Yevamot 54b (נד:) — the Talmud in English

In terms of days

the matter depends

[On the days the matter depends], and until seven days have elapsed from the beginning of the flow of blood, she remains impure.

And even

a brother’s wife,

it is not sufficient that the one who prohibited her—her husband’s brother—dies; rather, it also

depends on sons,

for if he dies and has sons, she is not permitted, even though the one who prohibited her has died.

Rather,

if you wish to refute,

refute it as follows

against deriving the law concerning all forbidden relations from the common feature of a menstruating woman and a brother’s wife:

What is there to say about a menstruating woman and a brother’s wife? Their prohibition is not removed by the one who imposed it!

The one who imposes the prohibition has no power to remove it; rather, something else removes it. That is: when the seven days are completed, the menstruating woman becomes permitted [once she immerses], while in the case of a brother’s wife, the factor that permits her is that he died without children.

Can you say with regard to a married woman, that

the husband who

prohibited her

is the very one who

permits her

through a bill of divorce or through his death?

Rather, Rabbi Yona said, and some say Rav Huna, son of Rav Yehoshua:

There is another source from which to derive the prohibition of ha'ara in all forbidden relations:

The verse states

at the end of the passage concerning forbidden relations [Leviticus 18:19]:

“For whoever shall commit any of all these abominations

[all the close relations, as well as a menstruating woman and a married woman],

the souls who commit them shall be cut off.”

All the forbidden relations were juxtaposed

to “

a menstruating woman”:

menstruation:

Just as a menstruating woman

is prohibited even

through ha'ara, so too all

the forbidden relations are prohibited even

through ha'ara.

And we raise a difficulty: Since all the forbidden relations were juxtaposed to a menstruating woman, and the prohibition of ha'ara can be derived from them,

then

why do we need the expression

“a menstruating woman,” which is written with regard to a brother’s wife

—“She is a menstruating woman,” from which we learned the law of ha'ara—

at all?

Since all the forbidden relations were juxtaposed to a menstruating woman in order to prohibit them through ha'ara, there is no longer any need for this expression to teach that a brother’s wife is prohibited through ha'ara.

And we explain: The expression “a menstruating woman,” which the Torah wrote concerning a brother’s wife, does not come to prohibit ha'ara; rather, it comes to teach us

in accordance with Rav Huna:

As Rav Huna said: A biblical allusion to the yavam’s woman—

from where?

Before the Gemara completed citing all of Rav Huna’s statement, it challenges his words:

From where

[expressed as a question]?! Is it appropriate to ask from where we know that a yevama undergoes yibbum?!

But it is written

explicitly in the Torah:

“The yevama shall come to him”?

Rather,

this is what Rav Huna said:

A biblical allusion that a yevama is prohibited

to her husband’s brother

during her husband’s lifetime,

after he divorced her—

from where?

Before the Gemara completed Rav Huna’s statement, it challenges his words:

But

this is an inference!

It is determined from the verse itself that the yavam is prohibited from having relations with his yevama during her husband’s lifetime.

For

since the Merciful One said

that

after her husband’s death

she is

permitted

[permitted for yibbum],

by inference

you learn

that during her husband’s lifetime

[after he divorced her] she is

prohibited!

Why is it necessary to search for an “allusion” to this prohibition?!

And we answer: If we had not found an explicit allusion to the prohibition of a yevama to her husband’s brother during her husband’s lifetime, after he divorced her, we would not have derived this law from the aforementioned inference, because we could have said:

Perhaps,

this is the meaning of the verse:

After her husband’s death, it is a mitzva

to perform yibbum with her, whereas

during her husband’s lifetime

[after he divorced her] there is

permission

to take her.

Alternatively,

we might have said that the verse indeed means that she is prohibited during her husband’s lifetime, but one is not punished with karet for her, as with other cases of a brother’s wife.

And this is what we would have learned from the inference: Only

after her husband’s death, there is no

actual prohibition and she is indeed permitted to his brother, whereas

during her husband’s lifetime, she is not

permitted!

A prohibition inferred from a positive commandment

[a prohibition not stated in the language of a prohibition, but for which a prohibition is understood from the positive formulation] is only a “prohibition of

a positive commandment,”

and there is no punishment of karet for it. Therefore, another allusion is required in order to punish him with karet.

Rav Huna concludes his statement, explaining the biblical allusion to the punishment of karet for a yavam who has relations with his brother’s wife during her husband’s lifetime, after divorcing her:

The verse states: “And a man who takes his brother’s wife—

she is a menstruating woman.”

But is his brother’s wife—

“a menstruating woman”?!

Rather,

the verse says “she is a menstruating woman” in order to teach you that a brother’s wife is

like a menstruating woman:

Just as a menstruating woman, although she has a possibility of becoming permitted afterward,

after the days of her menstruation have been completed, nevertheless

at the time of her prohibition

she is

liable to karet.

So too a brother’s wife, although she has a possibility of becoming permitted afterward,

when her husband dies, nevertheless

during her husband’s lifetime

she is

liable to karet

to the yavam. The Gemara adds and explains:

Rather, why do we need the ha'ara written concerning a father’s sister and a mother’s sister,

as it says, “He has uncovered the nakedness of his close relative”—

at all,

when even these can be derived from Rabbi Yona’s juxtaposition?!

The Gemara explains: The Torah needed to say, “He has uncovered the nakedness of his close relative,”

in accordance with the answer that Ravina asked Rava!

That is, in accordance with Rava’s answer to Ravina’s question:

Ravina asked Rava:

One who performs ha'ara with a male—

what is the law?

Before the Gemara cites Rava’s answer, it questions how Ravina could have asked Rava such a question:

But

with regard to a male,

“the lyings of a woman” is written!

Since, with regard to a woman, even ha'ara is included in “lying,” ha'ara with a male is likewise automatically prohibited, as it is written concerning a male, “the lyings of a woman.”

As a result of this difficulty, the Gemara retracts and presents Ravina’s question differently:

Rather,

this is what Ravina asked Rava:

One who performs ha'ara with an animal—

what is the law?

He said to him,

Rava said to Ravina: Ha'ara with an animal can be learned from the ha'ara that the Torah wrote concerning a father’s sister and a mother’s sister, through the principle of “if it does not apply to the matter”:

If “it does not apply to the matter”,

that is, since there is no need for the wording of the verse concerning

“the ha'ara written concerning a father’s sister and a mother’s sister”,

since

it comes,

as it is possible to derive the law of ha'ara with a father’s sister and a mother’s sister

through a juxtaposition

to a menstruating woman

from Rabbi Yona—

therefore,

“assign it to the matter”—

to ha'ara with an animal.

And we challenge this:

Since,

after all, relations with an

animal are a case of

those liable to

execution by a court!

For one who has relations with an animal is liable to stoning when warned beforehand.

If so,

why is the ha'ara pertaining to it written

[the teaching of “if it does not apply to the matter, assign it to the matter of ha'ara with an animal]

concerning

a father’s sister and a mother’s sister, who are

those liable to karet,

and are not subject to stoning even when warned?

Let it be written

the teaching of “if it does not apply to the matter, assign it to the matter of ha'ara with an animal”

concerning

forbidden relations that are liable to

execution by a court,

such as one’s mother and one’s sister.

And let us derive

ha'ara with an animal, for which one is liable to

execution by a court, from execution by a court?!

That is, let us derive it through “if the matter of ha'ara with one’s mother and sister does not apply, assign it to the matter of ha'ara with an animal.”

In other words, let the superfluous mention of ha'ara be written with regard to one of the forbidden relations for which one is liable to execution by a court, and then say: If it does not apply to this forbidden relation, which is a case of liability to execution by a court, assign it to the matter of an animal, which is also a case of liability to execution by a court.

And we answer:

Since,

because

the entire verse

in the passage of Kedoshim—“You shall not uncover the nakedness of your mother’s sister or your father’s sister [for he has uncovered the nakedness of his close relative]”—is superfluous, since the Torah had already prohibited a mother’s sister and a father’s sister in the passage of Aharei Mot, and the verse did not need to repeat their prohibition in the passage of Kedoshim—

comes for a derivation,

as it

comes, as the Gemara proceeds to explain.

Therefore, it is

also written in it

[in that verse]

this matter as well—

ha'ara—

for a derivation,

to derive through “if it does not apply to the matter” that ha'ara is prohibited with an animal.

The Gemara now explains the derivation from the verse:

What is the derivation?!

For what derivation was the verse concerning a father’s sister and a mother’s sister written in the passage of Kedoshim?

As it was taught:

It is written in the passage of Aharei Mot [Leviticus 18:14]:

“You shall not uncover the nakedness of your father’s sister.”

And from here we learn the prohibition against one’s father’s sister.

This law applies

both

when she is his father’s sister

on his father’s side, and both

when she is his father’s sister

on his mother’s side.

You say

that this prohibition applies

both

when the father’s sister is

on his father’s side and both

when the father’s sister is

on his mother’s side.

Or perhaps

the prohibition against a father’s sister applies

only

to a father’s sister

on his father’s side, and not

to a father’s sister

on his mother’s side?

This cannot be said.

For

it follows logically: One can learn through the principle of “what do we find” that one is liable even for his maternal father’s sister.

For

the Torah made one liable

in the verse

here

for a father’s sister, and

the Torah made one liable

for

his sister:

Just as with regard to his sister,

the Torah makes him liable

both

when she is his sister

on his father’s side

and

both

when she is his sister

on his mother’s side,

as the Torah says: “The nakedness of your sister, the daughter of your father or the daughter of your mother, you shall not uncover their nakedness.”

So too here,

with regard to a father’s sister, the Torah makes one liable for his father’s sister

both on his father’s side and on his mother’s side.

Perhaps you will say: From where do you learn from the prohibition against one’s sister to prohibit a father’s sister both on the father’s side and on the mother’s side?

Or take this alternative path,

and learn that a father’s sister is prohibited only when she is the father’s sister on the father’s side. Say as follows:

The Torah made one liable

for

here

for a father’s sister, and

the Torah made one liable

for

his paternal aunt.

Just as with regard to his paternal aunt

[his uncle’s wife, his father’s brother’s wife], the Torah makes him liable only when her husband was his father’s brother

on his father’s side, and does not

make him liable when her husband was his father’s brother only

on his mother’s side,

as the Gemara explains below.

So too here,

with regard to a father’s sister, the Torah makes him liable only when she was his father’s sister

on his father’s side, and not

when she was his father’s sister only

on his mother’s side.

Your answer: This cannot be said, because

consider to whom—

to his sister or to his paternal aunt—

the father’s sister is similar.

We derive

the prohibition against a father’s sister, which is

a prohibition that comes

by itself,

since no new factor arises that prohibits her,

from

his sister, who is also

a prohibition that comes by itself.

But do not cite his paternal aunt, for she is not

a case of

a prohibition that comes by itself,

since she becomes prohibited to him through the marriage of his uncle.

Perhaps you will say: From where do you say that a father’s sister more closely resembles his sister?

Or take this alternative path,

and compare his father’s sister to his paternal aunt. For

we derive

the prohibition against a father’s sister, which is not a prohibition against one’s own relative, but rather is a prohibition against

the father’s relatives, from

his paternal aunt, who likewise is not a prohibition against one’s own relative, but rather is a prohibition against

the father’s relatives.

But do not cite his sister, for

she is among the prohibitions against

one’s own relatives!

Since it is impossible to determine from which case to learn, therefore:

The verse teaches

an additional verse, in the passage of Kedoshim: “

And

the nakedness

[of your mother’s sister and]

of your father’s sister you shall not uncover.”

The verse did not need to state this here in order to warn against her, since the Torah had already warned against her in the passage of Aharei Mot. Rather, the verse needed to state here only the punishment, as it did here with regard to the other forbidden relations and did not repeat their warnings, since the warning had already been stated in the passage of Aharei Mot.

Rather, the verse comes to teach concerning a father’s sister that she is prohibited

both

when she is his father’s sister

on his father’s side, and both

when she is his father’s sister

on his mother’s side.

And the verse further teaches, in that very verse: “

And

the nakedness of your mother’s sister

[and your father’s sister]

you shall not uncover.”

Here too, the verse repeated the warning against a mother’s sister, despite the fact that the warning had already been written in the passage of Aharei Mot, in order to teach that the prohibition applies

both

when she is his mother’s sister

on his father’s side, and both

when she is his mother’s sister

on his mother’s side.

And we challenge this:

Why do I need it written—

that the prohibition applies both on the father’s side and on the mother’s side—

with regard to a father’s sister,

and

why do I need it written

as well

with regard to a mother’s sister?

It would have been sufficient for the verse to reveal this matter with regard to one of these forbidden relations, and we would have learned one from the other through what we find.

Rabbi Abbahu said: Both are necessary

for both of them.

For if the Merciful One had written

only

with regard to a father’s sister

that she is prohibited both on the father’s side and on the mother’s side, I would have said: Only this one is prohibited even on the mother’s side,

since she has

with the son of her brother

a familial relationship,

a close family relationship, since the father’s family is called a “family.”

But his mother’s sister

who has no familial relationship to him, since the maternal family is not called a family,

well,

not

did the verse prohibit her; and his mother’s sister is prohibited only when she is his mother’s sister through her father, but not when she is his mother’s sister through her mother.

And

on the other hand,

if the Merciful One had written

only

“his mother’s sister”

who is prohibited whether through his mother’s father or through her mother, I would have said: only this one is prohibited.

For

his mother’s sister is

certain

in that she is indeed his relative, and therefore the verse prohibited her whether through his mother’s father or through her mother. But his father’s sister, who is not certainly his relative, since it is possible that his mother committed adultery while married and he is not his father’s son, it is possible that the verse prohibited only his father’s sister through his father, but not through his mother.

Therefore,

it is necessary

for the verse to teach us both with regard to the father’s sister and with regard to the mother’s sister that they are prohibited to him whether she is his sister through his father or whether she is his sister through his mother.

And we raised a difficulty:

And his paternal uncle’s wife

[his father’s brother’s wife],

about whom it is obvious to the tanna that only one through the father

is prohibited,

and not

his paternal uncle’s wife, who is his father’s brother’s wife,

through the mother,

as is stated in the beraita—

from where does he derive it?

Rava said: It is derived

through a gzera shava,

“his uncle, his uncle”—

It is written here,

with regard to his paternal uncle’s wife: “And a man who lies with his paternal uncle’s wife—

he has uncovered his uncle’s nakedness.”

And it is written there,

with regard to the law of the redemption of slaves, that relatives are obligated to redeem their relative who was sold as a slave to a gentile:

“Or his uncle

[his father’s brother],

or his uncle’s son, shall redeem him.

Or one of his close relatives from his family shall redeem him.”

Just as there,

with regard to the redemption by relatives, the redeemer is only his paternal uncle, who is his father’s brother

through the father, and not

his paternal uncle, who is his father’s brother

through the mother

[as will be explained below],

so too here,

with regard to his paternal uncle’s wife, his father’s brother’s wife is prohibited to him only if her husband was his father’s brother

through the father, and not

when her husband was his father’s brother

through the mother.

And we explain:

And there,

with regard to the redemption by relatives,

from where do we know

that the redeemer is only his father’s brother through the father, and not his father’s brother through the mother?

Because

the verse says: “Or his uncle or his uncle’s son, or one of his close relatives

from his family,

shall redeem him.”

The paternal family—

only it

is called a “family,”

but

the maternal family is not called a family,

and therefore his father’s brother through the mother is not obligated to redeem him.

The Gemara further explains the law of “his wife’s sister,” who is likewise prohibited whether she was his wife’s sister through the father or whether she was his wife’s sister through the mother [as the Gemara proves from the Mishna cited here]: From where do we know that she is prohibited whether she was his wife’s sister through the father or through the mother?

And we learned:

a. A man may not marry his wife’s sister while his wife is alive. Therefore, if he married her sister while his wife was still alive, the kiddushin of the sister does not take effect.

But if his wife died, he is permitted to marry her sister.

b. His wife’s sister is prohibited to him whether she was her sister only through the father or whether she was her sister only through the mother.

c. If a man married a woman who has a sister only through the father, and that sister has a sister only through the mother, he is permitted to marry that sister’s sister, since that sister is not his wife’s relative at all, but only the relative of his wife’s sister, and she is not prohibited to him.

a.

They said to him,

to a man who had traveled to a distant country:

“Your wife has died.”

b. And he went

and married

a second woman,

her paternal sister

[and not her maternal sister] of his wife, who was permitted to him since his wife had died.

And afterward they said to him:

“Your

second wife has died [who, as stated, was his wife’s paternal sister].

c. And he went

and married

a third woman,

her maternal sister

[and not her paternal sister] of his second wife.

And this sister was distant from his first wife and was not her sister at all.

And again they said to him:

“Your

third wife has died [who was his second wife’s maternal sister and was entirely unrelated to his first wife]!

d. And he went

and married

a fourth woman,

her paternal sister

of his third wife, who was entirely unrelated to both of his wives, the first and the second.

And again they said to him:

“Your

fourth wife has died.”

e. And he went

and married

a fifth woman,

her maternal sister

of his fourth wife, who was entirely unrelated to his first, second, and third wives.

It follows that his second wife was a relative of his first wife.

And the third was a relative of his second wife and distant from the first.

And the fourth was a relative of the third and distant from the first and the second.

And the fifth was a relative of the fourth and distant from the others.

Afterward it became clear that all those testimonies were false testimonies, and none of the women had died; they were all alive!

He is

permitted to

his

first wife,

for who could prohibit her to him?

And

since his marriage to his second wife was not a marriage, as it became clear that his first wife was alive, and kiddushin does not take effect with a wife’s sister,

and

he is permitted

to the third

[meaning: she is his wife, and she is permitted to him], since she is not a “wife’s sister” with regard to his second wife, because his kiddushin with the second wife did not take effect.

And there is no reason to prohibit her on account of his first wife, since the third is not related to her at all.

Likewise, his marriage to his fourth wife is not a marriage, since she is the sister of his existing wife, because his marriage to the third wife [who is the fourth wife’s sister] did take effect.

And

he is permitted

to the fifth,

who is not prohibited as the “wife’s sister” of the fourth, since his kiddushin with the fourth wife did not take effect, while with regard to his first and third wives she is not related to them at all.

And

if the husband dies, so that he now has three wives—the first, the third, and the fifth—and they fall before his brother for yibbum, they

release

their

rivals!

That is, when his brother performs yibbum with one of the three, the other two [who are her rivals] are released from yibbum, since he need perform yibbum with only one of the deceased brother’s wives.

And

the husband is now

prohibited to

his

second wife,

since she is his first wife’s sister, and his first wife is still alive.

And

he is prohibited

to

his

fourth wife,

since she is his third wife’s sister, and the kiddushin of the third wife took effect, and she is still alive.

And

if he dies,

there is no act of intercourse by

his brother with

one of them,

the second or the fourth,

that releases her rival

[her rivals], namely, his three actual wives—the first, the third, and the fifth—which appeared to be their rivals, because it became clear that these two had never been married to him at all.

And if

it became clear that the testimony concerning the death of his first wife had indeed been correct, and only the testimonies concerning the deaths of the other wives had been false—

then, if he

had intercourse with the second wife after the death of the first,

he is

permitted to the second wife,

since he married her after her sister had died.

And it now becomes clear that his kiddushin with the third wife does not take effect, since she is his second wife’s sister, and the second wife is alive.

And

therefore he is also permitted

to the fourth wife,

since her sister, who is his third wife, is not married to him, while she is not related to the second wife at all.

And

if the husband dies, and his two wives, the second and the fourth, fall before his brother for yibbum, his brother’s act of intercourse with either one of them

releases

her

rivals

[her rival].

For his intercourse with the second releases the fourth, and likewise, if he first has intercourse with the fourth, it releases the second.

And

the husband is now

prohibited to the third wife,

since she is the sister of his second wife, with whom his kiddushin took effect after the death of his first wife, and the second wife is still alive.

And

he is prohibited

to the fifth wife,

since she is the sister of his fourth wife, with whom his kiddushin took effect, and the fourth wife is still alive.