Yevamot 54b — the Talmud in English

In the days

the matter depends on

the days, and until seven days have been completed from the beginning of the blood flow, she is impure.

And even

the wife of a brother,

it is not sufficient that the one who prohibited her, namely her husband’s brother, die; 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 challenge,

challenge thus

the derivation of all the forbidden relations from the common side of menstruation and the wife of a brother:

What is there about menstruation and the wife of a brother, that their prohibitor does not permit them?!

The one who prohibits does not have the power to permit; rather, something else permits her. Namely, when the seven days end, the menstruating woman becomes permitted [once she immerses], and in the case of the wife of a brother, the permit applies when he is childless, without sons.

Can you say regarding a married woman, that

the husband who

prohibited her

is the one who

permits her

by means of a bill of divorce, or by 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 initial penetration in all the forbidden relations:

The verse says

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

“For whoever shall commit any of all these abominations

all the close relations, and likewise a menstruating woman and a married woman

and the persons who commit them shall be cut off.”

All the forbidden relations were made comparable

“all these abominations”

—to

menstruation:

Just as menstruation

is forbidden even

through initial penetration, so too all

the forbidden relations are forbidden even

through initial penetration.

And we raise a difficulty: Since all the forbidden relations were made comparable to menstruation, and the prohibition of initial penetration can be derived from them,

then

why is the expression

“menstruation,” which is written regarding the wife of a brother

“She is menstruation,” from which we derived initial penetration

—why do I need it?!

For since all the forbidden relations were made comparable to menstruation, to prohibit them through initial penetration, you no longer need this expression to teach that the wife of a brother is forbidden through initial penetration.

And we explain: The expression “menstruation,” which the Torah wrote concerning the wife of a brother, does not come to prohibit initial penetration, but rather to teach us

in accordance with Rav Huna:

For Rav Huna said: A hint to the yevama in the Torah—

from where?

Before the Gemara finished bringing all of Rav Huna’s statement, the Gemara was astonished at his words:

From where

with astonishment?! Is it possible to ask from where the yevama is taken in levirate marriage?!

But it is written

explicitly in the Torah

“The yevama shall come to him,”?

Rather,

this is what Rav Huna said:

A hint that the yevama, who is forbidden

to her husband’s brother

during her husband’s lifetime,

after he divorced her—

from where?

Before the Gemara finished Rav Huna’s words, the Gemara was astonished at his words:

But

this is an inference!

It is established from the verse itself that the yavam is forbidden to have 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 levirate marriage,

by implication

you learn

that during her husband’s lifetime

after she has been divorced

she is

forbidden! And there is no need to search for a “hint” to this prohibition?!

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

Perhaps,

this is the intention of the verse:

After her husband’s death there is a mitzva

to perform levirate marriage with her, whereas

during her husband’s lifetime

after he divorced her

there is

permission to take her.

Alternatively,

we would have said that the intention of the verse is indeed that she is forbidden 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 not

indeed, she is permitted to his brother, whereas

during her husband’s lifetime, she is not

permitted to him!

A prohibition inferred from a positive commandment

a prohibition that is not stated in the language of a prohibition, but from the positive statement one hears the prohibition

is only a prohibition of

a positive commandment, and there is no punishment of karet for it. Therefore, another hint is needed in order to punish him with karet.

Rav Huna concludes his words, explaining the hint in the Torah for the punishment of karet for the yavam’s intercourse with his brother’s wife during her husband’s lifetime, after he divorced her:

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

she is menstruation.”

But is his brother’s wife—

“menstruation”?!

Rather,

the verse said “she is menstruation” in order to teach you that a brother’s wife is

like menstruation:

Just as menstruation, even though she has permission afterward,

after the days of her menstruation have been completed, nevertheless

at the time of her prohibition

she is

subject to karet.

So too, a brother’s wife, even though she has permission afterward,

when her husband dies, nevertheless

during her husband’s lifetime

she is

subject to karet

to the yavam. And the Gemara adds and explains:

Rather, why do I need the initial penetration that is written concerning a father’s sister and a mother’s sister,

as it says, “He has uncovered his kinship,”

why do I need it,

when even these can be learned from Rabbi Yona’s comparison?!

The Gemara explains: For this reason the Torah needed to say, “He has uncovered his kinship”:

For what Ravina asked Rava!

Namely, for Rava’s answer to Ravina’s question:

Ravina asked Rava:

One who performs initial penetration with a male—

what is the law?

Before the Gemara brings Rava’s answer, it is astonished at how Ravina could ask Rava such a question:

For

with a male—

“the beds of a woman” is written!

And since with a woman even initial penetration is included within “lying,” it follows automatically that initial penetration with a male is also prohibited, for regarding a male it is written, “the beds of a woman.”

Because of this difficulty, the Gemara retracts and presents Ravina’s question differently:

Rather,

this is what Ravina asked Rava:

One who performs initial penetration with an animal—

what is the law?

He said to him

Rava said to Ravina: Initial penetration with an animal is to be learned from the initial penetration that the Torah wrote concerning a father’s sister and a mother’s sister, through the derivation of “if it does not apply”:

If “it does not apply”,

that is, since there is no need for the words of the verse

“for initial penetration,” which is written concerning a father’s sister and a mother’s sister,

since

it comes

and initial penetration with a father’s sister and a mother’s sister can be learned

by comparison

to menstruation,

from Rabbi Yona—

therefore

“assign it to apply”—

to initial penetration with an animal.

And we challenge:

Since, after all, intercourse with an

after all, intercourse with an

animal is among those liable for

court-imposed

death penalties!

For one who has relations with an animal is stoned, when witnesses warned him.

And if so,

what is the reason that its initial penetration is written

the derivation of “if it does not apply here, assign it to initial penetration with an animal”

concerning

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

liable for karet,

and there is no stoning for them even when witnesses warned them?

Let it be written

the derivation of “if it does not apply here, assign it to initial penetration with an animal”

concerning

the forbidden relations that are liable for

court-imposed death,

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

And let us derive

initial penetration with an animal, for which one is liable for

court-imposed death, from court-imposed death?!

Namely, let it be learned through “if it applies to the initial penetration of one’s mother and sister”—assign it to initial penetration with an animal.

That is, let the superfluous mention of initial penetration be written regarding one of the forbidden relations for which one is liable for court-imposed death, and then we say: If it does not apply to this forbidden relation, for which one is liable for court-imposed death, assign it to the animal, which likewise is among those liable for court-imposed death.

And we answer:

Since,

because

the entire verse

in the section of Kedoshim—“You shall not uncover the nakedness of your mother’s sister and your father’s sister [for he has uncovered his kinship]”—is a superfluous verse, since the Torah had already warned against a mother’s sister and a father’s sister in the section of Aharei, and the verse did not need to repeat the warning against them again in the section of Kedoshim—and

comes for an exposition,

it

comes, as it proceeds to explain.

Therefore

it is written in it

in that verse

this matter also—

initial penetration—

for an exposition,

to expound through “if it does not apply” that initial penetration is forbidden with an animal.

And now the Gemara explains the exposition of the verse:

What exposition?!

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

For it was taught:

It is written in the section of Aharei [18:14]:

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

And from here we learn the prohibition of a father’s sister.

And this law applies

whether

she was his father’s sister

on the father’s side, whether

she was his father’s sister

on the mother’s side.

You say

that this prohibition applies

whether

the father’s sister was

on the father’s side, whether

the father’s sister was

on the mother’s side.

Or perhaps

the prohibition of a father’s sister applies

only

to a father’s sister

on the father’s side, and not

to a father’s sister

on the mother’s side?

This cannot be said.

For

it is a logical law: One can learn through “what we find” that one is liable even for his father’s maternal half-sister.

For

the verse made one liable

in the case stated

here

for a father’s sister,

and the verse made one liable

for

his sister:

Just as with his sister,

the verse made him liable

whether

she was his sister

on the father’s side

and

whether

she was his sister

on the mother’s side,

for the Torah said, “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,

concerning a father’s sister, the verse makes him liable for his father’s sister

whether on the father’s side or on the mother’s side.

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

Or take yourself along this path,

and learn that a father’s sister is forbidden only when she is his father’s sister on the father’s side. And say as follows:

The verse made one liable

in the case stated

here

for a father’s sister,

and the verse made one liable

for

his aunt by marriage.

Just as with his aunt by marriage

the wife of his paternal uncle, his father’s brother—the verse made him liable only when her husband was his father’s brother

on the father’s side, and did not

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

on the mother’s side,

as the Gemara explains below,

so too here,

concerning a father’s sister, the verse makes him liable only when she was his father’s sister

on the father’s side, and not

when she was his father’s sister only

on the mother’s side.

Your answer: This cannot be said, because

let us see to whom

to his sister or to his aunt by marriage

a father’s sister is similar.

We judge

the prohibition of a father’s sister, which is

a prohibition that comes

of itself,

for nothing is newly created in her that prohibits her,

from

his sister, which likewise is

a prohibition that comes of itself.

But do not prove from his aunt by marriage, for she is not

herself

a prohibition that comes of itself,

since she becomes forbidden to him through the betrothal of his uncle.

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

Or take yourself along this path,

and compare his father’s sister to his aunt by marriage. For

we judge

the prohibition of a father’s sister, which is not a prohibition of his own relative, but rather is a prohibition of

the father’s relatives, from

his aunt by marriage, which likewise is not a prohibition of his own relative, but rather is a prohibition of

the father’s relatives.

But do not prove from his sister, for

she is among the prohibitions of

his own relatives!

And since it is impossible to know from which one to learn, therefore:

The Torah says

an additional verse, in the section of Kedoshim: “

And

the nakedness

of your mother’s sister and

your father’s sister you shall not uncover.”

And the verse did not need to state it here in order to warn against her, for the Torah had already warned against her in the section of Aharei. Rather, the verse needed to state here only its punishment, as it stated here regarding the other forbidden relations their punishments, and the verse did not repeat their warnings after the warning had already been stated in the section of Aharei.

Rather, the verse came to teach concerning a father’s sister, that she is forbidden

whether

she is the father’s sister

on the father’s side, whether

she is the father’s sister

on the mother’s side.

And furthermore, the Torah says 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 concerning a mother’s sister, even though the warning had already been written in the section of Aharei, to teach that the prohibition applies

whether

she is your mother’s sister

on the father’s side, whether

she is your mother’s sister

on the mother’s side.

And we challenge:

Why do I need it written

that the prohibition is whether on the father’s side or on the mother’s side

regarding a father’s sister,

and

why do I need it written

also

regarding a mother’s sister?

After all, it would be enough for the verse to reveal this matter regarding one of these forbidden relations, and we would learn 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

regarding a father’s sister,

that she is forbidden whether on the father’s side or on the mother’s side, I would have said: This one alone is forbidden even on the mother’s side,

for she has

with the son of her brother

a family connection,

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

But his mother’s sister,

who has no family relationship with him, for the mother’s family is not called a family,

say

no:

the verse prohibited her, and his mother’s sister was prohibited only when she is his mother’s sister from his mother’s paternal side, and not when she is his mother’s sister from his mother’s maternal side.

And

on the other hand,

if the Merciful One had written

only

“with his mother’s sister”,

who is forbidden whether from the paternal side or from the maternal side, I would say: only this one is forbidden.

For

his mother’s sister

is certain

to indeed be his relative, and therefore the verse prohibited her whether from the paternal side or from the maternal side. But his father’s sister, who is not certainly his relative, since it is possible that his mother committed adultery with another while married to her husband, and he is not his father, it is possible that the verse prohibited only his father’s sister from his father’s paternal side and not from his father’s maternal side.

Therefore

it is necessary

for the verse to inform us both regarding his father’s sister and regarding his mother’s sister, that they are forbidden to him whether she is his sister from the paternal side or whether she is his sister from the maternal side.

And we raise an objection concerning this:

And his aunt [

his father’s brother’s wife],

concerning whom it is obvious to the tanna that from the paternal side

she alone is forbidden,

and not

his aunt, who is his father’s brother’s wife,

from the maternal side,

as it is stated in the beraita—

from where does he derive it?

Rava said: it is derived

by a gzera shava,

“his uncle, his uncle”—

it is written here,

regarding his aunt, “and a man who lies with his aunt—

he has uncovered the nakedness of his uncle.”

And it is written there,

in the law of the redemption of slaves, that the relatives are obligated to redeem their relative who was sold as a slave to a foreigner,

“either his uncle [

his father’s brother],

or his cousin, he shall redeem him.

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

Just as there,

in the redemption by relatives, there is no redeemer except his uncle, who is his father’s brother,

from the paternal side, and not

his uncle, who is his father’s brother,

from the maternal side [

as will be explained below].

So too here,

regarding his aunt, his father’s brother’s wife, she is forbidden to him only if her husband was his father’s brother

from the paternal side, and not

when her husband was his father’s brother

from the maternal side.

And we explain:

and there,

regarding the redemption by relatives,

from where do we know

that there is no redeemer except his father’s brother from the paternal side, and not his father’s brother from the maternal side?

For

the verse says “

either his uncle, or his cousin, or one of his close flesh,

from his family shall redeem him.”

The father’s family—

it alone

is called “family,”

but

the mother’s family is not called a family,

and therefore his father’s brother from the maternal side is not obligated to redeem him.

The Gemara further explains the law of “his wife’s sister,” who too is forbidden whether his wife’s sister was from the paternal side or whether his wife’s sister was from the maternal side [as the Gemara proves from the Mishna brought here]: from where do we know that she is forbidden whether his wife’s sister was from the paternal side or from the maternal side?

And we learned in the Mishna:

A. It is forbidden for a man to take his wife’s sister as long as his wife is alive; therefore, if he married her sister while his wife was alive, the kiddushin does not take effect with her sister.

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

B. His wife’s sister is forbidden to him whether she was her sister only from the paternal side or whether she was her sister only from the maternal side.

C. A man married a woman, and she had a sister only from the paternal side, and that sister had a sister only from the maternal side. He is permitted to the sister of that sister, for that sister is not the relative of his wife, but rather the relative of his wife’s sister, and she is not forbidden to him.

A.

They said to him,

to a man who traveled to an overseas country:

“Your wife has died.”

B. And he went

and married

a second woman,

her sister from her father [

and not from her mother] of his wife, who is permitted to him, since his wife died.

And afterward they said to him:

“Your

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

C. And he went

and married

a third woman,

her sister from her mother [

and not from her father] of his second wife.

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

And again they said to him:

“Your

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

D. And he went

and married

a fourth woman,

her sister from her father

of his third wife, who is entirely distant from his two 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 sister from her mother

of his fourth wife, who is entirely distant from his first, second, and third wives.

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

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

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

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

And afterward it became clear that all those testimonies were false testimonies, and not one of them had died, and all of them are alive!

It follows that he is

permitted with

his

first wife,

for who would prohibit her to him?

And

since his marriage to his second wife is not a marriage, for it became clear that his wife is alive, and kiddushin does not take effect with a wife’s sister.

And

he is permitted

with the third [

that is, she is his wife, and she is permitted to him, because she is not a “wife’s sister” by virtue of his second wife, since his kiddushin with the second one did not take effect.

But it should not be prohibited on account of his first wife, for the third is not her relative at all.

And likewise, his marriage to his fourth wife is not a marriage, since she is the sister of his existing wife, for his marriage to the third [who is the fourth’s sister] took effect.

And

he is permitted

with the fifth,

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

And

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

exempt

the

rivals of one another!

That is, when his brother performs yibbum with one of the three, the other two [which are the rivals of this one] are exempted from yibbum, for he needs to perform yibbum with only one of the dead brother’s wives.

And the husband is forbidden

the husband now

with

his

second wife,

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

And

he is forbidden

with

his

fourth wife,

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

And

if he dies,

the intercourse of

his brother with

one of them,

with the second or the fourth,

exempts her rival [

their rivals], his three true wives—the first, the third, and the fifth—which had appeared to be the rivals of the second and the fourth, because it became clear that these two had not been married to him at all.

And if

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

then, if he

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

he is

permitted with the second,

since she married him after the death of her sister.

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

And

therefore he is also permitted

with the fourth,

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

And

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

exempts

the

rivals of one another [

her rival].

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

And the husband is forbidden

the husband now

with the third,

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

And

he is forbidden

with the fifth,

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