## Yevamot Daf 21b

###### Yevamot 21b:1
[Yevamot 21b:1](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Yevamot/r/21b:1)

דְּאוֹרָיְיתָא הִיא, דִּכְתִיב: ״עֶרְוַת כַּלָּתְךָ לֹא תְגַלֵּה״! אֵימָא כַּלַּת בְּנוֹ. וְכַלַּת בְּנוֹ יֵשׁ לָהּ הֶפְסֵק? וְהָא תַּנְיָא: כַּלָּתוֹ עֶרְוָה, כַּלַּת בְּנוֹ שְׁנִיָּה, וְכֵן אַתָּה אוֹמֵר בִּבְנוֹ וּבֶן בְּנוֹ עַד סוֹף כׇּל הַדּוֹרוֹת. אֶלָּא אֵימָא: כַּלַּת בִּתּוֹ.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara asks: Is this relationship not forbidden **by Torah law? As it is written: “You shall not uncover the nakedness of your daughter-in-law”** (Leviticus 18:15). The Gemara emends: **Say** instead **his son’s daughter-in-law.** The Gemara asks: **And does** the prohibition against having a relationship with **his son’s daughter-in-law indeed have a conclusion? Isn’t it taught** in a *baraita*: **His daughter-in-law is a forbidden relation** by Torah law, **his son’s daughter-in-law is a secondary** forbidden **relation, and similarly, you say** the daughter-in-law of **his son and** the daughter-in-law of **his son’s son until the end of all generations** are secondary forbidden relationships. **Rather, say** instead that Rav was referring to **his daughter’s daughter-in-law.**


###### Yevamot 21b:2
[Yevamot 21b:2](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Yevamot/r/21b:2)

דְּאָמַר רַב חִסְדָּא: הָא מִילְּתָא מִגַּבְרָא רַבָּה שְׁמִיעַ לִי, וּמַנּוּ — רַבִּי אַמֵּי: לֹא אָסְרוּ כַּלָּה אֶלָּא מִפְּנֵי כַּלָּה. וַאֲמַרוּ לִי כַּלְדָּאֵי: מַלְּפָנָא הָוֵית.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**As Rav Ḥisda said: I heard this matter from a great man, and who was that** great man? It was **Rabbi Ami,** and he said: **They prohibited a daughter-in-law only due to** the **daughter-in-law.** Rav Ḥisda heard this in his youth but did not understand the meaning. **The Chaldean** astrologers **said to me: You will be a teacher.**


###### Yevamot 21b:3
[Yevamot 21b:3](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Yevamot/r/21b:3)

אָמֵינָא: אִי גַּבְרָא רַבָּה הָוֵינָא — אֶסְבְּרַא מִדַּעְתַּי, אִי מַקְרֵי דַרְדְּקֵי הָוֵינָא — אֱשַׁיְּילַהּ מֵרַבָּנַן דְּאָתוּ לְבֵי כְנִישְׁתָּא. הַשְׁתָּא סְבַרְתַּהּ מִדַּעְתַּי: לֹא אָסְרוּ כַּלַּת בִּתּוֹ אֶלָּא מִשּׁוּם כַּלַּת בְּנוֹ.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
Rav Ḥisda further said: **I said** to myself: **If** the astrologers meant that **I will become a great man** and one who teaches the public, **I will** certainly be able to **reason** and understand this matter **with my knowledge. If** the astrologers meant that **I will become the teacher of children, I will ask it of the Sages who come to the synagogue** and in that way I will learn the meaning of Rabbi Ami’s teaching. **Now I understand** the matter **on my own.** Rabbi Ami meant: **They prohibited his daughter’s daughter-in-law only due to his son’s daughter-in-law,** to avoid confusion between these daughters-in-law. The rabbinic decree prohibited one’s daughter’s daughter-in-law but did not extend to subsequent generations.


###### Yevamot 21b:4
[Yevamot 21b:4](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Yevamot/r/21b:4)

אֲמַר לֵיהּ אַבָּיֵי לְרָבָא, אַסְבְּרַהּ לָךְ: כְּגוֹן כַּלָּתֵהּ דְּבֵי בַּר צֵיתַאי. רַב פָּפָּא אָמַר: כְּגוֹן כַּלָּתֵהּ דְּבֵי רַב פָּפָּא בַּר אַבָּא. רַב אָשֵׁי אָמַר: כְּגוֹן כַּלָּתֵהּ דְּבֵי מָרִי בַּר אִיסַק.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
Various Sages proceed to give contemporary examples of families where the halakhic status of the daughters-in-law of the sons and the daughters-in-law of the daughters could be confused with each other. **Abaye said to Rava: I will explain to you** with an example how one might become confused about these daughters-in-law. **For example,** this would be possible in the case of **the daughter-in-law of the house of bar Tzitai,** as there the children of the sons and the daughters of the same family lived together, and it was possible to confuse the halakhic status of the sons’ daughters-in-law and the daughters’ daughters-in-law. **Rav Pappa said: For example, the daughter-in-law of the house of Rav Pappa bar Abba. Rav Ashi said: For example, the daughter-in-law of the house of Mari bar Isak.**


###### Yevamot 21b:5
[Yevamot 21b:5](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Yevamot/r/21b:5)

אִיבַּעְיָא לְהוּ: אֵשֶׁת אֲחִי הָאֵם מִן הָאֵם, מַהוּ? אֵשֶׁת אֲחִי הָאָב מִן הָאֵם וְאֵשֶׁת אֲחִי הָאֵם מִן הָאָב, דְּאִיכָּא צַד אָב — הוּא דִּגְזַרוּ רַבָּנַן, אֲבָל הֵיכָא דְּלֵיכָּא צַד אָב — לָא גְּזַרוּ בְּהוּ רַבָּנַן, אוֹ דִלְמָא לָא שְׁנָא?

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
§ **A dilemma was raised before** the Sages: **What is** the *halakha* with regard to **the wife of** one’s **mother’s maternal** half **brother?** The Gemara presents the different sides of the question: Both **the wife of** one’s **father’s maternal** half **brother and the wife of** one’s **mother’s paternal** half **brother contain** some **aspect of a father, and** perhaps **this** is the reason that **the Sages enacted** a prohibition. That is, they were both forbidden rabbinically to avoid confusion with the case of the wife of one’s father’s paternal half brother, who is forbidden by Torah law. **But** in the case of the wife of one’s mother’s maternal half brother, **where there is no aspect of a father** whatsoever, perhaps **the Sages did not make a decree? Or perhaps** this case **is no different?**


###### Yevamot 21b:6
[Yevamot 21b:6](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Yevamot/r/21b:6)

אָמַר רַב סָפְרָא: הִיא גּוּפַהּ גְּזֵירָה, וַאֲנַן נֵיקוּם וְנִגְזוֹר גְּזֵירָה לִגְזֵירָה?! אָמַר רָבָא: אַטּוּ כּוּלְּהוּ לָאו גְּזֵירָה לִגְזֵירָה נִינְהוּ? אִמּוֹ — עֶרְוָה, אֵם אִמּוֹ — שְׁנִיָּה, וּגְזַרוּ עַל אֵם אָבִיו מִשּׁוּם אֵם אִמּוֹ. וְטַעְמָא מַאי — כּוּלְּהוּ ״דְּבֵי אִימָּא רַבָּתִי״ קָרוּ לַיהּ.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**Rav Safra said: She herself,** the wife of the mother’s paternal half brother, **is** forbidden **by rabbinic decree,** and **will we** then **proceed to issue a decree to** prevent violation of **a decree? Rava said: Is that to say that all of these** rabbinic decrees with regard to secondary relations **are not decrees** to prevent violation of **a decree?** For example, **his mother** is **a forbidden relation** by Torah law, and the Sages decreed that **his mother’s mother is a secondary** forbidden **relationship. And they decreed** that **his father’s mother** is also a secondary forbidden relationship **due to his mother’s mother. And what is the reason? They are all called the house of the grandmother,** and therefore people may confuse their halakhic status.


###### Yevamot 21b:7
[Yevamot 21b:7](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Yevamot/r/21b:7)

אֵשֶׁת אָבִיו — עֶרְוָה, אֵשֶׁת אֲבִי אָבִיו — שְׁנִיָּה, וּגְזַרוּ עַל אֵשֶׁת אֲבִי אִמּוֹ מִשּׁוּם אֵשֶׁת אֲבִי אָבִיו. וְטַעְמָא מַאי — כּוּלְּהוּ ״דְּבֵי אַבָּא רַבָּה״ קָרוּ לֵיהּ.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
Rava continues: Similarly, **his father’s wife is a forbidden relation** by Torah law, and the Sages decreed that **his father’s father’s wife is a secondary** forbidden **relationship. And they decreed** that **his mother’s father’s wife** is also a secondary forbidden relationship **due to his father’s father’s wife. And what is the reason? They are all called the house of the grandfather.**


###### Yevamot 21b:8
[Yevamot 21b:8](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Yevamot/r/21b:8)

אֵשֶׁת אֲחִי הָאָב מִן הָאָב — עֶרְוָה, אֵשֶׁת אֲחִי הָאָב מִן הָאֵם — שְׁנִיָּה, וְגָזְרוּ עַל אֵשֶׁת אֲחִי הָאֵם מִן הָאָב מִשּׁוּם אֵשֶׁת אֲחִי הָאָב מִן הָאֵם. וְטַעְמָא מַאי — מִשּׁוּם דְּכוּלְּהוּ ״דְּבֵי דוֹדֵי״ קָרֵי לְהוּ.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
Also, **the wife of his father’s paternal** half **brother,** his uncle, who is mentioned explicitly in the Torah (Leviticus 18:16), **is a forbidden relation** by Torah law, and the Sages decreed that **the wife of his father’s maternal** half **brother is a secondary** forbidden **relationship. And they decreed** that **the wife of his mother’s paternal** half **brother** is also a secondary forbidden relationship **due to the wife of his father’s maternal** half **brother. And what is the reason?** It is **because they are all called the house of the uncle;** it seems that in the realm of forbidden relations the Sages did issue decrees to prevent violation of a decree, and Rav Safra’s claim is incorrect.


###### Yevamot 21b:9
[Yevamot 21b:9](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Yevamot/r/21b:9)

מַאי? תָּא שְׁמַע, דְּכִי אֲתָא רַב יְהוּדָה בַּר שֵׁילָא, אֲמַר: אָמְרִי בְּמַעְרְבָא: כֹּל שֶׁבִּנְקֵבָה עֶרְוָה, בְּזָכָר גָּזְרוּ עַל אִשְׁתּוֹ מִשּׁוּם שְׁנִיָּה.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
If so, then **what is** the *halakha* in this case of the wife of his mother’s maternal half brother? **Come** and **hear: As when Rav Yehuda bar Sheila came** from Eretz Yisrael to Babylonia, **he said: In the West,** Eretz Yisrael, **they say** this principle: For **every female** relative who is **a forbidden relation** by Torah law, the Sages **decreed on the wife of** the equivalent **male** relative **due to** her similarity to **a secondary** forbidden **relationship.**


###### Yevamot 21b:10
[Yevamot 21b:10](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Yevamot/r/21b:10)

וְאָמַר רָבָא: וּכְלָלָא הוּא? חֲמוֹתוֹ עֶרְוָה, אֵשֶׁת חָמִיו מוּתֶּרֶת. בַּת חֲמוֹתוֹ עֶרְוָה, אֵשֶׁת בֶּן חֲמוֹתוֹ מוּתֶּרֶת. בַּת חָמִיו עֶרְוָה, אֵשֶׁת בֶּן חָמִיו מוּתֶּרֶת. חוֹרַגְתּוֹ עֶרְוָה, אֵשֶׁת חוֹרְגוֹ מוּתֶּרֶת. בַּת חוֹרַגְתּוֹ עֶרְוָה, אֵשֶׁת בֶּן חוֹרְגוֹ מוּתֶּרֶת!

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**And Rava said: Is** this really an established **principle?** Isn’t **his mother-in-law a forbidden relation** by Torah law, while **his father-in-law’s wife is permitted?** Also, **his mother-in-law’s daughter is a forbidden relation** by Torah law, as she is his wife’s sister, yet **his mother-in-law’s son’s wife is permitted. His father-in-law’s daughter is a forbidden relation** by Torah law, yet **the wife of his father-in-law’s son is permitted. His stepdaughter is a forbidden relation** by Torah law, yet **his stepson’s wife is permitted. His stepdaughter’s daughter,** i.e., his wife’s granddaughter, **is a forbidden relation,** yet **the wife of his stepson’s son is permitted.**


###### Yevamot 21b:11
[Yevamot 21b:11](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Yevamot/r/21b:11)

וְהָא דְּרַב יְהוּדָה בַּר שֵׁילָא לְאֵיתוֹיֵי מַאי? לָאו לְאֵיתוֹיֵי אֵשֶׁת אֲחִי הָאֵם מִן הָאֵם, דְּכֹל שֶׁבִּנְקֵבָה עֶרְוָה, בְּזָכָר גָּזְרוּ אִשְׁתּוֹ מִשּׁוּם שְׁנִיָּה?

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara continues: If so, **what did that** statement of **Rav Yehuda bar Sheila come to include?** Since his principle is not true in every case, it must be intended to include a specific *halakha*. **Does it not come to include** the case of **the wife of** one’s **mother’s maternal** half **brother, since** for **every female** relative **who is a forbidden relation** by Torah law, such as his mother’s maternal half sister, the Sages **decreed on the wife of** the equivalent **male** relative, in this case his mother’s maternal half brother’s wife, **due to** her similarity to **a secondary relation.**


###### Yevamot 21b:12
[Yevamot 21b:12](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Yevamot/r/21b:12)

מַאי שְׁנָא הָנֵי, וּמַאי שְׁנָא הָא? הָא — בְּחַד קִידּוּשִׁין מְקָרֵב לַהּ, הָנֵי — עַד דְּאִיכָּא תְּרֵי קִידּוּשִׁין לָא מְקָרֵב לְהוּ.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara asks: **What is different** with regard to **these** cases, the wife of his father-in-law or the wife of his mother-in-law’s son, who are permitted, **and this** case of the wife of a mother’s maternal half brother, who is prohibited? The Gemara answers: **This,** the wife of a mother’s maternal half brother, **is related by a single act of betrothal.** One’s mother’s brother is a blood relative, and his wife is therefore a secondary relation. In contrast, **these** other cases with regard to which the Sages did not issue a decree **are related** only **when there are two acts of betrothal.** For example, one’s father-in-law is related to one through one’s marriage to his own wife, and his father in law’s wife is related to him through his father-in-law’s marriage.


###### Yevamot 21b:13
[Yevamot 21b:13](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Yevamot/r/21b:13)

שְׁלַח לֵיהּ רַב מְשַׁרְשְׁיָא מִתּוֹסַנְיָיא לְרַב פַּפֵּי: יְלַמְּדֵנוּ רַבֵּינוּ, אֵשֶׁת אֲחִי אֲבִי הָאָב, וַאֲחוֹת אֲבִי הָאָב, מַהוּ? מִדִּלְמַטָּה עֶרְוָה — לְמַעְלָה נָמֵי גְּזַרוּ בֵּיהּ, אוֹ דִלְמָא, הָא אִיתְפְּלִיג דָּרָתָא.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
§ **Rav Mesharshiyya from Tusneya sent** a message **to Rav Pappi: Let our Master teach us: What is** the *halakha* with regard to **the wife of a father’s father’s brother and the sister of a father’s father?** Did the Sages prohibit these as secondary forbidden relations? The Gemara presents the different sides of the dilemma: Since one generation **below is a forbidden relation,** i.e., a father’s sister and the wife of a father’s paternal brother, who are both forbidden by Torah law, perhaps the Sages **also decreed** about the women one generation **above. Or, perhaps the generations are separate** and the women in the generation above are not considered to be forbidden relatives.


###### Yevamot 21b:14
[Yevamot 21b:14](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Yevamot/r/21b:14)

תָּא שְׁמַע ״מָה הֵן שְׁנִיּוֹת״, וְלָא קָחָשֵׁיב לְהוּ בַּהֲדַיְיהוּ!

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara attempts to answer: **Come** and **hear** from that *baraita* cited above, which taught: **What are** the **secondary** forbidden **relationships** that were prohibited? **And these** women, i.e., the wife of one’s father’s father’s brother and the sister of his father’s father **were not reckoned among them.** This implies that these women are permitted.


###### Yevamot 21b:15
[Yevamot 21b:15](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Yevamot/r/21b:15)

תְּנָא וְשַׁיַּיר. מַאי שַׁיֵּיר דְּהַאי שַׁיַּיר? שַׁיַּיר שְׁנִיּוֹת דְּבֵי רַבִּי חִיָּיא.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara replies that this is not conclusive. Perhaps the *tanna* of the *baraita* **taught** some examples **and omitted** other examples of secondary forbidden relations; i.e., perhaps the list is not exhaustive. The Gemara asks: **What** else **did he omit that he omitted this?** It cannot be that the *tanna* had an exhaustive list except for one case. He either left out more than one case or he included all possible cases. The Gemara answers: **He omitted** the list of **secondary** forbidden **relationships** that were enumerated by **the school of Rabbi Ḥiyya,** which is listed later. Therefore, this *baraita* is not conclusive, as the *tanna* left out many cases.


###### Yevamot 21b:16
[Yevamot 21b:16](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Yevamot/r/21b:16)

אַמֵּימָר אַכְשַׁר בְּאֵשֶׁת אֲחִי אֲבִי אָבִיו וּבַאֲחוֹת אֲבִי אָבִיו. אָמַר לֵיהּ רַב הִלֵּל לְרַב אָשֵׁי: לְדִידִי חַזְיָא לִי שְׁנִיּוֹת מָר בְּרֵיהּ דְּרַבְנָא, וּכְתִיבָן שִׁיתַּסְרֵי לְאִיסּוּרָא. מַאי לָאו: תַּמְנֵי דְּמַתְנִיתָא, וְשֵׁית דְּבֵי רַבִּי חִיָּיא, וְהָנָךְ תַּרְתֵּי — הָא שִׁיתַּסְרֵי.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara states that **Ameimar permitted the wife of one’s father’s father’s brother and the sister of one’s father’s father. Rav Hillel said to Rav Ashi,** challenging Ameimar’s statement: **I myself saw** a list of **secondary** forbidden **relationships** written by **Mar, son of Rabbana, and it was written** there that **sixteen** women **were forbidden. What, is it not** that these sixteen must be the **eight** cases listed **in the *baraita*, and six from the school of Rabbi Ḥiyya, and these two** cases of the wife of one’s father’s father’s brother and one’s father’s father’s sister, and **this** totals **sixteen?**


###### Yevamot 21b:17
[Yevamot 21b:17](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Yevamot/r/21b:17)

וּלְטַעְמָיךְ: שִׁיבְסְרֵי הָוְיָין, דְּהָא אִיכָּא אֵשֶׁת אֲחִי הָאֵם מִן הָאֵם, דְּפָשְׁטִינַן לְאִיסּוּרָא! הָא לָא קַשְׁיָא,

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
Rav Ashi defended Ameimar’s opinion: **And according to your reasoning,** Rav Hillel, that these cases should be included, **there are seventeen** cases, **as there is** the additional case of **the wife of a mother’s maternal** half **brother, whose** status **was resolved** earlier, concluding **that she is forbidden.** If it is as you say, then there should be seventeen cases. The Gemara answers on behalf of Rav Hillel: **This** is **not difficult.**