## Yevamot Daf 8b

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

לְמִישְׁרֵי צָרָה שֶׁלֹּא בִּמְקוֹם מִצְוָה. מַאי טַעְמָא — אָמַר קָרָא ״עָלֶיהָ״: בִּמְקוֹם ״עָלֶיהָ״ הוּא דַּאֲסִירָא, שֶׁלֹּא בִּמְקוֹם עָלֶיהָ — שַׁרְיָא.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**to permit a rival wife in a place where the mitzva** of levirate marriage is **not** applicable. **What is the reason,** i.e., how is this inferred? **The verse states: “With her.”** In other words, **it is in a place** where the obligation “her brother-in-law will have intercourse **with her” is** applicable **that** a rival wife is **prohibited,** whereas **in a place** where the obligation “Her brother-in-law will have intercourse **with her” is not** applicable, a rival wife is **permitted.**


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

אֲמַר לֵיהּ רָמֵי בַּר חָמָא לְרָבָא: אֵימָא עֶרְוָה גּוּפֵיהּ שֶׁלֹּא בִּמְקוֹם מִצְוָה תִּישְׁתְּרֵי! וְלָאו קַל וָחוֹמֶר הוּא? בִּמְקוֹם מִצְוָה אֲסִירָא — שֶׁלֹּא בִּמְקוֹם מִצְוָה שַׁרְיָא?!

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**Rami bar Ḥama said to Rava:** If the phrase “with her” is referring only to a case where levirate marriage is applicable, one can **say** that **a forbidden relative herself should be permitted in a place** where the **mitzva** of levirate marriage is **not** applicable. According to this interpretation, the prohibitions with regard to all those with whom relations are forbidden are in effect only when levirate marriage applies. Rava answered: **And is it not an *a fortiori*** inference? If these relatives are **prohibited in a place** where there is **a mitzva,** could they be **permitted in a place** where there is **no mitzva?**


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

אֲמַר לֵיהּ: צָרָה תּוֹכִיחַ, דְּבִמְקוֹם מִצְוָה אֲסִירָא וְשֶׁלֹּא בִּמְקוֹם מִצְוָה שַׁרְיָא! אֲמַר לֵיהּ: עָלֶיךָ אָמַר קְרָא ״בְּחַיֶּיהָ״ — כֹּל שֶׁבְּחַיֶּיהָ.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
Rami bar Ḥama **said to** Rava: That is no proof, as the case of **a rival wife** herself **can prove** that this *a fortiori* inference is incorrect, **as in a place** where there is **a mitzva she is prohibited and in a place** where there is **no mitzva she is permitted.** Rava **said to** Rami bar Ḥami: **With regard to your** claim, **the verse states:** “And you shall not take a woman to her sister…**in her lifetime”** (Leviticus 18:18). This indicates that **all** cases in which it **is in the lifetime** of her sister she is forbidden, even when no mitzva applies.


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

הַאי ״בְּחַיֶּיהָ״ מִיבְּעֵי לֵיהּ לְמַעוֹטֵי לְאַחַר מִיתָה! הָהִיא מִ״וְאִשָּׁה אֶל אֲחוֹתָהּ״ נָפְקָא.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara asks: **This** phrase **“in her lifetime” is necessary,** as indicated by the plain meaning of the phrase, **to exclude the time after death,** i.e., to teach that a wife’s sister is forbidden only while the wife is still alive, whereas after her death the sister is permitted. The Gemara answers: **That** *halakha* that a woman is permitted after her sister’s death **is derived from** “and you shall not take **a woman to her sister”** (Leviticus 18:18), as when one of them is dead it is no longer considered “a woman to her sister.”


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

אִי מִ״וְאִשָּׁה אֶל אֲחוֹתָהּ״, הֲוָה אָמֵינָא: נִתְגָּרְשָׁה — שַׁרְיָא, תַּלְמוּד לוֹמַר: ״בְּחַיֶּיהָ״ — כֹּל שֶׁבְּחַיֶּיהָ, דְּאַף עַל גַּב דְּנִתְגָּרְשָׁה לֹא!

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara further asks: **If** this *halakha* is derived **from “a woman to her sister,” I would say** that even **if she were divorced,** her sister **is permitted.** Therefore, **the verse states: “In her lifetime,”** which indicates that the prohibition is in effect in **all** cases **that** are **in her lifetime. This** teaches **that although she is divorced,** her sister is **not** permitted.


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

אֶלָּא אָמַר רַב הוּנָא בַּר תַּחְלִיפָא מִשְּׁמֵיהּ דְּרָבָא: תְּרֵי קְרָאֵי כְּתִיבִי. כְּתִיב: ״אִשָּׁה אֶל אֲחוֹתָהּ לֹא תִקָּח לִצְרוֹר״, וּכְתִיב: ״לְגַלּוֹת עֶרְוָתָהּ״, דַּחֲדָא מַשְׁמַע. הָא כֵּיצַד? בִּמְקוֹם מִצְוָה — שְׁתֵּיהֶן אֲסוּרוֹת, שֶׁלֹּא בִּמְקוֹם מִצְוָה — הִיא אֲסוּרָה וְצָרָתָהּ מוּתֶּרֶת.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
§ **Rather,** the Gemara suggests a different interpretation. **Rav Huna bar Taḥlifa said in the name of Rava: Two verses are written,** i.e., two separate issues are mentioned in the same verse. **It is written: “And you shall not take a woman to her sister, to be a rival [*litzror*],”** which indicates that two rival wives are prohibited. **And it is written: “To uncover her nakedness”** (Leviticus 18:18), in the singular, **which means one** and not both of them. **How is it** possible to reconcile this apparent contradiction? **In a place** where there is **a mitzva** of levirate marriage, **both** the forbidden relation and her rival wife **are prohibited. In a place** where there is **no mitzva** of levirate marriage, the forbidden relation **is prohibited but her rival wife is permitted.**


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

אֵיפוֹךְ אֲנָא: בִּמְקוֹם מִצְוָה — הִיא אֲסוּרָה וְצָרָתָהּ מוּתֶּרֶת, וְשֶׁלֹּא בִּמְקוֹם מִצְוָה — שְׁתֵּיהֶן אֲסוּרוֹת. אִם כֵּן, לֹא יֵאָמֵר ״עָלֶיהָ״.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara raises a difficulty: **I** can **reverse this** and suggest the opposite. **In a place** where there is **a mitzva,** the forbidden relation **is prohibited and her rival wife is permitted, and in a place** where there is **no mitzva, both of them are prohibited.** The Gemara answers: **If so, let** the verse **not say “with her,”** at all, as this superfluous phrase teaches that the prohibition with regard to a rival wife applies only when there is a mitzva of “her brother-in-law will have intercourse with her.”


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

אֲמַר לֵיהּ רַב אָשֵׁי לְרַב כָּהֲנָא: מִמַּאי דְּהַאי ״עָלֶיהָ״ לְאִיסּוּרָא, דִּלְמָא לְהֶתֵּירָא, וְהָכִי קָאָמַר רַחֲמָנָא: ״אִשָּׁה אֶל אֲחוֹתָהּ לֹא תִקָּח לִצְרוֹר״, לֹא הִיא וְלֹא צָרָתָהּ — שֶׁלֹּא בִּמְקוֹם ״עָלֶיהָ״, אֲבָל בִּמְקוֹם ״עָלֶיהָ״ — שְׁתֵּיהֶן מוּתָּרוֹת.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**Rav Ashi said to Rav Kahana: From where** is it derived **that this** superfluous phrase **“with her,”** comes **to prohibit,** i.e., although there is an obligation that “her brother-in-law will have intercourse with her,” a wife’s sister remains prohibited? **Perhaps** it serves **to permit, and this is what the Merciful One is saying: “You shall not take a woman to her sister, to be a rival”** (Leviticus 18:18), i.e., **neither her nor her rival wife.** When is this the case? It is **in a place where** the obligation of “her brother-in-law will have intercourse **with her”** does **not** apply. **However, in a place where “with her” does apply** and there is an obligation of levirate marriage, **both of them are permitted.**


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

אִם כֵּן, ״לְגַלּוֹת עֶרְוָה״ דַּחֲדָא הֵיכִי מַשְׁכַּחַתְּ לַהּ? אִי בִּמְקוֹם מִצְוָה — שְׁתֵּיהֶן מוּתָּרוֹת, אִי שֶׁלֹּא בִּמְקוֹם מִצְוָה — שְׁתֵּיהֶן אֲסוּרוֹת?!

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
Rav Kahana replied to Rav Ashi: **If** the above statement is **so,** and **“to uncover her nakedness”** is referring **to one** woman, under **what circumstances** can **you find** this case? When is only one of them prohibited? **If** it is **in a place** where there is **a mitzva, they are both permitted; if** it is **in a place** where there is **no mitzva, they are both forbidden.** Therefore, the earlier line of reasoning must be accepted: A rival wife is forbidden only in a case where the mitzva of levirate marriage is in effect.


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

גּוּפָא. רַבִּי אוֹמֵר: ״וְלָקַח״ ״וּלְקָחָהּ״, ״וְיִבֵּם״ ״וְיִבְּמָהּ״, לֶאֱסוֹר צָרוֹת וַעֲרָיוֹת. מִידֵי ״צָרוֹת״ כְּתִיבָא הָכָא? וְעוֹד: צָרוֹת מִ״לִּצְרוֹר״ נָפְקָא!

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
§ While clarifying the exposition of the phrase “with her,” an alternative interpretation attributed to Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi was mentioned. The Gemara discusses **the** matter **itself. Rabbi** Yehuda HaNasi **says:** The verse does not say **have intercourse,** but **“have intercourse with her.”** And it does not say **and consummate the levirate marriage,** but **“and consummate the levirate marriage with her.”** These phrases serve **to prohibit rival wives and** women **with whom relations are forbidden.** The Gemara asks: **Are rival wives written here?** In other words, what is the connection between the verse and the topic of rival wives, an issue that is not even mentioned in the verse? **And furthermore:** The prohibition with regard to **rival wives is derived** from the phrase **“To be a rival wife [*litzror*],”** not from this source.


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

״לִצְרוֹר״ מַפֵּיק לֵיהּ רַבִּי לְכִדְרַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara answers: **Rabbi** Yehuda HaNasi **derives** a different *halakha* **from** the phrase **“to be a rival wife,” in accordance with that** statement **of Rabbi Shimon.** In Rabbi Shimon’s opinion, the exemption of two sisters from levirate marriage applies not only when the *yavam* is married to one of the sisters, but also if two sisters who come before him for levirate marriage were previously married to two of his brothers. In that case, the levirate bond itself is sufficient for them to be considered rival wives of one another.


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

צָרָה הָכָא כְּתִיב? הָכִי קָאָמַר: אִם כֵּן, לֵימָא קְרָא ״וְלָקַח״, מַאי ״וּלְקָחָהּ״ — כֹּל הֵיכָא דְּאִיכָּא תְּרֵי לִקּוּחִין, דְּאִי בָּעֵי נָסֵיב הַאי וְאִי בָּעֵי נָסֵיב הַאי — שַׁרְיָא. וְאִי לָא — תַּרְוַיְיהוּ אֲסִירִין.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
And with regard to the previous question: **Are rival wives written here?** The answer is that **this is what he is saying: If so,** that the verse does not come to exempt rival wives, **let the verse state** only: **Have intercourse. What is** the meaning of **“have intercourse with her”?** It serves to limit the case to one woman and not two, in the following manner: **Anywhere that there are two** possibilities of **having intercourse,** i.e., there is a choice between marrying one of two women in levirate marriage, in such a way **that if he wants he may marry this one, and if he wants he may marry that one,** then each one is **permitted. And if** he does **not** have a choice and is obligated to marry one of them, e.g., if the other is a forbidden relation to him, **they are both prohibited,** including the rival wife.


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

״וְיִבְּמָהּ״ — בִּמְקוֹם יִיבּוּם הוּא דַּאֲסִירָא צָרָה, שֶׁלֹּא בִּמְקוֹם יִיבּוּם — שַׁרְיָא צָרָה. וְרַבָּנַן, הַאי ״וּלְקָחָהּ״ — מַאי עָבְדִי לֵיהּ?

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
When the verse states: **“And consummate the levirate marriage with her,”** it comes to teach the following. **It is in a place** where **levirate marriage** is applicable **that a rival wife is prohibited,** whereas **in a place** where **levirate marriage** is **not** applicable, **a rival wife is permitted.** The Gemara asks: **And** with regard to **the Rabbis,** who do not interpret the verse in this manner, **what do they do with this** emphasis on **“have intercourse with her”?** How do they interpret it?


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

מִיבְּעֵי לְהוּ לְכִדְרַבִּי יוֹסֵי בַּר חֲנִינָא. דְּאָמַר רַבִּי יוֹסֵי בַּר חֲנִינָא: ״וּלְקָחָהּ״ — מְלַמֵּד שֶׁמְּגָרְשָׁה בְּגֵט וּמַחְזִירָהּ. ״וְיִבְּמָהּ״ — עַל כׇּרְחָהּ.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara responds: **They need this for that which Rabbi Yosei bar Ḥanina** said, **as Rabbi Yosei bar Ḥanina said: “And have intercourse with her”** means marriage, i.e., she is fully his wife from that moment onward. This **teaches that he divorces her with a bill of divorce** after levirate marriage, and she can no longer be released by *ḥalitza*, **and he** may subsequently **remarry her** if he so wishes. And the verse **“and consummate the levirate marriage with her,”** this means **against her will.** Although betrothal in general does not take effect without the woman’s consent, levirate marriage can be effected against her will.


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

וְרַבִּי? דְּרַבִּי יוֹסֵי בַּר חֲנִינָא — מִ״לְּאִשָּׁה״ נָפְקָא, עַל כׇּרְחָהּ — מִ״יְּבָמָה יָבֹא עָלֶיהָ״ נָפְקָא.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara asks: **And** from where does **Rabbi** Yehuda HaNasi derive these widely accepted *halakhot*? The Gemara responds: **That** *halakha* cited by **Rabbi Yosei bar Ḥanina,** that a woman taken in levirate marriage has the status of a regular wife who may be divorced and remarried, **is derived from** the verse “and take her to him **to be his wife”** (Deuteronomy 25:5), which means that she will be his wife for all purposes, like any other wife. And the *halakha* that levirate marriage can be effected **against her will is derived from “her brother-in-law will have intercourse with her,”** which indicates that it can be achieved without her consent.


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

וְרַבִּי, הַאי ״עָלֶיהָ״ מַאי עָבֵיד לֵיהּ? מִיבְּעֵי לֵיהּ לְכִדְתַנְיָא: אֵין חַיָּיבִין בֵּית דִּין אֶלָּא עַל דָּבָר שֶׁזְּדוֹנוֹ כָּרֵת וְשִׁגְגָתוֹ חַטָּאת. וְכֵן הַמָּשִׁיחַ.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara asks: **And what does Rabbi** Yehuda HaNasi **do with this** superfluous phrase, **“with her”?** The Gemara responds: **He needs it for that which is taught** in a *baraita* with regard to a different matter. The Sages said: **The court is obligated** to bring a bull as a sin-offering for an unwittingly committed communal sin on account of an erroneous *halakha* they taught **only for a matter whose intentional** transgression incurs ***karet* and whose unwitting** violation necessitates the sacrifice of **a sin-offering. And similarly, the anointed** High Priest, who also brings a bull for an unwittingly committed sin, is obligated to do so only if his mistake involved a matter whose intentional transgression incurs *karet* and whose unwitting transgression necessitates the sacrifice of a sin-offering.