Yevamot 95a — the Talmud in English

But

a wife’s sister

, if the husband had relations with her

intentionally, his wife is not forbidden

to him

by Torah law

; in an inadvertent act, the Rabbis did not decree in her case.

inadvertently, the Sages did not decree a prohibition concerning her.

And the Gemara explains:

and from where do we know that she is not forbidden

—that his wife is not forbidden to him when he had relations with her sister?

For it was taught

: It is written in the passage of the sota, who is forbidden to her husband: “And a man shall lie with

her

with a seed-emission.”

The verse teaches by saying “her”:

Her

alone—

her lying with him forbids her

. For if another man had relations with his wife with her consent, she becomes forbidden to her husband.

But the relations of her sister

with her husband

do not forbid her

, the woman, to him.

And therefore the verse had to make this known to us, because

it could

have been said that relations with his wife’s sister should forbid his wife to him, by means of a kal va-chomer:

For

is it not an inference

that she should become forbidden?

Just as in a case where a person had relations

with a woman

who is

forbidden to him by

a lenient prohibition

, namely, the prohibition of a married woman, which is lenient in that it has a permitted avenue through a bill of divorce—

the one who causes the prohibition becomes forbidden

through his relations with her.

That is, the husband, who is the “one who forbids” his wife to others, becomes forbidden to his wife after she commits adultery.

In a case where a person had relations

with a woman

who is

forbidden to him by

a stringent prohibition

, such as one who had relations with his wife’s sister, which is a stringent prohibition, since it has no permitted avenue through a bill of divorce, but only through the death of her sister—

is it not an inference that the one who causes the prohibition should become forbidden!

That his wife, who forbids her sister to him, should become forbidden to him.

Rabbi Judah said: Beit Shammai and Beit Hillel did not disagree regarding one who

had relations

with his mother-in-law, that he disqualifies his wife

to him. And below the Gemara explains the source for this from the verse.

Regarding what did they disagree

—Beit Shammai and Beit Hillel—

regarding one who had relations with his wife’s sister

, whether his wife becomes forbidden to him:

For Beit Shammai say: He disqualifies

his wife by a kal va-chomer from the law of a sota.

And Beit Hillel say: He does not disqualify.

He said

,

Rabbi Yose

disagreed with Rabbi Judah, and said:

Beit Shammai and Beit Hillel did not disagree regarding one who had relations with his wife’s sister

—

that he does not disqualify his wife.

that he does not disqualify his wife.

Regarding what did they disagree—Beit Shammai and Beit Hillel—

regarding one who had relations with his mother-in-law

, whether he makes his wife forbidden to him:

For Beit Shammai say: He disqualifies

, as the Gemara explains below from the verse.

And Beit Hillel say: He does not disqualify.

And Rabbi Yose explains his reason for why they did not disagree regarding a wife’s sister, and according to everyone his wife does not become forbidden to him through his sister-in-law’s relations with him:

Since at first

, before he betrothed his wife,

he was permitted with all the women in the world, and

even

she

, his wife,

was permitted with all the men in the world.

But from the moment that he

betrothed

her as his wife,

he forbids her [A0087] to all the men in the world,

he makes his wife forbidden] to all the men in the world,

and

even

she forbids him

through her female relatives.

And behold,

the prohibition that the husband imposed

upon his wife

is greater than the prohibition that she imposed upon him

—

for he forbade her

to

all the men in the world, whereas she forbade him only through her female relatives.

And

, since this is so,

is it not an inference

that his wife should not become forbidden if he had relations with his wife’s sister inadvertently:

And if he, who forbade her

to

all the men in the world

, nevertheless—

when

his wife inadvertently

had relations with

one

who is

forbidden to her

, such as when she married another man on the basis of two false witnesses who testified that her husband had died—she

does not become forbidden to the one permitted to her

, her husband.

For the Torah said that only if “she was not seized,” meaning that she committed adultery willingly, only then does she become forbidden to her husband. But if she “was seized,” meaning that she was possessed under compulsion, she is permitted.

If so, it is a kal va-chomer—

she

, his wife,

who did not forbid him

to her husband

except through her female relatives—

when her husband

inadvertently

had relations with

one forbidden to him

, and had relations with her sister—

is it not an inference that he should not become forbidden

through this

to the one permitted to him

, his wife?

“And this law”

is a derivation

for an inadvertent act

only.

For from this kal va-chomer you can learn that if he acted inadvertently with his wife’s sister, his wife does not become forbidden to him.

But

for an intentional act

, if he had relations with his wife’s sister intentionally—

from where

do we know that his wife does not become forbidden to him?

The verse says

in the passage of the sota: “And a man shall lie with

her

with a seed-emission.”

The verse teaches that only the relations with which a strange man had relations with “her” alone forbid her—

her relations

—

—

forbid her

to the woman’s husband.

But the relations of her sister

—

do not forbid her

to the woman’s husband. Rabbi Ami said in the name of Reish Lakish: What is Rabbi Judah’s reason

, who holds that when one has relations with his mother-in-law, his wife becomes forbidden to him, although when he has relations with his wife’s sister his wife does not become forbidden to him?

Because

it is written

concerning one who has relations with his mother-in-law:

“With fire they shall burn him and them.”

”.

And the meaning of the verse is that his wife too should be burned.

But is the entire household to be burned?

Did the Torah say to burn the entire household, the righteous together with the wicked? And what is his wife’s transgression if he had relations with her mother!?

Rather,

if it does not concern burning, apply it to the matter of prohibition

, to teach that his wife becomes forbidden to him through his having relations with her mother.

Rav Judah said in the name of Shmuel: The halakha is not according to Rabbi Judah

, that when one has relations with his mother-in-law his wife becomes forbidden to him.

There was a certain man who committed a forbidden act with his mother-in-law

[there was an incident in which a man had forbidden relations with his mother-in-law]—

Rav Judah brought him and flogged him

[he brought him to the court and flogged him].

He said to him

, Rav Judah said to that man:

“Had Shmuel not said, ‘The halakha is not according to Rabbi Judah,’ I would have forbidden your wife

to you

with an eternal prohibition

[if Shmuel had not ruled against Rabbi Judah, I would have forbidden your wife to you with an eternal prohibition].

And now the Gemara returns to explain what we learned earlier in the beraita: “A person’s ‘her’—her relations forbid her, but the relations of her sister do not forbid her. It could have been said: Is it not an inference? Just as in a case where he had relations with a lenient prohibition, the one who causes the prohibition becomes forbidden, in a case where he had relations with a stringent prohibition, is it not an inference that the one who causes the prohibition should become forbidden?”

And we considered it:

And we discussed this:

What

is the

prohibition

that is

lenient

, such that if one transgressed it and had relations with her, the one who forbids him through her becomes forbidden? And from it we learn by a kal va-chomer concerning one who transgressed the stringent prohibition of a wife’s sister, that the one who forbade him through that woman should also become forbidden?

Rav Hisda said

: The lenient prohibition is that of one who has relations with

his divorced wife after she married

, in accordance with the view of Rabbi Yosei ben Kippur, who holds that one is liable for her only if she married and had relations with another —that she is forbidden to him by a negative commandment.

And this is how we learn by a kal va-chomer:

For if

he had relations with her

, the divorced woman,

this one

[another man], he

forbade her to

[to him], the first man who divorced her.

For once she married and had relations with another, it became forbidden for the first man to remarry his divorced wife, and it follows that the second man who married her and had relations with her is the one who “forbids” the woman to the first man who divorced her.

And if, after the second man also divorced her, the first man remarried her and

this other one had relations with her

[the first husband], and transgressed the prohibition of remarrying one’s divorced wife—

he forbade her to this one

[to the second husband], because now she becomes forbidden with regard to the second husband by the prohibition of remarrying one’s divorced wife after she married.

And it is proven from here that if the one who was forbidden [the first husband] transgressed the lenient prohibition of remarrying his divorced wife, which is only a negative commandment, he thereby caused the one who forbade [the second husband] to become forbidden with the woman.

And all the more so if he transgressed the prohibition of a wife’s sister, which is a stringent prohibition, and had relations with her, that the one who forbids [she is his wife] should become forbidden. And the Gemara refutes this kal va-chomer:

What is there in the case of one who remarries his divorced wife after she married

, that it is an inference that the one who causes the prohibition should also become forbidden? It is because:

For the same body became defiled

—that

body

[the divorced woman] that we are forbidding to the one who causes the prohibition.

You can say this regarding a wife’s sister, where you are coming to forbid a woman who was not defiled at all; rather, it was her sister who became defiled.

And further, the prohibition of remarrying one’s divorced wife, although it is lenient in relation to the prohibition of a wife’s sister, since the former is a negative commandment and the latter is punishable by karet, nevertheless has another stringency:

And its prohibition

—the divorced woman’s prohibition to the man who divorced her after she married—

is an eternal prohibition

, which has no dispensation. Can you say this regarding the prohibition of a wife’s sister, which has a dispensation after the death of his wife?

Rather

, because of this question

Reish Lakish said

to explain the “lenient prohibition” in another manner: The “lenient prohibition” from which we learn that if the one who was made forbidden transgressed it and had relations with the woman who became forbidden, the one who caused him to be forbidden through her also becomes forbidden, is the prohibition of

The “lenient prohibition” from which we derive that if the one who is prohibited violates it and has intercourse with the woman who is prohibited to him, the one who rendered her prohibited to him also becomes prohibited, is the prohibition of a

a levirate wife

, as the Gemara proceeds to explain.

And the Gemara explains: from which forbidden relations with a levirate wife do we learn?

To whom

—that is, with whom did the levirate wife have forbidden relations and thereby become forbidden to the one who forbade her?

Perhaps

you might say that the levirate wife—the woman awaiting levirate marriage or halitza—had relations

with another

[with a stranger], and this is a lenient prohibition that is only a negative commandment, and this is how we learn:

If one who transgresses the prohibition of a levirate wife to the public and has relations with her thereby causes the levir who forbids her to become forbidden to that other man,

as Rav Hamnuna said: For Rav Hamnuna said: A woman awaiting levirate marriage who committed adultery is forbidden to her levir.

All the more so, if a man transgressed and had relations with his wife’s sister, his wife—who forbids her sister—should also become forbidden.

This cannot be explained in this manner:

For

what is there in the case of a levirate wife, that the same

that same

body

that you are coming to forbid to the levir, namely, the levirate wife, became defiled?

You can say this regarding a wife’s sister, where you are coming to forbid his wife to him even though she did not become defiled.

And further, the prohibition of a levirate wife to the public has a stringency over the prohibition of a wife’s sister:

And its prohibition

—the prohibition of a levirate wife to the public—

is widespread

in the world [that is, it applies to most of the world]. Can you say this regarding a wife’s sister, who is forbidden only to the husband of her sister?

Rather, from

from a

a levirate wife

who has relations

with the brothers

in a forbidden manner—that is the lenient prohibition from which we learn, as the Gemara proceeds to explain.

And this is how we learn: For if

this one performed maamar with her

, if one of the brothers performed maamar—an acquisition with money or a document, which acquires her only by rabbinic law—with his levirate wife, then

he forbade her to this one

, he forbade her to all the brothers with the lenient prohibition of “a brother’s wife” by rabbinic law.

It follows that the brother who performed maamar is the one who “forbids” her to his other brothers.

And if

this other one had relations with her

[one of the other brothers], and acquired her through a complete acquisition by Torah law, then the brother who had relations returned and

forbade her to this one

[to the brother who performed maamar], since the man who had relations acquired the woman through relations, which is an acquisition by Torah law in the case of a levirate wife, and the levirate wife is consequently, with regard to all the brothers, including the one who performed maamar, a “brother’s wife” by Torah law, and she is forbidden to them.

And it is proven that since the man who had relations transgressed the lenient prohibition of a brother’s wife by rabbinic law, the woman again became forbidden to the one who caused the prohibition, who was the brother who performed maamar.

And all the more so should this be said regarding a wife’s sister.

And the Gemara challenges this interpretation with a kal va-chomer, for if so:

Why specifically did the second have intercourse with her

—why did the beraita say, “who had intercourse with a light prohibition,” implying that it is only through intercourse that the prohibiting party becomes prohibited—

For in this case, in which one of the brothers performed maamar, the prohibiting party [that is, the holder of the maamar] would become prohibited

even

if

he performed an act with her

[that is, one of the brothers performed with her]

a maamar also

, after the maamar of the first one!

In this case as well, the prohibiting party would become prohibited, since just as the yevama is acquired by the first holder of the maamar by rabbinic law, so she is acquired by the second holder of the maamar by rabbinic law, and she thereby becomes prohibited to the first holder of the maamar, as the case of a “brother’s wife” by rabbinic law!?

And the Gemara answers the kal va-chomer from a yevama who became prohibited to the brothers through maamar:

This is not difficult—

Since this beraita

is in accordance with Rabban Gamaliel

,

who says: there is no

benefit from the

maamar

of one brother among the brothers

after

another brother has already performed

maamar

.

And it follows that if one of the brothers had not had intercourse with her, the yevama would not have become prohibited to the first brother who performed maamar.

And the Gemara again challenges the kal va-chomer:

Rather

, this is what we must challenge:

Why did the beraita say, “who had intercourse with a light prohibition,” when

even

if the second one did not have intercourse with her after the maamar of the first, but

gave her a bill of divorce, and even performed halitza with her

, in this case as well the yevama would become prohibited to the holder of the maamar, because since the maamar did not remove the bond, the bill of divorce or the halitza of one of the brothers is effective to prohibit her to all the other brothers, including the holder of the maamar.

Rather, Rabbi Yohanan said

to explain the nature of the “light prohibition” that we learned in the beraita: A light prohibition is the prohibition of

a Sotah

whom her husband warned and who secluded herself, as he proceeds to explain.

And the Gemara explains concerning which prohibition in the case of a Sotah the one who transgressed transgressed, and as a result of which the one whom he prohibited to her became prohibited to her:

A Sotah—

to whom?

Who is the one with whom the Sotah had intercourse, and through this became prohibited to the one who prohibited the Sotah to him?

If you say

, perhaps you will say that the derivation is from a Sotah who had intercourse

with the husband

after warning and seclusion, so that he is prohibited to her by a positive prohibition until he gives her the Sotah water to drink and she is found pure. For so the Torah said in the section of the Sotah, “she has become defiled,” and the Sages expounded from here that she is defiled to her husband, so that the husband is prohibited to his Sotah wife.

And this is what we learn: the adulterer is the one who “prohibits” the Sotah to the husband. And if he transgressed and

the husband had intercourse with her

,

he prohibited her to the adulterer

, for the adulterer is prohibited to the Sotah who secluded herself with him [and even if her husband divorces her or dies, and she is again no longer a married woman].

We have learned: that if the husband transgressed the light prohibition of “she has become defiled,” through this the adulterer, who “prohibits” her to the husband, becomes prohibited to the woman; and so we should say in the case of a wife’s sister.

This cannot be said:

For

why specifically “had intercourse with her”

—her husband? This implies that only once the husband transgressed and had intercourse with her did the Sotah become prohibited to the adulterer, who prohibited her to the husband.

But the prohibition of a “Sotah” to the husband and to the adulterer applies

even

if her husband did not have intercourse with her, but

gave her

the husband

a bill of divorce

, and she is no longer a married woman; she is nevertheless prohibited to the adulterer, because from the moment of seclusion she became prohibited to him.

For the Torah said concerning a Sotah who secluded herself twice, “she has become defiled,” and the Sages explained that one occurrence comes to prohibit her to her husband after warning and seclusion, and the other comes to prohibit her to the adulterer—

And even

if only

the husband said

the husband

“I will not give her to drink”

, the Sotah has already become prohibited to the adulterer!?

Rather

, the derivation is from

a Sotah

who had intercourse

with the adulterer.

That is, from a married woman who strayed and had intercourse with a foreign adulterer, we learn from there that the one who prohibits becomes prohibited through this intercourse. For the husband is the one who prohibited his wife to the adulterer, and once she had intercourse with the adulterer, she became prohibited to the one who prohibited her, namely, the husband.

And the Gemara is astonished at this interpretation: Is

this—

a married woman who had intercourse with the adulterer—

a light prohibition?

But

it is a severe prohibition, namely

the prohibition of

a married woman

, which is punishable by strangulation, and is more severe even than the prohibition of a wife’s sister, which is only punishable by excision. And how can we thus explain the beraita, which speaks of one who transgressed a light prohibition and the one who prohibited becomes prohibited!?