## Yevamot Daf 49a

###### Yevamot 49a:1
[Yevamot 49a:1](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Yevamot/r/49a:1)

**מַתְנִי׳** אֵיזֶהוּ מַמְזֵר — כׇּל שְׁאֵר בָּשָׂר שֶׁהוּא בְּ״לֹא יָבֹא״, דִּבְרֵי רַבִּי עֲקִיבָא. שִׁמְעוֹן הַתִּימְנִי אוֹמֵר: כֹּל שֶׁחַיָּיבִים עָלָיו כָּרֵת בִּידֵי שָׁמַיִם, וַהֲלָכָה כִּדְבָרָיו. וְרַבִּי יְהוֹשֻׁעַ אוֹמֵר: כֹּל שֶׁחַיָּיבִין עָלָיו מִיתַת בֵּית דִּין.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**MISHNA:** **Which** offspring of forbidden relations have the status of **a *mamzer*?** It is the offspring of a union with **any next of kin that is subject to** a Torah prohibition that **he should not engage in sexual relations** with them; this is **the statement of Rabbi Akiva. Shimon HaTimni says:** It is the offspring of a union with **any** forbidden relation **for which one is liable to** receive ***karet* at the hand of Heaven. And the *halakha* is in accordance with his statement. Rabbi Yehoshua says:** It is the offspring of a union with **any** forbidden relation **for which one is liable to** receive **court-**imposed **capital punishment.**


###### Yevamot 49a:2
[Yevamot 49a:2](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Yevamot/r/49a:2)

אָמַר רַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן בֶּן עַזַּאי: מָצָאתִי מְגִלַּת יוּחֲסִין בִּירוּשָׁלַיִם, וְכָתוּב בָּהּ: אִישׁ פְּלוֹנִי מַמְזֵר מֵאֵשֶׁת אִישׁ, לְקַיֵּים דִּבְרֵי רַבִּי יְהוֹשֻׁעַ.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**Rabbi Shimon ben Azzai said: I found a scroll** recording people’s **lineages in Jerusalem, and it was written in it** that **so-and-so is a *mamzer* from** an adulterous union with **a married woman,** a sin punishable by court-imposed capital punishment. The only reason for the scroll to state the reason that this individual is a *mamzer* is in order **to support the statement of Rabbi Yehoshua.**


###### Yevamot 49a:3
[Yevamot 49a:3](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Yevamot/r/49a:3)

אִשְׁתּוֹ שֶׁמֵּתָה — מוּתָּר בַּאֲחוֹתָהּ. גֵּרְשָׁהּ וּמֵתָה — מוּתָּר בַּאֲחוֹתָהּ. נִשֵּׂאת לְאַחֵר וּמֵתָה — מוּתָּר בַּאֲחוֹתָהּ. יְבִמְתּוֹ שֶׁמֵּתָה — מוּתָּר בַּאֲחוֹתָהּ. חָלַץ לָהּ וּמֵתָה — מוּתָּר בַּאֲחוֹתָהּ. נִשֵּׂאת לְאַחֵר וּמֵתָה — מוּתָּר בַּאֲחוֹתָהּ.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The mishna delineates the circumstances in which it is prohibited to engage in relations with the sister of one’s wife and the sister of one’s *yevama*: If a man’s **wife died, he is permitted to her sister.** If **he divorced her and** then **she died, he is permitted to her sister.** If he divorced his wife and then **she was married to another and** then **died, he is permitted to her sister.** If **his *yevama* died, he is permitted to her sister.** If **he performed *ḥalitza* with her and** then **she died, he is permitted to her sister.** If after *ḥalitza* **she was married to another and** then **died, he is permitted to her sister.** The principle underlying all these cases is that the prohibition against engaging in relations with her sister only applies while the wife or *yevama* remain alive, irrespective of their current relationship to the man.


###### Yevamot 49a:4
[Yevamot 49a:4](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Yevamot/r/49a:4)

**גְּמָ׳** מַאי טַעְמָא דְּרַבִּי עֲקִיבָא? דִּכְתִיב: ״לֹא יִקַּח אִישׁ אֶת אֵשֶׁת אָבִיו וְלֹא יְגַלֶּה כְּנַף אָבִיו״. כָּנָף שֶׁרָאָה אָבִיו — לֹא יְגַלֶּה.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**GEMARA:** **What is Rabbi Akiva’s reasoning? As it is written: “A man shall not take his father’s wife, and he shall not uncover his father’s cloak”** (Deuteronomy 23:1). This teaches that a **cloak that his father saw,** i.e., a woman with whom his father engaged in sexual relations, the son **may not uncover.**


###### Yevamot 49a:5
[Yevamot 49a:5](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Yevamot/r/49a:5)

וְסָבַר לַהּ כְּרַבִּי יְהוּדָה, דְּאָמַר: בַּאֲנוּסַת אָבִיו הַכָּתוּב מְדַבֵּר, דְּהָוְיָא לַהּ חַיָּיבֵי לָאוִין,

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**And** in this interpretation of the verse, Rabbi Akiva **holds in accordance with** the opinion of **Rabbi Yehuda, who said:** The verse states only that such relations are forbidden, but they would not render him liable to receive *karet*; perforce **the verse speaks of a woman raped by one’s father,** since **she is** one of the women with whom relations render one **liable for** violating **a prohibition.** The verse could not refer to one’s father’s wife since relations with her render one liable to receive *karet*.


###### Yevamot 49a:6
[Yevamot 49a:6](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Yevamot/r/49a:6)

וּסְמִיךְ לֵיהּ: ״לֹא יָבֹא מַמְזֵר בִּקְהַל ה׳״, אַלְמָא מֵהָנֵי הָוֵי מַמְזֵר.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara completes its explanation of Rabbi Akiva’s opinion: **And in close proximity to that** verse is the verse: **“A *mamzer* shall not enter into the congregation of the Lord”** (Deuteronomy 23:3). **Apparently,** even **from these** forbidden relations, which render one liable for the violation of a prohibition, the offspring **is a *mamzer*.**


###### Yevamot 49a:7
[Yevamot 49a:7](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Yevamot/r/49a:7)

וּלְרַבִּי סִימַאי, דִּמְרַבֵּה שְׁאָר חַיָּיבֵי לָאוִין דְּלָאו דִּ״שְׁאֵר״, וּלְרַבִּי יְשֵׁבָב, דִּמְרַבֵּה אֲפִילּוּ חַיָּיבֵי עֲשֵׂה —

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara asks: **But according to Rabbi Simai, who** holds that Rabbi Akiva **includes** as a *mamzer* the offspring of all **other** forbidden relations **for which one is liable** for violation of **a prohibition,** even those **that are not** with his **next of kin; and** also **according to Rabbi Yeshevav, who** holds that Rabbi Akiva **includes even** the offspring of relations **for which one is liable for** the violation of a **positive mitzva;** since according to them, Rabbi Akiva includes cases that are not similar to the case of a woman raped by his father, what is his source?


###### Yevamot 49a:8
[Yevamot 49a:8](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Yevamot/r/49a:8)

נָפְקָא לְהוּ מִ״וְּלֹא״.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara answers: **They derive** it **from** the verse that states: **“And he shall not** uncover his father’s cloak” (Deuteronomy 23:1). The word “and” is superfluous and serves to include additional cases.


###### Yevamot 49a:9
[Yevamot 49a:9](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Yevamot/r/49a:9)

וְשִׁמְעוֹן הַתִּימְנִי סָבַר לַהּ כְּרַבָּנַן, דְּאָמְרִי: בְּשׁוֹמֶרֶת יָבָם שֶׁל אָבִיו הַכָּתוּב מְדַבֵּר, דְּהָוְיָא לַהּ חַיָּיבֵי כָּרֵיתוֹת, וּסְמִיךְ לֵיהּ ״לֹא יָבֹא מַמְזֵר״. אַלְמָא: מֵחַיָּיבֵי כָּרֵיתוֹת הָוֵי מַמְזֵר.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**And Shimon HaTimni holds in accordance with** the opinion of **the Rabbis, who say:** It is **with regard to the widow waiting for his father** to perform **levirate marriage that the verse is speaking,** and it indicates **that she is** one of the women with whom relations **render one liable** to receive ***karet*. And in close proximity to that** verse is the verse: **“A *mamzer* shall not enter** into the congregation of the Lord” (Deuteronomy 23:3). **Apparently,** only the offspring of a union **for which one is liable** to receive ***karet* is a *mamzer*.**


###### Yevamot 49a:10
[Yevamot 49a:10](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Yevamot/r/49a:10)

וְרַבִּי יְהוֹשֻׁעַ — לִכְתּוֹב רַחֲמָנָא ״לֹא יְגַלֶּה״. ״לֹא יִקַּח״ (״וְלֹא יְגַלֶּה״) לְמָה לִי? אֶלָּא לָאו, הָכִי קָאָמַר: מִ״לֹּא יִקַּח״ עַד ״לֹא יְגַלֶּה״ — הָוֵי מַמְזֵר, טְפֵי — לָא הָוֵי מַמְזֵר.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**And** how does **Rabbi Yehoshua** derive his opinion? If the verses should be derived as Rabbi Akiva and Shimon HaTimni suggest, **let the Merciful One write** only: **“He shall not uncover** his father’s cloak.” It is unnecessary for the verse to mention the prohibition with regard to one’s father’s wife, as the fact that the offspring of that union is a *mamzer* would be known through an *a fortiori* inference, since that prohibition is more stringent than the one derived from the verse: “And shall not uncover his father’s cloak.” **Why do I** need both the clause **“a man shall not take** his father’s wife” and the clause **“and shall not uncover** his father’s cloak”? **Rather, is it not** that **this is what** the Torah **is saying:** Only the offspring of relations with the woman mentioned in the verse **after** the words **“a man shall not take” until** the words **“he shall not uncover,”** i.e., his father’s wife, **is a *mamzer*, but** the offspring of relations with the woman mentioned **beyond** that point, i.e., the woman referred to as “his father’s cloak,” **is not a *mamzer*.**


###### Yevamot 49a:11
[Yevamot 49a:11](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Yevamot/r/49a:11)

אָמַר אַבָּיֵי: הַכֹּל מוֹדִים בְּבָא עַל הַנִּדָּה

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
§ **Abaye said: All** *tanna’im* in the mishna **agree with regard to one who engages in sexual relations with a menstruating woman,**