## Yevamot Daf 22a

###### Yevamot 22a:1
[Yevamot 22a:1](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Yevamot/r/22a:1)

הָנָךְ תַּרְתֵּי דְּדָמְיָין לַהֲדָדֵי כַּחֲדָא חָשֵׁיב לְהוּ, וְהָא שִׁיתַּסְרֵי. וְהָא מִכׇּל מָקוֹם לְדִידִי חַזְיָין לַן דִּכְתִיבָן לְאִיסּוּרָא! אֲמַר לֵיהּ: וְלִיטַעְמָיךְ, אִי הֲוָה כְּתִיב לְהֶיתֵּירָא, מִי הֲוֵות סָמְכַתְּ עֲלַיְיהוּ? דְּמָר בְּרֵיהּ דְּרַבְנָא מִי חֲתִים עֲלַיְיהוּ? הַשְׁתָּא נָמֵי דִּכְתִיב לְאִיסּוּרָא — לָאו מָר בְּרֵיהּ דְּרַבְנָא חֲתִים עֲלַיְיהוּ.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**Those two,** the wife of a father’s father’s brother and the sister of a father’s father, **are similar to each other** and **are counted as a single** case, **and** so **there are sixteen.** The Gemara restates Rav Hillel’s challenge to Ameimar’s opinion: **But in any case I myself saw them written as prohibited.** Rav Ashi **said to** Rav Hillel: **And according to your reasoning, if** in the list **it was written that they were permitted, would you have relied on that?** Is the signature of **Mar, son of Rabbana, signed on it?** Although you saw the list, you don’t know for certain who wrote it. **Now too, that it is written that they are prohibited,** the same holds true; the signature of **Mar, son of Rabbana, is not signed on it,** and so it cannot be relied upon to reject the opinion of Ameimar.


###### Yevamot 22a:2
[Yevamot 22a:2](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Yevamot/r/22a:2)

תָּנֵי דְּבֵי רַבִּי חִיָּיא: שְׁלִישִׁי שֶׁבִּבְנוֹ וְשֶׁבְּבִתּוֹ וְשֶׁבְּבֶן אִשְׁתּוֹ וְשֶׁבְּבַת אִשְׁתּוֹ — שְׁנִיָּה. רְבִיעִי שֶׁבְּחָמִיו וְשֶׁבַּחֲמוֹתוֹ — שְׁנִיָּה.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
§ One of the Sages **of the school of Rabbi Ḥiyya taught: The third** generation **from one’s son and one’s daughter,** i.e., one’s great-grandchildren, **and** the third generation **from his wife’s son and his wife’s daughter,** i.e., one’s wife’s great-grandchildren, are all forbidden as **secondary** forbidden **relationships.** So too, **the fourth** generation **from his father-in-law and from his mother-in-law,** i.e., his wife’s great-grandmothers, are prohibited as **secondary** forbidden **relationships.**


###### Yevamot 22a:3
[Yevamot 22a:3](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Yevamot/r/22a:3)

אֲמַר לֵיהּ רָבִינָא לְרַב אָשֵׁי: מַאי שְׁנָא לְמַעְלָה דְּקָחָשֵׁיב לָהּ לְאִשְׁתּוֹ, וּמַאי שְׁנָא לְמַטָּה דְּלָא קָחָשֵׁיב לָהּ לְאִשְׁתּוֹ? לְמַעְלָה, דְאִיסּוּרָא מִכֹּחַ אִשְׁתּוֹ קָא אָתֵי — חָשֵׁיב לַהּ, לְמַטָּה, דְאִיסּוּרָא לָאו מִכֹּחַ אִשְׁתּוֹ קָאָתֵי — לָא קָחָשֵׁיב לַהּ.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**Ravina said to Rav Ashi: What is different between** the generations **above,** referring to his wife’s great-grandmothers, such **that** the Sage **counts his wife** as one of the generations and refers to them as the fourth generation, **and what is different** with regard to the generations **below,** referring to his great-granddaughters, such **that he did not count his wife** and referred to them as only the third generation? The Gemara answers: When counting **above, the prohibition stems from his wife,** as they are not his blood relatives but his wife’s. Therefore, **she is counted.** When counting **below,** however, **the prohibition does not stem from his wife,** as they are his own blood relatives, **and so she was not counted.**


###### Yevamot 22a:4
[Yevamot 22a:4](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Yevamot/r/22a:4)

וְהָא בֶּן אִשְׁתּוֹ וּבַת אִשְׁתּוֹ, דְּאִיסּוּרָא מִכֹּחַ אִשְׁתּוֹ קָאָתֵי, וְלָא חָשֵׁיב לַהּ! אַיְּידֵי דִּתְנָא שְׁלֹשָׁה דּוֹרוֹת לְמַטָּה דִּידֵיהּ וְלָא חַשְּׁבַהּ, תְּנָא נָמֵי שְׁלֹשָׁה דּוֹרוֹת לְמַטָּה דִּידַהּ וְלָא חַשְּׁבַהּ.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara objects: **But** he includes the granddaughter of **his wife’s son and his wife’s daughter** in his list of those **forbidden due to his wife, yet he does not count her** and refer to this as the fourth generation. The Gemara answers: **Since he** already **taught three generations below himself,** i.e., his own great-granddaughter, **and** there **he did not count** from his wife because it is his own blood relative, **he taught three generations below** his wife **and did not count her.** Instead, he referred to her great-granddaughter also as three generations below to maintain the uniform style of his words.


###### Yevamot 22a:5
[Yevamot 22a:5](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Yevamot/r/22a:5)

אֲמַר לֵיהּ רַב אָשֵׁי לְרַב כָּהֲנָא: שְׁנִיּוֹת דְּבֵי רַבִּי חִיָּיא, יֵשׁ לָהֶן הֶפְסֵק אוֹ אֵין לָהֶם הֶפְסֵק?

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**Rav Ashi said to Rav Kahana:** Do those **secondary** forbidden **relationships** taught by one of the Sages **of the school of Rabbi Ḥiyya have a conclusion, or do they not have a conclusion?** Are those specified cases alone forbidden, or are all generations above and below also forbidden?


###### Yevamot 22a:6
[Yevamot 22a:6](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Yevamot/r/22a:6)

תָּא שְׁמַע, דְּאָמַר רַב: אַרְבַּע נָשִׁים יֵשׁ לָהֶם הֶפְסֵק, וְתוּ לָא. דִּלְמָא כִּי קָאָמַר רַב — לְהַהִיא מַתְנִיתָא. תָּא שְׁמַע: שְׁלִישִׁי וּרְבִיעִי. שְׁלִישִׁי וּרְבִיעִי — אִין, טְפֵי — לָא! דִּלְמָא מִשְּׁלִישִׁי וְאֵילָךְ, מֵרְבִיעִי וְאֵילָךְ.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**Come** and **hear** that **which Rav said: Four women have a conclusion.** This implies that it is only these four **and no more.** The Gemara rejects this: **Perhaps when Rav said this he was referring** only **to** the relationships listed in **the *baraita*** and not to all cases of secondary relationships. The Gemara suggests: **Come** and **hear** from the *baraita* itself, which states: **The third** generation from his son and his daughter **and the fourth** generation from his father-in-law and mother-in-law. This implies that with regard to **the third and the fourth** generations, **yes,** they are forbidden; but **more** than that, **no.** The Gemara rejects this: **Perhaps** this means **from the third onward and from the fourth onward.** The Gemara does not resolve this issue.


###### Yevamot 22a:7
[Yevamot 22a:7](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Yevamot/r/22a:7)

אֲמַר לֵיהּ רָבָא לְרַב נַחְמָן: חֲזִי מָר הַאי מֵרַבָּנַן דַּאֲתָא מִמַּעְרְבָא וְאָמַר, בְּעוֹ בְּמַעְרְבָא: גָּזְרוּ שְׁנִיּוֹת בְּגֵרִים, אוֹ לֹא גָּזְרוּ שְׁנִיּוֹת בְּגֵרִים?

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
§ **Rava said to Rav Naḥman: Did the Master see this one of the Sages who came from the West,** Eretz Yisrael, **who said: In the West they asked** whether the Sages **issued a decree** prohibiting **secondary** forbidden **relationships for converts, or** whether **they did not issue a decree** prohibiting **secondary** forbidden **relationships for converts?**


###### Yevamot 22a:8
[Yevamot 22a:8](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Yevamot/r/22a:8)

אֲמַר לֵיהּ: הַשְׁתָּא וּמָה עֶרְוָה גּוּפַהּ, אִי לָאו ״שֶׁלֹּא יֹאמְרוּ בָּאִין מִקְּדוּשָּׁה חֲמוּרָה לִקְדוּשָּׁה קַלָּה״, לָא גְּזַרוּ בְּהוּ רַבָּנַן — שְׁנִיּוֹת מִיבַּעְיָא?!

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
Rav Naḥman did not answer whether he had seen this Sage, but **said to him: Now, with regard to** all the **forbidden relationships themselves, were it not** for the fact that if converts would find that as Jews they were permitted to enter into relationships that were forbidden to them as gentiles and **would say** that they went from **a state of more stringent sanctity** as gentiles **to a state of lesser sanctity** as Jews, **then the Sages would not have decreed** to prohibit these relationships. Without the rabbinic decree it would have been permitted for a convert to marry even a close female relative, even his twin sister, who also converted. This is because a convert has the legal status of a newborn, with no family ties. **Is it necessary** to state that the Sages did not extend that decree to include **secondary** forbidden **relationships?** The purpose of the rabbinic prohibitions is to protect the Torah prohibitions, but in the case of converts this particular Torah prohibition does not apply.


###### Yevamot 22a:9
[Yevamot 22a:9](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Yevamot/r/22a:9)

אָמַר רַב נַחְמָן: גֵּרִים, הוֹאִיל וַאֲתוֹ לְיָדָן, נֵימָא בְּהוּ מִלְּתָא: אַחִין מִן הָאֵם — לֹא יָעִידוּ, וְאִם הֵעִידוּ עֵדוּתָן עֵדוּת. אַחִין מִן הָאָב — מְעִידִין לְכַתְּחִלָּה. אַמֵּימָר אָמַר: אֲפִילּוּ אַחִין מִן הָאֵם נָמֵי מְעִידִין לְכַתְּחִלָּה.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**Rav Naḥman said: Since** the issue of **converts** and their relatives **has come to hand** and is the topic of discussion, **let us say a matter** of *halakha*: **Maternal** half **brothers** who both convert **may not testify** together as a pair of witnesses before the court, **but if they did testify, their testimony is valid.** Although blood relatives are invalid as witnesses, converts are considered as though they have no relations. **Paternal** half **brothers** who both convert **may testify** together ***ab initio*,** since the *halakha* does not consider paternal half brothers of gentiles to be true relatives. **Ameimar said: Even maternal** half **brothers may also testify** together ***ab initio*.**


###### Yevamot 22a:10
[Yevamot 22a:10](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Yevamot/r/22a:10)

וּמַאי שְׁנָא מֵעֲרָיוֹת? עֶרְוָה — לַכֹּל מְסוּרָה, עֵדוּת — לְבֵית דִּין מְסוּרָה, וְגֵר שֶׁנִּתְגַּיֵּיר כְּקָטָן שֶׁנּוֹלַד דָּמֵי.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
In **what** way **is** this case **different from forbidden relations,** where a convert may not marry his maternal sister due to rabbinic decree? The *halakhot* of **forbidden relations are handed over to all,** and every individual chooses his own wife. Therefore, the Sages issued a decree to prevent confusion between the status of a convert and that of a born Jew. However, **testimony is handed over to the court,** and the court knows to distinguish between the status of a born Jew and that of a convert. **And** the legal status of **a convert who** just **converted** is **like** that of **a child** just **born,** and all previous family ties become irrelevant.


###### Yevamot 22a:11
[Yevamot 22a:11](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Yevamot/r/22a:11)

**מַתְנִי׳** מִי שֶׁיֵּשׁ לוֹ אָח מִכׇּל מָקוֹם — זוֹקֵק אֶת אֵשֶׁת אָחִיו לְיִבּוּם, וְאָחִיו הוּא לְכׇל דָּבָר, חוּץ מִמִּי שֶׁיֵּשׁ לוֹ אָח מִן הַשִּׁפְחָה וּמִן הַגּוֹיָה. מִי שֶׁיֵּשׁ לוֹ בֵּן מִכׇּל מָקוֹם — פּוֹטֵר אֵשֶׁת אָבִיו מִן הַיִּבּוּם, וְחַיָּיב עַל מַכָּתוֹ וְעַל קִלְלָתוֹ, וּבְנוֹ לְכׇל דָּבָר, חוּץ מִמִּי שֶׁיֵּשׁ לוֹ בֵּן מִן הַשִּׁפְחָה וּמִן הַגּוֹיָה.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**MISHNA:** In the case of **anyone who has a brother of any kind,** that brother **creates a levirate bond** causing his ***yevama* to** be required to **perform levirate marriage** if the first brother dies childless. **And he is his brother in all respects, except for one who has a brother** born **from** a Canaanite **maidservant or from a gentile woman,** as these do not have the legal status of brothers. Similarly, in the case of **anyone who has a child of any kind,** that child **exempts his father’s wife from levirate marriage,** since his father did not die childless. **And** that child **is liable** to receive capital punishment **if he strikes** his father **or curses him. And he is his child in all respects, except for whoever has a child** born **from** a Canaanite **maidservant or from a gentile woman,** as these do not have the halakhic status of children.


###### Yevamot 22a:12
[Yevamot 22a:12](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Yevamot/r/22a:12)

**גְּמָ׳** מִכׇּל מָקוֹם לְאֵתוֹיֵי מַאי? אָמַר רַב יְהוּדָה: לְאֵתוֹיֵי מַמְזֵר. פְּשִׁיטָא, אָחִיו הוּא! מַהוּ דְּתֵימָא, לֵילַף אַחְוָה אַחְוָה מִבְּנֵי יַעֲקֹב: מָה לְהַלָּן — כְּשֵׁרִין וְלֹא פְּסוּלִין, אַף כָּאן — כְּשֵׁרִין וְלֹא פְּסוּלִין, קָא מַשְׁמַע לַן.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**GEMARA:** The Gemara asks: With regard to the statement that a brother **of any kind** causes his *yevama* to be required to perform levirate marriage, **what** additional case does this come **to add? Rav Yehuda said: This adds** the case of **a *mamzer*,** who, notwithstanding his status, is considered a brother. The Gemara wonders: But **isn’t** that **obvious? He is his brother.** The Gemara explains: This is necessary **lest you say: Let us derive** a verbal analogy between the word **“brother”** stated in the verse with regard to levirate marriage and **“brother”** stated with regard to **the children of Jacob. Just as there,** Jacob’s children **are** of **unflawed** lineage **and not** of **flawed** lineage and are not *mamzerim*, **so too here,** one might think that only brothers of **unflawed** lineage **and not** brothers of **flawed** lineage, i.e., *mamzerim*, obligate the *yevama* in levirate marriage. Therefore, **this teaches us** that a *mamzer* is considered a brother for the purposes of levirate marriage.


###### Yevamot 22a:13
[Yevamot 22a:13](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Yevamot/r/22a:13)

וְאֵימָא הָכִי נָמֵי? כֵּיוָן דִּלְעִנְיַן יִבּוּם מִיפְטַר נִפְטָר,

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara asks: **And say that** is **indeed** the *halakha*. Perhaps a brother who is a *mamzer* does not obligate his *yevama* in levirate marriage. The Gemara answers: **Since with regard to levirate marriage,** if the husband had a child who was a *mamzer* he would **exempt** the wife from levirate marriage,