יבמות 40:2 — Soncino English Talmud

HE IS FORBIDDEN TO MARRY HER MOTHER, HER MOTHER'S MOTHER AND HER FATHER S MOTHER; HER DAUGHTER, HER DAUGHTER'S DAUGHTER AND HER SON'S DAUGHTER; AND ALSO HER SISTER WHILE SHE IS ALIVE. THE OTHER BROTHERS, HOWEVER, ARE PERMITTED. SHE IS FORBIDDEN TO MARRY HIS FATHER AND HIS FATHER'S FATHER; HIS SON AND HIS SON'S SON; HIS BROTHER AND HIS BROTHER'S SON. A MAN IS PERMITTED TO MARRY THE RELATIVE OF THE RIVAL OF HIS HALUZAH BUT IS FORBIDDEN TO MARRY THE RIVAL OF THE RELATIVE OF HIS HALUZAH. GEMARA. The question was raised: Were relatives of the second degree forbidden in the case of a haluzah as a preventive measure, or not? Did the Rabbis forbid marriage with relatives of the second degree, as a preventive measure, only in respect of a relative who is pentateuchally forbidden, but in respect of a haluzah the Rabbis did not forbid relatives of the second degree as a preventive measure, or is there perhaps no difference? — Come and hear: HE IS FORBIDDEN TO MARRY HER MOTHER AND HER MOTHER'S MOTHER, but 'her mother's mother's mother' is not mentioned! [No.] It is possible that the reason why this relative was omitted is because it was desired to state in the final clause, THE OTHER BROTHERS, HOWEVER, ARE PERMITTED, and, were 'her mother's mother's mother' also mentioned it might have been presumed that the brothers are permitted [to marry] her mother's mother's mother only but not her mother's mother or her mother. Then let 'her mother's mother's mother' be mentioned, and let it also be stated: The brothers are permitted to marry all of them! — This is a difficulty. Come and hear: SHE IS FORBIDDEN TO MARRY HIS FATHER AND HIS FATHER'S FATHER. 'His father's father,' at any rate, was mentioned. Is not this due to the levir who participated in the halizah, through whom she is the daughter-in-law of his son? — No; this is due to the deceased through whom she is the daughter-in-law of his son. Come and hear: AND HIS SON'S SON, Is not this due to the levir who participated in the halizah through whom she is the wife of his father's father? — No; it is due to the deceased through whom she is his father's father's brother's wife. But, surely, Amemar permitted the marriage of one's father's father's brother's wife! — Amemar interprets that to refer to the son of the grandfather. If so, [HIS SON, AND SON'S SON] are the same as HIS BROTHER AND HIS BROTHER'S SON! — Both his paternal brother and his maternal brother were specified. Come and hear what R. Hiyya taught: Four [categories of relatives are forbidden] Pentateuchally and four Rabbinically. His father and his son, his brother and his brother's son are Pentateuchally forbidden; his father's father and his mother's father, his son's son and his daughter's son are forbidden Rabbinically. 'His father's father', at any rate, is mentioned here. Is not this due to the levir who participated in the halizah through whom she is his son's daughter-in-law? — No; it is due to the deceased whose son's daughter-in-law she is. Come and hear: 'His mother's father'. Is not this due to the levir who participated in the halizah through whom she is his daughter's daughter-in-law? — No; it is due to the deceased through whom she is his daughter's daughter-in-law. Come and hear: 'And his son's son'. Is not this due to the levir who participated in the halizah through whom she is his father's father's wife? — No; it is due to the deceased through whom she is his father's father's brother's wife. But, surely, Amemar permitted the marriage of one's father's father's brother's wife! — Amemar explains that to be due to the levir who participated in the halizah, but is of the opinion that relatives of the second degree were forbidden as a preventive measure even in respect of a haluzah. Come and hear: 'And the son of his daughter'. Is not this due to the levir who participated in the halizah through whom she is his mother's father's wife? — No; it is due to the deceased through whom she is his mother's father's brother's wife. But, surely, no prohibition as a preventive measure was made in respect of the second degrees of incest! Consequently it must be due to the levir who participated in the halizah, and thus it may be inferred that relatives of the second degree were forbidden as a preventive measure even in the case of a haluzah. This proves it. A MAN IS PERMITTED etc. R. Tobi b. Kisna said in the name of Samuel: Where a man had intercourse with the rival of his haluzah the child [born from such a union] is a bastard. What is the reason? — Because she remains under her original prohibition. Said R. Joseph: We also have learned [to the same effect]: A MAN IS PERMITTED TO MARRY THE RELATIVE OF THE RIVAL OF HIS HALUZAH. Now, if you grant that the rival is excluded one can well understand why the man is permitted to marry her sister. If it be maintained, however, that the rival has the same status as the haluzah, why [should her sister] be permitted [to him]? May it be suggested that this furnishes an objection against R. Johanan who stated: Neither he nor the other brothers are subject to kareth either for [the betrothal of] a haluzah or for [the betrothal of] her rival? — R. Johanan can answer you: Do you understand it! Is the sister of a haluzah Pentateuchally forbidden? Surely Resh Lakish said: Here it was taught by Rabbi that the prohibition to marry the sister of a divorced wife is Pentateuchal and that that of the sister of a haluzah is Rabbinical! Why is there a difference [in the law] between the one and the other? ^ᵃ^ᵇ^ᶜ^ᵈ^ᵉ^ᶠ^ᵍ^ʰ^ⁱ^ʲ^ᵏ^ˡ^ᵐ^ⁿ^ᵒ^ᵖ^ᵠ^ʳ^ˢ^ᵗ^ᵘ^ᵛ^ʷ^ˣ^ʸ^ᶻ^ᵃᵃ^ᵃᵇ^ᵃᶜ^ᵃᵈ^ᵃᵉ^ᵃᶠ^ᵃᵍ^ᵃʰ^ᵃⁱ^ᵃʲ^ᵃᵏ^ᵃˡ^ᵃᵐ^ᵃⁿ^ᵃᵒ^ᵃᵖ^ᵃᵠ^ᵃʳ^ᵃˢ^ᵃᵗ^ᵃᵘ^ᵃᵛ^ᵃʷ^ᵃˣ^ᵃʸ^ᵃᶻ^ᵇᵃ^ᵇᵇ^ᵇᶜ^ᵇᵈ^ᵇᵉ^ᵇᶠ^ᵇᵍ^ᵇʰ^ᵇⁱ^ᵇʲ^ᵇᵏ^ᵇˡ^ᵇᵐ^ᵇⁿ^ᵇᵒ^ᵇᵖ

^ᵃnote:The haluzah (v. Glos.).
^ᵇnote:To marry the enumerated relatives of the haluzah.
^ᶜnote:Bomberg ed. adds, 'and his mother's father'.
^ᵈnote:E.g., the haluzah's mother's mother's mother or her father's mother's mother (Rashi). Cf. supra 21a.
^ᵉnote:Rabbinically.
^ᶠnote:Against marriage with relatives of the first degree.
^ᵍnote:I.e., a wife's relatives whose prohibition is specifically stated in the Pentateuch.
^ʰnote:Whose relatives, even of the first degree, are only Rabbinically forbidden.
^ⁱnote:In respect of the law of incest, between the relatives of a wife who are Pentateuchally forbidden and those of a haluzah who are only Rabbinically forbidden.
^ʲnote:V. supra p. 259, n. 9.
^ᵏnote:Lit., 'that he did not teach'.
^ˡnote:Because even in the case of one's wife she is not Biblically forbidden.
^ᵐnote:Who, in the case of one's wife, are Pentateuchally prohibited.
^ⁿnote:And the possible misinterpretation would thus be avoided.
^ᵒnote:Prohibition to marry a father's father.
^ᵖnote:Lit., 'what not, owing to'.
^ᵠnote:The father's father.
^ʳnote:I.e., a relative of the second degree, which proves that even such relatives were forbidden in respect of a haluzah.
^ˢnote:V. supra note 9.
^ᵗnote:V. supra n. 20.
^ᵘnote:In whose case the prohibition is Pentateuchal and provides no answer to our enquiry.
^ᵛnote:The son's son.
^ʷnote:Supra 21b. How, then, according to Amemar, could this case be included among forbidden relatives?
^ˣnote:The SON'S SON in our Mishnah.
^ʸnote:The father of both the deceased and of the levir who submitted to the halizah. Our Mishnah is thus interpreted: HIS FATHER is the father of the deceased and of the levir who participated in the halizah; HIS SON, i.e., the son of the FATHER mentioned, who is the brother of the deceased and of the levir who participated in the halizah; and HIS SON'S SON is the son of the son of the father mentioned, to whom the haluzah is forbidden as the wife of his father's brother.
^ᶻnote:V. supra n. 1.
^ᵃᵃnote:The former by HIS SON AND HIS SON'S SON (v. supra n. 1) and the latter by HIS BROTHER AND HIS BROTHER'S SON, the prohibitions being Pentateuchal since they are due to the woman's relationship with the deceased as his wife, and not to her relationship with the levir as haluzah, the prohibitions resulting from which could only be Rabbinical.
^ᵃᵇnote:In respect of a haluzah.
^ᵃᶜnote:To marry her.
^ᵃᵈnote:Lit., 'from the words of the Torah', i.e., owing to their relationship to the haluzah as the wife of the deceased, and the prohibition to marry whom is specifically mentioned in the Pentateuch.
^ᵃᵉnote:Lit., 'from the words of the Scribes'.
^ᵃᶠnote:The levir's (who participated in the halizah). The prohibition is Pentateuchal, it being due to his brother, the deceased, whose wife and whose father's daughter-in-law the haluzah was.
^ᵃᵍnote:The levir's (v. supra n. 8). The haluzah is forbidden to him Pentateuchally as the wife of his father's brother.
^ᵃʰnote:The levir's (v. supra n. 8), who is also the brother of the deceased, and the haluzah is forbidden to him Pentateuchally.
^ᵃⁱnote:The levir's (v supra n. 8), the deceased also having been his father's brother, and the prohibition is consequently Pentateuchal.
^ᵃʲnote:To whom the haluzah is forbidden as his son's daughter-in-law.
^ᵃᵏnote:The prohibition being that of one's daughter's daughter-in-law.
^ᵃˡnote:It is now assumed that the prohibition to marry this relative is due to the levir who participated in the halizah through whom she is his father's father's wife.
^ᵃᵐnote:Whose mother's father's wife she was.
^ᵃⁿnote:Cf. supra note 7, all being cases of the second degree, forbidden by a provision of the Rabbis only.
^ᵃᵒnote:The prohibition to marry this relative.
^ᵃᵖnote:Which proves that, even in respect of a haluzah, relatives of the second degree are prohibited.
^ᵃᵠnote:In whose case the prohibition is Pentateuchal, and supplies no answer to our enquiry.
^ᵃʳnote:This is a citation from R. Hiyya's Baraitha supra.
^ᵃˢnote:His mother's father's.
^ᵃᵗnote:V. supra n. 2.
^ᵃᵘnote:The prohibition being a preventive measure against the infringement of a Pentateuchal law. Consequently it supplies no proof in respect of our enquiry which is concerned with a preventive measure against an infringement of a Rabbinical law.
^ᵃᵛnote:V. supra n. 4.
^ᵃʷnote:How then could such a case be included among forbidden relatives?
^ᵃˣnote:'Son's son' in R. Hiyya's Baraitha.
^ᵃʸnote:The prohibition being that of 'his father's father's wife', as first assumed.
^ᵃᶻnote:According to those, however, who, contrary to the opinion of Amemar, forbid marriage with a father's father's brother's wife, the prohibition in R. Hiyya's Baraitha might still be attributed to the deceased (v. supra n. 7), and the original enquiry as to whether relatives of the second degree were forbidden in the case of a haluzah still remains unanswered.
^ᵇᵃnote:How then could it be suggested that the prohibition is due to the fact that the haluzah is the 'wife of the mother's father's brother' of the deceased?
^ᵇᵇnote:Lit., 'what, not'?
^ᵇᶜnote:The prohibition being that of 'his mother's father's wife' who is a relative of the second degree.
^ᵇᵈnote:The rival.
^ᵇᵉnote:Of 'brother's wife', which is subject to the penalty of kareth. Children born from a union that is forbidden under such a penalty are deemed to be bastards.
^ᵇᶠnote:[Lit., 'outside'. Rashi reads: 'Stands outside'.] From the restrictions of the haluzah, the latter not being regarded as her agent or representative.
^ᵇᵍnote:Since she herself remains forbidden to the levir as 'brother's wife', her sister is not the 'sister of a haluzah'.
^ᵇʰnote:She should be forbidden as the sister of a haluzah! As she is permitted, however, it must be granted that the rival of a haluzah remains under the original prohibition of 'brother's wife', which entails the penalty of kareth. (V. supra n. 5).
^ᵇⁱnote:The inference from our Mishnah. (V. supra n. 8 second clause).
^ᵇʲnote:The levir who submitted to halizah.
^ᵇᵏnote:Supra 10b; while from the inference of our Mishnah, as has been proved, the penalty for contracting a union with the rival of a haluzah is kareth!
^ᵇˡnote:R. Joseph's argument.
^ᵇᵐnote:As R. Joseph implies by his assumption that if the rival had the same status as the haluzah her sister would be forbidden.
^ᵇⁿnote:In the following Mishnah to which he refers.
^ᵇᵒnote:The reason why the sister of a rival of a haluzah is permitted is not that assumed by R. Joseph. but the following: As the prohibition of the sister of a haluzah herself is only Rabbinical, the prohibition was not extended to the sister of the rival of the haluzah also.
^ᵇᵖnote:The first and second case of the final clause of our Mishnah. THE RIVAL OF THE RELATIVE OF HIS HALUZAH is surely as much of a stranger to him as THE RELATIVE OF THE RIVAL OF HIS HALUZAH.