Babylonian Talmud: Tractate Yebamoth

Folio 21a

In the case of a nissu'in widow they both agree¹  that it does not exempt, since no positive precept may override a combination of a positive and a negative precept.²  They differ, however, in the case of an erusin widow. He who maintains that it³  exempts [does so because] a positive precept supersedes a negative one; and he who maintains that it³  does not exempt holds that the positive precept here does not supersede the negative one since [in this case] halizah is possible.⁴

An objection was raised: If they⁵  had intercourse [with any of the forbidden women] they acquire [her as wife]!⁶  -This is indeed a refutation. May this⁷  be assumed to provide a refutation of the view of Resh Lakish also?⁸  -Resh Lakish can answer you: I said it only in the case where the precept is fulfilled; here, however, halizah as a substitute for the levirate marriage is not a fulfilment of the precept.⁹

Raba said: Where in the Torah may an allusion be found to [the prohibition of] relations in the second degree?¹⁰  It is said, For all these abominations have the men of the land done;¹¹  the expression, these¹²  implies grave abominations, from which it may be inferred that there are milder ones. And what are these? The cases of incest of the second degree. What proof is there that 'these'¹²  is an expression of gravity? — Because it is written in the Scriptures, And the mighty¹³  of the land he took away.¹⁴  May it be assumed that this view¹⁵  differs from that of R. Levi? For R. Levi said: The punishments for [false] measures are more rigorous than those for [marrying] forbidden relatives; for in the latter case the word used is El,¹²  but in the former Eleh.¹⁶  — El implies rigour, but Eleh implies greater rigour than El.¹⁷  Is not Eleh written also In connection with forbidden relatives?¹⁸  -That [Eleh has been written] to exclude [the sin of false] measures from the penalty of kareth.¹⁹  In what respect, then,²⁰  are they²¹  more rigorous? — In the case of the former,²²  repentance is possible; in that of the latter²³  repentance is impossible.²⁴

Rab Judah said: It²⁵  may be derived from the following: Yea he pondered, and sought out, and set in order many proverbs,²⁶  in relation to which 'Ulla said in the name of R. Eleazar, 'Before Solomon appeared, the Torah was like a basket without handles; when²⁷  Solomon came he affixed handles²⁸  to it.

R. Oshaia said: It²⁵  may be derived from the following: Avoid it, pass not by it; turn from it, and pass on.²⁹

Said R. Ashi: R. Oshaia's interpretation may be represented by the simile³⁰  of a man who guards an orchard. If he guards it from without, all of it is protected. If, however, he guards it from within, only that, section in front of him is protected but that which is behind him is not protected. This statement of R. Ashi, however, is mere fiction.³¹  There,³²  the section in front of him, at least, is protected; while here were it not for the prohibition of incest of the second degree, one would have encroached upon the very domain of incest.

R. Kahana said, it may be derived from here: Therefore shall ye keep My charge,³³  provide a charge to my charge.³⁴

Said Abaye to R. Joseph: This,³⁵  surely, is Pentateuchal!³⁶  — It is Pentateuchal' but the Rabbis have expounded it.³⁷  All the Torah, surely- was expounded by the Rabbis!³⁸  But [the fact is that the prohibition³⁹  is] Rabbinical, while the Scriptural text is [adduced as] a mere prop.⁴⁰

Our Rabbis taught: Who are the forbidden relatives in the second degree?⁴¹  — His mother's mother, his father's mother, his father's father's wife, his mother's fathers wife, the wife of his father's maternal brother, the wife of his mother's paternal brother, the daughter-in-law of his son daughter-in-law his daughter. A man is permitted to marry the wife of his father-in-law and the wife of his step-son but is forbidden to marry the daughter of his step-son. His step-son is permitted to marry his⁴²  wife and his⁴²  daughter. The wife of his step-son may say to him, 'I am permitted to you though daughter is forbidden to you'.

Is not the daughter of, his step-son forbidden, it being written in the Scriptures, Her son's daughter or her daughters daughter?⁴³  — As he wished to state in the latter clause, 'The wife of his step-son may say to him, "I am permitted to you though my daughter is forbidden to you", and though my daughter is forbidden to you Pentateuchally the Rabbis did not forbid me as a preventive measure', he stated in the previous clause also 'the daughter of his step-son'. If so,⁴⁴  could not the wife of his father-In-law also say, 'I am permitted to you and my daughter is forbidden to you', since she is his wife's sister?⁴⁵  -The prohibition of the one⁴⁶  is permanent;⁴⁷  that of the other is not.⁴⁸

Rab said: Four [categories of] women [forbidden in the second degree] are subject to a limitation.⁴⁹  Of these Rab knew⁵⁰  three: The wife of a mother's⁵¹  paternal brother, the wife of a father's⁵²  maternal brother, and one's daughter-in-law.⁵³  Ze'iri, however, adds also the wife of his mother's father. Said R. Nahman b. Isaac: Your mnemonic sign is, 'Above that of Rab'.⁵⁴  Why does not Rab include it?⁵⁵  — Because she⁵⁵  might be mistaken for the wife of one's father's father.⁵⁶  And Ze'iri? — Thither⁵⁷  one usually goes,⁵⁸  but hither⁵⁹  one does not usually go.⁶⁰

Is not the prohibition of one's daughter-in-law

1. Lit., 'all the world do not differ'.
2. The levirate marriage is consequently illegal.
3. The act of intercourse.
4. Which would not conflict with the negative precept, while the requirements of the positive one would also be complied with.
5. V. supra p. 121, n. 5.
6. V. supra p. 121, n. 12.
7. The Baraitha cited.
8. Who stated (supra 20b) that whenever it is possible to observe the positive, as well as the negative precept, the rule of the abrogation of the one by the other is not to be applied.
9. It is only a ritual to be observed where levirate marriage cannot take place. The precept of levirate marriage, however, is not thereby fulfilled.
10. Lit., 'whence an allusion to seconds from the Torah'.
11. Lev. XVIII, 27, dealing with incest.
12. [H]
13. [H] which is analogous to [H]
14. Ezek. XVII, 13. describing the serious and grave position of Judah
15. Of Raba.
16. [H] Deut. XXV, 16. This implies that the sin of incest is of a milder nature.
17. El and Eleh have the same meaning, but the additional eh ([H]) at the end of the latter is taken to imply additional punishment.
18. Lev. XVIII, 26. [H]
19. Since the expression of 'abomination' has been applied in the Pentateuchal text to both false measures and forbidden relations, it might have been assumed that the sin of the former is, like the latter, subject to kareth. Hence the need for the excluding word.
20. If the penalty of kareth is inflicted for the sin of incest only and not for that of false measures.
21. The punishments for false measures.
22. Incest, so long as there was no Issue.
23. False measures.
24. V. B.B. 88b. One cannot by mere repentance make amends for robbing. The return of the things robbed must precede penitence. In the case of false measures it is practically impossible to trace all the individual members of the public that were defrauded.
25. An allusion to the prohibition of relations in the second degree.
26. Eccl. XII, 9.
27. Lit., 'until'.
28. [H], sing. [H], 'ear' or 'handle'. The Heb. [H] (E.V. he pondered) is regarded as denominative of [H], 'he made handles', i.e., he added restrictions to the commandments of the Torah, such as the prohibitions of incest of the second degree, which helped to preserve the original precepts of the Torah as handles are an aid to the preservation of the basket.
29. Prov. IV, 15; an allusion to the Torah. One must add restrictions to its precepts, such as those of incest of the second degree, in order to keep away from any possible infringement of its original precepts.
30. Lit., 'the parable of R. Oshaia, to what may the thing be compared?'
31. [H] v. B.M., Sonc. ed. p. 47, n. 1.
32. The orchard.
33. Lev. XVIII, 30, dealing with incest.
34. Or 'make a keeping to my keeping', a protection to my protection', i.e., 'add restrictive measures to safeguard my original precept'.
35. R. Kahana's text.
36. Why then is this class of incest described as of the 'second' degree?
37. Hence it must come under the second degree.
38. And yet no one would describe those laws as of the second degree!
39. Of incest of the second degree.
40. Heb., Asmakta, v. Glos.
41. Of incest.
42. The step-father's.
43. Lev. XVIII, 17. Why include it among incest of the second degree?
44. [If this is the reason for including Pentateuchal prohibition in this list].
45. [And thus let him also include the daughter of his mother-in-law.]
46. Lit., that', the daughter of his step-son.
47. Lit., 'it is definite to him'.
48. The daughter of his mother-in-law is permitted to him after the death of her sister, his wife.
49. Lit., 'break' i.e., only they themselves are forbidden but not their descendants or ancestors in the descending or ascending line. In the case of the other relatives in the second degree of incest the prohibition extends throughout all generations in the ascending. and descending lines.
50. Lit., 'held in his hand'.
51. But not, e.g., of a mother's mother's.
52. Not of a father's father's.
53. This case is discussed infra.
54. Ze'ri's addition to the limitations is one generation above that of Rab. While the latter stops at the second generation (that of father and mother) the former goes as far as the third (mother's father).
55. Ze'ri's addition, a mother's father's wife.
56. Who is Pentateuchally forbidden. Were a limit to be set in the case of the former, a similar limit would erroneously be set to the latter.
57. To the family of one's father.
58. I.e., there is frequent social intercourse between the members of the family on the paternal side.
59. One's mother's family.
60. No mistake, therefore, could occur between a mother's father and a father's father. Hence no preventive measure is necessary.

Pentateuchal, it being written in the Scriptures, Thou shalt not uncover the nakedness of thy daughter-in-law?¹  — Read, 'the daughter-in-law of his son'. But is there any limitation²  for the daughter-in-law of one's son? Surely it was taught: His daughter-in-law is a forbidden relative, and the daughter-in-law of his son is a forbidden relative of the second degree; and the same principle is to be applied to one's son and son's son to the end of all generations!³  — But read, 'the daughter-in-law of his daughter' for R. Hisda said: I heard from a great man-And who is he? R Ammi- [the following statement]: 'The daughter-in.law was forbidden only on account of the daughter-in-law'; and when the soothsayers⁴  told me, 'You will be a teacher', I thought, 'If I would be a great man⁵  I would explain it⁶  on my own; and should I be a Scripture teacher of little children I would ask the Rabbis who come to the school house.⁷  Now I am in a position to explain it on my own: The daughter-in-law of one's daughter was forbidden only on account of the daughter-in-law of one's son.

Said Abaye to Raba: I can explain it to you: Take as an example a daughter-in-law of the house of Bar Zithai.⁸  R. Papa said: As for example a daughter-in-law in the house of R. Papa b. Abba.⁹  R. Ashi said: As for example a daughter-in-law of the house of Mari b.Isak.⁹

An inquiry was made: What [is the law in respect of] the wife of a mother's maternal brother? Did the Rabbis forbid as a preventive measure only the wife. of a father's maternal brother and the wife of a mother's paternal brother because in these cases there is a paternal strain,¹⁰  but where there is no paternal strain¹¹  the Rabbis did not pass any preventive measure, or is there no difference? R. Safra replied: She herself¹²  is forbidden as a preventive measure; shall we come and superimpose a preventive measure upon a preventive measure! Said Raba: Are not others¹³  forbidden as a preventive measure to a preventive measure? His mother, e.g., Is a forbidden relative, his mother's mother is a forbidden relative of the second degree, and yet was his father's mother forbidden as a preventive measure against his mother's mother¹³  And what is the reason? Because they are both called 'grandmother'¹⁴  His father's wife is a forbidden relative, his father's father's wife is a forbidden relative of the second degree, and yet was his mother's father's wife forbidden as a preventive measure against his father's father's wife! And what is the reason? Because they are both called 'grandfather'.¹⁵  The wife of his father's paternal brother is a forbidden relative, the wife of his father's maternal brother is a forbidden relative of the second degree, and yet was the wife of his mother's paternal brother forbidden as a preventive against the wife of his father's maternal brother! And what is the reason? Because they are both called uncle!¹⁵  What, then, is the law?¹⁶  Come and hear: When R. Judah b. Shila came¹⁷  he stated that In the West¹⁸  the rule was laid down¹⁹  that whenever a female²⁰  is a forbidden relative the wife of the male²¹  is forbidden in the second degree as a preventive measure; and Raba remarked: 'Is this a general rule? Surely one's mother-in-law is a forbidden relative and yet is one's father-in-law's wife permitted, the daughter of his mother-in-law is a forbidden relative and yet is the wife of the son of his mother-in-law permitted, his step-daughter is a forbidden relative and yet is the wife of his step-son permitted, the daughter of his step-daughter is a forbidden relative and yet is the wife of the son of his step-son permitted'; what, then, does R. Judah b. Shila's [reported rule] include? Does it not then include the case of the wife of a mother's maternal brother, since 'wherever a female²²  as a forbidden relative²³  the wife of the male²⁴  is forbidden in the second degree as a preventive measure'!²⁵

What is the difference between those²⁶  and this?²⁷  — In this case²⁷  she becomes related to him by one act of betrothal;²⁸  in those cases²⁹  they do not become related to him until two acts of betrothal have taken place.³⁰

R. Mesharsheya of Tusaneya³¹  sent to R. Papi: Will our Master instruct us as to what is the law concerning the wife of the father's father's [paternal]³²  brother, and a father's father's sister?³³  Seeing that the degree below is incest,³⁴  has a preventive measure been issued in respect also of the degree above,³⁵  or perhaps [not]. since the relationship has branched off?³⁶  Come and hear: Who are the forbidden relatives of the second degree [etc.];³⁷  and these³⁵  were not enumerated among them!³⁸  — Some might have been mentioned and others omitted.³⁹  What other omissions were made such as to justify this omission also? — The forbidden relatives of the second degree, of the School of R. Hiyya,⁴⁰  were also omitted.

Amemar permitted the wife of one's father's father's brother and one's father's father's sister. Said R. Hillel to R. Ashi:⁴¹  'I saw the [list of] forbidden relatives of the second degree of Mar the son of Rabana⁴²  and sixteen were written down as forbidden cases. Would they not be the eight of the Baraitha,⁴³  the six of the School of R. Hiyya,⁴⁴  and these two,⁴⁵  in all sixteen? — But according to your view there should be seventeen, since there is also the case of the wife of a mother's maternal brother, who in accordance with our decision is forbidden!' — 'This is no difficulty.

1. Lev. XVIII, 15; why then did Rab include her among those of the second degree?
2. V. supra p. 125, n. 6.
3. Ker. 14b.
4. [H] lit., 'Chaldeans', known for their extensive practice of divination and soothsaying.
5. I.e., if 'teacher' implied a teacher of scholars at the academy.
6. R. Ammi's vague statement.
7. [Lit., 'House of Assembly', the synagogue to which was attached the school for children.]
8. In that family there were both a daughter-in-law of Bar Zithai's son and a daughter-in-law of his daughter, and permission to marry the latter might easily have led to the erroneous conclusion that the former also was permitted.
9. Cf. n. 7' mutatis mutandis.
10. Lit., 'side of father'.
11. As in the case of the wife of a mother's maternal brother, here under discussion.
12. The wife of a mother's paternal brother.
13. Lit., 'all of them'. v. Rashi, a.l.
14. Lit., 'all of them call her of the house of grandmother'. Hence the necessity for a preventive measure.
15. Cf. previous note mutatis mutandis. All of which shews that we do superimpose a Preventive measure upon a preventive measure.
16. With respect to the wife of a mother's maternal brother.
17. From Palestine to Babylon.
18. Palestine.
19. Lit., 'they said'.
20. In any degree of relationship.
21. In the same degree of relationship as the female.
22. In any degree of relationship.
23. Such as a mother's maternal sister.
24. In the same degree of relationship as the female.
25. Hence the wife of a mother's maternal brother must be forbidden as a relative in the second degree.
26. The cases pointed out by Raba.
27. The wife of a mother's maternal brother. v. n. 4.
28. The betrothal of the woman by his mother's maternal brother.
29. Pointed out by Raba.
30. In the case of the wife of his father-in-law, for instance, her relationship to him is dependent on (a) his betrothal of his own wife whereby her father becomes his father-in-law, and (b) the betrothal by his father-in-law of his wife; and similarly in all the other cases pointed out by Raba.
31. [Prob. for Astunia near Pumbeditha (Obermeyer p. 229. n' 1.); cf. Keth., Sonc. ed. p. 715, n. 4.
32. Cf. Rashi a.l.
33. Paternal or maternal.
34. The wife of a father's paternal brother, and a father's paternal or maternal sister.
35. The cases cited in the inquiry, which are a generation higher.
36. Lit., 'divided' or 'removed'.
37. Supra 21a.
38. Which seems to prove that these were not forbidden.
39. Lit., 'he taught and left over'; though the others might be equally forbidden.
40. Infra 22a.
41. Who held the same opinion as Amemar. V. Tosaf. a.l. s.v. [H].
42. Or Rabina.
43. Supra 21a.
44. Infra 22a.
45. Those of Amemar, agreed to by R. Ashi. V. supra p. 128. n. 20.