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

Today's Daf Yomi

June 10, 2022 | 讬状讗 讘住讬讜谉 转砖驻状讘

  • This month's learning is sponsored by Ron and Shira Krebs to commemorate the 73rd yahrzeit of Shira's grandfather (Yitzchak Leib Ben David Ber HaCohen v'Malka), the 1st yahrzeit of Shira's father (Gershon Pinya Ben Yitzchak Leib HaCohen v'Menucha Sara), and the bar mitzvah of their son Eytan who will be making a siyum on Mishna Shas this month.

  • This month's learning is sponsored for the Refuah Shlemah of Naama bat Yael Esther.

  • 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 95

Presentation in PDF format

Why is a woman forbidden to go back to her husband after being with another man unwittingly (one witness testified that he had died) while a man whose wife went abroad and he married her sister, thinking his wife was dead, is not penalized and can return to his original wife? The answer comes from a drasha, because logic would state that it was forbidden. There is a debate regarding a similar situation with his mother-in-law 鈥 is he then forbidden to go back to his original wife or not? What is the logic mentioned previously? It mentions there an issur kal, lighter prohibition. What is the case of the lighter prohibition? Several suggestions are brought until they conclude that it is talking about a married woman. Why is that considered an issur kal? The Gemara brings two explanations for Rabbi Yosi鈥檚 ambiguous line in the Mishna. Shmuel holds like Rabbi Yosi. A question is raised against this from a debate between Rav and Shmuel. How can this be resolved?

 

讗讞讜转 讗砖讛 讚讘诪讝讬讚 诇讗 讗住讬专讗 诪讚讗讜专讬讬转讗 讘砖讜讙讙 诇讗 讙讝专讜 讘讛 专讘谞谉 讜诪谞诇谉 讚诇讗 讗住讬专讗 讚转谞讬讗 讗讜转讛 讗讜转讛 砖讻讬讘转讛 讗讜住专转讛 讜讗讬谉 砖讻讬讘转 讗讞讜转讛 讗讜住专转讛

However, with regard to a wife鈥檚 sister, where even if the sister sins intentionally the wife is not forbidden to him by Torah law, if he did so unwittingly the Sages did not decree with regard to him. And from where do we derive that she is not forbidden? As it is taught in a baraita that in the verse: 鈥淎 man, when his wife goes aside鈥nd a man lies with her鈥 (Numbers 5:12鈥13), the emphasis of 鈥渉er鈥 teaches: It is her intercourse with another man that renders her forbidden to her husband, but the intercourse of her sister does not render her forbidden.

砖讬讻讜诇 讜讛诇讗 讚讬谉 讛讜讗 讜诪讛 讘诪拽讜诐 砖讘讗 注诇 讗讬住讜专 拽诇 谞讗住专 讛讗讜住专 诪拽讜诐 砖讘讗 注诇 讗讬住讜专 讞诪讜专 讗讬谞讜 讚讬谉 砖谞讗住专 讛讗讜住专

As, were it not for this verse, one might have thought: Could this not be derived through an a fortiori inference: And if in a case where he has relations subject to a light prohibition, the one causing her to be rendered prohibited is forbidden, then in a situation where he has intercourse subject to a severe prohibition, is it not right that the one causing her to be rendered prohibited should be forbidden? This a fortiori inference will be explained later in the Gemara.

讗诪专 专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 诇讗 谞讞诇拽讜 讘讬转 砖诪讗讬 讜讘讬转 讛诇诇 讘讘讗 注诇 讞诪讜转讜 砖驻讜住诇 讗转 讗砖转讜 注诇 诪讛 谞讞诇拽讜 讘讘讗 注诇 讗讞讜转 讗砖转讜 砖讘讬转 砖诪讗讬 讗讜诪专讬诐 驻讜住诇 讜讘讬转 讛诇诇 讗讜诪专讬诐 诇讗 驻讜住诇 讗诪专 专讘讬 讬讜住讬 诇讗 谞讞诇拽讜 讘讬转 砖诪讗讬 讜讘讬转 讛诇诇 讘讘讗 注诇 讗讞讜转 讗砖转讜 砖诇讗 驻讜住诇 讗转 讗砖转讜 注诇 诪讛 谞讞诇拽讜 讘讘讗 注诇 讞诪讜转讜 砖讘讬转 砖诪讗讬 讗讜诪专讬诐 驻讜住诇 讜讘讬转 讛诇诇 讗讜诪专讬诐 诇讗 驻讜住诇

Rabbi Yehuda said: Beit Shammai and Beit Hillel did not disagree with regard to one who has relations with his mother-in-law, that he renders his wife disqualified from remaining married to him. With regard to what case did they disagree? With regard to one who has relations with his wife鈥檚 sister, as Beit Shammai say that he renders his wife disqualified, and Beit Hillel say he does not render her disqualified. Rabbi Yosei said: Not so, as Beit Shammai and Beit Hillel did not disagree with regard to one who has relations with his wife鈥檚 sister, that he does not render his wife disqualified from remaining married to him. With regard to what did they disagree? With regard to one who has relations with his mother-in-law, as Beit Shammai say he renders his wife disqualified and Beit Hillel say he does not render her disqualified.

诇驻讬 砖讘转讞诇讛 讛讜讗 诪讜转专 讘讻诇 讛谞砖讬诐 砖讘注讜诇诐 讜讛讬讗 诪讜转专转 讘讻诇 讛讗谞砖讬诐 砖讘注讜诇诐 拽讚砖讛 讛讜讗 讗讜住专讛 讜讛讬讗 讗住专转讜 诪专讜讘讛 讗讬住讜专 砖讗住专讛 诪讗讬住讜专 砖讗住专转讛讜 砖讛讜讗 讗住专讛 讘讻诇 讗谞砖讬诐 砖讘注讜诇诐 讜讛讬讗 诇讗 讗住专转讛讜 讗诇讗 讘拽专讜讘讜转讬讛

Rabbi Yosei explains why Beit Shammai and Beit Hillel did not disagree with regard to the case of one who has relations with his wife鈥檚 sister. This is because at first, before the marriage, he is permitted to all the women in the world and she is permitted to all the men in the world. After he has betrothed her as his wife, he renders her forbidden to all men, and she renders him forbidden to her relatives. Consequently, the prohibition by which he renders her forbidden is greater than the prohibition by which she renders him forbidden, as he renders her forbidden to all the men in the world and she renders him forbidden by their betrothal only to her relatives.

讜讛诇讗 讚讬谉 讛讜讗 讜诪讛 讛讜讗 砖讗住专讛 讘讻诇 讗谞砖讬诐 砖讘注讜诇诐 砖讙讙讛 讘讗住讜专 诇讛 讗讬谞讛 谞讗住专转 讘诪讜转专 诇讛 讛讬讗 砖诇讗 讗住专转讛讜 讗诇讗 讘拽专讜讘讜转讬讛 砖讙讙 讘讗住讜专 诇讜 讗讬谞讜 讚讬谉 砖诇讗 谞讗住专 诇讜 讘诪讜转专 诇讜

Rabbi Yosei鈥檚 explanation continues. Could this halakha of a wife鈥檚 sister not be derived through an a fortiori inference: And if he prohibited her through their betrothal to all men in the world, and yet she was unwitting with one forbidden to her, i.e., she had relations with another man by mistake, she is not forbidden to he who is permitted to her, her husband; she, who prohibited him only to her relatives, if he was unwitting with one forbidden to him, her sister, is it not right that we should not render him forbidden to her, she who is permitted to him, namely his wife?

讜讝讛 讛讚讬谉 诇砖讜讙讙 诇诪讝讬讚 诪谞讬谉 转诇诪讜讚 诇讜诪专 讗讜转讛 讗讜转讛 砖讻讬讘转讛 讗讜住专转讛 讜讗讬谉 砖讻讬讘转 讗讞讜转讛 讗讜住专转讛

And this is the a fortiori inference and the reason for the halakha of an unwitting sinner, i.e., that if he had unwitting relations with one of his wife鈥檚 relations the wife is not thereby rendered forbidden to him. With regard to one whose act was intentional, from where is the halakha derived? The verse states: 鈥淗er,鈥 meaning that it is her intercourse with another man that renders her forbidden to her husband, but the intercourse of her husband with sister does not render her forbidden to him.

讗诪专 专讘讬 讗诪讬 讗诪专 专讬砖 诇拽讬砖 诪讗讬 讟注诪讗 讚专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 讚讻转讬讘 讘讗砖 讬砖专驻讜 讗讜转讜 讜讗转讛谉 讜讻讬 讻诇 讛讘讬转 讻讜诇讜 讘砖专驻讛 讗诐 讗讬谞讜 注谞讬谉 诇砖专驻讛 转谞讛讜 注谞讬谉 诇讗讬住讜专讗

Rabbi Ami said that Reish Lakish said: What is the reason of Rabbi Yehuda, who maintains that one who has intercourse with his mother-in-law is forbidden to his wife? As it is written: 鈥淭hey shall be burned in fire, he and they鈥 (Leviticus 20:14). This verse is puzzling: And shall the entire house be punished by burning? Why should both women be punished when only one of them transgressed? If it does not refer to the matter of burning, refer it to the matter of a prohibition, that they are both forbidden to him. This teaches that he is forbidden not only to the woman with whom he sinned, but also to his wife.

讗诪专 专讘 讬讛讜讚讛 讗诪专 砖诪讜讗诇 讗讬谉 讛诇讻讛 讻专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 讛讛讜讗 讚注讘讚 讗讬住讜专讗 讘讞诪转讬讛 讗转讬讬讛 专讘 讬讛讜讚讛 谞讙讚讬讛 讗诪专 诇讬讛 讗讬 诇讗讜 讚讗诪专 砖诪讜讗诇 讗讬谉 讛诇讻讛 讻专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 讗住专讬转讛 注诇讱 讗讬住讜专讗 讚注诇诐

Rav Yehuda said that Shmuel said: The halakha is not in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yehuda. The Gemara relates: A certain individual performed a transgression by having relations with his mother-in-law. Rav Yehuda had him brought for judgment and ordered that he be flogged. He said to him: If it were not for the fact that Shmuel said the halakha is not in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yehuda, I would render your wife forbidden to you permanently.

诪讗讬 讗讬住讜专 拽诇 讗诪专 专讘 讞住讚讗 诪讞讝讬专 讙专讜砖转讜 诪砖谞砖讗转

搂 At the start of the baraita the tanna stated an a fortiori inference that is not entirely clear: If in a place where he has relations subject to a light prohibition, the one causing her to be rendered prohibited is forbidden. The Gemara asks: What is this light prohibition? Rav 岣sda said: It is referring to one who remarries his divorc茅e after she married another man.

讘讗 注诇讬讛 讛讗讬 讗住专讛 注诇讬讛 讚讛讗讬 讘讗 注诇讬讛 讗讬讚讱 讗住专讛 注诇讬讛 讚讛讗讬

The Gemara explains that according to this interpretation the a fortiori inference should be understood as follows: If this one, the second husband, has relations with her, he has rendered her forbidden to that one, the first husband. And if the second man divorced her and then the other one, the first husband, had relations with her, he has likewise rendered her forbidden to this one. This demonstrates that even with regard to a light prohibition the man who renders her forbidden is also forbidden by this intercourse.

诪讛 诇诪讞讝讬专 讙专讜砖转讜 诪砖谞砖讗转 砖讻谉 谞讟诪讗 讛讙讜祝 讜讗讬住讜专讛 讘专讜讘 讜讗讬住讜专讛 讗讬住讜专 注讜诇诐

The Gemara refutes this interpretation: What about the fact that one who remarries his divorc茅e after she married another man cannot be considered to have violated a light prohibition, as the prohibition is stringent in several regards: As the body is defiled by this intercourse, for the Torah states 鈥渁fter she has been defiled鈥 (Deuteronomy 24:4); and her prohibition applies to the majority of the Jewish people, not to select groups; and her prohibition is an irrevocable prohibition, as she is no longer permitted to her first husband after having relations with her second husband. This last stringency is not true of his wife鈥檚 sister, who is permitted to him after the death of his wife.

讗诇讗 讗诪专 专讬砖 诇拽讬砖 讬讘诪讛 讬讘诪讛 诇诪讗谉 讗讬诇讬诪讗 诇讗讞专 讜讻讚专讘 讛诪谞讜谞讗 讚讗诪专 专讘 讛诪谞讜谞讗 砖讜诪专转 讬讘诐 砖讝讬谞转讛 讗住讜专讛 诇讬讘诪讛

Rather, the Gemara rejects this explanation in favor of the following one that Reish Lakish said: The baraita is referring to relations with a yevama, which is called a light prohibition, as the man who has relations with her is forbidden to her. The Gemara clarifies: With regard to this yevama, with whom did she engage in intercourse? If we say that she had relations with another man, not her yavam, this would mean that the ruling is in accordance with the opinion of Rav Hamnuna. As Rav Hamnuna said: A widow waiting for her yavam who engaged in licentious sexual relations with another man is forbidden to her yavam. The argument would be as follows: Although the yavam renders the yevama forbidden to every other man, if she has relations with another she becomes forbidden to him as well.

诪讛 诇讬讘诪讛 砖讻谉 谞讟诪讗 讛讙讜祝 讜讗讬住讜专讛 讘专讜讘

However, this argument can also be challenged: What about the fact that in the case of a yevama who engages in this forbidden relationship, the body is defiled and her prohibition applies equally to the majority of the people. Therefore, one cannot derive the prohibitions of one鈥檚 wife鈥檚 relatives from this halakha.

讗诇讗 讬讘诪讛 诇讗讞讬谉 注讘讚 讘讛 诪讗诪专 讛讗讬 讗住专讛 注诇讬讛 讚讛讗讬 讘讗 注诇讬讛 讗讬讚讱 讗住专讛 注诇讬讛 讚讛讗讬 诪讗讬 讗讬专讬讗 砖讘讗 注诇讬讛 砖谞讬 讗驻讬诇讜 注讘讚 讘讛 谞诪讬 诪讗诪专

Rather, the baraita must be referring to a case of a yevama to the brothers, as follows: If this brother performed levirate betrothal [ma鈥檃mar] with her he has rendered her forbidden to that one, the other brothers, as she is effectively betrothed to him. If one of the other brothers, who had not performed levirate betrothal with her, subsequently has relations with her, he has rendered her forbidden to this one who had performed levirate betrothal with her. The Gemara asks: If that is the meaning of the baraita, why specifically state that the second had relations with her? Even if he performed levirate betrothal with her too, he thereby renders her forbidden to the first brother, which proves that it is not the act of intercourse itself that causes the prohibition.

讛讗 诇讗 拽砖讬讗 讻专讘谉 讙诪诇讬讗诇 讚讗诪专 讗讬谉 诪讗诪专 讗讞专 诪讗诪专 讗诇讗 讗驻讬诇讜 谞转谉 诇讛 讙讟 讜讗驻讬诇讜 讞诇抓 诇讛

The Gemara refutes this suggestion: This is not difficult, as it can be explained in accordance with the opinion of Rabban Gamliel, who said: There is no levirate betrothal after a levirate betrothal, i.e., if one brother performed levirate betrothal with the yevama, no other levirate betrothal is of any effect. However, this explanation can still be refuted, as her prohibition to the yavam is not due to the act of intercourse, as even if the other brother gave her a bill of divorce, or even if he performed 岣litza with her, he has likewise rendered her forbidden to the first brother, who performed levirate betrothal.

讗诇讗 讗诪专 专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 住讜讟讛 住讜讟讛 诇诪讗谉 讗讬诇讬诪讗 诇讘注诇 讘讗 注诇讬讛 讘注诇 讗住专讛 注诇讬讛 讚讘讜注诇 诪讗讬 讗讬专讬讗 讘讗 注诇讬讛 讗驻讬诇讜 谞转谉 诇讛 讙讟 讜讗驻讬诇讜 讗诪专 讗讬谉 讗谞讬 诪砖拽讛

Rather, Rabbi Yo岣nan said: The light prohibition is that of a sota. The Gemara asks: This sota, to whom is she forbidden? If we say that she is forbidden to the husband, the explanation would be as follows: If her husband has relations with her, despite the fact that she is forbidden to him after she disobeyed his warning not to seclude herself with a certain man, he has rendered her forbidden to the fornicator, as she is barred from marrying him even if her husband divorces her. However, why is this true specifically in a case in which he had relations with her? Even if her husband only gave her a bill of divorce and did not have relations with her after her seclusion, or even if he said: I will not force her to drink the waters of a sota, she is likewise forbidden to the other man.

讗诇讗 住讜讟讛 诇讘讜注诇 讛讗讬 讗讬住讜专 拽诇 讛讜讗 讗讬住讜专 讞诪讜专 讛讜讗 讚讛讬讬谞讜 讗砖转 讗讬砖

Rather, the baraita is referring to a sota who had relations with the fornicator, thereby rendering herself permanently forbidden to her husband, as she was a married woman at the time. Yet this too is puzzling: Is this a light prohibition? It is a severe prohibition, as this is the prohibition proscribing a married woman, one of the most serious of all prohibitions.

讗诇讗 讗诪专 专讘讗 讗砖转 讗讬砖 讜讻谉 讻讬 讗转讗 专讘讬谉 讗诪专 专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 讗砖转 讗讬砖 讜诪讗讬 拽专讬 诇讛 讗讬住讜专 拽诇 砖讗讬谉 讛讗讜住专讛 讗讜住专讛 讻诇 讬诪讬讜 转谞讬讗 谞诪讬 讛讻讬 讗讘讗 讞谞谉 讗诪专 诪砖讜诐 专讘讬 讗诇注讝专 讗砖转 讗讬砖

Rather, Rava said that the light prohibition is actually that of a married woman. And similarly, when Ravin came from Eretz Yisrael, he said that Rabbi Yo岣nan said that the baraita is referring to a married woman. And for what reason does the tanna call this a light prohibition? The reason is that it differs from and is more lenient than other prohibitions in that her husband, who renders her forbidden, does not render her forbidden for his whole lifetime, as he can negate the prohibition by giving her a bill of divorce. This is also taught in a baraita: Abba 岣nan said in the name of Rabbi Elazar: The baraita is referring to a married woman.

讜诪讛 讘诪拽讜诐 讛讘讗 注诇 讗讬住讜专 拽诇 砖讗讬谉 讛讗讜住专讛 讗讜住专讛 讻诇 讬诪讬讜 谞讗住专 讛讗讜住专 讛讘讗 注诇 讗讬住讜专 讞诪讜专 砖讛讗讜住专讛 讗讜住专讛 讻诇 讬诪讬讜 讗讬谞讜 讚讬谉 砖谞讗住专 讛讗讜住专讛

The Gemara explains that according to this opinion the a fortiori inference should be understood as follows: And if in a case where he has relations with a married woman, which is a light prohibition, due to the fact that he who renders her forbidden does not render her forbidden for his whole lifetime, and yet the one who renders her forbidden is forbidden, as the husband of a woman who committed adultery is permanently barred from having relations with her, then the following conclusion is correct: One who has relations subject to a severe transgression, e.g., a wife鈥檚 sister, which is severe because the one who renders his wife forbidden renders her forbidden for her whole lifetime, since as long as his wife remains alive he is forbidden to her sister, is it not right that the one who renders her forbidden should be forbidden?

转诇诪讜讚 诇讜诪专 讗讜转讛 讗讜转讛 砖讻讬讘转讛 讗讜住专转讛 讜讗讬谉 砖讻讬讘转 讗讞讜转讛 讗讜住专转讛

The verse therefore states: 鈥淗er,鈥 from which it is derived: It is her intercourse that renders her forbidden, but the intercourse of her sister does not render her forbidden.

专讘讬 讬讜住讬 讗讜诪专 讻诇 砖驻讜住诇 讜讻讜壮 诪讗讬 拽讗诪专 专讘讬 讬讜住讬 讗讬诇讬诪讗 讚拽讗诪专 转谞讗 拽诪讗 讚讗讝讬诇 讗砖转讜 讜讙讬住讜 诇诪讚讬谞转 讛讬诐 讗砖转 讙讬住讜 讗住讬专讗 讜讗砖转讜 砖专讬讗

搂 The mishna taught: Rabbi Yosei says: Whoever disqualifies others also disqualifies himself, and whoever does not disqualify others does not disqualify himself. The Gemara asks: What is it Rabbi Yosei is saying? If we say that the first tanna said that one鈥檚 wife and brother-in-law went overseas and he mistakenly had relations with his wife鈥檚 sister, who is married to his brother-in-law, and consequently the wife of his brother-in-law is forbidden to the brother-in-law, and his wife is permitted to him, this is problematic.

讜拽讗诪专 诇讬讛 专讘讬 讬讜住讬 讻讬 讛讬讻讬 讚讗砖转讜 砖专讬讗 讗砖转 讙讬住讜 谞诪讬 砖专讬讗 讗讬 讛讻讬 讻诇 砖讗讬谉 驻讜住诇 注诇 讬讚讬 讗讞专讬诐 讗讬谉 驻讜住诇 注诇 讬讚讬 注爪诪讜 讻诇 砖讗讬谉 驻讜住诇 注诇 讬讚讬 注爪诪讜 讗讬谞讜 驻讜住诇 注诇 讬讚讬 讗讞专讬诐 诪讬讘注讬讗 诇讬讛

The Gemara elaborates: And according to this explanation, Rabbi Yosei says to the first tanna: Just as his wife is permitted to him, the wife of his brother-in-law is also permitted to her husband. Rabbi Yosei鈥檚 reasoning is that if he has not disqualified his wife to himself, due to the accidental nature of his relations with her sister, he should not disqualify the sister to her husband either. The Gemara continues: If so, the formulation of Rabbi Yosei鈥檚 statement is imprecise, as instead of saying: Whoever does not disqualify others does not disqualify himself, he should have said: Whoever does not disqualify himself, i.e., his sexual relations do not render his wife forbidden to him, does not disqualify others, i.e., the wife of the other man.

讜讗诇讗 讻讬 讛讬讻讬 讚讗砖转 讙讬住讜 讗住讬专讗 讗砖转讜 谞诪讬 讗住讬专讗 讛转讬谞讞 讻诇 砖驻讜住诇 讻诇 砖讗讬谞讜 驻讜住诇 诪讗讬 注讘讬讚转讬讛

But rather, one might explain Rabbi Yosei鈥檚 teaching in the reverse manner: Just as the wife of his brother-in-law is forbidden to her husband, his own wife is also forbidden to him. This works out well with regard to the clause that starts with: Whoever disqualifies, as he disqualifies others, i.e., his brother-in-law鈥檚 wife to his brother-in-law, and therefore he also disqualifies his wife to himself. However, the continuation of the statement: Whoever does not disqualify, what is its purpose? This clause has no apparent relevance to Rabbi Yosei鈥檚 statement.

讗诪专 专讘讬 讗诪讬 讗专讬砖讗 谞讬住转 注诇 驻讬 讘讬转 讚讬谉 转爪讗 讜驻讟讜专讛 诪谉 讛拽专讘谉 注诇 驻讬 注讚讬诐 转爪讗 讜讞讬讬讘转 讘拽专讘谉 讬驻讛 讻讞讜 砖诇 讘讬转 讚讬谉 砖驻讟专讛 诪谉 讛拽专讘谉

Rabbi Ami said: Rabbi Yosei鈥檚 statement does not refer to this halakha, but to the first mishna of the chapter, which taught that if a woman whose husband went overseas was informed that he was dead and she married by permission of the court she must leave her new husband and is exempt from bringing an offering. If she married based on the testimony of witnesses, without the authorization of the court, she must leave and is liable to bring an offering. In this regard, the power of the court is enhanced, as she is exempt from an offering.

讜拽讗诪专 转谞讗 拽诪讗 诇讗 砖谞讗 注诇 驻讬 注讚讬诐 讚讗砖转 讙讬住讜 砖专讬讗 讜诇讗 砖谞讗 注诇 驻讬 讘讬转 讚讬谉 讚讗砖转 讙讬住讜 讗住讬专讗

Rabbi Ami explains: And accordingly, if his wife and brother-in-law went overseas and witnesses came and testified that they were both dead, the first tanna says that it is no different whether the wife of his brother-in-law married him based on the testimony of witnesses alone, in which case the wife of his brother-in-law is permitted to her husband, as she is considered as having acted under duress, having heard testimony that her husband was dead, and it is no different if she married him by permission of the court, as although the wife of his brother-in-law is prohibited, his own wife remains permitted to him.

讜拽讗诪专 诇讬讛 专讘讬 讬讜住讬 注诇 驻讬 讘讬转 讚讬谉 讚驻讜住诇 注诇 讬讚讬 讗讞专讬诐 驻讜住诇 注诇 讬讚讬 注爪诪讜 注诇 驻讬 注讚讬诐 讚讗讬谞讜 驻讜住诇 注诇 讬讚讬 讗讞专讬诐 讗讬谞讜 驻讜住诇 注诇 讬讚讬 注爪诪讜

Rabbi Ami continues his explanation. And Rabbi Yosei says to the first tanna: One who married by permission of the court, who disqualifies others, he also disqualified himself to his own wife; however, in the case of one who married based on the testimony of witnesses who does not disqualify others, I agree that he does not disqualify himself, and his wife is permitted to him.

专讘讬 讬爪讞拽 谞驻讞讗 讗诪专 诇注讜诇诐 讗住讬驻讗 (讛讗 讚谞住讬讘 讗砖转 讙讬住讜 讜讛讗 讚谞住讬讘 讗专讜住转 讙讬住讜) 讛讗 讚讗讝诇讬 讗专讜住转讜 讜讙讬住讜 讛讗 讚讗讝诇讬 讗砖转讜 讜讙讬住讜 讜拽讗诪专 转谞讗 拽诪讗 诇讗 砖谞讗 讗砖转讜 讜讙讬住讜 讜诇讗 砖谞讗 讗专讜住转讜 讜讙讬住讜 讗砖转 讙讬住讜 讗住讬专讗 讜讗砖转讜 砖专讬讗

Rabbi Yitz岣k Nappa岣 said: Actually, Rabbi Yosei is referring to the latter clause of the mishna, and the explanation is as follows: This is referring to one who married his brother-in-law鈥檚 wife, and that case is referring to one who married his brother-in-law鈥檚 betrothed. Alternatively, this involves a situation where his betrothed and his brother-in-law went overseas, whereas that concerns a situation when his wife and his brother-in-law went abroad. And the first tanna said: It is no different whether the ones who left were his wife and his brother-in-law, and it is no different whether they were his betrothed and his brother-in-law. Either way his brother-in-law鈥檚 wife is forbidden to her husband and his own wife or betrothed is permitted to him.

讜拽讗诪专 诇讬讛 专讘讬 讬讜住讬 讗砖转讜 讜讙讬住讜 讚诇讬讻讗 诇诪讬诪专 转谞讗讛 讛讜讛 诇讬讛 讘谞砖讜讗讬谉 讚讗讬谞讜 驻讜住诇 注诇 讬讚讬 讗讞专 讗讬谞讜 驻讜住诇 注诇 讬讚讬 注爪诪讜 讗专讜住转讜 讜讙讬住讜 讚讗讬讻讗 诇诪讬诪专 转谞讗讛 讛讜讛 诇讬讛 讘拽讬讚讜砖讬谉 讜驻讜住诇 注诇 讬讚讬 讗讞专讬诐 讗祝 驻讜住诇 注诇 讬讚讬 注爪诪讜

Rabbi Yitz岣k Nappa岣 continues his interpretation. And Rabbi Yosei said to the first tanna: If his wife and his brother-in-law left, in which case it cannot be said that he had a condition with regard to his marriage to his wife, i.e., that the finalization of the marriage was pending on the fulfillment of some condition, everyone would realize that his marriage to her sister was a mistake and she is therefore permitted to his brother-in-law. Consequently, as he does not disqualify another, he does not disqualify himself either. If, however, it was his betrothed and his brother-in-law who left, when it can be mistakenly said that he had a condition with regard to his betrothal and the condition was unfulfilled, his brother-in-law鈥檚 wife is therefore prohibited from returning to his brother-in-law. And therefore, as he disqualifies others he also disqualifies himself, and his betrothed is forbidden to him.

讗诪专 专讘 讬讛讜讚讛 讗诪专 砖诪讜讗诇 讛诇讻讛 讻专讘讬 讬讜住讬 诪转拽讬祝 诇讛 专讘 讬讜住祝 讜诪讬 讗诪专 砖诪讜讗诇 讛讻讬 讜讛讗转诪专 讬讘诪讛 专讘 讗诪专 讛专讬 讛讬讗 讻讗砖转 讗讬砖 讜砖诪讜讗诇 讗诪专 讗讬谞讛 讻讗砖转 讗讬砖 讜讗诪专 专讘 讛讜谞讗 讻讙讜谉 砖拽讚砖 讗讞讬讜 讗转 讛讗砖讛 讜讛诇讱 诇讜 诇诪讚讬谞转 讛讬诐 讜砖诪注 砖诪转 讗讞讬讜 讜注诪讚 讜谞砖讗 讗转 讗砖转讜

Rav Yehuda said that Shmuel said: The halakha is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yosei. Rav Yosef strongly objects to this: And did Shmuel actually say this? But wasn鈥檛 it stated that they disputed the status of a yevama: Rav said that she is like a married woman, and Shmuel said that she is not like a married woman. And Rav Huna said that this dispute concerns a case where his brother betrothed a woman and that brother went off overseas, and the one left behind heard that his brother was dead and he arose and married his brother鈥檚 wife, in levirate marriage, and subsequently the missing brother returned.

讚专讘 讗诪专 讛专讬 讛讬讗 讻讗砖转 讗讬砖 讜讗住讜专讛 诇讬讘诐 讜砖诪讜讗诇 讗诪专 讗讬谞讛 讻讗砖转 讗讬砖 讜砖专讬讗 诇讬讛

As Rav said that she is like a married woman who married another man based on testimony that her husband was dead and is therefore forbidden to the yavam, i.e., to her first husband, who is called the yavam after his brother married her. And Shmuel said that she is not like a married woman, and is permitted to him. This apparently contradicts Rav Yehuda鈥檚 ruling in the name of Shmuel that the halakha is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yosei, as here too people might mistakenly think that the original betrothal included an unfulfilled condition and she should therefore be forbidden to him as the wife of his brother.

讗诪专 诇讬讛 讗讘讬讬 讜诪诪讗讬 讚讻讬 讗诪专 砖诪讜讗诇 讛诇讻讛 讻专讘讬 讬讜住讬 讗讚专讘讬 讬爪讞拽 谞驻讞讗 拽讗诪专 讚诇诪讗 讗讚专讘讬 讗诪讬 拽讗诪专 讜讗讬 谞诪讬 讗讚专讘讬 讬爪讞拽 谞驻讞讗 诪诪讗讬 讚讗驻讜住诇

Abaye said to Rav Yosef: And from where do you know that when Shmuel said that the halakha is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yosei, he was speaking of the explanation of Rabbi Yitz岣k Nappa岣 with regard to Rabbi Yosei鈥檚 opinion? Perhaps he was speaking of the explanation of Rabbi Ami, that Rabbi Yosei is referring to the difference between one who married by permission of the court and one who did so based on the testimony of witnesses. And even if one accepts the claim that Shmuel鈥檚 ruling endorses the interpretation of Rabbi Yitz岣k Nappa岣, from where do you know that he was referring to the clause: One who disqualifies?

  • This month's learning is sponsored by Ron and Shira Krebs to commemorate the 73rd yahrzeit of Shira's grandfather (Yitzchak Leib Ben David Ber HaCohen v'Malka), the 1st yahrzeit of Shira's father (Gershon Pinya Ben Yitzchak Leib HaCohen v'Menucha Sara), and the bar mitzvah of their son Eytan who will be making a siyum on Mishna Shas this month.

  • This month's learning is sponsored for the Refuah Shlemah of Naama bat Yael Esther.

  • 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

learn daf yomi one week at a time with tamara spitz

Yevamot: 93-98 – Daf Yomi One Week at a Time

This week we will learn about the consequences of the case of a woman who goes abroad, it is said...
talking talmud_square

Yevamot 95: Returning from the Dead with implications for your marriage

A dispute between R. Yehudah and R. Yosei on a dispute between Beit Hillel and Beit Shammai over cases of...
thumbnail yevamot tools

Chapter 10: 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...

Yevamot 95

The William Davidson Talmud | Powered by Sefaria

Yevamot 95

讗讞讜转 讗砖讛 讚讘诪讝讬讚 诇讗 讗住讬专讗 诪讚讗讜专讬讬转讗 讘砖讜讙讙 诇讗 讙讝专讜 讘讛 专讘谞谉 讜诪谞诇谉 讚诇讗 讗住讬专讗 讚转谞讬讗 讗讜转讛 讗讜转讛 砖讻讬讘转讛 讗讜住专转讛 讜讗讬谉 砖讻讬讘转 讗讞讜转讛 讗讜住专转讛

However, with regard to a wife鈥檚 sister, where even if the sister sins intentionally the wife is not forbidden to him by Torah law, if he did so unwittingly the Sages did not decree with regard to him. And from where do we derive that she is not forbidden? As it is taught in a baraita that in the verse: 鈥淎 man, when his wife goes aside鈥nd a man lies with her鈥 (Numbers 5:12鈥13), the emphasis of 鈥渉er鈥 teaches: It is her intercourse with another man that renders her forbidden to her husband, but the intercourse of her sister does not render her forbidden.

砖讬讻讜诇 讜讛诇讗 讚讬谉 讛讜讗 讜诪讛 讘诪拽讜诐 砖讘讗 注诇 讗讬住讜专 拽诇 谞讗住专 讛讗讜住专 诪拽讜诐 砖讘讗 注诇 讗讬住讜专 讞诪讜专 讗讬谞讜 讚讬谉 砖谞讗住专 讛讗讜住专

As, were it not for this verse, one might have thought: Could this not be derived through an a fortiori inference: And if in a case where he has relations subject to a light prohibition, the one causing her to be rendered prohibited is forbidden, then in a situation where he has intercourse subject to a severe prohibition, is it not right that the one causing her to be rendered prohibited should be forbidden? This a fortiori inference will be explained later in the Gemara.

讗诪专 专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 诇讗 谞讞诇拽讜 讘讬转 砖诪讗讬 讜讘讬转 讛诇诇 讘讘讗 注诇 讞诪讜转讜 砖驻讜住诇 讗转 讗砖转讜 注诇 诪讛 谞讞诇拽讜 讘讘讗 注诇 讗讞讜转 讗砖转讜 砖讘讬转 砖诪讗讬 讗讜诪专讬诐 驻讜住诇 讜讘讬转 讛诇诇 讗讜诪专讬诐 诇讗 驻讜住诇 讗诪专 专讘讬 讬讜住讬 诇讗 谞讞诇拽讜 讘讬转 砖诪讗讬 讜讘讬转 讛诇诇 讘讘讗 注诇 讗讞讜转 讗砖转讜 砖诇讗 驻讜住诇 讗转 讗砖转讜 注诇 诪讛 谞讞诇拽讜 讘讘讗 注诇 讞诪讜转讜 砖讘讬转 砖诪讗讬 讗讜诪专讬诐 驻讜住诇 讜讘讬转 讛诇诇 讗讜诪专讬诐 诇讗 驻讜住诇

Rabbi Yehuda said: Beit Shammai and Beit Hillel did not disagree with regard to one who has relations with his mother-in-law, that he renders his wife disqualified from remaining married to him. With regard to what case did they disagree? With regard to one who has relations with his wife鈥檚 sister, as Beit Shammai say that he renders his wife disqualified, and Beit Hillel say he does not render her disqualified. Rabbi Yosei said: Not so, as Beit Shammai and Beit Hillel did not disagree with regard to one who has relations with his wife鈥檚 sister, that he does not render his wife disqualified from remaining married to him. With regard to what did they disagree? With regard to one who has relations with his mother-in-law, as Beit Shammai say he renders his wife disqualified and Beit Hillel say he does not render her disqualified.

诇驻讬 砖讘转讞诇讛 讛讜讗 诪讜转专 讘讻诇 讛谞砖讬诐 砖讘注讜诇诐 讜讛讬讗 诪讜转专转 讘讻诇 讛讗谞砖讬诐 砖讘注讜诇诐 拽讚砖讛 讛讜讗 讗讜住专讛 讜讛讬讗 讗住专转讜 诪专讜讘讛 讗讬住讜专 砖讗住专讛 诪讗讬住讜专 砖讗住专转讛讜 砖讛讜讗 讗住专讛 讘讻诇 讗谞砖讬诐 砖讘注讜诇诐 讜讛讬讗 诇讗 讗住专转讛讜 讗诇讗 讘拽专讜讘讜转讬讛

Rabbi Yosei explains why Beit Shammai and Beit Hillel did not disagree with regard to the case of one who has relations with his wife鈥檚 sister. This is because at first, before the marriage, he is permitted to all the women in the world and she is permitted to all the men in the world. After he has betrothed her as his wife, he renders her forbidden to all men, and she renders him forbidden to her relatives. Consequently, the prohibition by which he renders her forbidden is greater than the prohibition by which she renders him forbidden, as he renders her forbidden to all the men in the world and she renders him forbidden by their betrothal only to her relatives.

讜讛诇讗 讚讬谉 讛讜讗 讜诪讛 讛讜讗 砖讗住专讛 讘讻诇 讗谞砖讬诐 砖讘注讜诇诐 砖讙讙讛 讘讗住讜专 诇讛 讗讬谞讛 谞讗住专转 讘诪讜转专 诇讛 讛讬讗 砖诇讗 讗住专转讛讜 讗诇讗 讘拽专讜讘讜转讬讛 砖讙讙 讘讗住讜专 诇讜 讗讬谞讜 讚讬谉 砖诇讗 谞讗住专 诇讜 讘诪讜转专 诇讜

Rabbi Yosei鈥檚 explanation continues. Could this halakha of a wife鈥檚 sister not be derived through an a fortiori inference: And if he prohibited her through their betrothal to all men in the world, and yet she was unwitting with one forbidden to her, i.e., she had relations with another man by mistake, she is not forbidden to he who is permitted to her, her husband; she, who prohibited him only to her relatives, if he was unwitting with one forbidden to him, her sister, is it not right that we should not render him forbidden to her, she who is permitted to him, namely his wife?

讜讝讛 讛讚讬谉 诇砖讜讙讙 诇诪讝讬讚 诪谞讬谉 转诇诪讜讚 诇讜诪专 讗讜转讛 讗讜转讛 砖讻讬讘转讛 讗讜住专转讛 讜讗讬谉 砖讻讬讘转 讗讞讜转讛 讗讜住专转讛

And this is the a fortiori inference and the reason for the halakha of an unwitting sinner, i.e., that if he had unwitting relations with one of his wife鈥檚 relations the wife is not thereby rendered forbidden to him. With regard to one whose act was intentional, from where is the halakha derived? The verse states: 鈥淗er,鈥 meaning that it is her intercourse with another man that renders her forbidden to her husband, but the intercourse of her husband with sister does not render her forbidden to him.

讗诪专 专讘讬 讗诪讬 讗诪专 专讬砖 诇拽讬砖 诪讗讬 讟注诪讗 讚专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 讚讻转讬讘 讘讗砖 讬砖专驻讜 讗讜转讜 讜讗转讛谉 讜讻讬 讻诇 讛讘讬转 讻讜诇讜 讘砖专驻讛 讗诐 讗讬谞讜 注谞讬谉 诇砖专驻讛 转谞讛讜 注谞讬谉 诇讗讬住讜专讗

Rabbi Ami said that Reish Lakish said: What is the reason of Rabbi Yehuda, who maintains that one who has intercourse with his mother-in-law is forbidden to his wife? As it is written: 鈥淭hey shall be burned in fire, he and they鈥 (Leviticus 20:14). This verse is puzzling: And shall the entire house be punished by burning? Why should both women be punished when only one of them transgressed? If it does not refer to the matter of burning, refer it to the matter of a prohibition, that they are both forbidden to him. This teaches that he is forbidden not only to the woman with whom he sinned, but also to his wife.

讗诪专 专讘 讬讛讜讚讛 讗诪专 砖诪讜讗诇 讗讬谉 讛诇讻讛 讻专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 讛讛讜讗 讚注讘讚 讗讬住讜专讗 讘讞诪转讬讛 讗转讬讬讛 专讘 讬讛讜讚讛 谞讙讚讬讛 讗诪专 诇讬讛 讗讬 诇讗讜 讚讗诪专 砖诪讜讗诇 讗讬谉 讛诇讻讛 讻专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 讗住专讬转讛 注诇讱 讗讬住讜专讗 讚注诇诐

Rav Yehuda said that Shmuel said: The halakha is not in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yehuda. The Gemara relates: A certain individual performed a transgression by having relations with his mother-in-law. Rav Yehuda had him brought for judgment and ordered that he be flogged. He said to him: If it were not for the fact that Shmuel said the halakha is not in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yehuda, I would render your wife forbidden to you permanently.

诪讗讬 讗讬住讜专 拽诇 讗诪专 专讘 讞住讚讗 诪讞讝讬专 讙专讜砖转讜 诪砖谞砖讗转

搂 At the start of the baraita the tanna stated an a fortiori inference that is not entirely clear: If in a place where he has relations subject to a light prohibition, the one causing her to be rendered prohibited is forbidden. The Gemara asks: What is this light prohibition? Rav 岣sda said: It is referring to one who remarries his divorc茅e after she married another man.

讘讗 注诇讬讛 讛讗讬 讗住专讛 注诇讬讛 讚讛讗讬 讘讗 注诇讬讛 讗讬讚讱 讗住专讛 注诇讬讛 讚讛讗讬

The Gemara explains that according to this interpretation the a fortiori inference should be understood as follows: If this one, the second husband, has relations with her, he has rendered her forbidden to that one, the first husband. And if the second man divorced her and then the other one, the first husband, had relations with her, he has likewise rendered her forbidden to this one. This demonstrates that even with regard to a light prohibition the man who renders her forbidden is also forbidden by this intercourse.

诪讛 诇诪讞讝讬专 讙专讜砖转讜 诪砖谞砖讗转 砖讻谉 谞讟诪讗 讛讙讜祝 讜讗讬住讜专讛 讘专讜讘 讜讗讬住讜专讛 讗讬住讜专 注讜诇诐

The Gemara refutes this interpretation: What about the fact that one who remarries his divorc茅e after she married another man cannot be considered to have violated a light prohibition, as the prohibition is stringent in several regards: As the body is defiled by this intercourse, for the Torah states 鈥渁fter she has been defiled鈥 (Deuteronomy 24:4); and her prohibition applies to the majority of the Jewish people, not to select groups; and her prohibition is an irrevocable prohibition, as she is no longer permitted to her first husband after having relations with her second husband. This last stringency is not true of his wife鈥檚 sister, who is permitted to him after the death of his wife.

讗诇讗 讗诪专 专讬砖 诇拽讬砖 讬讘诪讛 讬讘诪讛 诇诪讗谉 讗讬诇讬诪讗 诇讗讞专 讜讻讚专讘 讛诪谞讜谞讗 讚讗诪专 专讘 讛诪谞讜谞讗 砖讜诪专转 讬讘诐 砖讝讬谞转讛 讗住讜专讛 诇讬讘诪讛

Rather, the Gemara rejects this explanation in favor of the following one that Reish Lakish said: The baraita is referring to relations with a yevama, which is called a light prohibition, as the man who has relations with her is forbidden to her. The Gemara clarifies: With regard to this yevama, with whom did she engage in intercourse? If we say that she had relations with another man, not her yavam, this would mean that the ruling is in accordance with the opinion of Rav Hamnuna. As Rav Hamnuna said: A widow waiting for her yavam who engaged in licentious sexual relations with another man is forbidden to her yavam. The argument would be as follows: Although the yavam renders the yevama forbidden to every other man, if she has relations with another she becomes forbidden to him as well.

诪讛 诇讬讘诪讛 砖讻谉 谞讟诪讗 讛讙讜祝 讜讗讬住讜专讛 讘专讜讘

However, this argument can also be challenged: What about the fact that in the case of a yevama who engages in this forbidden relationship, the body is defiled and her prohibition applies equally to the majority of the people. Therefore, one cannot derive the prohibitions of one鈥檚 wife鈥檚 relatives from this halakha.

讗诇讗 讬讘诪讛 诇讗讞讬谉 注讘讚 讘讛 诪讗诪专 讛讗讬 讗住专讛 注诇讬讛 讚讛讗讬 讘讗 注诇讬讛 讗讬讚讱 讗住专讛 注诇讬讛 讚讛讗讬 诪讗讬 讗讬专讬讗 砖讘讗 注诇讬讛 砖谞讬 讗驻讬诇讜 注讘讚 讘讛 谞诪讬 诪讗诪专

Rather, the baraita must be referring to a case of a yevama to the brothers, as follows: If this brother performed levirate betrothal [ma鈥檃mar] with her he has rendered her forbidden to that one, the other brothers, as she is effectively betrothed to him. If one of the other brothers, who had not performed levirate betrothal with her, subsequently has relations with her, he has rendered her forbidden to this one who had performed levirate betrothal with her. The Gemara asks: If that is the meaning of the baraita, why specifically state that the second had relations with her? Even if he performed levirate betrothal with her too, he thereby renders her forbidden to the first brother, which proves that it is not the act of intercourse itself that causes the prohibition.

讛讗 诇讗 拽砖讬讗 讻专讘谉 讙诪诇讬讗诇 讚讗诪专 讗讬谉 诪讗诪专 讗讞专 诪讗诪专 讗诇讗 讗驻讬诇讜 谞转谉 诇讛 讙讟 讜讗驻讬诇讜 讞诇抓 诇讛

The Gemara refutes this suggestion: This is not difficult, as it can be explained in accordance with the opinion of Rabban Gamliel, who said: There is no levirate betrothal after a levirate betrothal, i.e., if one brother performed levirate betrothal with the yevama, no other levirate betrothal is of any effect. However, this explanation can still be refuted, as her prohibition to the yavam is not due to the act of intercourse, as even if the other brother gave her a bill of divorce, or even if he performed 岣litza with her, he has likewise rendered her forbidden to the first brother, who performed levirate betrothal.

讗诇讗 讗诪专 专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 住讜讟讛 住讜讟讛 诇诪讗谉 讗讬诇讬诪讗 诇讘注诇 讘讗 注诇讬讛 讘注诇 讗住专讛 注诇讬讛 讚讘讜注诇 诪讗讬 讗讬专讬讗 讘讗 注诇讬讛 讗驻讬诇讜 谞转谉 诇讛 讙讟 讜讗驻讬诇讜 讗诪专 讗讬谉 讗谞讬 诪砖拽讛

Rather, Rabbi Yo岣nan said: The light prohibition is that of a sota. The Gemara asks: This sota, to whom is she forbidden? If we say that she is forbidden to the husband, the explanation would be as follows: If her husband has relations with her, despite the fact that she is forbidden to him after she disobeyed his warning not to seclude herself with a certain man, he has rendered her forbidden to the fornicator, as she is barred from marrying him even if her husband divorces her. However, why is this true specifically in a case in which he had relations with her? Even if her husband only gave her a bill of divorce and did not have relations with her after her seclusion, or even if he said: I will not force her to drink the waters of a sota, she is likewise forbidden to the other man.

讗诇讗 住讜讟讛 诇讘讜注诇 讛讗讬 讗讬住讜专 拽诇 讛讜讗 讗讬住讜专 讞诪讜专 讛讜讗 讚讛讬讬谞讜 讗砖转 讗讬砖

Rather, the baraita is referring to a sota who had relations with the fornicator, thereby rendering herself permanently forbidden to her husband, as she was a married woman at the time. Yet this too is puzzling: Is this a light prohibition? It is a severe prohibition, as this is the prohibition proscribing a married woman, one of the most serious of all prohibitions.

讗诇讗 讗诪专 专讘讗 讗砖转 讗讬砖 讜讻谉 讻讬 讗转讗 专讘讬谉 讗诪专 专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 讗砖转 讗讬砖 讜诪讗讬 拽专讬 诇讛 讗讬住讜专 拽诇 砖讗讬谉 讛讗讜住专讛 讗讜住专讛 讻诇 讬诪讬讜 转谞讬讗 谞诪讬 讛讻讬 讗讘讗 讞谞谉 讗诪专 诪砖讜诐 专讘讬 讗诇注讝专 讗砖转 讗讬砖

Rather, Rava said that the light prohibition is actually that of a married woman. And similarly, when Ravin came from Eretz Yisrael, he said that Rabbi Yo岣nan said that the baraita is referring to a married woman. And for what reason does the tanna call this a light prohibition? The reason is that it differs from and is more lenient than other prohibitions in that her husband, who renders her forbidden, does not render her forbidden for his whole lifetime, as he can negate the prohibition by giving her a bill of divorce. This is also taught in a baraita: Abba 岣nan said in the name of Rabbi Elazar: The baraita is referring to a married woman.

讜诪讛 讘诪拽讜诐 讛讘讗 注诇 讗讬住讜专 拽诇 砖讗讬谉 讛讗讜住专讛 讗讜住专讛 讻诇 讬诪讬讜 谞讗住专 讛讗讜住专 讛讘讗 注诇 讗讬住讜专 讞诪讜专 砖讛讗讜住专讛 讗讜住专讛 讻诇 讬诪讬讜 讗讬谞讜 讚讬谉 砖谞讗住专 讛讗讜住专讛

The Gemara explains that according to this opinion the a fortiori inference should be understood as follows: And if in a case where he has relations with a married woman, which is a light prohibition, due to the fact that he who renders her forbidden does not render her forbidden for his whole lifetime, and yet the one who renders her forbidden is forbidden, as the husband of a woman who committed adultery is permanently barred from having relations with her, then the following conclusion is correct: One who has relations subject to a severe transgression, e.g., a wife鈥檚 sister, which is severe because the one who renders his wife forbidden renders her forbidden for her whole lifetime, since as long as his wife remains alive he is forbidden to her sister, is it not right that the one who renders her forbidden should be forbidden?

转诇诪讜讚 诇讜诪专 讗讜转讛 讗讜转讛 砖讻讬讘转讛 讗讜住专转讛 讜讗讬谉 砖讻讬讘转 讗讞讜转讛 讗讜住专转讛

The verse therefore states: 鈥淗er,鈥 from which it is derived: It is her intercourse that renders her forbidden, but the intercourse of her sister does not render her forbidden.

专讘讬 讬讜住讬 讗讜诪专 讻诇 砖驻讜住诇 讜讻讜壮 诪讗讬 拽讗诪专 专讘讬 讬讜住讬 讗讬诇讬诪讗 讚拽讗诪专 转谞讗 拽诪讗 讚讗讝讬诇 讗砖转讜 讜讙讬住讜 诇诪讚讬谞转 讛讬诐 讗砖转 讙讬住讜 讗住讬专讗 讜讗砖转讜 砖专讬讗

搂 The mishna taught: Rabbi Yosei says: Whoever disqualifies others also disqualifies himself, and whoever does not disqualify others does not disqualify himself. The Gemara asks: What is it Rabbi Yosei is saying? If we say that the first tanna said that one鈥檚 wife and brother-in-law went overseas and he mistakenly had relations with his wife鈥檚 sister, who is married to his brother-in-law, and consequently the wife of his brother-in-law is forbidden to the brother-in-law, and his wife is permitted to him, this is problematic.

讜拽讗诪专 诇讬讛 专讘讬 讬讜住讬 讻讬 讛讬讻讬 讚讗砖转讜 砖专讬讗 讗砖转 讙讬住讜 谞诪讬 砖专讬讗 讗讬 讛讻讬 讻诇 砖讗讬谉 驻讜住诇 注诇 讬讚讬 讗讞专讬诐 讗讬谉 驻讜住诇 注诇 讬讚讬 注爪诪讜 讻诇 砖讗讬谉 驻讜住诇 注诇 讬讚讬 注爪诪讜 讗讬谞讜 驻讜住诇 注诇 讬讚讬 讗讞专讬诐 诪讬讘注讬讗 诇讬讛

The Gemara elaborates: And according to this explanation, Rabbi Yosei says to the first tanna: Just as his wife is permitted to him, the wife of his brother-in-law is also permitted to her husband. Rabbi Yosei鈥檚 reasoning is that if he has not disqualified his wife to himself, due to the accidental nature of his relations with her sister, he should not disqualify the sister to her husband either. The Gemara continues: If so, the formulation of Rabbi Yosei鈥檚 statement is imprecise, as instead of saying: Whoever does not disqualify others does not disqualify himself, he should have said: Whoever does not disqualify himself, i.e., his sexual relations do not render his wife forbidden to him, does not disqualify others, i.e., the wife of the other man.

讜讗诇讗 讻讬 讛讬讻讬 讚讗砖转 讙讬住讜 讗住讬专讗 讗砖转讜 谞诪讬 讗住讬专讗 讛转讬谞讞 讻诇 砖驻讜住诇 讻诇 砖讗讬谞讜 驻讜住诇 诪讗讬 注讘讬讚转讬讛

But rather, one might explain Rabbi Yosei鈥檚 teaching in the reverse manner: Just as the wife of his brother-in-law is forbidden to her husband, his own wife is also forbidden to him. This works out well with regard to the clause that starts with: Whoever disqualifies, as he disqualifies others, i.e., his brother-in-law鈥檚 wife to his brother-in-law, and therefore he also disqualifies his wife to himself. However, the continuation of the statement: Whoever does not disqualify, what is its purpose? This clause has no apparent relevance to Rabbi Yosei鈥檚 statement.

讗诪专 专讘讬 讗诪讬 讗专讬砖讗 谞讬住转 注诇 驻讬 讘讬转 讚讬谉 转爪讗 讜驻讟讜专讛 诪谉 讛拽专讘谉 注诇 驻讬 注讚讬诐 转爪讗 讜讞讬讬讘转 讘拽专讘谉 讬驻讛 讻讞讜 砖诇 讘讬转 讚讬谉 砖驻讟专讛 诪谉 讛拽专讘谉

Rabbi Ami said: Rabbi Yosei鈥檚 statement does not refer to this halakha, but to the first mishna of the chapter, which taught that if a woman whose husband went overseas was informed that he was dead and she married by permission of the court she must leave her new husband and is exempt from bringing an offering. If she married based on the testimony of witnesses, without the authorization of the court, she must leave and is liable to bring an offering. In this regard, the power of the court is enhanced, as she is exempt from an offering.

讜拽讗诪专 转谞讗 拽诪讗 诇讗 砖谞讗 注诇 驻讬 注讚讬诐 讚讗砖转 讙讬住讜 砖专讬讗 讜诇讗 砖谞讗 注诇 驻讬 讘讬转 讚讬谉 讚讗砖转 讙讬住讜 讗住讬专讗

Rabbi Ami explains: And accordingly, if his wife and brother-in-law went overseas and witnesses came and testified that they were both dead, the first tanna says that it is no different whether the wife of his brother-in-law married him based on the testimony of witnesses alone, in which case the wife of his brother-in-law is permitted to her husband, as she is considered as having acted under duress, having heard testimony that her husband was dead, and it is no different if she married him by permission of the court, as although the wife of his brother-in-law is prohibited, his own wife remains permitted to him.

讜拽讗诪专 诇讬讛 专讘讬 讬讜住讬 注诇 驻讬 讘讬转 讚讬谉 讚驻讜住诇 注诇 讬讚讬 讗讞专讬诐 驻讜住诇 注诇 讬讚讬 注爪诪讜 注诇 驻讬 注讚讬诐 讚讗讬谞讜 驻讜住诇 注诇 讬讚讬 讗讞专讬诐 讗讬谞讜 驻讜住诇 注诇 讬讚讬 注爪诪讜

Rabbi Ami continues his explanation. And Rabbi Yosei says to the first tanna: One who married by permission of the court, who disqualifies others, he also disqualified himself to his own wife; however, in the case of one who married based on the testimony of witnesses who does not disqualify others, I agree that he does not disqualify himself, and his wife is permitted to him.

专讘讬 讬爪讞拽 谞驻讞讗 讗诪专 诇注讜诇诐 讗住讬驻讗 (讛讗 讚谞住讬讘 讗砖转 讙讬住讜 讜讛讗 讚谞住讬讘 讗专讜住转 讙讬住讜) 讛讗 讚讗讝诇讬 讗专讜住转讜 讜讙讬住讜 讛讗 讚讗讝诇讬 讗砖转讜 讜讙讬住讜 讜拽讗诪专 转谞讗 拽诪讗 诇讗 砖谞讗 讗砖转讜 讜讙讬住讜 讜诇讗 砖谞讗 讗专讜住转讜 讜讙讬住讜 讗砖转 讙讬住讜 讗住讬专讗 讜讗砖转讜 砖专讬讗

Rabbi Yitz岣k Nappa岣 said: Actually, Rabbi Yosei is referring to the latter clause of the mishna, and the explanation is as follows: This is referring to one who married his brother-in-law鈥檚 wife, and that case is referring to one who married his brother-in-law鈥檚 betrothed. Alternatively, this involves a situation where his betrothed and his brother-in-law went overseas, whereas that concerns a situation when his wife and his brother-in-law went abroad. And the first tanna said: It is no different whether the ones who left were his wife and his brother-in-law, and it is no different whether they were his betrothed and his brother-in-law. Either way his brother-in-law鈥檚 wife is forbidden to her husband and his own wife or betrothed is permitted to him.

讜拽讗诪专 诇讬讛 专讘讬 讬讜住讬 讗砖转讜 讜讙讬住讜 讚诇讬讻讗 诇诪讬诪专 转谞讗讛 讛讜讛 诇讬讛 讘谞砖讜讗讬谉 讚讗讬谞讜 驻讜住诇 注诇 讬讚讬 讗讞专 讗讬谞讜 驻讜住诇 注诇 讬讚讬 注爪诪讜 讗专讜住转讜 讜讙讬住讜 讚讗讬讻讗 诇诪讬诪专 转谞讗讛 讛讜讛 诇讬讛 讘拽讬讚讜砖讬谉 讜驻讜住诇 注诇 讬讚讬 讗讞专讬诐 讗祝 驻讜住诇 注诇 讬讚讬 注爪诪讜

Rabbi Yitz岣k Nappa岣 continues his interpretation. And Rabbi Yosei said to the first tanna: If his wife and his brother-in-law left, in which case it cannot be said that he had a condition with regard to his marriage to his wife, i.e., that the finalization of the marriage was pending on the fulfillment of some condition, everyone would realize that his marriage to her sister was a mistake and she is therefore permitted to his brother-in-law. Consequently, as he does not disqualify another, he does not disqualify himself either. If, however, it was his betrothed and his brother-in-law who left, when it can be mistakenly said that he had a condition with regard to his betrothal and the condition was unfulfilled, his brother-in-law鈥檚 wife is therefore prohibited from returning to his brother-in-law. And therefore, as he disqualifies others he also disqualifies himself, and his betrothed is forbidden to him.

讗诪专 专讘 讬讛讜讚讛 讗诪专 砖诪讜讗诇 讛诇讻讛 讻专讘讬 讬讜住讬 诪转拽讬祝 诇讛 专讘 讬讜住祝 讜诪讬 讗诪专 砖诪讜讗诇 讛讻讬 讜讛讗转诪专 讬讘诪讛 专讘 讗诪专 讛专讬 讛讬讗 讻讗砖转 讗讬砖 讜砖诪讜讗诇 讗诪专 讗讬谞讛 讻讗砖转 讗讬砖 讜讗诪专 专讘 讛讜谞讗 讻讙讜谉 砖拽讚砖 讗讞讬讜 讗转 讛讗砖讛 讜讛诇讱 诇讜 诇诪讚讬谞转 讛讬诐 讜砖诪注 砖诪转 讗讞讬讜 讜注诪讚 讜谞砖讗 讗转 讗砖转讜

Rav Yehuda said that Shmuel said: The halakha is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yosei. Rav Yosef strongly objects to this: And did Shmuel actually say this? But wasn鈥檛 it stated that they disputed the status of a yevama: Rav said that she is like a married woman, and Shmuel said that she is not like a married woman. And Rav Huna said that this dispute concerns a case where his brother betrothed a woman and that brother went off overseas, and the one left behind heard that his brother was dead and he arose and married his brother鈥檚 wife, in levirate marriage, and subsequently the missing brother returned.

讚专讘 讗诪专 讛专讬 讛讬讗 讻讗砖转 讗讬砖 讜讗住讜专讛 诇讬讘诐 讜砖诪讜讗诇 讗诪专 讗讬谞讛 讻讗砖转 讗讬砖 讜砖专讬讗 诇讬讛

As Rav said that she is like a married woman who married another man based on testimony that her husband was dead and is therefore forbidden to the yavam, i.e., to her first husband, who is called the yavam after his brother married her. And Shmuel said that she is not like a married woman, and is permitted to him. This apparently contradicts Rav Yehuda鈥檚 ruling in the name of Shmuel that the halakha is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yosei, as here too people might mistakenly think that the original betrothal included an unfulfilled condition and she should therefore be forbidden to him as the wife of his brother.

讗诪专 诇讬讛 讗讘讬讬 讜诪诪讗讬 讚讻讬 讗诪专 砖诪讜讗诇 讛诇讻讛 讻专讘讬 讬讜住讬 讗讚专讘讬 讬爪讞拽 谞驻讞讗 拽讗诪专 讚诇诪讗 讗讚专讘讬 讗诪讬 拽讗诪专 讜讗讬 谞诪讬 讗讚专讘讬 讬爪讞拽 谞驻讞讗 诪诪讗讬 讚讗驻讜住诇

Abaye said to Rav Yosef: And from where do you know that when Shmuel said that the halakha is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yosei, he was speaking of the explanation of Rabbi Yitz岣k Nappa岣 with regard to Rabbi Yosei鈥檚 opinion? Perhaps he was speaking of the explanation of Rabbi Ami, that Rabbi Yosei is referring to the difference between one who married by permission of the court and one who did so based on the testimony of witnesses. And even if one accepts the claim that Shmuel鈥檚 ruling endorses the interpretation of Rabbi Yitz岣k Nappa岣, from where do you know that he was referring to the clause: One who disqualifies?

Scroll To Top