讘注讬 拽专讗 诪砖讜诐 讚讗讬谉 注砖讛 讚讜讞讛 诇讗 转注砖讛 砖讬砖 讘讜 讻专转

The Gemara asks: And if so, what is different about a forbidden relation that a special verse is not necessary to exclude it? The reason must be that a positive mitzva does not override a prohibition that entails karet. If so, a rival wife should also not require an additional verse, due to the fact that a positive mitzva does not override a prohibition that entails karet. The phrase 鈥渢o be a rival to her鈥 (Leviticus 18:18) teaches that the rival wife of a wife鈥檚 sister is prohibited like the wife鈥檚 sister herself.

讗诪专 诇讬讛 专讘 讗讞讗 讘专 讘讬讘讬 诪专 诇专讘讬谞讗 讛讻讬 拽讗诪专讬谞谉 诪砖诪讬讛 讚专讘讗 爪专讛 谞诪讬 诇讗 讗讬爪讟专讬讱 拽专讗 讻讬 讗讬爪讟专讬讱 拽专讗

Rav A岣, son of Beivai Mar, said to Ravina that this is what we say in the name of Rava: With regard to a rival wife too, a verse is not necessary, as is the case with a forbidden relation herself, since the prohibition in her case as well incurs karet, and therefore one would not think that the positive mitzva of levirate marriage overrides that prohibition. The verse is necessary

诇诪讬砖专讬 爪专讛 砖诇讗 讘诪拽讜诐 诪爪讜讛 诪讗讬 讟注诪讗 讗诪专 拽专讗 注诇讬讛 讘诪拽讜诐 注诇讬讛 讛讜讗 讚讗住讬专讗 砖诇讗 讘诪拽讜诐 注诇讬讛 砖专讬讗

to permit a rival wife in a place where the mitzva of levirate marriage is not applicable. What is the reason, i.e., how is this inferred? The verse states: 鈥淲ith her.鈥 In other words, it is in a place where the obligation 鈥渉er brother-in-law will have intercourse with her鈥 is applicable that a rival wife is prohibited, whereas in a place where the obligation 鈥淗er brother-in-law will have intercourse with her鈥 is not applicable, a rival wife is permitted.

讗诪专 诇讬讛 专诪讬 讘专 讞诪讗 诇专讘讗 讗讬诪讗 注专讜讛 讙讜驻讬讛 砖诇讗 讘诪拽讜诐 诪爪讜讛 转讬砖转专讬 讜诇讗讜 拽诇 讜讞讜诪专 讛讜讗 讘诪拽讜诐 诪爪讜讛 讗住讬专讗 砖诇讗 讘诪拽讜诐 诪爪讜讛 砖专讬讗

Rami bar 岣ma said to Rava: If the phrase 鈥渨ith her鈥 is referring only to a case where levirate marriage is applicable, one can say that a forbidden relative herself should be permitted in a place where the mitzva of levirate marriage is not applicable. According to this interpretation, the prohibitions with regard to all those with whom relations are forbidden are in effect only when levirate marriage applies. Rava answered: And is it not an a fortiori inference? If these relatives are prohibited in a place where there is a mitzva, could they be permitted in a place where there is no mitzva?

讗诪专 诇讬讛 爪专讛 转讜讻讬讞 讚讘诪拽讜诐 诪爪讜讛 讗住讬专讗 讜砖诇讗 讘诪拽讜诐 诪爪讜讛 砖专讬讗 讗诪专 诇讬讛 注诇讬讱 讗诪专 拽专讗 讘讞讬讬讛 讻诇 砖讘讞讬讬讛

Rami bar 岣ma said to Rava: That is no proof, as the case of a rival wife herself can prove that this a fortiori inference is incorrect, as in a place where there is a mitzva she is prohibited and in a place where there is no mitzva she is permitted. Rava said to Rami bar 岣mi: With regard to your claim, the verse states: 鈥淎nd you shall not take a woman to her sister鈥in her lifetime鈥 (Leviticus 18:18). This indicates that all cases in which it is in the lifetime of her sister she is forbidden, even when no mitzva applies.

讛讗讬 讘讞讬讬讛 诪讬讘注讬 诇讬讛 诇诪注讜讟讬 诇讗讞专 诪讬转讛 讛讛讬讗 诪讜讗砖讛 讗诇 讗讞讜转讛 谞驻拽讗

The Gemara asks: This phrase 鈥渋n her lifetime鈥 is necessary, as indicated by the plain meaning of the phrase, to exclude the time after death, i.e., to teach that a wife鈥檚 sister is forbidden only while the wife is still alive, whereas after her death the sister is permitted. The Gemara answers: That halakha that a woman is permitted after her sister鈥檚 death is derived from 鈥渁nd you shall not take a woman to her sister鈥 (Leviticus 18:18), as when one of them is dead it is no longer considered 鈥渁 woman to her sister.鈥

讗讬 诪讜讗砖讛 讗诇 讗讞讜转讛 讛讜讛 讗诪讬谞讗 谞转讙专砖讛 砖专讬讗 转诇诪讜讚 诇讜诪专 讘讞讬讬讛 讻诇 砖讘讞讬讬讛 讚讗祝 注诇 讙讘 讚谞转讙专砖讛 诇讗

The Gemara further asks: If this halakha is derived from 鈥渁 woman to her sister,鈥 I would say that even if she were divorced, her sister is permitted. Therefore, the verse states: 鈥淚n her lifetime,鈥 which indicates that the prohibition is in effect in all cases that are in her lifetime. This teaches that although she is divorced, her sister is not permitted.

讗诇讗 讗诪专 专讘 讛讜谞讗 讘专 转讞诇讬驻讗 诪砖诪讬讛 讚专讘讗 转专讬 拽专讗讬 讻转讬讘讬 讻转讬讘 讗砖讛 讗诇 讗讞讜转讛 诇讗 转拽讞 诇爪专讜专 讜讻转讬讘 诇讙诇讜转 注专讜转讛 讚讞讚讗 诪砖诪注 讛讗 讻讬爪讚 讘诪拽讜诐 诪爪讜讛 砖转讬讛谉 讗住讜专讜转 砖诇讗 讘诪拽讜诐 诪爪讜讛 讛讬讗 讗住讜专讛 讜爪专转讛 诪讜转专转

Rather, the Gemara suggests a different interpretation. Rav Huna bar Ta岣ifa said in the name of Rava: Two verses are written, i.e., two separate issues are mentioned in the same verse. It is written: 鈥淎nd you shall not take a woman to her sister, to be a rival [litzror],鈥 which indicates that two rival wives are prohibited. And it is written: 鈥淭o uncover her nakedness鈥 (Leviticus 18:18), in the singular, which means one and not both of them. How is it possible to reconcile this apparent contradiction? In a place where there is a mitzva of levirate marriage, both the forbidden relation and her rival wife are prohibited. In a place where there is no mitzva of levirate marriage, the forbidden relation is prohibited but her rival wife is permitted.

讗讬驻讜讱 讗谞讗 讘诪拽讜诐 诪爪讜讛 讛讬讗 讗住讜专讛 讜爪专转讛 诪讜转专转 讜砖诇讗 讘诪拽讜诐 诪爪讜讛 砖转讬讛谉 讗住讜专讜转 讗诐 讻谉 诇讗 讬讗诪专 注诇讬讛

The Gemara raises a difficulty: I can reverse this and suggest the opposite. In a place where there is a mitzva, the forbidden relation is prohibited and her rival wife is permitted, and in a place where there is no mitzva, both of them are prohibited. The Gemara answers: If so, let the verse not say 鈥渨ith her,鈥 at all, as this superfluous phrase teaches that the prohibition with regard to a rival wife applies only when there is a mitzva of 鈥渉er brother-in-law will have intercourse with her.鈥

讗诪专 诇讬讛 专讘 讗砖讬 诇专讘 讻讛谞讗 诪诪讗讬 讚讛讗讬 注诇讬讛 诇讗讬住讜专讗 讚诇诪讗 诇讛转讬专讗 讜讛讻讬 拽讗诪专 专讞诪谞讗 讗砖讛 讗诇 讗讞讜转讛 诇讗 转拽讞 诇爪专讜专 诇讗 讛讬讗 讜诇讗 爪专转讛 砖诇讗 讘诪拽讜诐 注诇讬讛 讗讘诇 讘诪拽讜诐 注诇讬讛 砖转讬讛谉 诪讜转专讜转

Rav Ashi said to Rav Kahana: From where is it derived that this superfluous phrase 鈥渨ith her,鈥 comes to prohibit, i.e., although there is an obligation that 鈥渉er brother-in-law will have intercourse with her,鈥 a wife鈥檚 sister remains prohibited? Perhaps it serves to permit, and this is what the Merciful One is saying: 鈥淵ou shall not take a woman to her sister, to be a rival鈥 (Leviticus 18:18), i.e., neither her nor her rival wife. When is this the case? It is in a place where the obligation of 鈥渉er brother-in-law will have intercourse with her鈥 does not apply. However, in a place where 鈥渨ith her鈥 does apply and there is an obligation of levirate marriage, both of them are permitted.

讗诐 讻谉 诇讙诇讜转 注专讜讛 讚讞讚讗 讛讬讻讬 诪砖讻讞转 诇讛 讗讬 讘诪拽讜诐 诪爪讜讛 砖转讬讛谉 诪讜转专讜转 讗讬 砖诇讗 讘诪拽讜诐 诪爪讜讛 砖转讬讛谉 讗住讜专讜转

Rav Kahana replied to Rav Ashi: If the above statement is so, and 鈥渢o uncover her nakedness鈥 is referring to one woman, under what circumstances can you find this case? When is only one of them prohibited? If it is in a place where there is a mitzva, they are both permitted; if it is in a place where there is no mitzva, they are both forbidden. Therefore, the earlier line of reasoning must be accepted: A rival wife is forbidden only in a case where the mitzva of levirate marriage is in effect.

讙讜驻讗 专讘讬 讗讜诪专 讜诇拽讞 讜诇拽讞讛 讜讬讘诐 讜讬讘诪讛 诇讗住讜专 爪专讜转 讜注专讬讜转 诪讬讚讬 爪专讜转 讻转讬讘讗 讛讻讗 讜注讜讚 爪专讜转 诪诇爪专讜专 谞驻拽讗

搂 While clarifying the exposition of the phrase 鈥渨ith her,鈥 an alternative interpretation attributed to Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi was mentioned. The Gemara discusses the matter itself. Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi says: The verse does not say have intercourse, but 鈥渉ave intercourse with her.鈥 And it does not say and consummate the levirate marriage, but 鈥渁nd consummate the levirate marriage with her.鈥 These phrases serve to prohibit rival wives and women with whom relations are forbidden. The Gemara asks: Are rival wives written here? In other words, what is the connection between the verse and the topic of rival wives, an issue that is not even mentioned in the verse? And furthermore: The prohibition with regard to rival wives is derived from the phrase 鈥淭o be a rival wife [litzror],鈥 not from this source.

诇爪专讜专 诪驻讬拽 诇讬讛 专讘讬 诇讻讚专讘讬 砖诪注讜谉

The Gemara answers: Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi derives a different halakha from the phrase 鈥渢o be a rival wife,鈥 in accordance with that statement of Rabbi Shimon. In Rabbi Shimon鈥檚 opinion, the exemption of two sisters from levirate marriage applies not only when the yavam is married to one of the sisters, but also if two sisters who come before him for levirate marriage were previously married to two of his brothers. In that case, the levirate bond itself is sufficient for them to be considered rival wives of one another.

爪专讛 讛讻讗 讻转讬讘 讛讻讬 拽讗诪专 讗诐 讻谉 诇讬诪讗 拽专讗 讜诇拽讞 诪讗讬 讜诇拽讞讛 讻诇 讛讬讻讗 讚讗讬讻讗 转专讬 诇拽讜讞讬谉 讚讗讬 讘注讬 谞住讬讘 讛讗讬 讜讗讬 讘注讬 谞住讬讘 讛讗讬 砖专讬讗 讜讗讬 诇讗 转专讜讬讬讛讜 讗住讬专讬谉

And with regard to the previous question: Are rival wives written here? The answer is that this is what he is saying: If so, that the verse does not come to exempt rival wives, let the verse state only: Have intercourse. What is the meaning of 鈥渉ave intercourse with her鈥? It serves to limit the case to one woman and not two, in the following manner: Anywhere that there are two possibilities of having intercourse, i.e., there is a choice between marrying one of two women in levirate marriage, in such a way that if he wants he may marry this one, and if he wants he may marry that one, then each one is permitted. And if he does not have a choice and is obligated to marry one of them, e.g., if the other is a forbidden relation to him, they are both prohibited, including the rival wife.

讜讬讘诪讛 讘诪拽讜诐 讬讬讘讜诐 讛讜讗 讚讗住讬专讗 爪专讛 砖诇讗 讘诪拽讜诐 讬讬讘讜诐 砖专讬讗 爪专讛 讜专讘谞谉 讛讗讬 讜诇拽讞讛 诪讗讬 注讘讚讬 诇讬讛

When the verse states: 鈥淎nd consummate the levirate marriage with her,鈥 it comes to teach the following. It is in a place where levirate marriage is applicable that a rival wife is prohibited, whereas in a place where levirate marriage is not applicable, a rival wife is permitted. The Gemara asks: And with regard to the Rabbis, who do not interpret the verse in this manner, what do they do with this emphasis on 鈥渉ave intercourse with her鈥? How do they interpret it?

诪讬讘注讬 诇讛讜 诇讻讚专讘讬 讬讜住讬 讘专 讞谞讬谞讗 讚讗诪专 专讘讬 讬讜住讬 讘专 讞谞讬谞讗 讜诇拽讞讛 诪诇诪讚 砖诪讙专砖讛 讘讙讟 讜诪讞讝讬专讛 讜讬讘诪讛 注诇 讻专讞讛

The Gemara responds: They need this for that which Rabbi Yosei bar 岣nina said, as Rabbi Yosei bar 岣nina said: 鈥淎nd have intercourse with her鈥 means marriage, i.e., she is fully his wife from that moment onward. This teaches that he divorces her with a bill of divorce after levirate marriage, and she can no longer be released by 岣litza, and he may subsequently remarry her if he so wishes. And the verse 鈥渁nd consummate the levirate marriage with her,鈥 this means against her will. Although betrothal in general does not take effect without the woman鈥檚 consent, levirate marriage can be effected against her will.

讜专讘讬 讚专讘讬 讬讜住讬 讘专 讞谞讬谞讗 诪诇讗砖讛 谞驻拽讗 注诇 讻专讞讛 诪讬讘诪讛 讬讘讗 注诇讬讛 谞驻拽讗

The Gemara asks: And from where does Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi derive these widely accepted halakhot? The Gemara responds: That halakha cited by Rabbi Yosei bar 岣nina, that a woman taken in levirate marriage has the status of a regular wife who may be divorced and remarried, is derived from the verse 鈥渁nd take her to him to be his wife鈥 (Deuteronomy 25:5), which means that she will be his wife for all purposes, like any other wife. And the halakha that levirate marriage can be effected against her will is derived from 鈥渉er brother-in-law will have intercourse with her,鈥 which indicates that it can be achieved without her consent.

讜专讘讬 讛讗讬 注诇讬讛 诪讗讬 注讘讬讚 诇讬讛 诪讬讘注讬 诇讬讛 诇讻讚转谞讬讗 讗讬谉 讞讬讬讘讬谉 讘讬转 讚讬谉 讗诇讗 注诇 讚讘专 砖讝讚讜谞讜 讻专转 讜砖讙讙转讜 讞讟讗转 讜讻谉 讛诪砖讬讞

The Gemara asks: And what does Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi do with this superfluous phrase, 鈥渨ith her鈥? The Gemara responds: He needs it for that which is taught in a baraita with regard to a different matter. The Sages said: The court is obligated to bring a bull as a sin-offering for an unwittingly committed communal sin on account of an erroneous halakha they taught only for a matter whose intentional transgression incurs karet and whose unwitting violation necessitates the sacrifice of a sin-offering. And similarly, the anointed High Priest, who also brings a bull for an unwittingly committed sin, is obligated to do so only if his mistake involved a matter whose intentional transgression incurs karet and whose unwitting transgression necessitates the sacrifice of a sin-offering.

  • 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...
talking talmud_square

Yevamot 8: Better to Be Stringent

The way yibum is pulled out of the category of "arayot," the illicit sexual relationships. Where the prohibitions seem to...
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...

Yevamot 8

The William Davidson Talmud | Powered by Sefaria

Yevamot 8

转讬谞讞 讛讬讻讗 讚谞砖讗 诪转 讜讗讞专 讻讱 谞砖讗 讞讬 讚诪讙讜 讚讗讬砖转专讬 讗讬住讜专 讗砖转 讗讞 讗讬砖转专讬 谞诪讬 讗讬住讜专 讗讞讜转 讗砖讛

This works out well when the deceased brother had first married one of the sisters, who was thereby rendered prohibited to the yavam as his brother鈥檚 wife, and only afterward had the living brother married her sister, which renders his brother鈥檚 wife forbidden to him on another count, this time as his wife鈥檚 sister. As in that case one can say that since the first prohibition with regard to a brother鈥檚 wife was subsequently nullified and thereby permitted by the mitzva of levirate marriage, the prohibition with regard to a wife鈥檚 sister was also nullified and thereby permitted.

讗诇讗 谞砖讗 讞讬 讜讗讞专 讻讱 谞砖讗 诪转 讗讬住讜专 讗讞讜转 讗砖讛 拽讚讬诐

However, if the reverse occurred, and first the living brother had married his wife and only afterward the deceased brother had married her sister, in this case the prohibition with regard to a wife鈥檚 sister precedes the prohibition proscribing a brother鈥檚 wife, i.e., she was initially forbidden to him as his wife鈥檚 sister. Consequently, even when the second prohibition lapses upon the death of his childless brother, the first prohibition should remain intact.

讜讗驻讬诇讜 谞砖讗 诪转 谞诪讬 转讬谞讞 讛讬讻讗 讚谞砖讗 诪转 讜诪转 讜讗讞专 讻讱 谞砖讗 讞讬 讚讞讝讬讗 诇讬讛 讚讘讬谞讬 讘讬谞讬 讗诇讗 谞砖讗 诪转 讜诇讗 诪转 讜讗讞专 讻讱 谞砖讗 讞讬 诇讗 讗讬讞讝讬讗 诇讬讛 讻诇诇

And furthermore, even in a case where the deceased brother had married first, it works out well only when the deceased brother had married the woman and then died, and only afterward the surviving brother married that brother鈥檚 wife鈥檚 sister. The reason is that in this case, the sister of the wife of the deceased brother was fit for him in between, i.e., during the period from when the deceased brother died until he married that brother鈥檚 wife鈥檚 sister. Therefore, it can be claimed that the second prohibition should not apply. However, if the deceased brother married first, and did not die yet, and afterward, during the deceased brother鈥檚 lifetime, the living brother married the deceased brother鈥檚 sister, she was not fit for him at all, as there was no period of time during which she was permitted to him.

诪讬 诇讗 诪讜讚讬 注讜诇讗 砖讗诐 专讗讛 拽专讬 讘诇讬诇 砖诪讬谞讬 砖讗讬谉 诪讻谞讬住 讬讚讬讜 诇讘讛讜谞讜转 砖诇讗 讬爪讗 讘砖注讛 砖讛讬讗 专讗讜讬讛 诇讛讘讬讗 讘讛 拽专讘谉

The Gemara provides proof for this claim: Doesn鈥檛 Ulla agree that if a leper experienced a seminal emission on the night of the eighth, not on the eighth day but on the previous night, that he may not insert his hands and feet to the thumb and big toe to receive the blood and oil for his purification? The reason is that in this case he is ritually impure due to the emission and he had not yet emerged from the impurity of leprosy at a time that is fitting to bring an offering, as he cannot sacrifice his offerings until the daylight hours of the eighth day. Since there was not a single moment when he was permitted to enter the Temple in his state of ritual impurity, in this case one cannot apply the principle: Since it is permitted, it is permitted.

讗诇讗 讻讬 讗讬爪讟专讬讱 注诇讬讛 讛讬讻讗 讚谞砖讗 诪转 讜诪转 讜讗讞专 讻讱 谞砖讗 讞讬

Rather, the Gemara suggests that the phrase 鈥渨ith her,鈥 which teaches the prohibition with regard to a wife鈥檚 sister in levirate marriage, is necessary for a case where the deceased brother had first married and then died, and only afterward the living brother married the sister of the deceased brother鈥檚 wife, in which case his brother鈥檚 wife was permitted to him for a period of time. Accordingly, one might have applied the principle: Since it is permitted, it is permitted. For this reason it was necessary to write 鈥渨ith her,鈥 to teach that this second woman is nevertheless forbidden as his wife鈥檚 sister.

讜讗讬 讘注讬转 讗讬诪讗 讗转讬讗 讘讛讬拽讬砖讗 诪讚专讘讬 讬讜谞讛 讚讗诪专 专讘讬 讬讜谞讛 讜讗讬转讬诪讗 专讘 讛讜谞讗 讘专讬讛 讚专讘 讬讛讜砖注 讗诪专 拽专讗 讻讬 讻诇 讗砖专 讬注砖讛 诪讻诇 讛转讜注讘讜转 讛讗诇讛 讜谞讻专转讜 讛讜拽砖讜 讻诇 讛注专讬讜转 讻讜诇谉 诇讗砖转 讗讞 诪讛 讗砖转 讗讞 砖专讬讗 讗祝 讻诇 注专讬讜转 谞诪讬 砖专讬讬谉 讻转讘 专讞诪谞讗 注诇讬讛

And if you wish, say instead that the suggestion that other women with whom relations are forbidden are permitted in levirate marriage is derived from the juxtaposition of Rabbi Yona. As Rabbi Yona said, and some say this was stated by Rav Huna, son of Rav Yehoshua: 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). In this verse all of the women with whom relations are forbidden are juxtaposed with the case of a brother鈥檚 wife. Consequently, one might say that just as a brother鈥檚 wife is permitted in levirate marriage, so too, all women with whom relations are forbidden are likewise permitted. Therefore, the Merciful One writes: 鈥淲ith her,鈥 which excludes the prohibition with regard to a wife鈥檚 sister.

讗诪专 诇讬讛 专讘 讗讞讗 诪讚驻转讬 诇专讘讬谞讗 诪讻讚讬 讻诇 注专讬讜转 讗讬讻讗 诇讗拽讜砖讬谞讛讜 诇讗砖转 讗讞 讜讗讬讻讗 诇讗拽讜砖讬谞讛讜 诇讗讞讜转 讗砖讛 诪讗讬 讞讝讬转 讚讗拽砖转 诇讗讞讜转 讗砖讛 讗拽砖讬谞讛讜 诇讗砖转 讗讞

Against this proof, Rav A岣 of Difti said to Ravina: Since the halakha of all women with whom relations are forbidden can be juxtaposed with the case of a brother鈥檚 wife and thereby rendered permitted in levirate marriage, and these cases can equally be juxtaposed with the halakha of a wife鈥檚 sister, which would mean that they are forbidden, what did you see that you juxtaposed them with a wife鈥檚 sister? Juxtapose them instead with a brother鈥檚 wife. If so, the opposite could be derived from the phrase 鈥渨ith her,鈥 i.e., not that all women with whom relations are forbidden are prohibited like a wife鈥檚 sister, but that all these women are permitted in levirate marriage, even a wife鈥檚 sister.

讗讬讘注讬转 讗讬诪讗 诇拽讜诇讗 讜讞讜诪专讗 诇讞讜诪专讗 诪拽砖讬谞谉 讗讬讘注讬转 讗讬诪讗 讛讻讗 转专讬 讗讬住讜专讬 讜讛讻讗 转专讬 讗讬住讜专讬 讜转专讬 诪转专讬 讬诇驻讬谞谉 讗讘诇 讛讻讗 讞讚讗 讗讬住讜专讗 讜转专讬 诪讞讚讗 诇讗 讬诇驻讬谞谉

The Gemara answers: If you wish, say that if one must decide between two possible ways of understanding juxtaposed cases, one of which leads to a lenient ruling and the other to a stringent ruling, we juxtapose to reach the stringent ruling, not the leniency. If you wish, say instead: Here, there are two prohibitions, a brother鈥檚 wife and a wife鈥檚 sister, and there, in the case of all other women with whom relations are forbidden, there are also two prohibitions. And one may derive a case involving two prohibitions from another case that involves two prohibitions. However, here, in the case of a regular levirate marriage that does not involve any other forbidden relation, there is only one prohibition proscribing a brother鈥檚 wife, and one may not derive a case involving two prohibitions from a case that involves only one.

专讘讗 讗诪专 注专讜讛 诇讗 爪专讬讻讗 拽专讗 讚讗讬谉 注砖讛 讚讜讞讛 诇讗 转注砖讛 砖讬砖 讘讜 讻专转 讻讬 讗讬爪讟专讬讱 拽专讗 诇诪讬住专 爪专讛

Rava said that this entire halakha must be understood differently. With regard to a forbidden relation herself, it is not necessary for a verse to teach that she cannot enter into levirate marriage, as a positive mitzva does not override a prohibition that includes karet. Rather, the verse 鈥渨ith her鈥 is necessary to prohibit a rival wife, as a rival wife is not prohibited to the yavam as a forbidden relation.

讜注专讜讛 诇讗 爪专讬讻讗 拽专讗 讜讛讗 转谞讬讗 讗讬谉 诇讬 讗诇讗 讛讬讗

The Gemara asks: And does the tanna in fact maintain with regard to a forbidden relation that it is not necessary for a verse to teach that she is prohibited in levirate marriage? But isn鈥檛 it taught in that same baraita: I have derived nothing other than that this woman is exempt from levirate marriage. From where is it inferred that the same applies to her rival wife? This shows that the case of a forbidden relation does require a special inference from a verse.

诪砖讜诐 爪专转讛

The Gemara answers: It is due to her rival wife, i.e., the baraita does not mean that the halakha of women with whom relations are forbidden is derived from this verse; rather, this case is mentioned only to introduce the case of a rival wife.

讜讛讗 拽转谞讬 讗讬谉 诇讬 讗诇讗 讛谉 诪砖讜诐 爪专讜转讬讛谉

The Gemara raises another difficulty: But it is taught in the baraita: I have derived nothing other than that these sisters are exempt from levirate marriage, which again suggests that the derivation from the verse applies to all of them. This is similarly rejected: This is also stated due to their rival wives.

转讗 砖诪注 专讘讬 讗讜诪专 讜诇拽讞 讜诇拽讞讛 讜讬讘诐 讜讬讘诪讛 诇讗住讜专 爪专讜转 讜注专讬讜转

The Gemara suggests: Come and hear a different baraita that contradicts Rava鈥檚 statement: Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi says that there is a different proof that a forbidden relation and her rival wife are prohibited in levirate marriage. The Torah says: 鈥淗e will have intercourse with her and take her to him to be his wife and consummate the levirate marriage with her鈥 (Deuteronomy 25:5). Since the verse does not say simply: Have intercourse, but: 鈥淗ave intercourse with her,鈥 this indicates that he takes this woman specifically, not a different woman who is forbidden. Furthermore, the verse does not simply state: And consummate the levirate marriage, but: 鈥淎nd consummate the levirate marriage with her.鈥 These additions serve to prohibit rival wives and women with whom relations are forbidden.

讗讬诪讗 诇讗住讜专 爪专讜转 砖诇 注专讬讜转 讜讛讗 转专讬 拽专讗讬 拽谞住讬讘 诇讬讛 诪讗讬 诇讗讜 讞讚 诇注专讜讛 讜讞讚 诇爪专讛

This shows that even the prohibition with regard to women with whom relations are forbidden requires a special inference. The Gemara answers: Amend the language of the baraita and say: To prohibit rival wives of those with whom relations are forbidden, not the women themselves with whom relations are forbidden. The Gemara raises a difficulty: But he brought two proofs from the verse, both 鈥渉ave intercourse with her鈥 and 鈥渁nd consummate the levirate marriage with her.鈥 What, is it not because one phrase is required for the halakha of a woman with whom relations are forbidden and the other one for a rival wife?

诇讗 讗讬讚讬 讜讗讬讚讬 诇爪专讛 讞讚 诇诪讬住专 爪专讛 讘诪拽讜诐 诪爪讜讛 讜讞讚 诇诪讬砖专讬 爪专讛 砖诇讗 讘诪拽讜诐 诪爪讜讛

The Gemara rejects this suggestion: No, this source and that source are necessary for a rival wife, and both phrases are required, for the following reason. One of them comes to prohibit a rival wife in a place where the mitzva of levirate marriage is applicable, and one serves to permit a rival wife in a place where the mitzva is not applicable. If a woman is the rival wife of one of those relatives forbidden to a given man, he is permitted to marry her following the death of her husband, as the prohibition proscribing rival wives of women with whom relations are forbidden pertains only to cases where the halakhot of levirate marriage are applicable, i.e., in the case of a brother鈥檚 wife.

诪讗讬 讟注诪讗 讜讬讘诐 讜讬讘诪讛 讘诪拽讜诐 讬讬讘讜诐 讛讜讗 讚讗住讬专讗 爪专讛 砖诇讗 讘诪拽讜诐 讬讬讘讜诐 砖专讬讗 爪专讛

The Gemara elaborates: What is the reason for this halakha? It is derived from the fact that the verse does not merely state: And consummate the levirate marriage, but instead emphasizes: 鈥淎nd consummate the levirate marriage with her.鈥 This comes to teach: It is in a place where levirate marriage applies that a rival wife is prohibited; however, in a place where the levirate marriage is not applicable, a rival wife is permitted.

讗诪专 专讘 讗砖讬 诪转谞讬转讬谉 谞诪讬 讚讬拽讗 讚拽转谞讬 讞诪砖 注砖专讛 谞砖讬诐 驻讜讟专讜转 爪专讜转讬讛谉 讜讗讬诇讜 驻讟讜专讜转 讜驻讜讟专讜转 诇讗 拽转谞讬 砖诪注 诪讬谞讛

Rav Ashi said: The mishna is also precisely formulated in accordance with the opinion of Rava, as it teaches: Fifteen women exempt their rival wives, whereas the phrase: Are exempt and exempt others, is not taught. This indicates that the exemption of these women who are themselves forbidden relations does not necessitate any special inference, as this is not a novel halakha, and therefore the mishna does not even state this point explicitly. The novelty is that they exempt their rival wives. The Gemara summarizes: Conclude from this that Rava鈥檚 opinion is correct.

讜诪讗讬 砖谞讗 注专讜讛 讚诇讗 爪专讬讻讗 拽专讗 讚讗讬谉 注砖讛 讚讜讞讛 诇讗 转注砖讛 砖讬砖 讘讜 讻专转 爪专讛 谞诪讬 诇讗 转讬讘注讬 拽专讗 诪砖讜诐 讚讗讬谉 注砖讛 讚讜讞讛 诇讗 转注砖讛 砖讬砖 讘讜 讻专转

The Gemara asks: And if so, what is different about a forbidden relation that a special verse is not necessary to exclude it? The reason must be that a positive mitzva does not override a prohibition that entails karet. If so, a rival wife should also not require an additional verse, due to the fact that a positive mitzva does not override a prohibition that entails karet. The phrase 鈥渢o be a rival to her鈥 (Leviticus 18:18) teaches that the rival wife of a wife鈥檚 sister is prohibited like the wife鈥檚 sister herself.

讗诪专 诇讬讛 专讘 讗讞讗 讘专 讘讬讘讬 诪专 诇专讘讬谞讗 讛讻讬 拽讗诪专讬谞谉 诪砖诪讬讛 讚专讘讗 爪专讛 谞诪讬 诇讗 讗讬爪讟专讬讱 拽专讗 讻讬 讗讬爪讟专讬讱 拽专讗

Rav A岣, son of Beivai Mar, said to Ravina that this is what we say in the name of Rava: With regard to a rival wife too, a verse is not necessary, as is the case with a forbidden relation herself, since the prohibition in her case as well incurs karet, and therefore one would not think that the positive mitzva of levirate marriage overrides that prohibition. The verse is necessary

诇诪讬砖专讬 爪专讛 砖诇讗 讘诪拽讜诐 诪爪讜讛 诪讗讬 讟注诪讗 讗诪专 拽专讗 注诇讬讛 讘诪拽讜诐 注诇讬讛 讛讜讗 讚讗住讬专讗 砖诇讗 讘诪拽讜诐 注诇讬讛 砖专讬讗

to permit a rival wife in a place where the mitzva of levirate marriage is not applicable. What is the reason, i.e., how is this inferred? The verse states: 鈥淲ith her.鈥 In other words, it is in a place where the obligation 鈥渉er brother-in-law will have intercourse with her鈥 is applicable that a rival wife is prohibited, whereas in a place where the obligation 鈥淗er brother-in-law will have intercourse with her鈥 is not applicable, a rival wife is permitted.

讗诪专 诇讬讛 专诪讬 讘专 讞诪讗 诇专讘讗 讗讬诪讗 注专讜讛 讙讜驻讬讛 砖诇讗 讘诪拽讜诐 诪爪讜讛 转讬砖转专讬 讜诇讗讜 拽诇 讜讞讜诪专 讛讜讗 讘诪拽讜诐 诪爪讜讛 讗住讬专讗 砖诇讗 讘诪拽讜诐 诪爪讜讛 砖专讬讗

Rami bar 岣ma said to Rava: If the phrase 鈥渨ith her鈥 is referring only to a case where levirate marriage is applicable, one can say that a forbidden relative herself should be permitted in a place where the mitzva of levirate marriage is not applicable. According to this interpretation, the prohibitions with regard to all those with whom relations are forbidden are in effect only when levirate marriage applies. Rava answered: And is it not an a fortiori inference? If these relatives are prohibited in a place where there is a mitzva, could they be permitted in a place where there is no mitzva?

讗诪专 诇讬讛 爪专讛 转讜讻讬讞 讚讘诪拽讜诐 诪爪讜讛 讗住讬专讗 讜砖诇讗 讘诪拽讜诐 诪爪讜讛 砖专讬讗 讗诪专 诇讬讛 注诇讬讱 讗诪专 拽专讗 讘讞讬讬讛 讻诇 砖讘讞讬讬讛

Rami bar 岣ma said to Rava: That is no proof, as the case of a rival wife herself can prove that this a fortiori inference is incorrect, as in a place where there is a mitzva she is prohibited and in a place where there is no mitzva she is permitted. Rava said to Rami bar 岣mi: With regard to your claim, the verse states: 鈥淎nd you shall not take a woman to her sister鈥in her lifetime鈥 (Leviticus 18:18). This indicates that all cases in which it is in the lifetime of her sister she is forbidden, even when no mitzva applies.

讛讗讬 讘讞讬讬讛 诪讬讘注讬 诇讬讛 诇诪注讜讟讬 诇讗讞专 诪讬转讛 讛讛讬讗 诪讜讗砖讛 讗诇 讗讞讜转讛 谞驻拽讗

The Gemara asks: This phrase 鈥渋n her lifetime鈥 is necessary, as indicated by the plain meaning of the phrase, to exclude the time after death, i.e., to teach that a wife鈥檚 sister is forbidden only while the wife is still alive, whereas after her death the sister is permitted. The Gemara answers: That halakha that a woman is permitted after her sister鈥檚 death is derived from 鈥渁nd you shall not take a woman to her sister鈥 (Leviticus 18:18), as when one of them is dead it is no longer considered 鈥渁 woman to her sister.鈥

讗讬 诪讜讗砖讛 讗诇 讗讞讜转讛 讛讜讛 讗诪讬谞讗 谞转讙专砖讛 砖专讬讗 转诇诪讜讚 诇讜诪专 讘讞讬讬讛 讻诇 砖讘讞讬讬讛 讚讗祝 注诇 讙讘 讚谞转讙专砖讛 诇讗

The Gemara further asks: If this halakha is derived from 鈥渁 woman to her sister,鈥 I would say that even if she were divorced, her sister is permitted. Therefore, the verse states: 鈥淚n her lifetime,鈥 which indicates that the prohibition is in effect in all cases that are in her lifetime. This teaches that although she is divorced, her sister is not permitted.

讗诇讗 讗诪专 专讘 讛讜谞讗 讘专 转讞诇讬驻讗 诪砖诪讬讛 讚专讘讗 转专讬 拽专讗讬 讻转讬讘讬 讻转讬讘 讗砖讛 讗诇 讗讞讜转讛 诇讗 转拽讞 诇爪专讜专 讜讻转讬讘 诇讙诇讜转 注专讜转讛 讚讞讚讗 诪砖诪注 讛讗 讻讬爪讚 讘诪拽讜诐 诪爪讜讛 砖转讬讛谉 讗住讜专讜转 砖诇讗 讘诪拽讜诐 诪爪讜讛 讛讬讗 讗住讜专讛 讜爪专转讛 诪讜转专转

Rather, the Gemara suggests a different interpretation. Rav Huna bar Ta岣ifa said in the name of Rava: Two verses are written, i.e., two separate issues are mentioned in the same verse. It is written: 鈥淎nd you shall not take a woman to her sister, to be a rival [litzror],鈥 which indicates that two rival wives are prohibited. And it is written: 鈥淭o uncover her nakedness鈥 (Leviticus 18:18), in the singular, which means one and not both of them. How is it possible to reconcile this apparent contradiction? In a place where there is a mitzva of levirate marriage, both the forbidden relation and her rival wife are prohibited. In a place where there is no mitzva of levirate marriage, the forbidden relation is prohibited but her rival wife is permitted.

讗讬驻讜讱 讗谞讗 讘诪拽讜诐 诪爪讜讛 讛讬讗 讗住讜专讛 讜爪专转讛 诪讜转专转 讜砖诇讗 讘诪拽讜诐 诪爪讜讛 砖转讬讛谉 讗住讜专讜转 讗诐 讻谉 诇讗 讬讗诪专 注诇讬讛

The Gemara raises a difficulty: I can reverse this and suggest the opposite. In a place where there is a mitzva, the forbidden relation is prohibited and her rival wife is permitted, and in a place where there is no mitzva, both of them are prohibited. The Gemara answers: If so, let the verse not say 鈥渨ith her,鈥 at all, as this superfluous phrase teaches that the prohibition with regard to a rival wife applies only when there is a mitzva of 鈥渉er brother-in-law will have intercourse with her.鈥

讗诪专 诇讬讛 专讘 讗砖讬 诇专讘 讻讛谞讗 诪诪讗讬 讚讛讗讬 注诇讬讛 诇讗讬住讜专讗 讚诇诪讗 诇讛转讬专讗 讜讛讻讬 拽讗诪专 专讞诪谞讗 讗砖讛 讗诇 讗讞讜转讛 诇讗 转拽讞 诇爪专讜专 诇讗 讛讬讗 讜诇讗 爪专转讛 砖诇讗 讘诪拽讜诐 注诇讬讛 讗讘诇 讘诪拽讜诐 注诇讬讛 砖转讬讛谉 诪讜转专讜转

Rav Ashi said to Rav Kahana: From where is it derived that this superfluous phrase 鈥渨ith her,鈥 comes to prohibit, i.e., although there is an obligation that 鈥渉er brother-in-law will have intercourse with her,鈥 a wife鈥檚 sister remains prohibited? Perhaps it serves to permit, and this is what the Merciful One is saying: 鈥淵ou shall not take a woman to her sister, to be a rival鈥 (Leviticus 18:18), i.e., neither her nor her rival wife. When is this the case? It is in a place where the obligation of 鈥渉er brother-in-law will have intercourse with her鈥 does not apply. However, in a place where 鈥渨ith her鈥 does apply and there is an obligation of levirate marriage, both of them are permitted.

讗诐 讻谉 诇讙诇讜转 注专讜讛 讚讞讚讗 讛讬讻讬 诪砖讻讞转 诇讛 讗讬 讘诪拽讜诐 诪爪讜讛 砖转讬讛谉 诪讜转专讜转 讗讬 砖诇讗 讘诪拽讜诐 诪爪讜讛 砖转讬讛谉 讗住讜专讜转

Rav Kahana replied to Rav Ashi: If the above statement is so, and 鈥渢o uncover her nakedness鈥 is referring to one woman, under what circumstances can you find this case? When is only one of them prohibited? If it is in a place where there is a mitzva, they are both permitted; if it is in a place where there is no mitzva, they are both forbidden. Therefore, the earlier line of reasoning must be accepted: A rival wife is forbidden only in a case where the mitzva of levirate marriage is in effect.

讙讜驻讗 专讘讬 讗讜诪专 讜诇拽讞 讜诇拽讞讛 讜讬讘诐 讜讬讘诪讛 诇讗住讜专 爪专讜转 讜注专讬讜转 诪讬讚讬 爪专讜转 讻转讬讘讗 讛讻讗 讜注讜讚 爪专讜转 诪诇爪专讜专 谞驻拽讗

搂 While clarifying the exposition of the phrase 鈥渨ith her,鈥 an alternative interpretation attributed to Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi was mentioned. The Gemara discusses the matter itself. Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi says: The verse does not say have intercourse, but 鈥渉ave intercourse with her.鈥 And it does not say and consummate the levirate marriage, but 鈥渁nd consummate the levirate marriage with her.鈥 These phrases serve to prohibit rival wives and women with whom relations are forbidden. The Gemara asks: Are rival wives written here? In other words, what is the connection between the verse and the topic of rival wives, an issue that is not even mentioned in the verse? And furthermore: The prohibition with regard to rival wives is derived from the phrase 鈥淭o be a rival wife [litzror],鈥 not from this source.

诇爪专讜专 诪驻讬拽 诇讬讛 专讘讬 诇讻讚专讘讬 砖诪注讜谉

The Gemara answers: Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi derives a different halakha from the phrase 鈥渢o be a rival wife,鈥 in accordance with that statement of Rabbi Shimon. In Rabbi Shimon鈥檚 opinion, the exemption of two sisters from levirate marriage applies not only when the yavam is married to one of the sisters, but also if two sisters who come before him for levirate marriage were previously married to two of his brothers. In that case, the levirate bond itself is sufficient for them to be considered rival wives of one another.

爪专讛 讛讻讗 讻转讬讘 讛讻讬 拽讗诪专 讗诐 讻谉 诇讬诪讗 拽专讗 讜诇拽讞 诪讗讬 讜诇拽讞讛 讻诇 讛讬讻讗 讚讗讬讻讗 转专讬 诇拽讜讞讬谉 讚讗讬 讘注讬 谞住讬讘 讛讗讬 讜讗讬 讘注讬 谞住讬讘 讛讗讬 砖专讬讗 讜讗讬 诇讗 转专讜讬讬讛讜 讗住讬专讬谉

And with regard to the previous question: Are rival wives written here? The answer is that this is what he is saying: If so, that the verse does not come to exempt rival wives, let the verse state only: Have intercourse. What is the meaning of 鈥渉ave intercourse with her鈥? It serves to limit the case to one woman and not two, in the following manner: Anywhere that there are two possibilities of having intercourse, i.e., there is a choice between marrying one of two women in levirate marriage, in such a way that if he wants he may marry this one, and if he wants he may marry that one, then each one is permitted. And if he does not have a choice and is obligated to marry one of them, e.g., if the other is a forbidden relation to him, they are both prohibited, including the rival wife.

讜讬讘诪讛 讘诪拽讜诐 讬讬讘讜诐 讛讜讗 讚讗住讬专讗 爪专讛 砖诇讗 讘诪拽讜诐 讬讬讘讜诐 砖专讬讗 爪专讛 讜专讘谞谉 讛讗讬 讜诇拽讞讛 诪讗讬 注讘讚讬 诇讬讛

When the verse states: 鈥淎nd consummate the levirate marriage with her,鈥 it comes to teach the following. It is in a place where levirate marriage is applicable that a rival wife is prohibited, whereas in a place where levirate marriage is not applicable, a rival wife is permitted. The Gemara asks: And with regard to the Rabbis, who do not interpret the verse in this manner, what do they do with this emphasis on 鈥渉ave intercourse with her鈥? How do they interpret it?

诪讬讘注讬 诇讛讜 诇讻讚专讘讬 讬讜住讬 讘专 讞谞讬谞讗 讚讗诪专 专讘讬 讬讜住讬 讘专 讞谞讬谞讗 讜诇拽讞讛 诪诇诪讚 砖诪讙专砖讛 讘讙讟 讜诪讞讝讬专讛 讜讬讘诪讛 注诇 讻专讞讛

The Gemara responds: They need this for that which Rabbi Yosei bar 岣nina said, as Rabbi Yosei bar 岣nina said: 鈥淎nd have intercourse with her鈥 means marriage, i.e., she is fully his wife from that moment onward. This teaches that he divorces her with a bill of divorce after levirate marriage, and she can no longer be released by 岣litza, and he may subsequently remarry her if he so wishes. And the verse 鈥渁nd consummate the levirate marriage with her,鈥 this means against her will. Although betrothal in general does not take effect without the woman鈥檚 consent, levirate marriage can be effected against her will.

讜专讘讬 讚专讘讬 讬讜住讬 讘专 讞谞讬谞讗 诪诇讗砖讛 谞驻拽讗 注诇 讻专讞讛 诪讬讘诪讛 讬讘讗 注诇讬讛 谞驻拽讗

The Gemara asks: And from where does Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi derive these widely accepted halakhot? The Gemara responds: That halakha cited by Rabbi Yosei bar 岣nina, that a woman taken in levirate marriage has the status of a regular wife who may be divorced and remarried, is derived from the verse 鈥渁nd take her to him to be his wife鈥 (Deuteronomy 25:5), which means that she will be his wife for all purposes, like any other wife. And the halakha that levirate marriage can be effected against her will is derived from 鈥渉er brother-in-law will have intercourse with her,鈥 which indicates that it can be achieved without her consent.

讜专讘讬 讛讗讬 注诇讬讛 诪讗讬 注讘讬讚 诇讬讛 诪讬讘注讬 诇讬讛 诇讻讚转谞讬讗 讗讬谉 讞讬讬讘讬谉 讘讬转 讚讬谉 讗诇讗 注诇 讚讘专 砖讝讚讜谞讜 讻专转 讜砖讙讙转讜 讞讟讗转 讜讻谉 讛诪砖讬讞

The Gemara asks: And what does Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi do with this superfluous phrase, 鈥渨ith her鈥? The Gemara responds: He needs it for that which is taught in a baraita with regard to a different matter. The Sages said: The court is obligated to bring a bull as a sin-offering for an unwittingly committed communal sin on account of an erroneous halakha they taught only for a matter whose intentional transgression incurs karet and whose unwitting violation necessitates the sacrifice of a sin-offering. And similarly, the anointed High Priest, who also brings a bull for an unwittingly committed sin, is obligated to do so only if his mistake involved a matter whose intentional transgression incurs karet and whose unwitting transgression necessitates the sacrifice of a sin-offering.

Scroll To Top