Yevamot 8b — the Talmud in English

For the verse is needed

“upon her” —

to permit the rival wife

of a forbidden relation

when not in the place of a mitzva.

And the verse comes with “upon her” to exclude and to say: Do not think that a new prohibition of “the rival wife of a forbidden relation” was renewed through “to vex,” so that every forbidden relation prohibits its rival wife when both are married together to one man.

Rather, this is a special exemption of the rival wife of a forbidden relation from the mitzva of levirate marriage.

And the Gemara explains:

What is the reason?

How do you derive from “upon her” that the rival wife of a forbidden relation is permitted when not in the place of a mitzva?

The verse says: “

And a woman to her sister you shall not take, to vex [that is, you shall not take the rival wife of a forbidden relation] — to uncover her nakedness

upon her.”

It is stated in the passage of levirate marriage, “her levirate wife shall come upon her,” and it is stated in the passage concerning the nakedness of a wife’s sister, “to vex, to uncover her nakedness upon her.”

And we learned from here that only

in the place of “upon her”,

that is, in the place of the mitzva of levirate marriage, concerning which it is stated, “her levirate wife shall come upon her,” only there

is it prohibited

the rival wife of a forbidden relation.

For only in the place of levirate marriage do I read concerning the rival wife of the forbidden relation: “You shall not take to vex, to uncover her nakedness” — “upon her”!

That is, in the place of the mitzva of levirate marriage, concerning which it is stated, “her levirate wife shall come upon her.”

But

when not in the place of “upon her”,

when not in the place of a mitzva, where there is no “upon her” for levirate marriage and where “her levirate wife shall come upon her” was not stated —

she is permitted!

Thus, the rival wife of a forbidden relation is permitted.

Rami bar Hama said to Rava,

according to you, that the verse “upon her” comes to teach permission and not prohibition,

say

a greater permission than this:

Even

the forbidden relation herself, when not in the place of a mitzva —

she too

should be permitted!

That is, according to you, since the end of the verse [“upon her”] comes to teach the permission of the rival wife of a forbidden relation when not in the place of a mitzva, it may also be said that it comes to teach a greater permission than this: that the entire verse concerning the nakedness of a wife’s sister speaks only in the place of levirate marriage, and “upon her” comes to teach the greater permission that the nakedness of a wife’s sister is prohibited only in the place of levirate marriage, but not when not in the place of a mitzva.

And thus the verse said: only in the place of “upon her” [in the place of levirate marriage, concerning which the Torah said, “her levirate wife shall come upon her”] is the nakedness of a wife’s sister prohibited, but not in a place where there is no levirate marriage, where I do not read in her, “her levirate wife shall come upon her”! Rava replied to him:

And is this not a kal va-chomer

that the forbidden relation of a wife’s sister should be prohibited when not in the place of a mitzva?

For if

in the place of a mitzva, it is prohibited

the nakedness of a wife’s sister, despite the mitzva of levirate marriage —

when not in the place of a mitzva,

is it possible that a wife’s sister

is permitted,

permitted there?!

Therefore, it is impossible that “upon her” came to say that the entire verse concerning the nakedness of a wife’s sister is stated only in the place of levirate marriage, and that there is no prohibition of the nakedness of a wife’s sister when not in the place of levirate marriage.

It necessarily follows that “upon her” is only a teaching to permit the rival wife of a forbidden relation when not in the place of a mitzva, but the forbidden relation herself is prohibited, both in the place of a mitzva and when not in the place of a mitzva.

He said to him,

Rami bar Hama said to Rava: This kal va-chomer can be refuted, for

the rival wife

of a forbidden relation

proves it,

for it is possible that the prohibition of a forbidden relation applies only in the place of the mitzva of levirate marriage, and that it is permitted when not in the place of levirate marriage!

For even according to your words, we find concerning the rival wife of a forbidden relation

that

only

in the place of the mitzva

of levirate marriage is she

prohibited, and when not in the place of a mitzva

she is

permitted!

And if so, according to you, since “upon her” comes to permit the rival wife of a forbidden relation when not in the place of a mitzva, it may be said that “upon her” refers to everything stated in the verse, and comes to say that even the prohibition of the nakedness of a wife’s sister applies only in the place of a mitzva, because only there is there “upon her” for levirate marriage, and I read in her, “her levirate wife shall come upon her.”

He said to him,

Rava:

Upon you,

in order to reject your argument, he continued and

said: The verse says: “To uncover her nakedness upon her” —

“to uncover her nakedness upon her” —

during her lifetime!”

And the word “during her lifetime” is superfluous. It comes to teach that

every

sister

who is during the lifetime

of your wife, whether she is in the place of a mitzva or whether she is not in the place of a mitzva, is prohibited.

And through this extra word you learn that “upon her” comes to permit only the rival wife of a forbidden relation when not in the place of a mitzva, and not to permit the forbidden relation herself when not in the place of a mitzva.

And we raise an objection: Is the word “during her lifetime” indeed superfluous, so that you can say that it comes to teach concerning the prohibition of a wife’s sister that it applies even when not in the place of a mitzva?

But

this “during her lifetime”

is needed

for the matter itself,

to exclude

his wife’s sister

after the death

of his wife!

That is, to teach that after his wife’s death, her sister is permitted to him!

And if so, how do you learn from “during her lifetime” to prohibit a wife’s sister even when not in the place of a mitzva?!

And we answer:

That

a man’s wife’s sister after the death of his wife — we do not learn her permission from “during her lifetime,” but from the beginning of the verse,

from “And a woman to her sister” it follows!

For the meaning of “A woman to her sister you shall not take” is that he may not take both of them together. But when his wife dies, he is permitted to take her sister, since he is not taking “a woman to her sister.”

Therefore, the word “during her lifetime” is superfluous, to expound from it that every wife’s sister who is “during her lifetime” is prohibited, even when not in the place of a mitzva.

And the Gemara rejects the possibility we have just stated: to learn the permission of a wife’s sister after the death of his wife from “And a woman to her sister,” and from the extra word “during her lifetime” to learn the prohibition of a wife’s sister when not in the place of a mitzva.

For the word “during her lifetime” is not superfluous at all.

For

if from “And a woman to her sister”,

alone, without the addition “during her lifetime,”

I might have thought

that even if

his wife was divorced

from him, immediately

her sister would be permitted

to him, since I would no longer read in her, “And a woman to her sister.”

Therefore,

the verse states: “during her lifetime” —

everyone who is during her lifetime!

And the verse “during her lifetime” comes to teach

that even though his wife was divorced

from him,

not

is her sister permitted to him as long as his wife is alive.

And if so, the objection returns concerning what Rava said: that “upon her,” stated at the end of the verse concerning a wife’s sister, comes to teach the permission of the rival wife of a forbidden relation when not in the place of levirate marriage.

For according to his words, the permission of “upon her” should also apply to the wife’s sister herself, and from it we should learn that the entire verse applies only in the place of levirate marriage, and that no prohibition of a wife’s sister at all is stated when not in the place of levirate marriage!

And on the basis of this objection, the Gemara gives another explanation of why the verse “upon her” is needed according to Rava:

Rather, Rav Huna bar Tachlifa said in the name of Rava:

“Upon her” indeed comes to teach prohibition and not permission, and this is the teaching of “upon her”:

Two verses are written,

two verses that apparently contradict one another were stated in this verse concerning a wife’s sister. In order that the verses not contradict one another, we must reconcile them, and in this manner we learn the prohibition of a wife’s sister even when not in the place of a mitzva:

It is written

at the beginning of the verse

“A woman to her sister you shall not take, to vex.”

And since “to vex” teaches the prohibition of the rival wife of a forbidden relation, the verse has prohibited both of them, both the wife’s sister and her rival wife.

And

on the other hand,

it is written

later in the verse

“To uncover her nakedness.”

And the expression “her nakedness” means only the nakedness

of one

of the two alone,

is implied!

That is, only one of the two women [either the wife’s sister or her rival wife] is subject to the prohibition of uncovering nakedness, whereas the second is permitted!

How

shall we reconcile the contradiction between the beginning of the verse, which prohibits both of them, and its end, which prohibits only one and permits the other?

For this purpose comes the teaching of “upon her,” to teach that this is the intention of the verse: “

And a woman to her sister you shall not take, to vex [both she and her rival wife are prohibited], to uncover her nakedness, upon her, during her lifetime.”

In the place

of “upon her,” where there is

a mitzva

of levirate marriage, and I read in her, “her levirate wife shall come upon her” —

both of them are prohibited,

because I read concerning both of them the beginning of the verse, “And a woman to her sister you shall not take, to vex.”

But the two words “to uncover her nakedness” [whose meaning is that one of the two is prohibited through the uncovering of nakedness and the other is permitted] teach that

when not in the place of a mitzva,

where I do not read in her, “her levirate wife shall come upon her” — then only

she,

the forbidden relation herself,

is prohibited, and

whereas

her rival wife is permitted

there.

And we object:

Let me reverse it!

I will reverse it and say that “upon her” refers only to permission and not to prohibition, and I will reach the opposite conclusion.

And this side should be preferred!

For the word “upon her,” from which we learn that this concerns the place of a mitzva, is adjacent to the words “to uncover her nakedness,” which teach the permission of the rival wife.

And if so, it is more reasonable to say that “upon her” comes to establish in the place of a mitzva specifically the permission of “to uncover her nakedness — of one,” which is adjacent to it, and to say that this permission is stated specifically in the place of a mitzva, but when not in the place of a mitzva both [she and her rival wife] are prohibited, than to establish in the place of a mitzva the prohibition of “A woman to her sister you shall not take, to vex,” since it is distant from the word “upon her.”

For the two words “to uncover her nakedness” intervene between the beginning of the verse, “A woman to her sister you shall not take,” and the word “upon her.”

And let it be said as follows:

In the place of a mitzva —

she,

the wife’s sister,

is prohibited, and her rival wife is permitted.

And “upon her” serves as a teaching for permission, as it is stated, “to uncover her nakedness [of one of them] — upon her [in the place of the mitzva of levirate marriage, concerning which I read in her, ‘her levirate wife shall come upon her’].”

And

whereas

when not in the place of a mitzva —

both are prohibited!

As it is stated, “A woman to her sister you shall not take, to vex,” teaching that both she and her rival wife are prohibited when not in the place of a mitzva.

And the Gemara answers:

If so,

if it is as you say, that “upon her” comes to establish the permission in the place of “upon her” —

the verse would not say

the word at all

“upon her,”

and we would derive this ourselves.

For it is logical that the prohibition of the forbidden relation and her rival wife is stated when not in the place of a mitzva, and that the permission of the rival wife of a forbidden relation is stated in the place of a mitzva, since we should prefer the permission in the place of a mitzva.

Therefore, it is impossible to say as you say, that the extra word “upon her” comes to permit, for then it would be superfluous. Rather, it necessarily comes to prohibit the rival wife of a forbidden relation in the place of “upon her” for levirate marriage.

Rav Ashi said to Rav Kahana: From where

is it necessary to establish

that this “upon her”

is a teaching

for prohibition

of the rival wife of a forbidden relation in the place of levirate marriage?!

Perhaps

it comes

to

teach

permission

of the forbidden relation entirely in the place of levirate marriage,

and thus the Merciful One says:

“A woman to her sister you shall not take, to vex” —

neither she nor her rival wife.

But when do both she and her rival wife become prohibited?

When not in the place of upon her

for levirate marriage.

But in the place

where it is stated

“upon her,”

in the place of levirate marriage —

both of them,

even the forbidden relation herself,

are permitted?!

And we answer:

If

you expound

thus,

the following difficulty arises for you: the permission and prohibition in

“to uncover nakedness, of one,”

that one is permitted and one is prohibited —

where do you find it?

Where will you find such a possibility?

If in the place of a mitzva —

you have said

both are permitted.

If when not in the place of a mitzva —

you have said

both are prohibited.

And if so, it necessarily follows that “upon her” comes to teach prohibition, to establish the prohibition of the forbidden relation and her rival wife in the place of “upon her” for levirate marriage.

And consequently, the permission of “to uncover her nakedness — of one” applies to the rival wife of a forbidden relation when not in the place of a mitzva.

As for the matter itself, Rabbi says: “And he shall take” —

“and he shall take her.”

“And he shall perform levirate marriage” —

“and he shall perform levirate marriage with her.”

The verse teaches

to prohibit rival wives and forbidden relations [

rival wives of forbidden relations].

And we examine Rabbi’s words:

a.

Is it something

at all

that “rival wives” is written here,

in these words?

b.

And furthermore,

the prohibition of

rival wives

of a forbidden relation

follows from “to vex”!

The Gemara first resolves the second objection:

“To vex”

he derives it,

Rabbi

removes

the exposition of this verse

in accordance with Rabbi Shimon,

who later [28b] expounds the word “to vex” to teach concerning two sisters who became “rival wives” to one another by being subject to one bond, when they fell for levirate marriage before one brother, that they are exempt from levirate marriage.

For example, two brothers of the levir were married to two sisters, and the two brothers died, and it was found that the two sisters had fallen before him, and both were bound to him for levirate marriage. And since the bond between the levir and his levirate wife is like a partial marriage, it follows that these two sisters were rival wives to one another while being together bound by a bond, which is a partial marriage, to one levir.

And according to Rabbi Shimon, the verse “to vex” does not teach concerning the rival wife of a forbidden relation, and Rabbi agrees with him.

And now the Gemara returns to clarify the first question concerning Rabbi’s words:

Is the prohibition of

a rival wife here,

in “and he shall take her” or in “and he shall perform levirate marriage,”

written?

And we answer:

This is what

Rabbi

is saying:

if the verse does not speak of the prohibition of the rival wife of a forbidden relation,

let the verse say “and he shall take”

alone.

What

is the reason that the verse said

“and he shall take her,”

with the addition of the letter heh?

Since the meaning of “and he shall take her” is: one out of two, and not both of them!

And likewise, the meaning of “and he shall take her” is that the choice of one out of the two is given into his hand.

And from here you learn:

wherever there are two takings,

where two rival wives from one brother fall before him and he can take one of them,

if he wishes, he marries this one, and if he wishes, he marries that one,

where he can take one of them according to his desire, only then

is it permitted

for him to take whichever one he wishes.

But if not,

where he does not have the possibility of taking whichever one he wishes, because one is prohibited to him through the prohibition of a forbidden relation, then

both of them,

the forbidden relation and her rival wife,

are prohibited.

And Rabbi continues to expound:

“And he shall perform levirate marriage with her” —

only

in the place of levirate marriage is the rival wife prohibited

of a forbidden relation.

But

when not in the place of levirate marriage —

the rival wife is permitted

of a forbidden relation.

And we examine it:

And the Sages,

who derive the prohibition of the rival wife of a forbidden relation from “to vex” —

what do they do with this “and he shall take her”,

what do they do with it?

They need it

for

the teaching of Rabbi Yosei bar Hanina:

For Rabbi Yosei bar Hanina said: “And he shall take her” —

the verse teaches

:

a.

That he divorces her

the levir divorces his levirate wife

with a bill of divorce,

after he has had intercourse with her and acquired her as a wife, and she no longer requires halitza. Since she has become his wife after he acquired her, she leaves him through a bill of divorce like every wife.

b.

And

also

he takes her back

as a wife after her divorce, despite the fact that the second time he does not fulfill the mitzva of levirate marriage.

And the novelty of the verse is that it should not be said that the Torah permitted the prohibition of a brother’s wife only for the sake of a marriage in which there is fulfillment of the mitzva of levirate marriage, as it is stated, “her levirate wife shall come upon her, and she shall be his wife.” Only the marriage that came into being through the acquisition of levirate marriage contains fulfillment of the mitzva, “and she shall be his wife”; but after he divorces her, there is no longer in taking her back fulfillment of the mitzva of levirate marriage, “and she shall be his wife.”

Therefore, it might have been said that the prohibition of a brother’s wife returns upon her, and he cannot take her again. Therefore the verse says, “and he shall take her as a wife,” to teach you that she is like his wife in every respect, and the prohibition of a brother’s wife is entirely removed from her [with regard to him].

And now the Gemara explains to the Sages what they do with “and he shall perform levirate marriage with her.”

“And he shall perform levirate marriage with her” —

the extra heh teaches that even if he has intercourse with her

against her will,

she becomes his wife in every respect [even for inheriting her, and for becoming impure to her if he is a koen].

And now the Gemara explains from where Rabbi derived these laws:

And Rabbi,

this

of Rabbi Yosei bar Hanina,

that he divorces her with a bill of divorce and takes her back,

from

“and she shall be his

wife” it follows,

the verse teaches that she is like his wife in every respect.

And that the levir acquires his levirate wife

against her will —

it follows from “her levirate wife shall come upon her,”

which implies that he comes upon her and acquires her in every manner, even if she does not consent.

And now the Gemara explains what Rabbi does with “upon her”:

And Rabbi,

who derives the prohibition of the forbidden relation and her rival wife from “and he shall take her” and “and he shall perform levirate marriage with her,”

this “upon her” —

what does he do with it,

what teaching does he derive from it?

He needs it

Rabbi

for that which we learned

in tractate Horayot [8a]:

A court is not liable

the court of the Sanhedrin in Jerusalem is not liable to bring a bull as a sin-offering, called “the bull for an unwitting matter,” for their erroneous instruction to all Israel,

except for

an erroneous instruction concerning

a matter for which

one is liable for

its deliberate violation to receive excision, and

one is liable for

its unwitting violation

to bring a

sin-offering.

And likewise,

the High

anointed

koen, who was anointed with the anointing oil, who erred in an instruction [for himself] and performed an act of transgression unwittingly on the basis of his error, is not liable to bring a bull as a sin-offering for his unwitting act, called “the bull of the anointed koen,” unless his error and his unwitting act concerned a matter for which deliberate violation incurs excision and unwitting violation incurs a sin-offering.