## Yevamot Daf 55a

###### Yevamot 55a:1
[Yevamot 55a:1](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Yevamot/r/55a:1)

אַלְמָא אֲחוֹת אִשְׁתּוֹ, בֵּין מִן הָאָב בֵּין מִן הָאֵם — אֲסוּרוֹת. מְנָלַן? יָלֵיף מֵאֲחוֹתוֹ. מָה אֲחוֹתוֹ — בֵּין מִן הָאָב בֵּין מִן הָאֵם, אַף כָּאן — בֵּין מִן הָאָב בֵּין מִן הָאֵם.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**Apparently,** this mishna indicates that **his wife’s sister, whether from the father,** i.e., a paternal sister, **or from the mother,** i.e., a maternal sister, **is forbidden. From where do we** derive this *halakha* that the prohibition applies even to his wife’s maternal sister? The Gemara responds: **It is derived from** the prohibition proscribing **his sister. Just as his sister** is forbidden **whether** she is his sister **from** his **father or from** his **mother, so too here,** a wife’s sister is forbidden **whether from the father or from the mother.**


###### Yevamot 55a:2
[Yevamot 55a:2](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Yevamot/r/55a:2)

וְלֵילַף מִדּוֹדָתוֹ: מָה דּוֹדָתוֹ מִן הָאָב וְלֹא מִן הָאֵם, אַף כָּאן מִן הָאָב וְלֹא מִן הָאֵם! מִסְתַּבְּרָא מֵאֲחוֹתוֹ הֲוָה לֵיהּ לְמֵילַף, שֶׁכֵּן קְרוֹבֵי עַצְמוֹ מִקְּרוֹבֵי עַצְמוֹ.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara challenges the validity of this source: **And let it be derived from** the *halakha* with regard to **his aunt: Just as** the prohibition with regard to **his aunt** applies only to the wife of his father’s brother **from** his **father but not from** his **mother,** i.e., the wife of his father’s paternal brother but not the wife of his father’s maternal brother, **so too here,** the prohibition with regard to his wife’s sister should apply only to her sister **from** her **father but not** to her sister **from** her **mother.** The Gemara answers: **It is reasonable** that **he should derive** the *halakha* in this case **from** the case of **his sister, as** the *tanna* thereby derives the *halakha* of **one’s own relatives from** another case of **his own relatives,** whereas his aunt is forbidden as his father’s relative.


###### Yevamot 55a:3
[Yevamot 55a:3](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Yevamot/r/55a:3)

אַדְּרַבָּה מִדּוֹדָתוֹ הֲוָה לֵיהּ לְמֵילַף, שֶׁכֵּן דָּבָר עַל יְדֵי קִדּוּשִׁין מִדָּבָר שֶׁעַל יְדֵי קִדּוּשִׁין. אֶלָּא מֵאֵשֶׁת אָח יָלְפִינַן, דְּשֶׁכֵּן דָּבָר עַל יְדֵי קִדּוּשִׁין, וּקְרוֹבֵי עַצְמוֹ.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara counters: **On the contrary, he should derive** the *halakha* in this instance **from** the case of **his aunt, as** he thereby derives the *halakha* in **a matter** prohibited **through betrothal from** another **matter** prohibited **through betrothal.** The Gemara concludes: **Rather,** the *halakha* of a wife’s sister **is derived from** that of **a brother’s wife, as** they are both **something** forbidden **by means of betrothal and** they are **his own relatives.**


###### Yevamot 55a:4
[Yevamot 55a:4](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Yevamot/r/55a:4)

וְאֵשֶׁת אָח גּוּפַהּ מְנָא לַן? דְּתַנְיָא: ״עֶרְוַת אֵשֶׁת אָחִיךָ לֹא תְגַלֵּה״, בֵּין מִן הָאָב בֵּין מִן הָאֵם.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara asks: **And** in the case of **a brother’s wife itself, from where do we** derive that the prohibition applies to the wife of both a paternal and a maternal brother? **As it is taught in a** *baraita*: **“You shall not uncover the nakedness of your brother’s wife”** (Leviticus 18:16), which indicates: **Whether from the father or from the mother.**


###### Yevamot 55a:5
[Yevamot 55a:5](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Yevamot/r/55a:5)

אַתָּה אוֹמֵר בֵּין מִן הָאָב בֵּין מִן הָאֵם, אוֹ אֵינוֹ אֶלָּא מִן הָאָב וְלֹא מִן הָאֵם? וְדִין הוּא: חַיָּיב כָּאן, וְחַיָּיב בַּאֲחוֹתוֹ. מָה אֲחוֹתוֹ — בֵּין מִן הָאָב בֵּין מִן הָאֵם, אַף כָּאן — בֵּין מִן הָאָב בֵּין מִן הָאֵם.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The *baraita* elaborates: **Do you say** the prohibition applies **whether** she is the wife of one’s brother **from** his **father or from** his **mother,** i.e., whether she is the wife of one’s paternal brother or maternal brother? **Or** perhaps **it is only** the wife of one’s brother **from** his **father and not from** his **mother? It** may be inferred **logically** from the fact that the Torah **rendered him liable here and rendered him liable with** regard to **his sister: Just as** with regard to **his sister** he is liable to receive punishment **whether** she is his sister **from** his **father or from** his **mother, so too here,** he is liable to receive punishment **whether** she is the wife of his brother **from** his **father or from** his **mother.**


###### Yevamot 55a:6
[Yevamot 55a:6](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Yevamot/r/55a:6)

אוֹ כְּלָךְ לְדֶרֶךְ זוֹ: חַיָּיב כָּאן וְחַיָּיב בְּדוֹדָתוֹ, מָה דּוֹדָתוֹ — מִן הָאָב וְלֹא מִן הָאֵם, אַף כָּאן — מִן הָאָב וְלֹא מִן הָאֵם?!

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**Or** perhaps **go this way** and compare this case to the case of an aunt. The Torah **rendered him liable here and rendered him liable with** regard to **his aunt,** i.e., the wife of his father’s brother: **Just as** with regard to **his aunt,** he is liable to receive punishment only for the wife of his father’s brother **from** his **father and not** for the wife of his father’s brother **from** his **mother, so too here,** he is liable to receive punishment only for the wife of his brother **from** his **father and not from** his **mother.**


###### Yevamot 55a:7
[Yevamot 55a:7](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Yevamot/r/55a:7)

נִרְאֶה לְמִי דּוֹמֶה: דָּנִין קְרוֹבֵי עַצְמוֹ מִקְּרוֹבֵי עַצְמוֹ, וְאַל תּוֹכִיחַ דּוֹדָתוֹ שֶׁקְּרוֹבֵי הָאָב. אוֹ כְּלָךְ לְדֶרֶךְ זוֹ: דָּנִין דָּבָר שֶׁעַל יְדֵי קִדּוּשִׁין, מִדָּבָר שֶׁעַל יְדֵי קִדּוּשִׁין, וְאַל תּוֹכִיחַ אֲחוֹתוֹ, שֶׁאִיסּוּר הַבָּא מֵאֵלָיו.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara analyzes these two possibilities: **Let us see to which** case **it is** more **similar. We** should **derive** the *halakha* with regard to **his own relatives,** i.e., his brother’s wife, **from** another case of **his own relatives,** i.e., his sister, **and** the *halakha* with regard to **his aunt cannot** be used to **prove** otherwise, **as** she is his **father’s relative. Or** perhaps **go this way: We** should **derive** the *halakha* of a **matter** prohibited **through betrothal,** i.e., a brother’s wife, **from** another **matter** prohibited **through betrothal,** i.e., his father’s brother’s wife, **and** the *halakha* with regard to **his sister cannot** be used to **prove** otherwise, **as** it is **a prohibition that comes on its own.**


###### Yevamot 55a:8
[Yevamot 55a:8](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Yevamot/r/55a:8)

תַּלְמוּד לוֹמַר: ״עֶרְוַת אָחִיךָ הִיא״, בֵּין מִן הָאָב בֵּין מִן הָאֵם.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
Since it is impossible to prove which *halakha* should serve as the model for the case of a brother’s wife, **the verse states** a second time in the same verse: **“It is your brother’s nakedness”** (Leviticus 18:16), in order to emphasize that she is forbidden **whether** she is the wife of his brother **from** his **father or from** his **mother.**


###### Yevamot 55a:9
[Yevamot 55a:9](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Yevamot/r/55a:9)

וְאֵימָא אִידֵּי וְאִידֵּי בְּאֵשֶׁת אָח מִן הָאָב, חֲדָא דְּיֵשׁ לָהּ בָּנִים בְּחַיֵּי בַּעְלָהּ, וַחֲדָא דְּאֵין לָהּ בָּנִים בְּחַיֵּי בַּעְלָהּ! אֵין לָהּ בָּנִים בְּחַיֵּי בַּעְלָהּ מִדְּרַב הוּנָא נָפְקָא.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara challenges this interpretation of the extra phrase in the verse: **Say** that both **this** first part of the verse **and that** latter part refer **to the wife of a brother from the father,** i.e., the wife of one’s paternal brother. As for the repetition, **one** part of the verse renders prohibited a woman **who has children,** who is prohibited from marrying her husband’s brother **during her husband’s lifetime** even after they are divorced, **and** the other **one** renders prohibited a woman **who does not have children,** who is also prohibited from marrying her husband’s brother **during her husband’s lifetime,** even after she is divorced. The Gemara responds: The prohibition proscribing a woman who **does not have children** for the duration of **her husband’s lifetime is derived from** the statement of **Rav Huna** (54b), and it requires no further source.


###### Yevamot 55a:10
[Yevamot 55a:10](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Yevamot/r/55a:10)

וְאֵימָא אִידֵּי וְאִידֵּי בְּאֵשֶׁת אָח מִן הָאָב, חֲדָא דְּיֵשׁ לָהּ בָּנִים בְּחַיֵּי בַּעְלָהּ, וַחֲדָא דְּיֵשׁ לָהּ בָּנִים לְאַחַר מִיתַת בַּעְלָהּ!

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara presents another challenge: **Say** that both **this** first part of the verse **and that** latter part refer **to the wife of a brother from the father,** i.e., the wife of one’s paternal brother. As for the repetition, **one** part of the verse renders a woman **who has children** prohibited from marrying her husband’s brother for the duration of **her husband’s lifetime,** even after she is divorced, **and** the other **one** renders prohibited a woman **who has children** and indicates that it is prohibited for her to marry her husband’s brother even **after her husband’s death.**


###### Yevamot 55a:11
[Yevamot 55a:11](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Yevamot/r/55a:11)

יֵשׁ לָהּ בָּנִים לְאַחַר מִיתַת בַּעְלָהּ לָא צְרִיכָא קְרָא, מִדְּאָמַר רַחֲמָנָא שֶׁאֵין לָהּ בָּנִים מוּתֶּרֶת, הָא יֵשׁ לָהּ בָּנִים אֲסוּרָה.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara responds: The *halakha* that it is prohibited for a woman **who has children** to marry her husband’s brother even **after her husband’s death does not require a verse. From** the fact **that the Merciful One says that** one **who has no children is permitted** to marry the brother after her husband’s death, it can be inferred **that** if **she has children,** it is **prohibited** for her to marry her husband’s brother.


###### Yevamot 55a:12
[Yevamot 55a:12](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Yevamot/r/55a:12)

וְדִלְמָא: אֵין לָהּ בָּנִים אֲסוּרָה לְעָלְמָא וְשַׁרְיָא לְיָבָם, יֵשׁ לָהּ בָּנִים שַׁרְיָא לְעָלְמָא וְשַׁרְיָא לְיָבָם! אִי נָמֵי: אֵין לָהּ בָּנִים מִצְוָה, יֵשׁ לָהּ בָּנִים רְשׁוּת!

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara raises another challenge: **But perhaps** if **she does not have children** it is **prohibited** for her to marry **everyone** else **and permitted** for her to marry her ***yavam*,** as specified by the Torah. However, if **she does have children** it **is permitted** for her to marry **everyone and** it **is permitted** for her to marry her ***yavam*** as well. **Alternatively,** perhaps **if she does not have children** it is **a mitzva** for her husband’s brother to marry her, and if **she does have children** it is **optional.** Consequently, the extra phrase in the verse should be necessary in order to indicate that the prohibition against marriage applies in all of these cases.


###### Yevamot 55a:13
[Yevamot 55a:13](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Yevamot/r/55a:13)

אִי נָמֵי: אֵין לָהּ בָּנִים — אִין, יֵשׁ לָהּ בָּנִים — לָא, וְלָאו הַבָּא מִכְּלַל עֲשֵׂה — עֲשֵׂה!

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**Alternatively,** if **she does not have children, yes,** she is permitted to her husband’s brother, and if **she does have children, no,** she is not permitted to him, but the punishment of *karet* does not apply to this prohibition. This is because the source of the prohibition is the mitzva for them to marry after the husband’s death, **and a prohibition that stems from a positive mitzva** has the status of **a positive mitzva,** but nothing more. Consequently, the extra phrase in the verse should be necessary in order to indicate that the punishment of *karet* is still applicable.


###### Yevamot 55a:14
[Yevamot 55a:14](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Yevamot/r/55a:14)

כְּתַב קְרָא אַחֲרִינָא: ״עֶרְוַת אָחִיו גִּלָּה״.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara responds: The Torah **wrote a different verse** to teach that the prohibition against marrying one’s brother’s wife is in full force, including the punishment of *karet*, in these cases: **“He has uncovered his brother’s nakedness;** they shall be childless” (Leviticus 20:21). Therefore, the extra phrase mentioned in the *baraita* can indicate that the prohibition against marrying one’s brother’s wife applies both to the wife of a paternal brother and to the wife of a maternal brother.


###### Yevamot 55a:15
[Yevamot 55a:15](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Yevamot/r/55a:15)

וְאֵימָא אֵשֶׁת אָח מִן הָאֵם — כְּאֵשֶׁת אָח מִן הָאָב: מָה אֵשֶׁת אָח מִן הָאָב — לְאַחַר מִיתַת בַּעְלָהּ שַׁרְיָא, אַף אֵשֶׁת אָח מִן הָאֵם — לְאַחַר מִיתַת בַּעְלָהּ שַׁרְיָא! אָמַר קְרָא ״הִיא״, בַּהֲוָיָיתָהּ תְּהֵא.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara suggests: **Say** that the *halakha* of **the wife of a brother from** one’s **mother** should be just **like** that of **the wife of a brother from** his **father: Just as the wife of a brother from** one’s **father is permitted,** i.e., one can marry her, **after her husband’s death, so too, the wife of a brother from** his **mother should be permitted after her husband’s death.** The Gemara responds: **The verse states: “She** is your brother’s nakedness,” thereby emphasizing that **she shall** remain after her husband’s death **as she is** during his life.


###### Yevamot 55a:16
[Yevamot 55a:16](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Yevamot/r/55a:16)

אֲחוֹתוֹ דִּכְתַב בָּהּ כָּרֵת לְמָה לִי?

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
§ The Gemara above stated that all of the instances of forbidden intercourse are compared to one another. Therefore, since there is already a verse that states: “For whoever shall do any of these abominations, the souls that do them shall be cut off from among their people” (Leviticus 18:29), the Gemara asks: **Why do I need** the phrase **written with regard to one’s sister** that states that intercourse is punishable by ***karet*?**


###### Yevamot 55a:17
[Yevamot 55a:17](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Yevamot/r/55a:17)

לְכִדְרַבִּי יוֹחָנָן: דְּאָמַר רַבִּי יוֹחָנָן שֶׁאִם עֲשָׂאָן כּוּלָּם בְּהֶעְלֵם אַחַת — חַיָּיב עַל כׇּל אַחַת וְאַחַת.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara answers that it is necessary **for that** which **Rabbi Yoḥanan** said, **as Rabbi Yoḥanan said that if he performed all of them,** i.e., he violated every prohibition against engaging in forbidden intercourse **in a single lapse of awareness, he is liable** to receive punishment **for each and every one.** One might have thought that there is one prohibition against engaging in forbidden intercourse, and many different ways to violate the prohibition. Therefore, if one violated the prohibition in different ways during one lapse of awareness, one is liable to bring only one sin-offering. This verse therefore indicates that each act of intercourse with a relative with whom intercourse is forbidden is a violation of an independent prohibition.


###### Yevamot 55a:18
[Yevamot 55a:18](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Yevamot/r/55a:18)

וּלְרַבִּי יִצְחָק דְּאָמַר: כׇּל חַיָּיבֵי כָּרֵיתוֹת בַּכְּלָל הָיוּ, וְלָמָּה יָצְתָה כָּרֵת בַּאֲחוֹתוֹ — לְדוּנוֹ בְּכָרֵת וְלֹא בְּמַלְקוֹת. לְחַלֵּק, מְנָלַן?

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara asks: **And according to Rabbi Yitzḥak, who said** that **all** forbidden relations for which one is **liable to** receive ***karet* were included** in the verse: “The souls that do them shall be cut off from among their people,” **why was** the punishment of ***karet* with regard to one’s sister singled out?** In order **to sentence him to *karet* and not to flogging.** Although he has violated a prohibition, which generally carries a punishment of flogging, he is not flogged due to the fact that he is liable to receive the more severe punishment of *karet*. Since he has used the verse to teach this *halakha*, **from where do we** know **to divide** the prohibitions against engaging in forbidden intercourse and consider each an independent prohibition?


###### Yevamot 55a:19
[Yevamot 55a:19](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Yevamot/r/55a:19)

נָפְקָא לֵיהּ מִ״וְּאֶל אִשָּׁה בְּנִדַּת טוּמְאָתָהּ״, לְחַיֵּיב עַל כׇּל אִשָּׁה וְאִשָּׁה.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara answers: **He derives it from** the verse **“And** you shall not approach **a woman** to uncover her nakedness **as long as she is impure by her uncleanness”** (Leviticus 18:19), which serves **to render** him **liable** to receive punishment **for each and every woman.**


###### Yevamot 55a:20
[Yevamot 55a:20](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Yevamot/r/55a:20)

דּוֹדָתוֹ דִּכְתַב בַּהּ רַחֲמָנָא ״עֲרִירִים יִהְיוּ״, לְמָה לִי? לְכִדְרַבָּה. דְּרַבָּה רָמֵי, כְּתִיב: ״עֲרִירִים יִהְיוּ״, וּכְתִיב: ״עֲרִירִים יָמֻתוּ״, הָא כֵּיצַד? יֵשׁ לוֹ בָּנִים — קוֹבְרָן, אֵין לוֹ בָּנִים — הוֹלֵךְ עֲרִירִי.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara poses another question: **Why do I need** the phrase that **the Merciful One writes with regard to one’s aunt,** which states: **They shall be childless?** The death of one’s children is included in the punishment of *karet*, and it has already been established that all of the forbidden intercourse is punishable by *karet*. The Gemara answers that it is necessary **for that** which **Rabba** said, **as Rabba raised a contradiction: It is written** with regard to one who had intercourse with his brother’s wife: **“They shall be childless”** (Leviticus 20:22), **and it** also **states** with regard to one who had intercourse with his aunt: **“They shall die childless”** (Leviticus 20:21). **How so?** If **he** already **has children, he will** eventually **bury them;** if **he does not have children, he will go childless.**


###### Yevamot 55a:21
[Yevamot 55a:21](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Yevamot/r/55a:21)

וְאִיצְטְרִיךְ לְמִכְתַּב ״עֲרִירִים יִהְיוּ״, וְאִיצְטְרִיךְ לְמִכְתַּב ״עֲרִירִים יָמֻתוּ״, דְּאִי כְּתַב רַחֲמָנָא ״עֲרִירִים יִהְיוּ״, הֲוָה אָמֵינָא: עַד חִטְאֵיהּ, אֲבָל מֵחִטְאֵיהּ וְאֵילָךְ — לָא. כְּתַב רַחֲמָנָא ״עֲרִירִים יָמֻתוּ״, וְאִי כְּתַב רַחֲמָנָא ״עֲרִירִים יָמֻתוּ״, הֲוָה אָמֵינָא: מֵחִטְאֵיהּ וְאֵילָךְ, אֲבָל מֵעִיקָּרָא — לָא, צְרִיכָא.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara comments: **And it is necessary to state: They shall be childless, and it is** also **necessary to state: They shall die childless. As, if the Merciful One had written** only: **They shall be childless, I would have said** that only those children he had **before his sin** will die, **but** those born to him **from** the time of **his sin and on, no,** they will not die. **The Torah** therefore **states: They shall die childless,** indicating that even if he has children afterward they will die and he will remain childless. **And** similarly, **if the Merciful One had written** only: **They shall die childless, I would have said** that this is referring to children born **from** the time of **his sin and on, but** those born **from the beginning,** before he sinned, **no,** they will not die. It is therefore **necessary** to mention both expressions.


###### Yevamot 55a:22
[Yevamot 55a:22](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Yevamot/r/55a:22)

הַעֲרָאָה דְּחַיָּיבֵי לָאוִין, מְנָלַן?

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
§ The Gemara above (54a–54b) derived that the initial stage of intercourse is considered an act of sexual intercourse with regard to prohibitions that are punishable by capital punishment or *karet*. The Gemara asks: **From where do we** derive that **the initial stage of intercourse** is considered an act of sexual intercourse **with regard to those liable** to receive punishment **for** violating ordinary Torah **prohibitions?**


###### Yevamot 55a:23
[Yevamot 55a:23](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Yevamot/r/55a:23)

מִדְּגַלִּי רַחֲמָנָא ״שִׁכְבַת זֶרַע״ גַּבֵּי שִׁפְחָה חֲרוּפָה. מִכְּלָל דְּחַיָּיבֵי לָאוִין — בְּהַעֲרָאָה.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara answers: **From** the fact that **the Merciful One reveals with regard to a designated maidservant** that the prohibition has been violated only through an act of **cohabitation with seed,** i.e., a complete act of sexual intercourse, in the verse “And whoever lies with a woman in cohabitation with seed, and she is a bondmaid designated to a man” (Leviticus 19:20), **by inference, those liable** to receive punishment **for** violating ordinary **prohibitions** are liable even **through the initial stage of intercourse.**


###### Yevamot 55a:24
[Yevamot 55a:24](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Yevamot/r/55a:24)

אַדְּרַבָּה: מִדְּגַלִּי רַחֲמָנָא הַעֲרָאָה בְּחַיָּיבֵי כָּרֵיתוֹת, מִכְּלָל דְּחַיָּיבֵי לָאוִין בִּגְמַר בִּיאָה! אָמַר רַב אָשֵׁי: אִם כֵּן — לִשְׁתּוֹק קְרָא מִשִּׁפְחָה חֲרוּפָה.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara responds: **On the contrary, from** the fact **that the Merciful One reveals** that **the initial stage of intercourse** is considered sexual intercourse **with regard to** forbidden relationships for which one is **liable to** receive ***karet*,** then, **by inference, those liable for** violating ordinary **prohibitions** are liable only **through the completion of** the act of **sexual intercourse** and not merely for the initial stage of intercourse. **Rav Ashi said: If so, let the verse remain silent** in the case of a **designated maidservant,** and it would be assumed that one is liable to receive punishment only for completing the act of sexual intercourse. The fact that the Torah specified that in this case one is liable to receive punishment only for completing the act of sexual intercourse indicates that with regard to other ordinary prohibitions one is liable even for the initial stage of intercourse.


###### Yevamot 55a:25
[Yevamot 55a:25](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Yevamot/r/55a:25)

הַעֲרָאָה דְּחַיָּיבֵי לָאוִין דִּכְהוּנָּה מְנָלַן? אָתְיָא ״קִיחָה״ ״קִיחָה״.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara asks: **From where do we** derive that **the initial stage of intercourse** is considered an act of sexual intercourse **with regard to those liable** to receive punishment **for** violating **prohibitions** specific to **the priesthood?** Since these prohibitions are unique in that they apply only to priests, their parameters cannot be derived from prohibitions that apply to the entire population. The Gemara answers: It **is derived** from a verbal analogy between the words **taking** and **taking.** This verb appears in prohibitions punishable by *karet*, e.g., “And if a man shall take his sister” (Leviticus 20:17), and in prohibitions of the priesthood, where it states: “They shall not take a woman that is a harlot” (Leviticus 21:7).


###### Yevamot 55a:26
[Yevamot 55a:26](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Yevamot/r/55a:26)

דְּחַיָּיבֵי עֲשֵׂה מְנָלַן?

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara asks further: **From where do we** derive that the initial stage of intercourse is considered an act of sexual intercourse with regard to **those liable** to receive punishment for violating **a positive mitzva,** e.g., one who has intercourse with an Egyptian or Edomite convert? The verse states: “The children that are born to them of the third generation may enter into the assembly of the Lord” (Deuteronomy 23:9). It is therefore a positive mitzva that only the grandchildren of these converts may have intercourse with a Jew.