## Yevamot Daf 8a

###### Yevamot 8a:1
[Yevamot 8a:1](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Yevamot/r/8a:1)

תִּינַח הֵיכָא דְּנָשָׂא מֵת וְאַחַר כָּךְ נָשָׂא חַי. דְּמִגּוֹ דְּאִישְׁתְּרִי אִיסּוּר אֵשֶׁת אָח — אִישְׁתְּרִי נָמֵי אִיסּוּר אֲחוֹת אִשָּׁה.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
This works out **well when the deceased** brother had first **married** one of the sisters, who was thereby rendered prohibited to the *yavam* as his brother’s wife, **and** only **afterward** had **the living** brother **married** her sister, which renders his brother’s wife forbidden to him on another count, this time as his wife’s sister. **As** in that case one can say that **since** the first **prohibition** with regard to **a brother’s wife was** subsequently nullified and thereby **permitted** by the mitzva of levirate marriage, **the prohibition** with regard to **a wife’s sister was also** nullified and thereby **permitted.**


###### Yevamot 8a:2
[Yevamot 8a:2](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Yevamot/r/8a:2)

אֶלָּא נָשָׂא חַי, וְאַחַר כָּךְ נָשָׂא מֵת — אִיסּוּר אֲחוֹת אִשָּׁה קָדֵים.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**However,** if the reverse occurred, and first the **living** brother had **married** his wife **and** only **afterward the deceased** brother had **married** her sister, in this case **the prohibition** with regard to **a wife’s sister precedes** the prohibition proscribing a brother’s wife, i.e., she was initially forbidden to him as his wife’s sister. Consequently, even when the second prohibition lapses upon the death of his childless brother, the first prohibition should remain intact.


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

וַאֲפִילּוּ נָשָׂא מֵת נָמֵי, תִּינַח הֵיכָא דְּנָשָׂא מֵת, וּמֵת, וְאַחַר כָּךְ נָשָׂא חַי — דְּחַזְיָא לֵיהּ דְּבֵינֵי בֵּינֵי. אֶלָּא נָשָׂא מֵת, וְלֹא מֵת, וְאַחַר כָּךְ נָשָׂא חַי — לָא אִיחַזְיָא לֵיהּ כְּלָל.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**And** furthermore, **even** in a case where **the deceased** brother had **married** first, **it** works out **well** only **when the deceased** brother had **married** the woman **and** then **died, and** only **afterward the surviving** brother **married** that brother’s wife’s sister. The reason is **that** in this case, the sister of the wife of the deceased brother **was fit for him in between,** i.e., during the period from when the deceased brother died until he married that brother’s wife’s sister. Therefore, it can be claimed that the second prohibition should not apply. **However,** if **the deceased** brother **married** first, **and did not die** yet, **and afterward,** during the deceased brother’s lifetime, **the living** brother **married** the deceased brother’s wife’s sister, **she was not fit for him at all,** as there was no period of time during which she was permitted to him.


###### Yevamot 8a:4
[Yevamot 8a:4](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Yevamot/r/8a:4)

מִי לָא מוֹדֵי עוּלָּא שֶׁאִם רָאָה קֶרִי בְּלֵיל שְׁמִינִי, שֶׁאֵין מַכְנִיס יָדָיו לַבְּהוֹנוֹת, שֶׁלֹּא יָצָא בְּשָׁעָה שֶׁהִיא רְאוּיָה לְהָבִיא בָּהּ קׇרְבָּן.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara provides proof for this claim: **Doesn’t Ulla agree that if** a leper **experienced a seminal emission on the night of the eighth,** not on the eighth day but on the previous night, **that he may not insert his hands** and feet **to the thumb and big toe** to receive the blood and oil for his purification? The reason is **that** in this case he is ritually impure due to the emission and **he** had **not** yet **emerged** from the impurity of leprosy **at a time that is fitting to bring an offering,** as he cannot sacrifice his offerings until the daylight hours of the eighth day. Since there was not a single moment when he was permitted to enter the Temple in his state of ritual impurity, in this case one cannot apply the principle: Since it is permitted, it is permitted.


###### Yevamot 8a:5
[Yevamot 8a:5](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Yevamot/r/8a:5)

אֶלָּא: כִּי אִיצְטְרִיךְ ״עָלֶיהָ״ — הֵיכָא דְּנָשָׂא מֵת, וּמֵת, וְאַחַר כָּךְ נָשָׂא חַי.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
§ **Rather,** the Gemara suggests that the phrase **“with her,”** which teaches the prohibition with regard to a wife’s sister in levirate marriage, **is necessary** for a case **where the deceased** brother had first **married and** then **died, and** only **afterward the living** brother **married** the sister of the deceased brother’s wife, in which case his brother’s wife was permitted to him for a period of time. Accordingly, one might have applied the principle: Since it is permitted, it is permitted. For this reason it was necessary to write “with her,” to teach that this second woman is nevertheless forbidden as his wife’s sister.


###### Yevamot 8a:6
[Yevamot 8a:6](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Yevamot/r/8a:6)

וְאִי בָּעֵית אֵימָא: אָתְיָא בְּהֶיקֵּישָׁא מִדְּרַבִּי יוֹנָה. דְּאָמַר רַבִּי יוֹנָה, וְאִיתֵּימָא רַב הוּנָא בְּרֵיהּ דְּרַב יְהוֹשֻׁעַ, אָמַר קְרָא: ״כִּי כׇּל אֲשֶׁר יַעֲשֶׂה מִכֹּל הַתּוֹעֵבוֹת הָאֵלֶּה וְנִכְרְתוּ״, הוּקְשׁוּ כׇּל הָעֲרָיוֹת כּוּלָּן לְאֵשֶׁת אָח: מָה אֵשֶׁת אָח — שַׁרְיָא, אַף כׇּל עֲרָיוֹת — נָמֵי שַׁרְיָין, כְּתַב רַחֲמָנָא ״עָלֶיהָ״.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**And if you wish, say** instead that the suggestion that other women with whom relations are forbidden are permitted in levirate marriage **is derived from the juxtaposition of Rabbi Yona. As Rabbi Yona said, and some say** this was stated by **Rav Huna, son of Rav Yehoshua: The verse 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). In this verse **all of** the women **with whom relations are forbidden are juxtaposed with** the case of **a brother’s wife.** Consequently, one might say that **just as a brother’s wife is permitted** in levirate marriage, **so too, all** women **with whom relations are forbidden are likewise permitted.** Therefore, **the Merciful One writes: “With her,”** which excludes the prohibition with regard to a wife’s sister.


###### Yevamot 8a:7
[Yevamot 8a:7](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Yevamot/r/8a:7)

אֲמַר לֵיהּ רַב אַחָא מִדִּפְתִּי לְרָבִינָא: מִכְּדִי כֹּל עֲרָיוֹת, אִיכָּא לְאַקּוֹשִׁינְהוּ לְאֵשֶׁת אָח, וְאִיכָּא לְאַקּוֹשִׁינְהוּ לַאֲחוֹת אִשָּׁה. מַאי חָזֵית דְּאַקֵּשְׁתְּ לַאֲחוֹת אִשָּׁה? אַקְּשִׁינְהוּ לְאֵשֶׁת אָח!

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
Against this proof, **Rav Aḥa of Difti said to Ravina: Since** the *halakha* of **all** women **with whom relations are forbidden can be juxtaposed with** the case of **a brother’s wife** and thereby rendered permitted in levirate marriage, **and** these cases **can** equally **be juxtaposed with** the *halakha* of **a wife’s sister,** which would mean that they are forbidden, **what did you see that you juxtaposed them with a wife’s sister? Juxtapose them** instead **with a brother’s wife.** If so, the opposite could be derived from the phrase “with her,” i.e., not that all women with whom relations are forbidden are prohibited like a wife’s sister, but that all these women are permitted in levirate marriage, even a wife’s sister.


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

אִיבָּעֵית אֵימָא: לְקוּלָּא וְחוּמְרָא — לְחוּמְרָא מַקְּשִׁינַן. אִיבָּעֵית אֵימָא: הָכָא תְּרֵי אִיסּוּרֵי, וְהָכָא תְּרֵי אִיסּוּרֵי — וּתְרֵי מִתְּרֵי יָלְפִינַן. אֲבָל הָכָא חֲדָא אִיסּוּרָא — וּתְרֵי מֵחֲדָא לָא יָלְפִינַן.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara answers: **If you wish, say** that if one must decide between two possible ways of understanding juxtaposed cases, one of which leads **to a lenient** ruling **and** the other to **a stringent** ruling, **we juxtapose to** reach **the stringent ruling,** not the leniency. **If you wish, say** instead: **Here,** there are **two prohibitions,** a brother’s wife and a wife’s sister, **and there,** in the case of all other women with whom relations are forbidden, there are also **two prohibitions. And one** may **derive** a case involving **two** prohibitions **from** another case that involves **two** prohibitions. **However, here,** in the case of a regular levirate marriage that does not involve any other forbidden relation, there is only **one prohibition** proscribing a brother’s wife, **and one may not derive** a case involving **two** prohibitions **from** a case that involves only **one.**


###### Yevamot 8a:9
[Yevamot 8a:9](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Yevamot/r/8a:9)

רָבָא אָמַר: עֶרְוָה לָא צְרִיכָא קְרָא, דְּאֵין עֲשֵׂה דּוֹחֶה לֹא תַעֲשֶׂה שֶׁיֵּשׁ בּוֹ כָּרֵת. כִּי אִיצְטְרִיךְ קְרָא לְמֵיסַר צָרָה.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
§ **Rava said** that this entire *halakha* must be understood differently. With regard to **a forbidden relation** herself, it is **not necessary** for **a verse** to teach that she cannot enter into levirate marriage, **as a positive mitzva does not override a prohibition that includes *karet*.** Rather, **the verse** “with her” **is necessary to prohibit a rival wife,** as a rival wife is not prohibited to the *yavam* as a forbidden relation.


###### Yevamot 8a:10
[Yevamot 8a:10](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Yevamot/r/8a:10)

וְעֶרְוָה לָא צְרִיכָא קְרָא? וְהָא תַּנְיָא: אֵין לִי אֶלָּא הִיא!

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara asks: **And** does the *tanna* in fact maintain with regard to **a forbidden relation** that it is **not necessary** for **a verse** to teach that she is prohibited in levirate marriage? **But isn’t it taught** in that same *baraita*: **I have** derived **nothing other** than that **this** woman is exempt from levirate marriage. From where is it inferred that the same applies to her rival wife? This shows that the case of a forbidden relation does require a special inference from a verse.


###### Yevamot 8a:11
[Yevamot 8a:11](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Yevamot/r/8a:11)

מִשּׁוּם צָרָתָהּ.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara answers: It is **due to her rival wife,** i.e., the *baraita* does not mean that the *halakha* of women with whom relations are forbidden is derived from this verse; rather, this case is mentioned only to introduce the case of a rival wife.


###### Yevamot 8a:12
[Yevamot 8a:12](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Yevamot/r/8a:12)

וְהָא קָתָנֵי: אֵין לִי אֶלָּא הֵן! מִשּׁוּם צָרוֹתֵיהֶן.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara raises another difficulty: **But it is taught** in the *baraita*: **I have** derived **nothing other** than that **these** sisters are exempt from levirate marriage, which again suggests that the derivation from the verse applies to all of them. This is similarly rejected: This is also stated **due to their rival wives.**


###### Yevamot 8a:13
[Yevamot 8a:13](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Yevamot/r/8a:13)

תָּא שְׁמַע, רַבִּי אוֹמֵר: ״וְלָקַח״ ״וּלְקָחָהּ״, ״וְיִבֵּם״ ״וְיִבְּמָהּ״ — לֶאֱסוֹר צָרוֹת וַעֲרָיוֹת.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara suggests: **Come** and **hear** a different *baraita* that contradicts Rava’s statement: **Rabbi** Yehuda HaNasi **says** that there is a different proof that a forbidden relation and her rival wife are prohibited in levirate marriage. The Torah says: “He will have intercourse with her and take her to him to be his wife and consummate the levirate marriage with her” (Deuteronomy 25:5). Since the verse does not say simply: **Have intercourse,** but: **“Have intercourse with her,”** this indicates that he takes this woman specifically, not a different woman who is forbidden. Furthermore, the verse does not simply state: **And consummate the levirate marriage,** but: **“And consummate the levirate marriage with her.”** These additions serve **to prohibit rival wives and** women **with whom relations are forbidden.**


###### Yevamot 8a:14
[Yevamot 8a:14](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Yevamot/r/8a:14)

אֵימָא: לֶאֱסוֹר צָרוֹת שֶׁל עֲרָיוֹת. וְהָא תְּרֵי קְרָאֵי קָנָסֵיב לֵיהּ, מַאי לָאו: חַד לְעֶרְוָה וְחַד לְצָרָה?

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
This shows that even the prohibition with regard to women with whom relations are forbidden requires a special inference. The Gemara answers: Amend the language of the *baraita* and **say: To prohibit rival wives of** those **with whom relations are forbidden,** not the women themselves with whom relations are forbidden. The Gemara raises a difficulty: **But he brought two** proofs from the **verse,** both “have intercourse with her” and “and consummate the levirate marriage with her.” **What, is it not** because **one** phrase is required for the *halakha* **of** a woman **with whom relations are forbidden and** the other **one for a rival wife?**


###### Yevamot 8a:15
[Yevamot 8a:15](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Yevamot/r/8a:15)

לָא, אִידִי וְאִידִי לְצָרָה: חַד לְמֵיסַר צָרָה בִּמְקוֹם מִצְוָה, וְחַד לְמִישְׁרֵי צָרָה שֶׁלֹּא בִּמְקוֹם מִצְוָה.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara rejects this suggestion: **No, this** source **and that** source **are** necessary **for a rival wife,** and both phrases are required, for the following reason. **One** of them comes **to prohibit a rival wife in a place where the mitzva** of levirate marriage is applicable, **and one** serves **to permit a rival wife in a place where the mitzva** is **not** applicable. If a woman is the rival wife of one of those relatives forbidden to a given man, he is permitted to marry her following the death of her husband, as the prohibition proscribing rival wives of women with whom relations are forbidden pertains only to cases where the *halakhot* of levirate marriage are applicable, i.e., in the case of a brother’s wife.


###### Yevamot 8a:16
[Yevamot 8a:16](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Yevamot/r/8a:16)

מַאי טַעְמָא — ״וְיִבֵּם״ ״וְיִבְּמָהּ״: בִּמְקוֹם יִיבּוּם הוּא דַּאֲסִירָא צָרָה, שֶׁלֹּא בִּמְקוֹם יִיבּוּם — שַׁרְיָא צָרָה.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara elaborates: **What is the reason** for this *halakha*? It is derived from the fact that the verse does not merely state: **And consummate the levirate marriage,** but instead emphasizes: **“And consummate the levirate marriage with her.”** This comes to teach: **It is in a place where levirate marriage** applies **that a rival wife is prohibited;** however, **in a place where the levirate marriage** is **not** applicable, **a rival wife is permitted.**


###### Yevamot 8a:17
[Yevamot 8a:17](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Yevamot/r/8a:17)

אָמַר רַב אָשֵׁי: מַתְנִיתִין נָמֵי דַּיְקָא, דְּקָתָנֵי: חֲמֵשׁ עֶשְׂרֵה נָשִׁים פּוֹטְרוֹת צָרוֹתֵיהֶן. וְאִילּוּ ״פְּטוּרוֹת וּפוֹטְרוֹת״ לָא קָתָנֵי. שְׁמַע מִינַּהּ.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**Rav Ashi said: The mishna is also precisely** formulated in accordance with the opinion of Rava, **as it teaches: Fifteen women exempt their rival wives, whereas** the phrase: **Are exempt and exempt** others, **is not taught.** This indicates that the exemption of these women who are themselves forbidden relations does not necessitate any special inference, as this is not a novel *halakha*, and therefore the mishna does not even state this point explicitly. The novelty is that they exempt their rival wives. The Gemara summarizes: **Conclude from this** that Rava’s opinion is correct.


###### Yevamot 8a:18
[Yevamot 8a:18](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Yevamot/r/8a:18)

וּמַאי שְׁנָא עֶרְוָה דְּלָא צְרִיכָא קְרָא — דְּאֵין עֲשֵׂה דּוֹחֶה לֹא תַעֲשֶׂה שֶׁיֵּשׁ בּוֹ כָּרֵת? צָרָה נָמֵי לָא תִּיבְּעֵי קְרָא — מִשּׁוּם דְּאֵין עֲשֵׂה דּוֹחֶה לֹא תַעֲשֶׂה שֶׁיֵּשׁ בּוֹ כָּרֵת!

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara asks: **And** if so, **what is different** about **a forbidden relation that** a special **verse is not necessary** to exclude it? The reason must be **that a positive mitzva does not override a prohibition that entails *karet*.** If so, **a rival wife** should **also not require an** additional **verse, due to** the fact that **a positive mitzva does not override a prohibition that entails *karet*.** The phrase “to be a rival to her” (Leviticus 18:18) teaches that the rival wife of a wife’s sister is prohibited like the wife’s sister herself.


###### Yevamot 8a:19
[Yevamot 8a:19](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Yevamot/r/8a:19)

אֲמַר לֵיהּ רַב אַחָא בַּר בִּיבִי מָר לְרָבִינָא: הָכִי קָאָמְרִינַן מִשְּׁמֵיהּ דְּרָבָא: צָרָה נָמֵי לָא אִיצְטְרִיךְ קְרָא. כִּי אִיצְטְרִיךְ קְרָא

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**Rav Aḥa, son of Beivai Mar, said to Ravina** that **this is what we say in the name of Rava:** With regard to **a rival wife too, a verse is not necessary,** as is the case with a forbidden relation herself, since the prohibition in her case as well incurs *karet*, and therefore one would not think that the positive mitzva of levirate marriage overrides that prohibition. **The verse is necessary**