Yerushalmi Yevamot 10:6 ירושלמי יבמות י׳:ו׳

MISHNAH: A man’s wife went overseas, they came and told him: your wife died, and he married her sister. If after that his wife returned, she is permitted to return to him. He is permitted [to marry] the relatives of the second, the second is permitted his relatives¹³²Since the marriage to the sister is incestuous (Lev. 18:18) it is non-existent and the restrictions detailed in Mishnah 4:8 do not apply.. If the first [sister] died, the second one is permitted to him¹³³Following the principles of Mishnah 1, she should be prohibited to her brother-in-law..
They said to him, your wife died, and he married her sister; if afterwards they said to him that she was still alive but died later, the first child is a bastard, the last is not a bastard¹⁶⁵Any child conceived by the sister during the first wife’s lifetime is a bastard as result of an incestuous union..
If they said to him “your wife died,” and he married her paternal sister¹⁶⁶She is a paternal half-sister., “she died¹⁶⁷This also is known only by the testimony of a single witness.” and he married her maternal sister¹⁶⁸She is a maternal half-sister of the second wife and unrelated to the first. In this way, the fifth wife is unrelated to the first and third wives., “she died” and he married her paternal sister, “she died” and he married her maternal sister, but it turned out that all were alive, the first, third, and fifth are permitted to him and they would release their co-wives¹⁶⁹Since they are all legal cowives, if the husband died childless, the levirate or ḥalîṣah of one of them releases all others.; the second and fourth are prohibited to him¹⁷⁰The marriage of the second is invalid since it is an incestuous relationship with the sister of the first wife; similarly, the fourth is forbidden because of the third. Since the second and fourth wives are not married to the husband, they do not become widows and their actions with respect to the levirs can have no influence on the status of the legally married ones. and intercourse of any one of these does not release the co-wife.
If he has intercourse with the second one after the death of the first, the second and fourth are permitted to him and they would release their co-wives; the third and fifth are prohibited to him and intercourse of any one of these does not release the co-wife¹⁷¹Since both he and his second wife thought that she was actually married to him, if he sleeps with her after the first wife’s death it is with the idea that they are married; therefore, they are married and the situation becomes identical to that of the preceding Mishnah only with even and odd numbers changing places..

HALAKHAH: “If a man’s wife went overseas,”, etc. It is written: “If a man slept with her;¹³⁴Num. 5:13; written in the paragraph about the wife suspected of unfaithfulness, from where one infers that an adulterous wife is forbidden to her husband. It is implied here that an action of the husband has no influence on her status (but in the paragraph after the next it is pointed out that the husband’s action may forbid him to her). Sifry Num. 7 (an involved argument in the style of the paragraph after the next), a short parallel in the Babli, 95a.” her sleeping prohibits her, the sleeping of another woman does not prohibit her. There, it also says “replacing your husband,” that excludes rape cases¹³⁵She is forbidden only if her paramour replaces the husband, i. e., if she sleeps with him voluntarily..

Rebbi Mattaniah said, they made a fence about situations that occur frequently but not about rare situations¹³⁶He explains why the husband is not forbidden to the two sisters following the principles of Mishnah 1. It was shown in the preceding Halakhah that most of Mishnah 1 is purely rabbinical and has the status of “a fence around the law”. The problem with this argument is that the rule which is relevant here, that the woman is forbidden to both men, is biblical (Sifry Num. 19).. A man frequently travels overseas; it is infrequent that a woman travels overseas.

It was stated¹³⁷A short version of the discussion started here is in the Babli 95a; the very succinct source is in Sifra Qedošim Pereq 9(15)-(18).: Rebbi Jehudah said, the House of Shammai and the House of Hillel agree that one who copulates with his mother-in-law disables his wife. Where did they disagree? If he copulates with his wife’s sister; where the House of Shammai say, he disabled her¹³⁸Treating the man’s transgression as equal in consequence to the woman’s. In their opinion, the husband is forced to divorce his wife and pay her all that is due in a divorce which is his fault., but the House of Hillel say, he did not disable her. The colleagues in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: The reason of Rebbi Jehudah: “In fire they should burn him and them¹³⁹Lev. 20:14..” Where do we hold? If it is about burning, only one of them is burned¹⁴⁰As explained in Sifra, the prohibition (Lev. 18:17) is that of incestuous intercourse; the prescription of the punishment (Lev. 20:14) deals only with the case that a man marries a woman and her mother. The problem is that if one of them is married to him, he cannot possibly marry the other since any act of incestuous betrothal or final marriage is invalid and legally nonexistent. Therefore, while intercourse with mother and daughter is incestuous and forbidden, it is a capital crime only if the man is married to one of them at the time he sleeps with the other. The innocent wife did not commit any crime and, therefore, cannot be punished. Cf. Chapter 11, Note 46.. So if it cannot be relevant for burning, let it be relevant for prohibition¹⁴¹In Sifra, as in the Yerushalmi, this is R. Aqiba’s position. In the Babli, 95a, this is an amoraic interpretation of R. Simeon ben Laqish reported by R. Ammi.. So far following Rebbi Aqiba; following Rebbi Ismael? Rebbi Ismael stated: “In fire they should burn him and them,” him and the second one¹⁴²In Sifra, “one of them.” He reads the unusual word אתהן (substituting for אותן) as abbreviation of את אחת מהן.. And the House of Shammai was arguing: Since in a case where a slightly prohibited person copulated with a slightly prohibited person the cause of the prohibition became forbidden, if a strongly prohibited person copulated with a strongly prohibited person, it is only logical that the cause of the prohibition is forbidden¹⁴³This difficult argument is quoted anonymously in Sifry Num. 7 as argument that her husband’s adulterous relationship with her mother does not prohibit the wife, and explained in detail in Num. Rabba Naśo 9(35) (most probably a Provençal text): “Since in a case where a slightly prohibited person copulated with a slightly prohibited person, this refers to adultery since her prohibition is not permanent (her husband could divorce her), the cause of the prohibition (the husband) became forbidden (he has to divorce his wife), if a strongly prohibited person copulated with a strongly prohibited person, this refers to a man sleeping with his mother-in-law whose prohibition is permanent, it is only logical that the cause of the prohibition (the wife) should forbidden”, the verse says “with her” (cf. Note 134).
A simple and short version is in Sifre Zuṭa, Midrash Haggadol Num. 12, ed. Rabbinowitz p. 51.. Which rule is slight? Rebbi Joḥanan said, the beginning of the chapter¹⁴⁴Mishnah 1, the case of careless adultery.. But this is very strong¹⁴⁵There is no stronger sexual prohibition than that of adultery, the only one mentioned in the Ten Commandments.! There is a difference since she was permitted to be married to him¹⁴⁶If the woman remarried on the testimony of one witness, while she took all the risk, the marriage was permitted under our rules. But the sister of the living wife and the mother-in-law are permanently forbidden..

The elder Rebbi Hoshaia¹⁴⁷In the Babli, 95a, this is attributed to the Babylonian Rav Ḥisda. said, the baraita¹⁴⁸The “slight prohibition” referred to in the argument of the House of Shammai in the preceding paragraph. is about someone who takes back his divorcee after she had been married to another. Why after she had been married, not also after she had been betrothed¹⁴⁹The divorcee is forbidden if (Deut. 24:2) “she went and was another’s”. “To be a man’s” is everywhere explained as to be formally betrothed to him (cf. Chapter 1, Note 63).? Because of Rebbi Yose ben Kipper, since Rebbi Yose ben Kipper said, she is permitted after betrothal¹⁵⁰Quoted in the Babli, 11b, by R. Yose ben Kipper in the name of R. Eleazar (ben Shamua), in Sifry Deut. 270 in the name of R. Eleazar ben Azariah. The reason given is the expression (Deut. 24:4) “after she had been defiled” which for the anonymous majority means that a wife divorced for adultery is permanently forbidden to her ex-husband.. Rebbi Eleazar¹⁵¹One has to read לעזר, the word in the text, ליעזר, refers only to the Tanna R. Eliezer (ben Hyrkanos) who cannot be meant here, being a generation older than R. Simeon. His case is not mentioned in the Babli. said, the baraita is about a sister-in-law who became eligible before two levirs, when one of them “bespoke” her and then the other copulated with her¹⁵²The intercourse is partially incestuous for R. Simeon and clearly incestuous for the House of Shammai and R. Eleazar ben Arakh as explained at the beginning of Chapters 2 and 5.. Why when one of them “bespoke” her, even if he had not “bespoken” her¹⁵³If the first levir had slept with the widow without bespeaking, she would thereby have become his wife and intercourse with the other levir would be adultery.! Why if he copulated with her, even if he did not copulate with her¹⁵⁴According to Rabban Gamliel, R. Simeon and the House of Shammai, “bespeaking” acquires absolutely; if the second levir had not slept with the sister-in-law but had “bespoken” her, nothing would have happened, for then it would have been as if somebody became betrothed to an otherwise married woman.! Because of the House of Shammai, because of Rebbi Simeon. As it was stated, Rebbi Simeon¹⁵⁵In the Babli, 95a, “R. Yose”. The difference in names is important; between R. Yose and R. Jehudah, practice always follows R. Yose (cf. Chapter 4, Note 169) whereas between R. Simeon and R. Jehudah, practice usually follows R. Jehudah (Terumot Chapter 3, Note 25.) The following argument is closely reproduced in the Babli, 95a. said, the House of Shammai and the House of Hillel did not disagree that one who copulates with his wife’s sister disables his wife. Where did they disagree? If he copulates with his mother-in-law; where the House of Shammai say, he disabled her, but the House of Hillel say, he did not disable her. The House of Hillel were arguing: A man is permitted all women, a woman is permitted all men¹⁵⁶Except close relatives, if they are unmarried.. When he becomes betrothed to her, he forbids her and she forbids him. The prohibition through which he forbids her is greater than the prohibition through which she forbids him, since he forbids her to go to marry any other man but she forbids him only her relatives. And is that not an argument de minore ad majus? If she, whose prohibition is greater, transgressed the prohibition in error, is not forbidden even to the one permitted to her¹⁵⁷If a married woman sleeps with a man she is tricked into thinking is her husband and she is in error, she is not punishable and not forbidden to her husband (Soṭah 4:5, Babli Yebamot56b). The case of Mishnah 1 is classified as negligence, not error., he, whose prohibition is less, if he transgressed the prohibition in error, is it not logical that he should not be forbidden even to the one permitted to him¹⁵⁸He is permitted to his wife.? That works for an error. From where if intentional: ¹⁵⁹Cf. above, Note 134. The verse says “with her;” her sleeping prohibits her, the sleeping of another woman does not prohibit her.

Immi the father of Samuel bar Immi¹⁶⁰In the Babli the son has the title “Rebbi”. A third generation Amora of R. Ze‘ira’s academy. in the name of Rav Jehudah: Practice follows Rebbi Simeon¹⁶¹In the Babli: Rav Jehudah in the name of Samuel. It is difficult to understand why practice has to be declared in the Babli since between R. Yose and R. Jehudah it should be clear that practice follows R. Yose. Probably the statement in the Babli is induced by that in the Yerushalmi.. There came a case before Rebbi Mana and he removed her from him¹⁶²The man was convicted of incest with his mother-in-law and R. Mana forced him to divorce his wife.. Does he hold with Rebbi Jehudah? No, she regularly came to him¹⁶³The mother-in-law regularly visited her daughter; R. Mana felt it was necessary to remove the daughter to keep her mother away from the son-in-law. This is a matter of judgment, not of the strict law. In the Babli, Rav Jehudah had the offender whipped and told him that he would have forced him to divorce if he were not bound by his teacher Samuel’s statement..

¹⁶⁴This text is from Halakhah 3, Notes 76–78. Rebbi Abba: Rav Hamnuna and Rebbi Ze‘ira both say that this refers to the beginning of the chapter. What does Rebbi Yose say about the other matters? Let us hear from the following: “Rebbi Yose said, anything which disables for others disables for himself; anything which does not disable for others does not disable for himself.” And Rebbi Abba said, Rav Hamnuna and Rebbi Ze‘ira both say that this refers to the beginning of the chapter.

“Rebbi Yose says, anything which disables,” etc. Rebbi Hila in the name of Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish: If his wife’s sister was married, since he disables her for others, he disables her for himself. But his wife’s unmarried sister which he does not disable for others, he does not disable for himself¹⁷⁴R. Yose in the Mishnah refers to the preceding Mishnah. If the wife and the sister’s husband went overseas and her husband and sister received erroneous notice that the wife and her brother-in-law both had died, the widowed husband and wife’s sister married, and then the two who were believed to have died returned, since the husband by his relations with the wife’s sister forbade her to her husband, he also forbade his own wife to himself. But if the wife’s sister was unmarried, his wife returns to him.. As Rebbi Hila said in the name of Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish, she needs a bill of divorce from him¹⁷⁵They explain the mechanism by which the wife becomes forbidden to him even though R. Yose agrees to the deduction in the preceding Halakhah that intercourse with the wife’s sister does not disable the wife. In the first case, the wife’s sister must receive a divorce document from him; cf. Note 18. But then the wife becomes the sister of his divorcee and is automatically forbidden to him.
In the Babli, 95b, this is only a conjectural explanation of R. Yose’s intention..

“If they said to him “your wife died,” etc. How can that be¹⁷⁶How may a man marry five partially related women from one family? Man A has a daughter a1 and a stepdaughter a2 from an earlier marriage. Woman B has a daughter b1 and a stepdaughter b2 from an earlier marriage. They marry and have a daughter c. If an outsider C marries first b2, on her death he may marry her paternal halfsister b1. Then he may marry c, b1’s maternal halfsister, afterwards c’s paternal halfsister a1 and then a1’s maternal halfsister a2.
As known, the Yerushalmi is very weak in the grammar of gender; it uses the masculine as nonspecific universal.? A man has a daughter and a stepdaughter, a woman has a daughter and a stepdaughter. They married and had a daughter. It starts with the woman’s stepdaughter.