Yevamot 21b — the Talmud in English

And we raise an objection against Rav: Why did Rav include, among the list of the sheniyot that have a limit, also

his daughter-in-law?

But she is not a shniya; rather, her prohibition is

from the Torah!

For

it is

written: “You shall not uncover the nakedness of your daughter-in-law”?

And we answer:

Say

in Rav’s statement:

his son’s daughter-in-law,

whose prohibition is only rabbinic, like the law of sheniyot.

And we ask:

But

does

his son’s daughter-in-law have a limit?

But it was taught in a beraita: His daughter-in-law

is

an erva.

His son’s daughter-in-law

is

a shniya.

And so you say

to prohibit a daughter-in-law

of his son

of his son, and

the son of his son

of his son, and so on,

until the end of all the generations?

And the Gemara retracts and establishes it in another manner:

Rather, say

that Rav said as follows:

his daughter’s daughter-in-law

has a limit, since a prohibition from the Torah does not apply to her.

For Rav Hisda said: “I heard this matter from a great man.”

And who was he,

the great man from whom I heard this matter? —

Rav Ami!

And Rav Ami said as follows:

They prohibited a daughter-in-law only because of a daughter-in-law!

And to explain the matter, Rav Hisda added and said:

And

it once happened that

the astrologers said to me,

those who gaze at the stars:

“You will be a teacher!”

You will be a sage!

And

I said,

I said to myself then: If what the astrologers saw, that I would be a sage, would be fulfilled in me by

“I will be a great man”

in Talmud, then I would not need to ask the Sages for the explanation of what Rav Ami said, “They prohibited a daughter-in-law only because of a daughter-in-law”; rather,

I will explain,

I will explain Rav Ami’s words myself,

from my own understanding.

But

if

the intention of the astrologers was that

“I will be a teacher of children,”

that I would be only a teacher of children and would not be able to understand Rav Ami’s words from my own understanding, then

I will ask

for an explanation of his words

from the Rabbis who come to the synagogue,

those who come to the synagogue.

And

now,

now

you have understood

I have understood

from my own understanding,

that Rav Ami’s intention is to say:

They prohibited his daughter’s daughter-in-law only because of his son’s daughter-in-law.

There is no prohibition from the Torah with his daughter’s daughter-in-law, and her entire prohibition is because she is confused with his son’s daughter-in-law, who is a shniya, and with her there is a form of prohibition from the Torah in the first generation, namely, with his own daughter-in-law, who is his son’s wife.

And just as Rav Hisda explained Rav Ami’s words, so we shall explain Rav’s words, that he included his daughter-in-law among the sheniyot that have a limit: his intention is his daughter’s daughter-in-law, which has a limit.

Abaye said to Rava: “I will explain

I will explain

to you

that it is possible to confuse and err between his son’s daughter-in-law and his daughter’s daughter-in-law.

For example, the daughter-in-law of

a person called

“Bar Tzitaï,”

who had a son’s daughter-in-law and a daughter’s daughter-in-law, and they could err and confuse one with the other.

Rav Pappa said: For example, the daughter-in-law in the house of Rav Pappa bar Abba.

Rav Ashi said: For example, the daughter-in-law in the house of Mari bar Isak.

And each one mentioned a family that existed in his time [Tosafot].

The question was raised before them: His mother’s maternal half-brother’s wife —

what is it?

Is she prohibited as a rabbinic shniya to the arayot, or did they not prohibit her at all?

And the sides of the question are:

Is it only

the father’s maternal half-brother’s wife and the mother’s paternal half-brother’s wife

that were prohibited as sheniyot to the arayot, because

there is

in them

a “paternal side,” and it is because of this that

in them

the Rabbis decreed

sheniyot? And because on the “paternal side” there is a form of prohibition from the Torah, with the father’s paternal half-brother’s wife, who is prohibited from the Torah.

But where there is no “paternal side,”

since the relationship of the mother’s maternal half-brother’s wife exists only through his mother and his mother’s mother,

the Rabbis did not decree concerning them.

Or perhaps it is no different,

and they decreed concerning the mother’s half-brother’s wife, whether she is the wife of the mother’s paternal half-brother or the wife of the mother’s maternal half-brother.

And we resolve it:

Rav Safra said:

The mother’s paternal half-brother’s wife

is itself a decree

of sheniyot.

And

when

we should arise and decree

concerning the mother’s maternal half-brother’s wife, it would be

a decree upon a decree

because of the mother’s paternal half-brother’s wife.

But the Gemara rejects Rav Safra’s claim.

Rava said: Is it so

that

all of them

[the intention is not all the sheniyot, but only the sheniyot that Rava will now enumerate]

are not “a decree upon a decree”?

But I have three proofs that they do decree a decree upon a decree:

A. For

his mother

is

an erva

from the Torah.

And they decreed concerning

his mother’s mother,

that she should be prohibited rabbinically as a

“shniya.”

And they added

and decreed

a decree upon a decree also

concerning his father’s mother, because of his mother’s mother,

even though there is no reason to decree concerning his father’s mother merely because of the prohibition of his mother.

And if so, you too should not wonder if the Sages decreed also concerning his mother’s maternal half-brother’s wife because she parallels his mother’s paternal half-brother’s wife. And if so, there is no resolution of the question whether they decreed concerning her or not!

And we explain:

And what is the reason?

Why indeed did they decree a decree upon a decree, when a decree upon a decree is not issued?

Because

all of them

[here too, the intention is not all the sheniyot, but his mother’s mother and his father’s mother, with which we are dealing]

are called “the great mother’s household.”

Therefore it is considered one decree, concerning the “great mother,” because of his mother, who is prohibited from the Torah.

B.

His father’s wife

is

an erva

from the Torah.

And the Sages made

his father’s father’s wife a “shniya.”

And they decreed concerning his mother’s father’s wife,

even though a prohibition from the Torah does not apply to her,

because of his father’s father’s wife,

and this is not considered a decree upon a decree.

And what is the reason?

Because

all of them

[his mother’s father’s wife and his father’s father’s wife]

are called “the

house of

the great father.”

C.

His father’s paternal half-brother’s wife

is

an erva

from the Torah.

And they made

his father’s maternal half-brother’s wife a shniya.

And they decreed concerning his mother’s paternal half-brother’s wife because of his father’s maternal half-brother’s wife,

and what is the reason

that it is not like a decree upon a decree?

Because

all of them

[the father’s maternal half-brother and the mother’s paternal half-brother]

are called “the

house of

the uncles.”

And therefore they prohibited their wives.

And from all these decrees it is proved that they did not refrain from issuing a decree upon a decree, because of the similarity in their relationships they decreed concerning them as one.

And therefore the question returns: His mother’s maternal half-brother’s wife —

what

is her law?

And we say:

Come and hear,

from this:

when

he came,

Rav Yehuda bar Shila

from the Land of Israel to Babylonia,

he said: “In the West they say”

[in the Land of Israel, which is west of Babylonia], a general principle regarding sheniyot to the arayot:

Anyone who is an erva when female,

that is, every degree of relationship that causes a female to be prohibited to her relative with a prohibition of

an erva

from the Torah —

then

with a male,

everyone related to the male by the same degree of relationship —

they decreed concerning his wife,

that she should be prohibited to this relative of her husband,

because of a “shniya.”

And below he specifies to whom this principle applies.

And

Rava asked:

And

is this matter

a general principle

in every matter of such a relationship?

But

his mother-in-law

is prohibited because of

an erva.

And

if it were

his father-in-law’s wife —

she would be permitted!

And this is so even though his father-in-law’s wife is the wife of a male related by a degree of relationship identical to that of his mother-in-law, who is an erva when female.

And likewise we find

his mother-in-law’s daughter

who is

an erva,

since she is his wife’s sister.

And

if it were

his mother-in-law’s son’s wife, she would be permitted.

And although the degree of relationship of his mother-in-law’s son parallels that of his mother-in-law’s daughter, nevertheless they did not prohibit his wife as a shniya.

And

likewise we find that

his father-in-law’s daughter

is

an erva, and

if it were

his father-in-law’s son’s wife, she would be permitted.

And they did not prohibit her because her husband is related like his father-in-law’s daughter.

And likewise,

his stepdaughter,

his wife’s daughter,

is

an erva because of the prohibition of a woman and her daughter.

And

if it were

his stepson’s wife, she would be permitted.

And although his wife’s son parallels his stepdaughter in the degree of relationship, they do not prohibit his wife.

And likewise

his stepdaughter’s daughter

is

an erva, and

if it were

his stepson’s wife, she would be permitted.

And although his stepson’s son is related like his stepdaughter’s daughter, nevertheless they did not prohibit his wife.

And Rava concludes his objection:

And

if so, since this is not a general principle, we must infer:

That which

said

Rav Yehuda bar Shila,

that they said in the West, “Anyone who is an erva when female, with a male they decreed concerning his wife because of a shniya” —

what does it come to include?

Is it not that it comes to include the mother’s maternal half-brother’s wife,

who is prohibited, since

“anyone who is an erva when female”

[the mother’s maternal half-sister]

is an erva —

with a male

[the mother’s maternal half-brother]

they decreed

concerning

his wife because of a shniya.

And we inquire about it:

And in what way are these different,

his father-in-law’s wife, his father-in-law’s son’s wife, his mother-in-law’s son, his stepson’s wife, and his stepson’s son, whose wives are not prohibited because of this principle,

and in what way is this different,

the mother’s maternal half-brother’s wife, who was prohibited because of this principle?

And we answer:

This one,

the mother’s half-brother’s wife,

through one betrothal

alone

is brought close to him.

Her relationship to the one through whom she is prohibited comes about through the fact that her mother’s half-brother betrothed her; therefore it is proper to prohibit her.

But

these, until there are two betrothals —

they are not brought close to them.

With his father-in-law’s wife, the closeness with him did not come about through his betrothing his wife alone; rather, his father-in-law also had to betroth her.

And likewise with his father-in-law’s son’s wife, she did not become close through his wife’s betrothal until his father-in-law’s son betrothed her.

Therefore, this relationship does not prohibit the wife of the male who parallels the female who is an erva, since an additional stage of further betrothal was added.

Rav Mesharsheya of Tosniya sent to Rav Pappi: “Let our master teach us!”

His father’s father’s paternal half-brother’s wife

from the paternal side,

and his father’s father’s sister,

whether from the paternal side or from the maternal side —

what are they?

Since we found earlier that his father’s maternal half-brother’s wife is among the arayot that have a limit, meaning that his father’s father’s maternal half-brother’s wife is not prohibited at all, since even the relationship preceding her, his father’s maternal half-brother’s wife, is not prohibited from the Torah,

therefore Rav Mesharsheya was uncertain: Perhaps also his father’s father’s paternal half-brother’s wife, and his father’s father’s sister, whether his sister from his father or from his mother — are they prohibited?

And the sides of the question are:

For

we find that

below

them, namely, his father’s paternal half-brother’s wife and his father’s sister, are

an erva

from the Torah; therefore, also concerning them

they likewise decreed,

that they should have the status of sheniyot.

Or perhaps, the family has become divided,

for the relationship has become more distant by an additional generation, and one should not decree.

Come and hear

from the beraita above, as it was taught:

What are sheniyot?

And he did not count them

among them, his father’s father’s sister and his father’s father’s paternal half-brother’s wife,

with them.

And it implies that they were not prohibited as sheniyot to the arayot.

And we reject this: There is no proof from the fact that the tanna did not mention them in the beraita.

For perhaps

the tanna taught some and left some out.

And we ask: It is not reasonable that the tanna would leave out only one matter, since the reason for leaving things out is that the tanna does not wish to enumerate all the details. Necessarily, if he left something out, there are additional matters that he left out.

And since we rejected the proof from the beraita only on the basis of the claim that one may say that the tanna left things out, we must know:

What else did he leave out

that

this one

also

he left out?

And we answer:

He left out

the tanna

“the sheniyot of the house of Rabbi Hiyya,”

which he enumerates below [22a]—six additional sheniyot to the arayot—and the tanna did not mention them in the beraita.

And therefore there is no proof that those not mentioned as sheniyot are permitted, since he holds that they too are important sheniyot to the arayot.

Ameimar declared fit

to marry

his father’s father’s paternal half-brother’s wife and his father’s father’s sister.

Rav Hillel said to Rav Ashi: “For me, I have seen

the list of

the sheniyot

to the arayot, which it is known that

Mar, the son of Ravina,

wrote.

And they are written

as containing

sixteen for prohibition.

Is it not

that the sixteen sheniyot should be counted as follows:

Eight of the beraita,

the eight sheniyot taught in the beraita above,

and six

six sheniyot

of the house of Rabbi Hiyya,

as follows.

And these other two,

those two—his father’s father’s paternal half-brother’s wife and his father’s father’s sister—about which Rav Mesharsheya was uncertain.

And together

that is sixteen,

sixteen.

And let us resolve from here that they are prohibited. And how did Ameimar permit them?

Rav Ashi rejects him:

“And according to your reasoning, they are seventeen!”

They are seventeen:

For there is

also

the mother’s maternal half-brother’s wife, concerning which we resolved

above

for prohibition!

Rav Hillel said to him:

“This is not difficult.”