Do not marry sisters
Verse: ואשה אל אחותה לא תקח
Command: Do not marry sisters
Vayikra 18:18
Type: Negative
SMG Mitzva # 108
Cross-Ref: {link}
SMG
From where do we know that the sister of one’s wife is prohibited [by negative Mitzva] from the verse[i] that says ואשה אל אחותה לא תקח לצרור לגלות ערותה עליה בחייה, and the punishment is stated at the end of the section, in the verse[ii] ונכרתו הנפשות העשת. [α] We also learned in the Gemara[iii] if a person’s wife dies, he is permitted to marry her sister, the reason being that the verse only prohibited the sister during the life [of the wife][1].
It is proven elsewhere in the Gemara[iv] that there are two verses written regarding the sister of one’s wife, one at the outset {a}, that it is forbidden to marry the sister, as it says in the verse לא תקח – which means do not marry, and the second provides that if a person violated this Mitzva, marriage does not take hold – and he is lashed for [marrying] her [β], as is derived from the verse[v] ויצאה מביתו והלכה והיתה לאיש אחר [ε], this verse precludes the possibility of marrying a relative, and the Gemara established that it is referring to the sister of one’s wife [γ]. All forbidden relationships are comparable to the sister of one’s wife [δ], except for the prohibition against [a man having sex with his wife while she is] menstruating [ζ] as stated there in the Gemara, based on the verse[vi] כי כל אשר יעשה מכל התועבות האלה, which implies that all these forbidden relationships are equivalent [one to another] with that of the sister of one’s wife.
[1] As is stated explicitly in the verse בחייה – in her lifetime.
[i] Vayikra 18:18
[ii] Vayikra 18:29
[iii] Gem. Yevamos 49a
[iv] Gem. Kiddushin 67b
[v] Devarim 24:2
[vi] Vayikra 18:29
AMUDAY SHLOMO
[α] Meaning, [this punishment] is assessed for the sex, even if done promiscuously [outside of a marriage bond], however, for the marriage itself [without consummation] it is obvious that there is no כרת punishment, and he [they] would only be lashed. Later on, he [the SMG] will explain that there isn’t even lashes assessed.
{a} [This comment is in parenthesis in the Amuday Shlomo and is notated to be the comment of the editor] The same would apply to the other forbidden relationships which need to be derived from this case, as was concluded there [in the Gemara] and as concluded here [in the SMG] momentarily that all the forbidden relationships are comparable. [The following question about the universality of the comparison is drawn] ‘just like with the sister of one’s wife, marriage doesn’t take hold – so too a menstruating woman [one of those with whom a sexual relationship may not be maintained] should also not have marriage take hold.’ To which [the Gemara] answers, the verse [regarding the prohibition against having sex with a menstruating woman] states ותהי נדתה עליו, from which we derive, that even during her menstrual period, she remains (תהי) [עליו – in relation to him, which means she remains related to her husband while menstruating]. And [the Gemara] asks, why then do we not compare all relationships to the menstruating woman [to implicate that marriage does take hold], and [the Gemara] answers, we only compare to increase stringencies, not to make [these relationships] less severe.
[β] This is a wonderous thing in my [Maharshal’s] opinion, as a negative Mitzva is not applicable here since marriage doesn’t take hold[1]. Accordingly, it should really teach us this.[2]
Furthermore[3], then the punishment of lashes should be applied for the violation of any of the forbidden relationships, since they are all comparable to each other – and especially [they are comparable] in this manner, they marriage doesn’t take hold [with those whom one is forbidden to enter into a relationship with]. Accordingly, all of them should have the application of lashes – if he married any of them, just like he is lashed for the sister of his wife.
Also, many of the forbidden relationships are preceded by the term לא תקח and לא יקח, and yet, all of these terms mean sex [and not marriage]. And you should know, the book [the SMG] wrote further on in the prohibition against intermarriage [negative Mitzva 112] that the term לא יקח [used here in the section of forbidden relationships] means sex, where marriage does not take hold – [which statement is] based on an explicit statement in Tosefos.
Also, in the Gemara[i], regarding a raped woman, it says explicitly that where marriage does not take hold, the term לא תקח is not a phrase of marriage. Also, elsewhere in the Gemara[ii] it doesn’t say that [marrying a sister of one’s wife] violates the prohibition against marrying her, just that one may not marry her and have sex with her – and if he did marry her, marriage does not take hold. The same is in the Rambam, who wrote only that one may not have sex with the sister of one’s wife, but marriage [without consummation] is obviously exempt. And elsewhere[4] there is no mention of the prohibition against marriage.
The opinion of the book [the SMG] is very strange in my [Maharshal’s] eyes… unless we say that what is written in the book [the SMG] “and he is lashed for [marrying] her” means if he had sex with her, and is written to teach us that even though he married her [by means of having sex with her – as sex is one of the three[5] ways to marry a woman – see positive Mitzva 48], nevertheless he is lashed. As we should not say that since he married her, the marriage removed the prohibition of his [her] sister, especially since with regard to the sister of the wife, we find that she is also essentially permitted, for example where the wife passes away[6]. Therefore, this teaches us that he would be lashed, and the marriage does not take hold.[7]
And you should know [a similar example] with regard to the Yevama previously discussed [see negative Mitzva 83] about which the verse states the prohibition using the phrase לא תהיה אשת המת החוצה, which is a term for marriage, and nevertheless, there is no punishment of lashes assessed until sex.
If so, here too, everything depends on sex [meaning if he had sex with his sister-in-law, then the negative Mitzva was violated, but if he only married her without sex, the negative Mitzva was not violated]. As for why the verse states לא תקח, that means ‘do not marry on condition to have sex’.
[γ] Meaning, since you will not find among any of the ‘lesser’ forbidden relationships which only have the punishment of כרת, about which the term קיחה is used [to establish the prohibition] about which we can derive [the meaning of the term as applying to] marriage, with the exception of the sister of one’s wife.
If so, with other forbidden relationships which are ‘more severe’, which do not have a death penalty assessed by the court, about which the verses state לא יקח [or לא תקח] – it must mean that the phrase is being used in a ‘after-the-fact’ manner[8]. Because if it was [issuing the conditions] at the outset [under which the violation of the negative Mitzva would occur] that would be derived from a fortiori of the prohibition against [a relationship with] the sister of one’s wife, and as a consequence of this logic, the verse ויצאה … והיתה לאיש אחר, from which is derived that even after-the-fact, marriage does not take hold with forbidden relationships – that must be talking about the sister of one’s wife.
[δ] And then, we would learn about all those who are not[9] forbidden relationships, where the verse does not use the phrase of קיחה would be derived from the sister of one’s wife since they are all comparable one with another. [The above sentence is a paraphrase of the SMG’s discussion.] This is explicitly stated for anyone who seeks out the Gemara and in Rashi’s commentary
[ε] On the verse ויצאה מביתו… meaning, he [the SMG] is bring a proof that marriage does not take hold, as the verse continues והיתה לאיש אחר. And this is literally marriage, about which is written ל…אחר, which excludes relatives.
[ζ] The reason for this is explained later [see negative Mitzva 111].
[1] Since marriage doesn’t take hold when he attempts to marry the sister, how can he be lashed for violating a Mitzva against marrying her, when he hasn’t done so.
[2] Maharshal is pointing out that the application of lashes for ‘marrying’ the sister is introduced by the SMG and is not stated in the Gemara. Since this is something of a novelty, where the person is being lashed for doing something he didn’t do – the Gemara should have discussed this.
[3] If there is the punishment of the application of lashes is available for having forbidden relationships.
[4] This quote in Hebrew is ובשי’ – I do not know where Maharshal is referencing. Often, the sages lacked ink and would thus abbreviate to conserve resources. This practice creates a lot of abbreviations, some of which are not clear enough to the reader.
[5] Actually, the number three might not be a limiting number, as there is also
- the ability to marry by means of the Yevama procedure, and,
- for Cana’anite servants and maidservants, the master can assign spouses, and
- for converts who married as gentiles, it might be possible to convert together and remain married – without any new ceremony. Although, the sages would require the writing of a Kesuva, as they forbid a married couple from remaining together without one. But that writing is after the fact.
[6] Meaning, there is nothing intrinsic to this woman forbidden to him, to render sex with this woman a violation of a negative Mitzva. The only problem here is that he is currently married to her sister.
[7] I believe Maharshal is stating that the SMG is precluding the possibility of marrying the sister-in-law, during the lifetime of his existing wife, and then holding off on consummating the marriage with sex until after the passing of his wife. The SMG therefore states that the marriage doesn’t take hold [which has its own problem as noted previously by Maharshal in this comment], and even though he hasn’t had sex with her, he is lashed for marrying her.
I wonder if one may marry the sister-in-law, conditionally, which condition is that the marriage take hold when the existing wife dies.
[8] Possibly, Maharshal is implying that sex can in itself engender a marriage bond, and therefore, the verse is stating in reality “do not have sex with… which produces a marriage bond relationship.”
[9] Amuday Shlomo has the word אינך here. Besides being grammatically incorrect, it also is logically incorrect. The word is obviously a scrivener’s error, and it should be written as הנך – these.
[i] Chapter נושאין על האנוסה
[ii] Gem. Kiddushin
RASHI
Rashi provides the following commentary on the verse:
- אל אחותה – both of them together.[i]
- לצרר – this is a term of צרה – disturbance. As this makes one a צרה to the other [it ruins the sisterly bond, as now they are competitors for the husband’s time, affection and resources].
- בחייה – this teaches you that if he divorced her [his initial wife], he should not marry her sister, so long as she [his initial wife] remains alive.[ii]
With regard to the verse setting out the punishment, Rashi provides the following commentary:
- הנפשות העשת – both male and female are implied.[1]
[1] The term הנפשות העשת is written grammatically in the feminine. This could be attributed to the word נפש being considered female – or it could be that only the woman is punished. Therefore, Rashi clarifies that both participants, male and female, are punished. The Gemara [Gem. Bava Kama 32a] clarifies that the reason the woman is punished, even though she performed no act, is because she enjoyed the experience.
[i] Gem. Kiddushin 50
[ii] Gem. Yevamos 8b
Discussion by SMS
As Yaakov married two sisters, Raĉel and Leah, this is only possible if the prohibition against marrying sisters is limited to the Jewish people – and Yaakov was technically bound by the Noaĉide laws at the time, not the Jewish laws.
Which means, non-Jews can marry sisters.
Key
Etymology and Definitions of Defined Terms
- צרה – the term in practice is used with regard to Elkana’s other wife [besides Ĉana] Penina. As the verse[i] states וכעסתה צרתה גם כעס – and her sister-wife would anger her and rile her. Thus, the term צרה refers to the emotional pain caused by one wife to the other.
[i] Shmuel I 1:6