| 22a. הנך תרתי דדמיין להדדי כחדא חשיב להו והא שיתסרי והא מכל מקום לדידי חזיין לן דכתיבן לאיסורא אמר ליה וליטעמיך אי הוה כתיב להיתירא מי הוות סמכת עלייהו דמר בריה דרבנא מי חתים עלייהו השתא נמי דכתיב לאיסורא לאו מר בריה דרבנא חתים עלייהו,תני דבי רבי חייא שלישי שבבנו ושבבתו ושבבן אשתו ושבבת אשתו שניה רביעי שבחמיו ושבחמותו שניה,א"ל רבינא לרב אשי מאי שנא למעלה דקחשיב לה לאשתו ומאי שנא למטה דלא קחשיב לה לאשתו למעלה דאיסורא מכח אשתו קא אתי חשיב לה למטה דאיסורא לאו מכח אשתו קאתי לא קחשיב לה,והא בן אשתו ובת אשתו דאיסורא מכח אשתו קאתי ולא חשיב לה איידי דתנא שלשה דורות למטה דידיה ולא חשבה תנא נמי ג' דורות למטה דידה ולא חשבה,א"ל רב אשי לרב כהנא שניות דבי רבי חייא יש להן הפסק או אין להם הפסק,ת"ש דאמר רב ד' נשים יש להם הפסק ותו לא דלמא כי קאמר רב לההיא מתניתא ת"ש שלישי ורביעי שלישי ורביעי אין טפי לא דלמא משלישי ואילך מרביעי ואילך,אמר ליה רבא לרב נחמן חזי מר האי מרבנן דאתא ממערבא ואמר בעו במערבא גזרו שניות בגרים או לא גזרו שניות בגרים,אמר ליה השתא ומה ערוה גופה אי לאו שלא יאמרו באין מקדושה חמורה לקדושה קלה לא גזרו בהו רבנן שניות מיבעיא,אמר רב נחמן גרים הואיל ואתו לידן נימא בהו מלתא אחין מן האם לא יעידו ואם העידו עדותן עדות אחין מן האב מעידין לכתחלה אמימר אמר אפילו אחין מן האם נמי מעידין לכתחלה,ומ"ש מעריות ערוה לכל מסורה עדות לבית דין מסורה וגר שנתגייר כקטן שנולד דמי:, big strongמתני׳ /strong /big מי שיש לו אח מכל מקום זוקק את אשת אחיו ליבום ואחיו הוא לכל דבר חוץ ממי שיש לו אח מן השפחה ומן העובדת כוכבים מי שיש לו בן מכל מקום פוטר אשת אביו מן היבום וחייב על מכתו ועל קללתו ובנו לכל דבר חוץ ממי שיש לו בן מן השפחה ומן העובדת כוכבים:, big strongגמ׳ /strong /big מכל מקום לאתויי מאי אמר רב יהודה לאתויי ממזר פשיטא אחיו הוא מהו דתימא לילף אחוה אחוה מבני יעקב מה להלן כשרין ולא פסולין אף כאן כשרין ולא פסולין קמ"ל,ואימא הכי נמי כיון דלענין יבום מיפטר נפטר | 22a. bThose two,the wife of a father’s father’s brother and the sister of a father’s father, bare similar to each otherand bare counted as a singlecase, bandso bthere are sixteen.The Gemara restates Rav Hillel’s challenge to Ameimar’s opinion: bBut in any case I myself saw them written as prohibited.Rav Ashi bsaid toRav Hillel: bAnd according to your reasoning, ifin the list bit was written that they were permitted, would you have relied on that?Is the signature of bMar, son of Rabbana, signed on it?Although you saw the list, you don’t know for certain who wrote it. bNow too, that it is written that they are prohibited,the same holds true; the signature of bMar, son of Rabbana, is not signed on it,and so it cannot be relied upon to reject the opinion of Ameimar.,§ One of the Sages bof the school of Rabbi Ḥiyya taught: The thirdgeneration bfrom one’s son and one’s daughter,i.e., one’s great-grandchildren, bandthe third generation bfrom his wife’s son and his wife’s daughter,i.e., one’s wife’s great-grandchildren, are all forbidden as bsecondaryforbidden brelationships.So too, bthe fourthgeneration bfrom his father-in-law and from his mother-in-law,i.e., his wife’s great-grandmothers, are prohibited as bsecondaryforbidden brelationships. /b, bRavina said to Rav Ashi: What is different betweenthe generations babove,referring to his wife’s great-grandmothers, such bthatthe Sage bcounts his wifeas one of the generations and refers to them as the fourth generation, band what is differentwith regard to the generations bbelow,referring to his great-granddaughters, such bthat he did not count his wifeand referred to them as only the third generation? The Gemara answers: When counting babove, the prohibition stems from his wife,as they are not his blood relatives but his wife’s. Therefore, bshe is counted.When counting bbelow,however, bthe prohibition does not stem from his wife,as they are his own blood relatives, band so she was not counted. /b,The Gemara objects: bButhe includes the granddaughter of bhis wife’s son and his wife’s daughterin his list of those bforbidden due to his wife, yet he does not count herand refer to this as the fourth generation. The Gemara answers: bSince healready btaught three generations below himself,i.e., his own great-granddaughter, bandthere bhe did not countfrom his wife because it is his own blood relative, bhe taught three generations belowhis wife band did not count her.Instead, he referred to her great-granddaughter also as three generations below to maintain the uniform style of his words., bRav Ashi said to Rav Kahana:Do those bsecondaryforbidden brelationshipstaught by one of the Sages bof the school of Rabbi Ḥiyya have a conclusion, or do they not have a conclusion?Are those specified cases alone forbidden, or are all generations above and below also forbidden?, bComeand bhearthat bwhich Rav said: Four women have a conclusion.This implies that it is only these four band no more.The Gemara rejects this: bPerhaps when Rav said this he was referringonly btothe relationships listed in bthe ibaraita /iand not to all cases of secondary relationships. The Gemara suggests: bComeand bhearfrom the ibaraitaitself, which states: bThe thirdgeneration from his son and his daughter band the fourthgeneration from his father-in-law and mother-in-law. This implies that with regard to bthe third and the fourthgenerations, byes,they are forbidden; but bmorethan that, bno.The Gemara rejects this: bPerhapsthis means bfrom the third onward and from the fourth onward.The Gemara does not resolve this issue.,§ bRava said to Rav Naḥman: Did the Master see this one of the Sages who came from the West,Eretz Yisrael, bwho said: In the West they askedwhether the Sages bissued a decreeprohibiting bsecondaryforbidden brelationships for converts, orwhether bthey did not issue a decreeprohibiting bsecondaryforbidden brelationships for converts? /b,Rav Naḥman did not answer whether he had seen this Sage, but bsaid to him: Now, with regard toall the bforbidden relationships themselves, were it notfor the fact that if converts would find that as Jews they were permitted to enter into relationships that were forbidden to them as gentiles and bwould saythat they went from ba state of more stringent sanctityas gentiles bto a state of lesser sanctityas Jews, bthen the Sages would not have decreedto prohibit these relationships. Without the rabbinic decree it would have been permitted for a convert to marry even a close female relative, even his twin sister, who also converted. This is because a convert has the legal status of a newborn, with no family ties. bIs it necessaryto state that the Sages did not extend that decree to include bsecondaryforbidden brelationships?The purpose of the rabbinic prohibitions is to protect the Torah prohibitions, but in the case of converts this particular Torah prohibition does not apply., bRav Naḥman said: Sincethe issue of bconvertsand their relatives bhas come to handand is the topic of discussion, blet us say a matterof ihalakha /i: bMaternalhalf bbrotherswho both convert bmay not testifytogether as a pair of witnesses before the court, bbut if they did testify, their testimony is valid.Although blood relatives are invalid as witnesses, converts are considered as though they have no relations. bPaternalhalf bbrotherswho both convert bmay testifytogether iab initio /i,since the ihalakhadoes not consider paternal half brothers of gentiles to be true relatives. bAmeimar said: Even maternalhalf bbrothers may also testifytogether iab initio /i. /b,In bwhatway bisthis case bdifferent from forbidden relations,where a convert may not marry his maternal sister due to rabbinic decree? The ihalakhotof bforbidden relations are handed over to all,and every individual chooses his own wife. Therefore, the Sages issued a decree to prevent confusion between the status of a convert and that of a born Jew. However, btestimony is handed over to the court,and the court knows to distinguish between the status of a born Jew and that of a convert. bAndthe legal status of ba convert whojust bconvertedis blikethat of ba childjust bborn,and all previous family ties become irrelevant., strongMISHNA: /strong In the case of banyone who has a brother of any kind,that brother bcreates a levirate bondcausing his iyevamatobe required to bperform levirate marriageif the first brother dies childless. bAnd he is his brother in all respects, except for one who has a brotherborn bfroma Canaanite bmaidservant or from a gentile woman,as these do not have the legal status of brothers. Similarly, in the case of banyone who has a child of any kind,that child bexempts his father’s wife from levirate marriage,since his father did not die childless. bAndthat child bis liableto receive capital punishment bif he strikeshis father bor curses him. And he is his child in all respects, except for whoever has a childborn bfroma Canaanite bmaidservant or from a gentile woman,as these do not have the halakhic status of children., strongGEMARA: /strong The Gemara asks: With regard to the statement that a brother bof any kindcauses his iyevamato be required to perform levirate marriage, bwhatadditional case does this come bto add? Rav Yehuda said: This addsthe case of ba imamzer /i,who, notwithstanding his status, is considered a brother. The Gemara wonders: But bisn’tthat bobvious? He is his brother.The Gemara explains: This is necessary blest you say: Let us derivea verbal analogy between the word b“brother”stated in the verse with regard to levirate marriage and b“brother”stated with regard to bthe children of Jacob. Just as there,Jacob’s children bareof bunflawedlineage band notof bflawedlineage and are not imamzerim /i, bso too here,one might think that only brothers of bunflawedlineage band notbrothers of bflawedlineage, i.e., imamzerim /i, obligate the iyevamain levirate marriage. Therefore, bthis teaches usthat a imamzeris considered a brother for the purposes of levirate marriage.,The Gemara asks: bAnd say thatis bindeedthe ihalakha /i. Perhaps a brother who is a imamzerdoes not obligate his iyevamain levirate marriage. The Gemara answers: bSince with regard to levirate marriage,if the husband had a child who was a imamzerhe would bexemptthe wife from levirate marriage |
