Babylonian Talmud: Tractate Yebamoth

Folio 55a

From this it clearly follows that a wife's sister, whether she is paternal or maternal, is forbidden.¹  Whence, however, is this derived? — Deduction is made from one's sister; as a sister [is forbidden] whether she is paternal or maternal, so here also²  whether she is paternal or maternal. But let the deduction³  be made from one's aunt; as one's aunt [is forbidden only when she is] paternal⁴  and not when maternal, so here³  also [the prohibition should apply when she is] paternal and not when maternal! — It stands to reason that the deduction should be made from one's sister, since [laws concerning] his own relatives⁵  [should be inferred] from [laws concerning others of] his own relatives.⁶  On the contrary! Deduction⁷  should have been made from one's aunt, since a relationship effected through betrothal⁸  [should be inferred] from one effected through betrothal!⁹  — The deduction⁷  is rather made from a brother's wife, since her relationship¹⁰  is through betrothal, and she is of his own relatives.

Whence, however, is [the law concerning] a brother's wife herself derived? — From what was taught: Thou shalt not uncover the nakedness of thy brother's wife,¹¹  whether he is paternal or maternal. You say, 'Whether he is paternal or maternal', perhaps it is not so, but only when paternal and not when maternal? This is a matter of logical argument: He is subject to a penalty here¹²  and he is also subject to penalty [for intercourse] with his sister; as [the prohibition of] his sister applies whether she is paternal or maternal, so here also¹²  [the prohibition applies] whether he¹³  was paternal or maternal. But might it not be argued¹⁴  thus: He is subject to a penalty here¹²  and he is also subject to penalty [for intercourse] with his aunt. As therefore [the prohibition of] his aunt applies only when she is paternal¹⁵  and not when only maternal, so here¹²  also [the prohibition applies only when he¹³  is] paternal and not when only maternal! Let us observe whom the case¹⁶  more closely resembles. Deduction concerning one's own relatives should be made from one's own relatives, and let no proof be adduced from one's aunt whose relationship is due to his father. But might it not be argued as follows:¹⁴  Deduction should be made concerning a relationship which is due to betrothal¹⁶  from a relationship that is due to betrothal,¹⁷  but let no proof be adduced from a sister the prohibition of whom is natural!¹⁸  — For this reason¹⁹  it was specifically stated in Scriptures, It is thy brother's nakedness,²⁰  implying²¹  whether he is paternal or only maternal.

Might it not be suggested that the one as well as the other²²  speaks of the wife of a paternal brother, the one referring to a brother's wife who had children during the lifetime of her husband,²³  while the other refers to a brother's wife who had no children during the lifetime of her husband! — The case of one who had no children during the lifetime of her husband may be deduced from the statement of R. Huna.²⁴

Might not both²⁵  still speak of the wife of a paternal brother, the one referring to a brother's wife who had children during the lifetime of her husband and the other to one who had children after the death of her husband! — The case of one who had children after the death of her husband requires no Scriptural text; for since the All Merciful said that she who had no children was permitted, it is obvious that if she had children she is forbidden.

Is it not possible that she who has no children is forbidden to all men but permitted to the levir while she who has children is permitted both to all men and to the levir! Or else: If she has no children it is a commandment²⁶  but if she has children it is optional! Or else: [Though indeed] the levir may marry her if²⁷  she has no children but he may not if she has children, yet [as the prohibition²⁸  is] a negative commandment that is derived from a positive one²⁹  it has only the force of a positive commandment!³⁰  — For this reason Scripture wrote another text,³¹  He hath uncovered his brother's nakedness.³²  But might it be said that the wife of a maternal brother is like the wife of a paternal brother, and that as the wife of a paternal brother is permitted³³  after the death of her husband, so is also the wife of a maternal brother³⁴  permitted after the death of her husband! — Scripture said, She is,³⁵  she retains her status.³⁶

What need was there to specify the penalty of kareth for intercourse with one's sister?³⁷  — To infer a ruling like that of R. Johanan. For R. Johanan stated: If one committed all these offences³⁸  in one state of unawareness, he is liable for every one of them.³⁹  According to R. Isaac, however, who stated, 'All those who are subject to the penalty of kareth were included in the general rule; and why was the penalty of kareth for [intercourse with] a sister stated separately? In order to indicate that his⁴⁰  penalty is kareth and not flogging',⁴¹  whence is the division⁴²  deduced? — It is deduced from, And unto a woman … as long as she is impure by her uncleanness,⁴³  that guilt is incurred for every single woman.⁴⁴

For what purpose did the All Merciful write, They shall be child less⁴⁵  in the case of one's aunt?⁴⁶  — It is required for an exposition like that of Rabbah. For Rabbah pointed out the following contradiction: It is written, They shall be childless,⁴⁵  and it is also written, They shall die childless!⁴⁷  How [are these two versions to be reconciled]? If he has children he will bury them; if he has no children, he will be childless.⁴⁸

And it was necessary to write They shall be childless,⁴⁵  and it was also necessary to write, They shall die childless.⁴⁷  For had the All Merciful written only, They shall be childless,⁴⁵  it might have been assumed to refer to children born before the offence⁴⁹  but not to those born subsequent to the offence,⁵⁰  hence the All Merciful wrote, They shall die childless.⁴⁷  And had the All Merciful written, They shall die childless,⁴⁷  it might have been assumed to refer to those born subsequent to the offence,⁵¹  but not to those who were born previously,⁵⁰  [hence both texts were] required.

Whence [is the prohibition of] the first stage among those who are subject to the penalty of negative commandments⁵²  to be inferred? — As the All Merciful specified carnally⁵³  in the case of a designated⁵⁴  bondmaid,⁵⁵  it may be inferred that among all the others who are subject to the penalty of negative commandments,⁵⁶  the first stage by itself constitutes the offence.⁵⁷  On the contrary! As the All Merciful specified the first stage in the case of those who are subject to the penalty of kareth,⁵⁸  it may be inferred that among those who are subject to the penalty of negative commandments consummation only constitutes the offence! — R. Ashi replied: If so,⁵⁹  Scripture should have omitted [the reference]⁶⁰  in the case of the designated handmaid.⁶¹

Whence [is the prohibition of] the first stage inferred in the case of offences for which priests alone are subject to the penalty of negative commandments?⁶²  — This is arrived at by an analogy between the expressions of 'taking'.⁶³

Whence [is the prohibition⁶⁴  in respect of] those who are subject⁶⁵  to the penalty of a positive commandment⁶⁶  inferred?

1. Since the third, the maternal sister of the second, is permitted only on account of the illegality of the marriage of the second, but is forbidden where the marriage with the second is legal.
2. A wife's sister is forbidden.
3. In respect of a wife's sister.
4. When her husband is his father's paternal brother.
5. A wife's sister whose relationship to him is due to his own (and not his father's) act of marriage with her sister.
6. His sister. An aunt's relationship, however, is due not to his own, but his father's relationship with her husband. V. supra.
7. In respect of a wife's sister.
8. A man's wife's sister is related to him through betrothal of her sister (his wife).
9. The aunt whose relationship to him is due to her betrothal by his uncle.
10. Like that of his wife's sister.
11. Lev. XVIII, 16.
12. For intercourse with a brother's wife.
13. The brother.
14. V. supra p. 363, n. 11.
15. When her husband is his father's paternal brother.
16. A brother's wife.
17. V. supra note 5.
18. It is due to vicissitudes of birth and not to any act of his.
19. To exclude this argument.
20. Lev. XVIII, 16b.
21. Since, in view of Lev. XVIII, 16a, it is superfluous.
22. The two sections of the verse cited.
23. Who divorced her.
24. Supra 54b; and no special text is needed for the purpose.
25. The two sections of the verse cited.
26. That the levir marries her.
27. Lit.,'yes'.
28. Not to marry a wife of a deceased brother if she has children.
29. Her husband's brother shall go in unto her if she has no children.
30. The penalty for the transgression of which is not that of kareth!
31. Which, in view of the texts from Lev. XVIII, 16a and b, is superfluous.
32. Lev. XX, 21, to indicate that the prohibition is to apply to all cases whether that of a paternal or only that of a maternal brother.
33. To marry the levir if her husband died without issue.
34. Who died childless.
35. E.V. 'it is'. Lev. XVIII, 16, which speaks also, as deduced supra, of the wife of a maternal brother.
36. As she was forbidden to the levir during the lifetime of her husband she remains so after his death.
37. Her case, surely, is included in Lev. XVIII, 29, among all the others with whom intercourse is forbidden under the penalty of kareth!
38. Of forbidden intercourse.
39. Mak. 14a, Ker. 2b. Because the penalty of kareth was specifically mentioned in the case of intercourse with a sister who is taken as an example for all the others included in the general statement in Lev. XVIII, 29. This is in accordance with the principle that if any case is included in a general rule and is then made the subject of a special statement, that which is predicated of it is to be applied to the whole of the general rule. Had not the sister been mentioned separately it might have been assumed that as all the offences were included in the general prohibition, and as they were all committed in one state of unawareness, one liability only is incurred for all.
40. The brother's.
41. Even though he had been duly warned.
42. That liability is incurred for every single offence even though all were committed in one state of unawareness.
43. Lev. XVIII. 19, emphasis on woman. Since, instead of the longer expression 'A woman … as long as she is impure by her uncleanness', the shorter one, 'a menstruant could have been used.
44. With whom intercourse took place; v. Mak. Sonc. ed. pp. 97ff.
45. Lev. XX, 21.
46. By childless [H] the penalty of kareth is understood: Not only the offender but his children also are thereby cut off.
47. Ibid. 20.
48. V. infra nn. 5ff.
49. The expression shall be childless would have been taken to imply that the children born prior to the offence would die as a result of the offence. The parents, however, would not die childless because the children born after the offence would live.
50. Who would live. V. supra note 5.
51. Shall die childless, being preceded by They shall bear their sin (Lev. XX, 20), implying that the penalty would affect only those children who were born after the sin had been committed.
52. I.e., to flogging but not to kareth.
53. Lev. XIX, 20, implying the second stage of consummation.
54. [H] This form of the kinyan by a Jewish slave of a Canaanitish bondwoman takes the place of the ordinary betrothal of a free woman.
55. Intercourse with whom is forbidden by a negative commandment and is consequently subject to the penalty of flogging, in addition to the prescribed guilt-offering (v. Lev. XIX, 21f).
56. Such as a bastard and an undesignated bondmaid.
57. As only the designated bondmaid must pass the second stage in order to constitute an offence for which liability to a guilt-offering is incurred, it follows that in all the other cases, where no guilt-offering is ever incurred, the offence is constituted with the first stage alone.
58. In Lev. XVIII, 29.
59. That with all the others who are subject to the penalty of negative commandments the offence is not constituted unless, as with the designated bondmaid, the second stage was passed.
60. 'Carnally'. Lit., 'let the text keep silence.'
61. Since, however, the second stage was specifically postulated in her case, it follows that with all the others the first stage by itself constitutes the offence.
62. From the designated maid supra only such prohibitions may he inferred as are applicable to all and not to priests only.
63. The expression of 'taking' is used in the case of intercourse with a sister (Lev. XX, 17) which is punishable by kareth, and a similar expression is used in the case of marriages forbidden to priests under the penalty of a negative commandment (Lev. XXI, 7).
64. Of the first stage.
65. For intercourse with an Israelite's daughter.
66. An Egyptian or an Edomite, for instance, (v. Deut. XXIII, 8, 9) whose prohibition to marry an Israelite's daughter is based on the positive precept, The third generation … shall (E.V. may) enter into the assembly of the Lord, which implies that the first and second generations must not. A negative precept derived from a positive one has the force of a positive precept.

— It is arrived at by an analogy between the two expressions of 'coming'.¹

Whence [the prohibition of a yebamah]²  to a stranger?³  — If [one follows] him who holds that it⁴  is a negative precept,⁵  [it

Whence [its⁹  force¹²  in respect of the kinyan], between husband and wife? — It is arrived at by comparison between the expressions of 'taking'.¹³

Raba said: For what purpose did the All Merciful write 'carnally' in connection with the designated bondmaid,¹⁴  a married woman,¹⁵  and a sotah?¹⁶  That in connection with the designated bondmaid [is required] as has just been explained.¹⁷  That in connection with a married woman excludes intercourse with a relaxed membrum.¹⁸  This is a satisfactory interpretation in accordance with the view of him who maintains that if one cohabited with forbidden relatives with relaxed membrum he is exonerated;¹⁹  what, however, can be said, according to him who maintains [that for such an act one is] guilty? — The exclusion is rather that of intercourse with a dead woman.²⁰  Since it might have been assumed that, as [a wife], even after her death, is described as his kin,²¹  one should be guilty for [intercourse with] her [as for that] with a married woman, hence we were taught [that one is exonerated]. What was the object of that²²  of the sotah? — Such as was taught: Carnally²²  excludes [the case where the husband's warning was] concerning something else. What is meant by 'something else'? R. Shesheth replied: The exclusion is the case where he warned her concerning unnatural intercourse. Said Raba to him: The text reads, As with womankind!²³  — Rather, said Raba, the exclusion is the case where the husband's warning concerned lecherous contact of her limbs. Said Abaye to him: Has the All Merciful forbidden [a wife to her husband] because of obscenity?²⁴  — Rather, said Abaye, the exclusion is the case where the husband's warning was concerning superficial contact.²⁵  This is a satisfactory explanation according to him who maintains that the first stage of contact²⁶  is the insertion of the corona;²⁷  what can be said, however, according to him who maintains that it²⁸  is the superficial contact!²⁹  — The exclusion is rather the case where he warned her concerning lecherous contact of her limbs; but³⁰  it was necessary [to state it, because] it might have been assumed that, as the All Merciful has made the prohibition³¹  dependent on the objection of the husband,³²  [the woman should here be forbidden] since he objected,³³  hence we were taught [that such a case is excluded].

Samuel stated: The first stage is constituted by superficial contact.²⁵  This may be compared to a man who puts his finger to his mouth; it is impossible for him not to press down the flesh. When Rabbah b. Bar Hana came³⁴  he stated in the name of R. Johanan: Consummation in the case of a designated bondmaid is constituted by the insertion of the corona.

R. Shesheth raised an objection: 'Carnally³⁵  implies that guilt is incurred only when intercourse was accompanied by friction';³⁶  does not this refer to friction of the membrum! — No; friction of the corona.

When R. Dimi came³⁴  he stated in the name of R. Johanan: The first stage is constituted by the insertion of the corona. They said to him: But, surely, Rabbah b. Bar Hana did not say so! — He replied: Then either he is the story-teller³⁷  or I.³⁸

When Rabin came³⁴  he stated in the name of R. Johanan, 'The first stage is constituted by the insertion of the corona'. He is certainly in disagreement with the report of Rabbah b. Bar Hana.³⁹  Must it be said, however, that he differs also from Samuel?⁴⁰  — No; [the entire process] from the superficial contact until the insertion of the corona is described as the first stage.⁴¹

When R. Samuel b. Judah came³⁴  he stated in the name of R. Johanan, 'The first stage is constituted by the insertion of the corona; and the final stage, by actual consummation.

1. The expression of 'coming' is used with a case that is forbidden by a negative precept (Deut. XXIII, 3) as well as with those whose prohibition is derived from a positive precept (ibid. 9) and whose penalty is kareth. Cf. note 9 supra.
2. Prior to halizah.
3. Lit., 'to the street'.
4. The marriage with a stranger before halizah had been performed.
5. Derived from Deut. XXV, 5, Shall not be married abroad.
6. And, as has been shewn supra, the first stage is included in the restrictions.
7. The marriage with a stranger before halizah had been performed.
8. From Deut. XXV, 5, it follows that the levir shall marry her (positive); hence no other (negative); and a negative precept derived from a positive one has the force of the positive.
9. Of the first stage.
10. To constitute levirate marriage as if actual cohabitation had taken place.
11. Cf. supra p. 370, n. 10. The expression of 'coming' is also used in respect of the levir (v. Deut. XXV, 5).
12. Cf. supra note 5.
13. Used in the case of husband and wife (Deut. XXIV, 1) as well as in that of those whose penalty is kareth. Cf. supra p. 370, n. 10.
14. Lev. XIX, 20.
15. Ibid. XVIII, 20.
16. Num. V, 13.
17. Supra 55a.
18. Since no fertilisation can possibly result.
19. Shebu. 18a, Sanh. 55a.
20. Even though she died as a married woman.
21. In Lev. XXI, 2, where the text enumerates the dead relatives for whom a priest may defile himself. As was explained, supra 22b, his kin refers to one's wife.
22. The expression 'carnally' in Num. V, 13.
23. Lev. XVIII, 22, in which natural and unnatural intercourse are regarded as analogous (v. Sanh. 54a). What matters it then for which she was warned!
24. Surely not. For mere laxity, in the absence of adultery, a wife would not have been subjected to such a severe penalty. What need then was there to state the obvious?
25. Lit., 'kissing'.
26. Which is forbidden.
27. Infra. As this stage only constitutes cohabitation and causes the prohibition of the woman to her husband, it is possible to exclude from such prohibition the earlier stage of superficial contact.
28. The 'first stage' that is forbidden.
29. How can this be excluded from the prohibition in view of the ruling that the first stage does constitute cohabitation!
30. Despite Abaye's objection (v. supra note 3).
31. Of a sotah to her husband.
32. The laws of the sotah apply only where such an objection or warning has been expressed.
33. By his warning.
34. From Palestine to Babylon.
35. Lev. XIX, 20, dealing with a designated bondmaid.
36. [H] 'friction', Syr.-Aram. rt. [H] So Golds. against Levy's (III, p. 260) Ergiessung which he regards as an error based on a misunderstanding of Rashi.
37. Lit., 'liar'. Rabbah h. Bar Hana was a well known teller of hair-raising stories (Cf. B.B. 73aff). and sometimes made self-contradictory statements on questions of halachah also (cf. Hul. 97a, Kid. 75b).
38. Lit., 'I lied', i.e., they had his word against Rabbah b. Bar Hana's, and it was for them to decide the report of which of them was the more reliable.
39. Who regards this act as consummation.
40. Who reported that superficial contact alone constitutes the first stage.
41. On this both Samuel and Rabin agree; the one mentioning the beginning of the process and the other the conclusion.