## Yevamot Daf 3a

###### Yevamot 3a:1
[Yevamot 3a:1](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Yevamot/r/3a:1)

כּוּלְּהוּ נָמֵי מִדְּרָשָׁא אָתוּ! נְהִי דִּלְעִנְיַן יִיבּוּם אָתְיָין מִדְּרָשָׁא — עִיקָּר אִיסּוּרַיְיהוּ בְּהֶדְיָא כְּתִיב בְּהוּ. בִּתּוֹ, עִיקָּר אִיסּוּרָא מִדְּרָשָׁא.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara challenges this conclusion: **All** of the exemptions from levirate marriage for forbidden relatives listed in the mishna **are also derived from a homiletical interpretation.** The Gemara responds: **Although the matter of levirate marriage is derived from a homiletical interpretation, the main** aspect **of their prohibition is explicitly written.** By contrast, with regard to **his daughter** from a woman he raped but did not marry, **the main** aspect **of** this **prohibition is** derived **by homiletical interpretation,** as the prohibition itself is not written explicitly in the Torah.


###### Yevamot 3a:2
[Yevamot 3a:2](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Yevamot/r/3a:2)

דְּאָמַר רָבָא: אֲמַר לִי רַב יִצְחָק בַּר אַבְדִּימִי: אָתְיָא ״הֵנָּה״ ״הֵנָּה״,

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**As Rava said: Rav Yitzḥak bar Avdimi said to me:** This prohibition is **derived** by means of a verbal analogy between the word ***hena*,** in the verse: “The nakedness of your son’s daughter, or of your daughter’s daughter, even their nakedness you shall not uncover; for theirs [*hena*] is your own nakedness” (Leviticus 18:10) and the word ***hena*** in a different verse: “You shall not uncover the nakedness of a woman and her daughter; you shall not take her son’s daughter, or her daughter’s daughter, to uncover her nakedness: they [*hena*] are near kinswomen; it is wickedness” (Leviticus 18:17), indicating that every daughter is prohibited, even one from rape, just like one’s daughter through his wife.


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

אָתְיָא ״זִמָּה״ ״זִמָּה״.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
Furthermore, it is **derived** from a verbal analogy between the word **“wickedness”** (Leviticus 18:17) and the word **“wickedness”** in the verse: “And if a man take with his wife also her mother, it is wickedness; they shall be burnt with fire, both he and they, that there be no wickedness among you” (Leviticus 20:14), that one who has sexual intercourse with a daughter from a rape is liable to burning.


###### Yevamot 3a:4
[Yevamot 3a:4](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Yevamot/r/3a:4)

הַשְׁתָּא דְּאָמְרַתְּ כׇּל מִלְּתָא דְּאָתְיָא מִדְּרָשָׁא חַבִּיבָא לֵיהּ, לִיתְנֵי לַאֲחוֹת אִשָּׁה לְבַסּוֹף! אַיְּידֵי דְּאַיְירִי בְּאִיסּוּר אַחְווֹתָא, תְּנָא אֲחוֹת אִשְׁתּוֹ.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
§ The Gemara asks: **Now that you said** that **all matters that are derived from a homiletical interpretation are dear to** the *tanna*, and therefore he gives them precedence, **let him teach** the case of **a wife’s sister last,** as this is the source of the *halakha* and is therefore the most straightforward case. The Gemara responds: **Since** the *tanna* **was dealing with the prohibition** with regard **to** different types of **sisters, he** also **taught** together with them the prohibition with regard to **his wife’s sister.**


###### Yevamot 3a:5
[Yevamot 3a:5](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Yevamot/r/3a:5)

וְלִיתְנְיֵיהּ לְהַאי בָּבָא לְבַסּוֹף! אֶלָּא: תַּנָּא קוּרְבֵי קוּרְבֵי נָקֵט: תְּנָא בִּתּוֹ וּבַת בִּתּוֹ וּבַת בְּנוֹ, דִּקְרוֹבֵי עַצְמוֹ,

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara asks: **But** if so, **let him teach this** entire **section** involving sisters **at the end,** when he mentions a wife’s sister. **Rather,** the Gemara rejects the above answer in favor of an alternative explanation: **The *tanna* cited** the cases in order of **closeness,** i.e., the mishna is ordered in accordance with the relative closeness of the various incestuous relations. How so? The *tanna* **taught** the cases of **one’s daughter, and the daughter of his daughter, and the daughter of his son, who are his own** blood **relatives.**


###### Yevamot 3a:6
[Yevamot 3a:6](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Yevamot/r/3a:6)

וְאַיְּידֵי דִּתְנָא שְׁלֹשָׁה דּוֹרוֹת לְמַטָּה דִּידֵיהּ, תְּנָא נָמֵי שְׁלֹשָׁה דּוֹרוֹת לְמַטָּה דִּידַהּ. וְאַיְּידֵי דִּתְנָא שְׁלֹשָׁה דּוֹרוֹת לְמַטָּה דִּידַהּ, תְּנָא שְׁלֹשָׁה דּוֹרוֹת לְמַעְלָה דִּידַהּ.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**And since he taught three generations of one’s** offspring **below,** i.e., his daughter, his daughter’s daughter, and his son’s daughter, he **also taught three generations of** his wife’s offspring **below,** i.e., his wife herself, her daughter, and her daughter’s daughter. **And since he taught three generations of** his wife’s offspring **below, he** also **taught three generations of her** family **above,** i.e., from previous generations, namely herself, her mother, i.e., his mother-in-law, and his mother-in-law’s mother.


###### Yevamot 3a:7
[Yevamot 3a:7](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Yevamot/r/3a:7)

וּתְנָא אֲחוֹתוֹ וַאֲחוֹת אִמּוֹ דִּקְרוֹבֵי עַצְמוֹ. וְאַיְּידֵי דְּאַיְירִי בְּאִיסּוּר אַחְוָה, תְּנָא אֲחוֹת אִשְׁתּוֹ. וּבְדִין הוּא דְּלַיקְדְּמַהּ לְכַלָּתוֹ מִקַּמֵּי אֵשֶׁת אָחִיו שֶׁלֹּא הָיָה בְּעוֹלָמוֹ, דְּלָא מִשּׁוּם קוּרְבָּא הוּא דַּאֲסִירָא. אֶלָּא, אַיְּידֵי דְּאַיְירִי בְּאִיסּוּר אַחְוָה, תְּנָא אֵשֶׁת אָחִיו שֶׁלֹּא הָיָה בְּעוֹלָמוֹ, וַהֲדַר תְּנָא כַּלָּתוֹ.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**And** afterward **he taught** the case of **his sister and his mother’s sister, who are his own** blood **relatives** but less closely related to him than his daughter. **And since he was dealing with the prohibition** with regard **to sisters, he** also **taught** the case of **his wife’s sister. And by right** the *tanna* should have **preceded** the case of **his daughter-in-law before** that of **a wife of a brother with whom he did not coexist, as it is not due to their relationship that she is prohibited** but rather because she is excluded from the mitzva of levirate marriage. **However, since he was dealing with the prohibition** with regard **to siblings, he taught** the case of **a wife of a brother with whom he did not coexist,** as this also involves a sibling. **And then** the *tanna* **taught** the case of **his daughter-in-law.**


###### Yevamot 3a:8
[Yevamot 3a:8](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Yevamot/r/3a:8)

וּמַאי אִירְיָא דִּתְנָא ״פּוֹטְרוֹת״? לִיתְנֵי ״אוֹסְרוֹת״! אִי תְּנָא ״אוֹסְרוֹת״, הֲוָה אָמֵינָא אָסוּר לְיַיבֵּם, אֲבָל מִיחְלָץ — חָלְצָה, קָא מַשְׁמַע לַן.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
§ The Gemara continues to analyze the language of the mishna: **And why does** the *tanna* **specifically teach: They exempt** their rival wives? **Let him teach: They prohibit** them, as ultimately the rival wives are not only exempt from levirate marriage but each is actually forbidden to her *yavam*. The Gemara explains that **if** he had **taught: They prohibit** them, **I would say** that this means **it is prohibited to enter into levirate marriage, but she must perform *ḥalitza*.** Therefore, **it teaches us** using the language of exemption to indicate that she is entirely exempt and does not even perform *ḥalitza*.


###### Yevamot 3a:9
[Yevamot 3a:9](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Yevamot/r/3a:9)

וְלִיתְנֵי ״אֲסוּרָה לַחְלוֹץ״! מַאי קָעָבֵיד? אַלְּמָה לֹא, אִם אַתָּה אוֹמֵר ״חוֹלֶצֶת״, מִתְיַיבֶּמֶת!

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara raises a difficulty: If so, **let him teach: She is prohibited from performing *ḥalitza*.** The Gemara rejects this suggestion: It is impossible to formulate the *halakha* in this manner, as even if they perform *ḥalitza*, **what has he** really **done?** What is wrong with a man allowing a woman to take off his shoe, which is the act of *ḥalitza*? Consequently, it is not possible to state: Prohibited from performing *ḥalitza*. The Gemara asks: **Why not?** There is in fact a prohibited element here: **If you say she performs *ḥalitza*,** it might be said that **she may** also **enter into levirate marriage** and that in this specific instance he performed *ḥalitza* merely because he did not wish to marry her. In that case, it might erroneously be claimed that if another wished to marry the rival wife of his *yevama* he is permitted to enter into levirate marriage.


###### Yevamot 3a:10
[Yevamot 3a:10](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Yevamot/r/3a:10)

כֵּיוָן דְּבִמְקוֹם מִצְוָה הוּא דַּאֲסִירָה צָרָה, וְשֶׁלֹּא בִּמְקוֹם מִצְוָה שַׁרְיָא, מִשּׁוּם הָכִי תָּנֵי ״פּוֹטְרוֹת״.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
In light of the previous argument, the Gemara suggests another reason that the mishna does not use the expression: Prohibited. **Since** it is only **in cases where the mitzva** of levirate marriage **applies that the rival wife is forbidden** to him, **and where no mitzva applies she is permitted,** as it is permitted for the man to marry the widowed rival wife of a non-relative, **due to that** reason **he taught: They exempt** their rival wives, and not: **They prohibit** them. In other words, the *tanna* is teaching that they are not prohibited to him in their own right.


###### Yevamot 3a:11
[Yevamot 3a:11](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Yevamot/r/3a:11)

וּמַאי אִירְיָא דְּתָנֵי ״מִן הַחֲלִיצָה וּמִן הַיִּיבּוּם״? לִיתְנֵי ״מִן הַיִּיבּוּם״ לְחוֹדֵיהּ! אִי תְּנָא ״מִן הַיִּיבּוּם״ הֲוָה אָמֵינָא מִיחְלָץ — חָלְצָה, יַבּוֹמֵי — לָא מְיַיבְּמָה, קָא מַשְׁמַע לַן כׇּל הָעוֹלֶה לְיִיבּוּם — עוֹלֶה לַחֲלִיצָה, וְכֹל שֶׁאֵינוֹ עוֹלֶה לַיִּיבּוּם — אֵינוֹ עוֹלֶה לַחֲלִיצָה.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
§ The Gemara continues its analysis of the wording of the mishna. **And why does** the *tanna* **specifically teach:** Exempt **from *ḥalitza* and from levirate marriage? Let him teach:** Exempt **from levirate marriage, alone.** The Gemara answers: **If** he were to **teach: From levirate marriage, I would say** that **she must perform *ḥalitza*** and **she must not enter into levirate marriage.** The *tanna* therefore **teaches us** that **every** woman **who is eligible for levirate marriage is eligible for *ḥalitza*, and anyone who is ineligible for levirate marriage is** likewise **ineligible for *ḥalitza*,** as no obligation of *ḥalitza* applies unless there is an obligation of a levirate marriage.


###### Yevamot 3a:12
[Yevamot 3a:12](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Yevamot/r/3a:12)

וְלִיתְנֵי ״מִן הַיִּיבּוּם וּמִן הַחֲלִיצָה״, אִי נָמֵי ״מִן הַחֲלִיצָה״ לְחוֹדַהּ? אַבָּא שָׁאוּל הִיא, דְּאָמַר: מִצְוֹת חֲלִיצָה קוֹדֶמֶת לְמִצְוֹת יַיבּוּם.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
§ The Gemara further inquires: **And let him teach: From levirate marriage and from *ḥalitza*,** as the Torah states the option of levirate marriage first. **Alternatively,** let him teach: **From *ḥalitza*, alone,** as this would indicate that she may not enter into levirate marriage either. The Gemara answers: **This** mishna **is** in accordance with the opinion of **Abba Shaul, who said: The mitzva of *ḥalitza* takes precedence over the mitzva of levirate marriage,** as he maintains that one who does not enter into levirate marriage for the sake of Heaven transgresses the prohibition against marrying one’s brother’s wife, and therefore it would be better in every case to perform *ḥalitza*. Consequently, the *tanna* mentions *ḥalitza* before levirate marriage.


###### Yevamot 3a:13
[Yevamot 3a:13](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Yevamot/r/3a:13)

מִנְיָנָא דְּרֵישָׁא לְמַעוֹטֵי מַאי, וּמִנְיָנָא דְּסֵיפָא לְמַעוֹטֵי מַאי?

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
§ The Gemara asks another question with regard to the language of the mishna: **The enumeration of the first clause** of the mishna: Fifteen women, which indicates that those women alone are included in this list, serves **to exclude what?** Which other cases might have been included? **And the enumeration of the latter clause,** which states: These exempt their rival wives, again meaning these and no others, serves **to exclude what?** Since the mishna specifies only these women and no others, the Gemara asks which other women might have been included in these lists.