## Yevamot Daf 94b

###### Yevamot 94b:1
[Yevamot 94b:1](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Yevamot/r/94b:1)

לוֹ. וּמוּתָּר בִּקְרוֹבוֹת שְׁנִיָּה, וּשְׁנִיָּה מוּתֶּרֶת בִּקְרוֹבָיו. וְאִם מֵתָה רִאשׁוֹנָה — מוּתָּר בַּשְּׁנִיָּה.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**to him,** as his erroneous marriage to her sister is considered licentious sexual relations, and one who has intercourse with his wife’s relatives has not rendered his first wife forbidden to himself. **And he is permitted to the relatives of the second** woman, e.g., her daughter, **and** this **second** woman **is permitted to his relatives,** e.g., his son, as the marriage was entirely invalid. **And if the first** woman **died** he is **permitted to the second** woman, despite the fact that he has already engaged in forbidden relations with her.


###### Yevamot 94b:2
[Yevamot 94b:2](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Yevamot/r/94b:2)

אָמְרוּ לוֹ: מֵתָה אִשְׁתּוֹ, וְנָשָׂא אֶת אֲחוֹתָהּ. וְאַחַר כָּךְ אָמְרוּ לוֹ: קַיֶּימֶת הָיְתָה, וּמֵתָה. הַוָּלָד רִאשׁוֹן — מַמְזֵר, וְהָאַחֲרוֹן — אֵין מַמְזֵר. רַבִּי יוֹסֵי אוֹמֵר: כׇּל שֶׁפּוֹסֵל עַל יְדֵי אֲחֵרִים — פּוֹסֵל עַל יְדֵי עַצְמוֹ, וְכֹל שֶׁאֵין פּוֹסֵל עַל יְדֵי אֲחֵרִים — אֵינוֹ פּוֹסֵל עַל יְדֵי עַצְמוֹ.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
If **they said to him** that **his wife is dead, and he married her sister, and afterward they said to him** that **she was alive** when he married the sister **and** only later **died,** in this case **the first child,** born to the sister while his wife was still alive, is **a *mamzer*,** as he was born from the union of a man and his sister-in-law, **and the last one is not a *mamzer*. Rabbi Yosei says: Whoever disqualifies others** also **disqualifies himself, and whoever does not disqualify others does not disqualify himself** either. Rabbi Yosei’s obscure statement will be explained by the Gemara.


###### Yevamot 94b:3
[Yevamot 94b:3](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Yevamot/r/94b:3)

**גְּמָ׳** וְאַף עַל גַּב דַּאֲזוּל אִשְׁתּוֹ וְגִיסוֹ לִמְדִינַת הַיָּם, דְּאַהֲנִי הָנֵי נִשּׂוּאִים דְּקָמִיתַּסְרָא אֵשֶׁת גִּיסוֹ אַגִּיסוֹ, אֲפִילּוּ הָכִי: אֵשֶׁת גִּיסוֹ אֲסִירָא, אִשְׁתּוֹ שַׁרְיָא,

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**GEMARA:** With regard to the case of a man who married his wife’s sister after he was informed that his wife was dead, the Gemara comments: **And even if his wife and his brother-in-law** both **went overseas** and he was told that they had died, the *halakha* is **that this marriage** he performed **is effective** only to the extent **that his brother-in-law’s wife is forbidden to his brother-in-law.** The reason for this prohibition is that he performed a marriage ceremony with a married woman by mistake, and one who erroneously weds a married woman has thereby rendered her forbidden to her husband. The Gemara adds: **Even so,** it is only **his brother-in-law’s wife** who **is forbidden** to her husband, whereas **his** own **wife** remains **permitted** to him.


###### Yevamot 94b:4
[Yevamot 94b:4](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Yevamot/r/94b:4)

וְלָא אָמְרִינַן: מִתּוֹךְ שֶׁנֶּאֶסְרָה אֵשֶׁת גִּיסוֹ אַגִּיסוֹ, תֵּיאָסֵר אִשְׁתּוֹ עָלָיו. לֵימָא מַתְנִיתִין דְּלָא כְּרַבִּי עֲקִיבָא, דְּאִי רַבִּי עֲקִיבָא — הָוְיָא לַהּ אֲחוֹת גְּרוּשָׁתוֹ.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
It might have been thought that his own marriage, which caused this to be an act of forbidden sexual relations, would also be adversely affected. **But** the Gemara adds that **we do not say: Since his brother-in-law’s wife is forbidden to his brother-in-law, his wife is** likewise **forbidden to him.** The Gemara suggests: **Let us say that the mishna is not in accordance with** the opinion of **Rabbi Akiva.** The reason is **that if** the mishna follows the opinion of **Rabbi Akiva,** his wife **is** now considered, with regard to him, the **sister of his divorcée.**


###### Yevamot 94b:5
[Yevamot 94b:5](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Yevamot/r/94b:5)

דְּתַנְיָא: כׇּל עֲרָיוֹת שֶׁבַּתּוֹרָה — אֵין צְרִיכוֹת הֵימֶנּוּ גֵּט, חוּץ מֵאֵשֶׁת אִישׁ שֶׁנִּשֵּׂאת עַל פִּי בֵּית דִּין, וְרַבִּי עֲקִיבָא מוֹסִיף אַף אֵשֶׁת אָח וַאֲחוֹת אִשָּׁה. וְכֵיוָן דְּאָמַר רַבִּי עֲקִיבָא בָּעֲיָא גֵּט, מִמֵּילָא אִיתַּסְרָא עֲלֵיהּ, דְּהָוְיָא לַהּ אֲחוֹת גְּרוּשָׁתוֹ.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**As it is taught** in a *baraita*: **None of those with whom relations are forbidden by Torah law require a bill of divorce from him,** even if he married them in a proper manner, **apart from a married woman who married** by mistake **by** permission of **the court. And Rabbi Akiva adds: Also a brother’s wife and a wife’s sister.** Since it is possible that these two women could become permitted to him, by levirate marriage in the case of a brother’s wife, or a wife’s sister after his wife’s death, they too require a bill of divorce. **And** with regard to the issue at hand, **since Rabbi Akiva said** that a wife’s sister **requires a bill of divorce,** this factor **by itself** indicates that his wife is **forbidden to him, as** his wife **is** considered **the sister of his divorcée.**


###### Yevamot 94b:6
[Yevamot 94b:6](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Yevamot/r/94b:6)

וְלָאו אִיתְּמַר עֲלַהּ, אָמַר רַב גִּידֵּל אָמַר רַב חִיָּיא בַּר יוֹסֵף אָמַר רַב: הַאי אֵשֶׁת אָח הֵיכִי דָּמֵי — כְּגוֹן שֶׁקִּדֵּשׁ אָחִיו אֶת הָאִשָּׁה, וְהָלַךְ לִמְדִינַת הַיָּם, וְשָׁמַע שֶׁמֵּת אָחִיו, וְעָמַד וְנָשָׂא אֶת אִשְׁתּוֹ, דְּאָמְרִי אִינָשֵׁי: הָךְ קַמָּא, תְּנָאָה הֲוָה לֵיהּ בְּקִידּוּשִׁין, וְהַאי שַׁפִּיר נָסֵיב.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara refutes this claim: **And wasn’t it stated with regard to** this case that **Rav Giddel said** that **Rav Ḥiyya bar Yosef said** that **Rav said:** In the case of **this brother’s wife,** mentioned by Rabbi Akiva, **what are the circumstances? For example, if his brother betrothed a woman and** then **went overseas, and** the man who was here **heard that his brother was dead, and he arose and married his** brother’s **wife** as a *yevama*. The reason for Rabbi Akiva’s ruling is **that** uninformed **people will say: This first one had a condition in the betrothal** with his wife, and his betrothal was canceled because the condition was left unfulfilled, **and this** other **one married well,** in compliance with the *halakha*, as she was not his brother’s wife. It is for this reason that Rabbi Akiva requires him to give her a bill of divorce.


###### Yevamot 94b:7
[Yevamot 94b:7](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Yevamot/r/94b:7)

וְהַאי אֲחוֹת אִשָּׁה נָמֵי הֵיכִי דָּמֵי — כְּגוֹן שֶׁקִּידֵּשׁ אֶת אִשָּׁה, וְהָלְכָה לִמְדִינַת הַיָּם, וְשָׁמַע שֶׁמֵּתָה, עָמַד וְנָשָׂא אֶת אֲחוֹתָהּ. דְּאָמְרִי אִינָשֵׁי: הָךְ קַמַּיְיתָא, תְּנָאֵי הֲוָה לֵיהּ בְּקִדּוּשֶׁיהָ, וְהָא שַׁפִּיר נָסֵיב. אֶלָּא נִשּׂוּאִין, מִי אִיכָּא לְמֵימַר תְּנָאָה הֲוָה לֵיהּ בְּנִשּׂוּאִין?

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**And** in **this** case of **a wife’s sister as well, what are the circumstances? For example, if he betrothed a woman and she went overseas, and he heard she died** and **arose and married her sister. As people will say: This first one, he had a condition in her betrothal,** and as the condition was not fulfilled the betrothal is annulled, **and this** other **one married well. However,** with regard to the case of the mishna, which involves an actual previous **marriage, can it be said** that **he had a condition in the marriage?** There is a presumption that no man marries a woman conditionally. Once he marries her, it is assumed that he waived all prior conditions, and therefore even Rabbi Akiva agrees that a bill of divorce is not required in this case.


###### Yevamot 94b:8
[Yevamot 94b:8](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Yevamot/r/94b:8)

אֲמַר לֵיהּ רַב אָשֵׁי לְרַב כָּהֲנָא: אִי רַבִּי עֲקִיבָא, לִיתְנֵי נָמֵי חֲמוֹתוֹ. דְּהָא שָׁמְעִינַן לֵיהּ לְרַבִּי עֲקִיבָא, דְּאָמַר: חֲמוֹתוֹ לְאַחַר מִיתָה — לָאו בִּשְׂרֵפָה.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**Rav Ashi said to Rav Kahana: If** it is the opinion of **Rabbi Akiva, let him also teach** the case of **his mother-in-law,** as she is another forbidden woman who nevertheless requires a bill of divorce, **as we have heard him, Rabbi Akiva, say:** One who has relations with his **mother-in-law after** his wife’s **death is not** liable to being executed by **burning,** because the prohibition lapses upon his wife’s death.


###### Yevamot 94b:9
[Yevamot 94b:9](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Yevamot/r/94b:9)

דְּתַנְיָא: ״בָּאֵשׁ יִשְׂרְפוּ אוֹתוֹ וְאֶתְהֶן״ — אוֹתוֹ וְאֶת אַחַת מֵהֶן, דִּבְרֵי רַבִּי יִשְׁמָעֵאל. רַבִּי עֲקִיבָא אוֹמֵר: אוֹתוֹ וְאֶת שְׁתֵּיהֶן.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**As it is taught** in a *baraita*: The Torah states, with regard to one who takes a woman and her daughter: **“They shall be burned in fire, he and they [*et’hen*]”** (Leviticus 20:14). Now this cannot literally mean that both women are burned, as the first woman he took did not sin at all. The Sages therefore explained that the word *et’hen* **means he and one of them [*mehen*].** This is **the statement of Rabbi Yishmael. Rabbi Akiva says: He and both of them.** Since it is hard to understand how they could both deserve punishment, the *amora’im* suggested various interpretations of Rabbi Akiva’s opinion.


###### Yevamot 94b:10
[Yevamot 94b:10](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Yevamot/r/94b:10)

בִּשְׁלָמָא לְאַבָּיֵי דְּאָמַר מַשְׁמָעוּת דּוֹרְשִׁין אִיכָּא בֵּינַיְיהוּ, דְּרַבִּי יִשְׁמָעֵאל סָבַר: חֲדָא כְּתִיב, וְרַבִּי עֲקִיבָא סָבַר: תַּרְתֵּי כְּתִיב — שַׁפִּיר.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**Granted,** this makes sense **according to** the explanation of this dispute suggested by **Abaye, who said** that the **interpretation of the meaning** of the verse **is** the difference **between them.** In other words, Rabbi Yishmael and Rabbi Akiva did not argue over the *halakha* itself, but merely over the manner in which the *halakha* is derived from the Torah. **That** is, **Rabbi Yishmael holds** that **it states: One** woman, and the plain meaning of the verse is: He and one of them. **And Rabbi Akiva holds** that **it states: Two,** e.g., if he took two women who were both forbidden to him, such as his mother-in-law and her mother, they are both liable to be executed by burning. If this is the dispute between Rabbi Akiva and Rabbi Yishmael, it is **fine,** as there is no proof from here that the prohibition of a mother-in-law lapses upon his wife’s death.


###### Yevamot 94b:11
[Yevamot 94b:11](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Yevamot/r/94b:11)

אֶלָּא לְרָבָא, דְּאָמַר: חֲמוֹתוֹ לְאַחַר מִיתָה אִיכָּא בֵּינַיְיהוּ — לִיתְנֵי נָמֵי חֲמוֹתוֹ!

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**However,** there is a difficulty **according to** the explanation of **Rava, who said** that **the** practical difference **between** Rabbi Yishmael and Rabbi Akiva’s opinion concerns **one’s mother-in-law after** his wife’s **death.** Rabbi Yishmael maintains that even after the death of one’s wife he is liable for marrying his mother-in-law. Rabbi Akiva maintains that one is liable only if both women are alive, as the verse mentions two women, but if the first one has already died his relations with the second woman are no longer punishable by Torah law. If so, **let** the *tanna* of the mishna, according to Rabbi Akiva, **also teach** that one must give a bill of divorce to his **mother-in-law** whom he married by mistake, as she too will be permitted to him after his wife’s death.


###### Yevamot 94b:12
[Yevamot 94b:12](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Yevamot/r/94b:12)

אֲמַר לֵיהּ: נְהִי דְּמַיעֲטַהּ קְרָא מִשְּׂרֵפָה — מֵאִיסּוּרָא מִי מַיעֲטַהּ קְרָא?

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
Rav Kahana **said to** Rav Ashi: **Granted** that **the verse excluded her from** the punishment of **burning, did the verse** also **exclude her from a prohibition?** Even Rabbi Akiva agrees that the Torah prohibits a man from marrying his mother-in-law after his wife’s death. Consequently, he cannot marry her in a permitted manner, despite the fact that according to Rava’s explanation Rabbi Akiva maintains that they are not executed by burning.


###### Yevamot 94b:13
[Yevamot 94b:13](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Yevamot/r/94b:13)

וְתֵאָסֵר בִּשְׁכִיבָה דַּאֲחוֹתָהּ, מִידֵּי דְּהָוֵה אַאִשָּׁה שֶׁהָלַךְ בַּעְלָהּ לִמְדִינַת הַיָּם! לָא דָּמֵי: אִשְׁתּוֹ, דִּבְמֵזִיד אֲסִירָא מִדְּאוֹרָיְיתָא, בְּשׁוֹגֵג גְּזַרוּ בַּהּ רַבָּנַן,

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
§ The Gemara asks another question, from a different perspective: **And let** his wife **be forbidden by** his **sexual relations** with **her sister, just as it is in** the case of **a woman whose husband went overseas,** who is forbidden to her husband if she had relations with another man by mistake. The Gemara answers: This is **not comparable.** With regard to **his wife, who is forbidden** to him **by Torah** law if she committed adultery **intentionally, the Sages decreed concerning her** that she is forbidden to him even if she did so **unwittingly.**