## Yevamot Daf 95a

###### Yevamot 95a:1
[Yevamot 95a:1](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Yevamot/r/95a:1)

אֲחוֹת אִשָּׁה, דִּבְמֵזִיד לָא אֲסִירָא מִדְּאוֹרָיְיתָא, בְּשׁוֹגֵג לָא גְּזַרוּ בַּהּ רַבָּנַן. וּמְנָלַן דְּלָא אֲסִירָא, דְּתַנְיָא: ״אוֹתָהּ״, אוֹתָהּ — שְׁכִיבָתָהּ אוֹסַרְתָּהּ, וְאֵין שְׁכִיבַת אֲחוֹתָהּ אוֹסַרְתָּהּ.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
However, with regard to **a wife’s sister,** where even if the sister sins **intentionally** the wife **is not forbidden** to him **by Torah** law, if he did so **unwittingly the Sages did not decree with regard to him. And from where do we** derive **that she is not forbidden? As it is taught** in a *baraita* that in the verse: “A man, when his wife goes aside…and a man lies **with her”** (Numbers 5:12–13), the emphasis of “her” teaches: It is **her intercourse** with another man that **renders her forbidden** to her husband, **but the intercourse of her sister does not render her forbidden.**


###### Yevamot 95a:2
[Yevamot 95a:2](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Yevamot/r/95a:2)

שֶׁיָּכוֹל, וַהֲלֹא דִּין הוּא: וּמָה בִּמְקוֹם שֶׁבָּא עַל אִיסּוּר קַל — נֶאֱסָר הָאוֹסֵר, מְקוֹם שֶׁבָּא עַל אִיסּוּר חָמוּר — אֵינוֹ דִּין שֶׁנֶּאֱסָר הָאוֹסֵר.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**As,** were it not for this verse, one **might** have thought: Could this **not** be derived through **an** *a fortiori* **inference: And if in** a case **where he has relations subject to a light prohibition, the one causing** her to be rendered **prohibited is forbidden,** then **in** a situation **where he has intercourse subject to a severe prohibition, is it not right that the one causing** her to be rendered **prohibited** should be **forbidden?** This *a fortiori* inference will be explained later in the Gemara.


###### Yevamot 95a:3
[Yevamot 95a:3](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Yevamot/r/95a:3)

אָמַר רַבִּי יְהוּדָה: לֹא נֶחְלְקוּ בֵּית שַׁמַּאי וּבֵית הִלֵּל בְּבָא עַל חֲמוֹתוֹ שֶׁפָּסַל אֶת אִשְׁתּוֹ, עַל מָה נֶחְלְקוּ — בְּבָא עַל אֲחוֹת אִשְׁתּוֹ, שֶׁבֵּית שַׁמַּאי אוֹמְרִים: פָּסַל, וּבֵית הִלֵּל אוֹמְרִים: לֹא פָּסַל. אָמַר רַבִּי יוֹסֵי: לֹא נֶחְלְקוּ בֵּית שַׁמַּאי וּבֵית הִלֵּל בְּבָא עַל אֲחוֹת אִשְׁתּוֹ שֶׁלֹּא פָּסַל אֶת אִשְׁתּוֹ, עַל מָה נֶחְלְקוּ — בְּבָא עַל חֲמוֹתוֹ, שֶׁבֵּית שַׁמַּאי אוֹמְרִים: פָּסַל, וּבֵית הִלֵּל אוֹמְרִים: לֹא פָּסַל.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**Rabbi Yehuda said: Beit Shammai and Beit Hillel did not disagree with regard to one who has relations with his mother-in-law, that he renders his wife disqualified** from remaining married to him. **With regard to what** case **did they disagree? With regard to one who has relations with his wife’s sister, as Beit Shammai say** that **he renders** his wife **disqualified, and Beit Hillel say he does not render** her **disqualified. Rabbi Yosei said:** Not so, as **Beit Shammai and Beit Hillel did not disagree with regard to one who has relations with his wife’s sister, that he does not render his wife disqualified** from remaining married to him. **With regard to what did they disagree? With regard to one who has relations with his mother-in-law, as Beit Shammai say he renders** his wife **disqualified and Beit Hillel say he does not render** her **disqualified.**


###### Yevamot 95a:4
[Yevamot 95a:4](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Yevamot/r/95a:4)

לְפִי שֶׁבַּתְּחִלָּה, הוּא מוּתָּר בְּכׇל הַנָּשִׁים שֶׁבָּעוֹלָם, וְהִיא מוּתֶּרֶת בְּכׇל הָאֲנָשִׁים שֶׁבָּעוֹלָם. קִדְּשָׁהּ — הוּא אֲסָרָהּ, וְהִיא אֲסָרַתּוּ. מְרוּבֶּה אִיסּוּר שֶׁאֲסָרָהּ, מֵאִיסּוּר שֶׁאֲסָרַתְהוּ. שֶׁהוּא אֲסָרָהּ בְּכׇל אֲנָשִׁים שֶׁבָּעוֹלָם, וְהִיא לָא אֲסָרַתְהוּ אֶלָּא בִּקְרוֹבוֹתֶיהָ.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
Rabbi Yosei explains why Beit Shammai and Beit Hillel did not disagree with regard to the case of one who has relations with his wife’s sister. This is **because at first,** before the marriage, **he is permitted to all the women in the world and she is permitted to all the men in the world.** After **he** has **betrothed** her as his wife, **he renders her forbidden** to all men, **and she renders him forbidden** to her relatives. Consequently, the **prohibition by which** he **renders her forbidden** is **greater than** the **prohibition by which** she **renders him forbidden, as he renders her forbidden to all** the **men in the world and she renders him forbidden** by their betrothal **only to her relatives.**


###### Yevamot 95a:5
[Yevamot 95a:5](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Yevamot/r/95a:5)

וַהֲלֹא דִּין הוּא: וּמָה הוּא, שֶׁאֲסָרָהּ בְּכׇל אֲנָשִׁים שֶׁבָּעוֹלָם, שָׁגְגָה בָּאָסוּר לָהּ — אֵינָהּ נֶאֱסֶרֶת בַּמּוּתָּר לָהּ, הִיא, שֶׁלֹּא אֲסָרַתְהוּ אֶלָּא בִּקְרוֹבוֹתֶיהָ, שָׁגַג בָּאָסוּר לוֹ — אֵינוֹ דִּין שֶׁלֹּא נֶאֱסַר (לוֹ) בַּמּוּתָּר לוֹ?!

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
Rabbi Yosei’s explanation continues. Could this *halakha* of a wife’s sister **not** be derived through an *a fortiori* **inference: And if he prohibited her** through their betrothal **to all men in the world,** and yet she was **unwitting with one forbidden to her,** i.e., she had relations with another man by mistake, **she is not forbidden to** he who is **permitted to her,** her husband; **she, who prohibited him only to her relatives,** if **he was unwitting with one forbidden to him,** her sister, **is it not right that we should not render him forbidden to** her, she who is **permitted to him,** namely his wife?


###### Yevamot 95a:6
[Yevamot 95a:6](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Yevamot/r/95a:6)

וְזֶה הַדִּין לְשׁוֹגֵג. לְמֵזִיד מִנַּיִן? תַּלְמוּד לוֹמַר: ״אוֹתָהּ״, אוֹתָהּ — שְׁכִיבָתָהּ אוֹסַרְתָּהּ, וְאֵין שְׁכִיבַת אֲחוֹתָהּ אוֹסַרְתָּהּ.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**And this is the** *a fortiori* **inference** and the reason for the *halakha* of **an unwitting** sinner, i.e., that if he had unwitting relations with one of his wife’s relations the wife is not thereby rendered forbidden to him. **With regard to** one whose act was **intentional, from where** is the *halakha* derived? **The verse states: “Her,”** meaning that it is **her intercourse** with another man that **renders her forbidden** to her husband, **but the intercourse of her** husband with **her sister does not render her forbidden** to him.


###### Yevamot 95a:7
[Yevamot 95a:7](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Yevamot/r/95a:7)

אָמַר רַבִּי אַמֵּי אָמַר רֵישׁ לָקִישׁ: מַאי טַעְמָא דְּרַבִּי יְהוּדָה — דִּכְתִיב: ״בָּאֵשׁ יִשְׂרְפוּ אוֹתוֹ וְאֶתְהֶן״, וְכִי כׇּל הַבַּיִת כּוּלּוֹ בִּשְׂרֵפָה?! אִם אֵינוֹ עִנְיָן לִשְׂרֵפָה, תְּנֵהוּ עִנְיָן לְאִיסּוּרָא.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**Rabbi Ami said** that **Reish Lakish said: What is the reason of Rabbi Yehuda,** who maintains that one who has intercourse with his mother-in-law is forbidden to his wife? **As it is written: “They shall be burned in fire, he and they”** (Leviticus 20:14). This verse is puzzling: **And shall the entire house be** punished by **burning?** Why should both women be punished when only one of them transgressed? **If it does not** refer to **the matter** of **burning, refer it to** the matter of **a prohibition,** that they are both forbidden to him. This teaches that he is forbidden not only to the woman with whom he sinned, but also to his wife.


###### Yevamot 95a:8
[Yevamot 95a:8](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Yevamot/r/95a:8)

אָמַר רַב יְהוּדָה אָמַר שְׁמוּאֵל: אֵין הֲלָכָה כְּרַבִּי יְהוּדָה. הָהוּא דַּעֲבַד אִיסּוּרָא בַּחֲמָתֵיהּ. אַתְיֵיהּ רַב יְהוּדָה, נַגְּדֵיהּ. אֲמַר לֵיהּ: אִי לָאו דְּאָמַר שְׁמוּאֵל אֵין הֲלָכָה כְּרַבִּי יְהוּדָה — אַסְרִיתַהּ עֲלָךְ אִיסּוּרָא דְעָלַם.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**Rav Yehuda said** that **Shmuel said: The *halakha* is not in accordance with** the opinion of **Rabbi Yehuda.** The Gemara relates: **A certain** individual **performed a transgression** by having relations **with his mother-in-law. Rav Yehuda had him brought** for judgment and ordered that he **be flogged. He said to him: If** it were **not** for the fact that **Shmuel said the *halakha* is not in accordance with** the opinion of **Rabbi Yehuda, I would render** your wife **forbidden to you permanently.**


###### Yevamot 95a:9
[Yevamot 95a:9](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Yevamot/r/95a:9)

מַאי ״אִיסּוּר קַל״? אָמַר רַב חִסְדָּא: מַחְזִיר גְּרוּשָׁתוֹ מִשֶּׁנִּשֵּׂאת.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
§ At the start of the *baraita* the *tanna* stated an *a fortiori* inference that is not entirely clear: If in a place where he has relations subject to a light prohibition, the one causing her to be rendered prohibited is forbidden. The Gemara asks: **What is** this **light prohibition? Rav Ḥisda said:** It is referring to one who **remarries his divorcée after she married** another man.


###### Yevamot 95a:10
[Yevamot 95a:10](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Yevamot/r/95a:10)

בָּא עָלֶיהָ הַאי — אַסְרַהּ עֲלֵיהּ דְּהַאי. בָּא עָלֶיהָ אִידַּךְ — אַסְרַהּ עֲלֵיהּ דְּהַאי.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara explains that according to this interpretation the *a fortiori* inference should be understood as follows: If **this one,** the second husband, **has relations with her, he has rendered her forbidden to that one,** the first husband. And if the second man divorced her and then **the other one,** the first husband, **had relations with her, he has** likewise **rendered her forbidden to this one.** This demonstrates that even with regard to a light prohibition the man who renders her forbidden is also forbidden by this intercourse.


###### Yevamot 95a:11
[Yevamot 95a:11](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Yevamot/r/95a:11)

מָה לְמַחְזִיר גְּרוּשָׁתוֹ מִשֶּׁנִּשֵּׂאת, שֶׁכֵּן נִטְמָא הַגּוּף, וְאִיסּוּרָהּ בְּרוֹב, וְאִיסּוּרָהּ אִיסּוּר עוֹלָם.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara refutes this interpretation: **What** about the fact **that one who remarries his divorcée after she married** another man cannot be considered to have violated a light prohibition, as the prohibition is stringent in several regards: **As the body is defiled** by this intercourse, for the Torah states “after she has been defiled” (Deuteronomy 24:4); **and her prohibition** applies **to the majority** of the Jewish people, not to select groups; **and her prohibition** is **an irrevocable prohibition,** as she is no longer permitted to her first husband after having relations with her second husband. This last stringency is not true of his wife’s sister, who is permitted to him after the death of his wife.


###### Yevamot 95a:12
[Yevamot 95a:12](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Yevamot/r/95a:12)

אֶלָּא אָמַר רֵישׁ לָקִישׁ: יְבָמָה. יְבָמָה לְמַאן? אִילֵּימָא לְאַחֵר, וְכִדְרַב הַמְנוּנָא, דְּאָמַר רַב הַמְנוּנָא: שׁוֹמֶרֶת יָבָם שֶׁזִּינְּתָה אֲסוּרָה לִיבָמָהּ —

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**Rather,** the Gemara rejects this explanation in favor of the following one that **Reish Lakish said:** The *baraita* is referring to relations with a ***yevama*,** which is called a light prohibition, as the man who has relations with her is forbidden to her. The Gemara clarifies: With regard to this ***yevama*, with whom** did she engage in intercourse? **If we say** that she had relations **with another** man, not her *yavam*, this would mean that the ruling is **in accordance with** the opinion of **Rav Hamnuna. As Rav Hamnuna said: A widow waiting for her *yavam* who engaged in licentious sexual relations** with another man is **forbidden to her *yavam*.** The argument would be as follows: Although the *yavam* renders the *yevama* forbidden to every other man, if she has relations with another she becomes forbidden to him as well.


###### Yevamot 95a:13
[Yevamot 95a:13](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Yevamot/r/95a:13)

מָה לִיבָמָה שֶׁכֵּן נִטְמָא הַגּוּף, וְאִיסּוּרָהּ בְּרוֹב.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
However, this argument can also be challenged: **What** about the fact **that** in the case of **a *yevama*** who engages in this forbidden relationship, **the body is defiled and her prohibition** applies equally **to the majority** of the people. Therefore, one cannot derive the prohibitions of one’s wife’s relatives from this *halakha*.


###### Yevamot 95a:14
[Yevamot 95a:14](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Yevamot/r/95a:14)

אֶלָּא יְבָמָה לָאַחִין. עֲבַד בַּהּ מַאֲמָר הַאי — אַסְרַהּ עֲלֵיהּ דְּהַאי. בָּא עָלֶיהָ אִידַּךְ — אַסְרַהּ עֲלֵיהּ דְּהַאי. מַאי אִירְיָא שֶׁבָּא עָלֶיהָ שֵׁנִי? אֲפִילּוּ עֲבַד בָּהּ נָמֵי מַאֲמָר!

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**Rather,** the *baraita* must be referring to a case of **a *yevama* to the brothers,** as follows: If **this** brother **performed levirate betrothal [*ma’amar*] with her he has rendered her forbidden to that one,** the other brothers, as she is effectively betrothed to him. If one of the **other** brothers, who had not performed levirate betrothal with her, subsequently **has relations with her, he has rendered her forbidden to this one** who had performed levirate betrothal with her. The Gemara asks: If that is the meaning of the *baraita*, **why specifically** state **that** the **second had relations with her? Even** if **he performed levirate betrothal with her too,** he thereby renders her forbidden to the first brother, which proves that it is not the act of intercourse itself that causes the prohibition.


###### Yevamot 95a:15
[Yevamot 95a:15](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Yevamot/r/95a:15)

הָא לָא קַשְׁיָא, כְּרַבָּן גַּמְלִיאֵל, דְּאָמַר: אֵין מַאֲמָר אַחַר מַאֲמָר. אֶלָּא, אֲפִילּוּ נָתַן לָהּ גֵּט, וַאֲפִילּוּ חָלַץ לָהּ!

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara refutes this suggestion: **This** is **not difficult,** as it can be explained **in accordance with** the opinion of **Rabban Gamliel, who said: There is no levirate betrothal after a levirate betrothal,** i.e., if one brother performed levirate betrothal with the *yevama*, no other levirate betrothal is of any effect. **However,** this explanation can still be refuted, as her prohibition to the *yavam* is not due to the act of intercourse, as **even** if the other brother **gave her a bill of divorce,** or **even** if **he performed *ḥalitza* with her,** he has likewise rendered her forbidden to the first brother, who performed levirate betrothal.


###### Yevamot 95a:16
[Yevamot 95a:16](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Yevamot/r/95a:16)

אֶלָּא אָמַר רַבִּי יוֹחָנָן: סוֹטָה. סוֹטָה לְמַאן? אִילֵימָא לַבַּעַל: בָּא עָלֶיהָ בַּעַל — אַסְרַהּ עֲלֵיהּ דְּבוֹעֵל. מַאי אִירְיָא בָּא עָלֶיהָ? אֲפִילּוּ נָתַן לָהּ גֵּט — וַאֲפִילּוּ אָמַר ״אֵין אֲנִי מַשְׁקֶה״!

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**Rather, Rabbi Yoḥanan said:** The light prohibition is that of **a *sota*.** The Gemara asks: This ***sota*, to whom** is she forbidden? **If we say** that she is forbidden **to the husband,** the explanation would be as follows: If her **husband has relations with her,** despite the fact that she is forbidden to him after she disobeyed his warning not to seclude herself with a certain man, he **has rendered her forbidden to the fornicator,** as she is barred from marrying him even if her husband divorces her. However, **why** is this true **specifically** in a case in which he **had relations with her? Even** if her husband only **gave her a bill of divorce** and did not have relations with her after her seclusion, **or even** if **he said: I** will not force her **to drink** the waters of a *sota*, she is likewise forbidden to the other man.


###### Yevamot 95a:17
[Yevamot 95a:17](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Yevamot/r/95a:17)

אֶלָּא סוֹטָה לַבּוֹעֵל. הַאי אִיסּוּר קַל הוּא? אִיסּוּר חָמוּר הוּא, דְּהַיְינוּ אֵשֶׁת אִישׁ!

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**Rather,** the *baraita* is referring to **a *sota*** who had relations **with the fornicator,** thereby rendering herself permanently forbidden to her husband, as she was a married woman at the time. Yet this too is puzzling: **Is this a light prohibition? It is a severe prohibition, as this is** the prohibition proscribing **a married woman,** one of the most serious of all prohibitions.