Siman 15

There are arayot that are forbidden by the Torah and one is liable for karet for their cohabitation, and they are those specified in the portions of Acharei Mot and Kedoshim, and kiddushin are not effective for them. They are twenty-two arayot, and among them: a niddah, a married woman, a male, and an animal, and eighteen will be explained before us. And there are sheniyot to arayot—and they are those that the sages forbade. The Rambam wrote in the first chapter of Ishut that they are forbidden by tradition and their prohibition is by the words of the scribes, and they are called sheniyot because they are second to the arayot, and each one of them is called a sheniyah, and they are twenty women. Thus far his words. There are those who counted them as sixteen and there are those who counted them as eighteen, and the reasons for the counts will be explained before us in section 24. And that which he wrote, that they are forbidden by tradition even though their prohibition is only rabbinic, nevertheless, because they have an allusion in the verse, as it is written regarding arayot: "And you shall guard My charge" (Leviticus 18:30), meaning make a guard for My charge, that a sheniyah to an ervah shall be forbidden so that one does not encounter the ervah itself. And it also came by tradition that Solomon decreed upon them [Yevamot 21a], therefore he called them "by tradition" [Lechem Mishneh]. And kiddushin are effective for sheniyot and they require a get from the one who performs kiddushin.

There are those who are uncertain when one betrothed a sheniyah and another came and betrothed her, whether she requires a get also from the second. And some say that even regarding those liable to a negative commandment there is room for uncertainty in such a case: when one betrothed a mamzeret or others liable to a negative commandment and afterwards a second also betrothed her, whether she requires a get also from the second if the second is not under a prohibition of a negative commandment regarding her, such as if he is also a mamzer, for perhaps since she is not prohibited to him, his kiddushin take effect as well. And so is the uncertainty regarding a sheniyah when she is not a sheniyah to the second; but when she is prohibited to the second just as to the first, it is obvious that only the kiddushin of the first take effect. And there are those who are uncertain even in this, and he brought proof from that which our teacher, the Beit Yosef, is uncertain in siman 42 regarding one who betrothed before witnesses disqualified by rabbinic law and another came and also betrothed her before them, whether she requires a get from both of them, and he ruled so in practice, see there. However, the primary ruling is that regarding sheniyot and those liable to a negative commandment, since by Torah law the kiddushin take effect—the kiddushin of the second are nothing even if she is completely permitted to him. And so it is implied from what will be explained in siman 44, that regarding those liable to a negative commandment the kiddushin take effect completely, and there is no uncertainty in this at all, as this is implied in the entire Talmud. And witnesses disqualified by rabbinic law are not comparable to all these, for the sages disqualified such witnesses for everything, even in a place where they are obligated to testify by Torah law, and we do not accept them as witnesses and we do not rely on their words at all, and consequently it is like one who betrothes without witnesses, and there it will be explained with the help of Heaven. But regarding those liable to a negative commandment whom the Torah itself prohibited, and the Torah itself said that kiddushin take effect for those liable to a negative commandment, and so too regarding sheniyot to those forbidden under penalty of kares, even though the sages prohibited them, nevertheless it is not superior to those liable to a negative commandment. And it is not relevant to say in this "whatever the sages ordained, they ordained similar to Torah law" so that she should be like the forbidden relation herself, for one cannot say this to be lenient regarding kiddushin of Torah law. And also one cannot say "anyone who betrothes, betrothes according to the intent of the sages," since the sages did not say that the kiddushin should not take effect for them. However, when one betrothed a woman who is a possible forbidden relation by Torah law and another came and betrothed her, whether she is also a possible forbidden relation to the second or whether the second is completely permitted to her—she certainly requires a get from both of them. And it has already been explained that regarding all forbidden relations kiddushin do not take effect—except for a niddah, for whom kiddushin take effect, as she is permitted after the days of her niddah, as written in siman 44, see there, for we derive this from the verse (Leviticus 15:24) "and her niddah impurity shall be upon him" (Kiddushin 67b).

His mother is an ervah by Torah law, whether she was his father's wife or his father's victim of rape, and even if his father cohabited with an ervah and she bore a son—behold, his mother is an ervah. However, when his mother is his father's wife and he cohabits with her, he is liable for two kureitot—one on account of his mother and one on account of his father's wife [Sanhedrin 53a], whether during his father's lifetime or after his father's death; and if it was with witnesses and a warning, he is liable for sekilah. And if she was his father's wife, he is liable for two instances of sekilah, as his mother and his father's wife are punished with sekilah, for it is written in Kedoshim: "And a man who lies with his father's wife has uncovered his father's nakedness; both of them shall surely be put to death; their blood is upon them" (Leviticus 20:11), and this implies whether she is his mother or whether she is not his mother [ibid. 54a]. And wherever it is said "their blood is upon them"—its punishment is sekilah, as we learn from a medium and a sorcerer, where it is written: "they shall stone them with stones; their blood is upon them" (Leviticus 20:27). And if the father is alive and has not divorced her—he is also liable on account of a married woman and bears three kureitot, and if it was with witnesses and a warning, the death penalty of chenek is added to him, as a married woman is punished with chenek, for it is written: "And a man who commits adultery with a married woman... the adulterer and the adulteress shall surely be put to death" (Leviticus 20:10), and we hold that every death penalty mentioned in the Torah without specification is chenek. However, in a case of intentional transgression, there is no practical difference between one death penalty and two death penalties, for if he is liable for two death penalties, he is judged with the more severe one; the practical difference is regarding an unintentional transgression, to bring two or three chatat offerings. Also, in a case of intentional transgression, there is a slight practical difference—regarding his burial, to bury him among the completely wicked [Yevamot 32b].

The sheniyot of his mother are his mother's mother and his mother's mother's mother, up to the very top without interruption, since there is a Torah prohibition in this generation, and they also decreed regarding his father's mother because she is similar to his mother's mother, as he calls both of them "old mother," and even if he does not have a mother's mother—nevertheless, his father's mother is forbidden to him. And so too in every place where they decreed this because of that, such as the daughter-in-law of his daughter, which will be explained, where they decreed because of the daughter-in-law of his son, even if he does not have a daughter-in-law of his son—nevertheless, the daughter-in-law of the daughter is forbidden [Beit Shmuel]. And for his father's mother there is also no interruption, even the mother of the mother of the mother of his father up to the very top—she is forbidden just as with his mother's mother.

But the mother of the father of his mother is not forbidden to him by rabbinic law, only she herself. And similarly, the mother of the father of his father is forbidden only she herself, but the mother of the father of the father of his father is permitted. And similarly, the mother of the mother of the father of his father is permitted, and this is the opinion of the Rambam, of blessed memory, that that which they forbade without interruption was specifically mother after mother after mother without a male intervening, and similarly the mother of his father which they decreed because of the mother of his mother is without interruption, but a generation above when a male intervened, such as the father of his mother or the father of his father, only their mother is forbidden. And this is the approach of the Yerushalmi, but the opinion of Rashi is not so, and he holds that every maternal side is forbidden forever, and even the mother of the father of the father of the father of his father is forbidden, and similarly the mother of the mother of the father of the father of his father is forbidden, and so on forever. And similarly the mother of the father of the mother of his father [Bach] and all the more so the mother of the father of the father of his mother, for whenever there are many mothers here, the prohibition inclines more because of the name of mother.

His father’s wife – it has already been explained that she is forbidden by the Torah, whether she is his wife through marriage or through betrothal, whether during his father’s lifetime or after his father has died; and similarly, if he divorced her – she is forbidden to him by the Torah during his father’s lifetime as his father’s wife, even if she is not his mother. But if his father raped a woman – she is permitted to him, for she is not included in the category of his father’s wife. And even if she bore him a child – nevertheless, she is not his father’s wife. And the mother of his father’s wife is permitted to him even by rabbinic law, and similarly the daughter of his father’s wife whom she has from another man is permitted to him. And so our Sages, of blessed memory, said: two step-children who grow up in one house, meaning the son that Reuven has from Leah and the daughter of Rachel, Reuven’s wife, whom she has from Shimon – they are permitted to marry one another, and we do not concern ourselves with the appearance of impropriety that they seem like brother and sister because they grew up together, because it is common knowledge that they are step-siblings and not actual siblings.

These are the secondary relations of one's father's wife: the wife of his father's father, and there is no cessation to this even to the father of the father of the father's father until a hundred generations—his wife is forbidden because of the category of "father's wife," and the wife of our forefather Jacob is forbidden to all of Israel because of this title of "father's wife." However, the wife of his mother's father is not forbidden by rabbinic law, except for her alone because of the decree regarding the wife of his father's father, for they call both of them "grandfather," and therefore even though the wife of the father of his mother's father is permitted and we do not decree because of the wife of the father of his father's father, nevertheless, a proximity such as that of the mother's father and the father's father are equal in the eyes of the world, which is not the case higher than this where the generations are distinct. And some say that the wife of the father of his father's mother is forbidden to him, and even though the wife of the father of his mother's father is permitted, nevertheless, we decree more regarding proximity on the father's side, and there are those who hesitate regarding this [the Gra]. And there is one who says that even the wife of his mother's father has no cessation, for so it appears to be the conclusion of the Yerushalmi [ibid.].

His brother's wife—she is forbidden to him by the Torah, whether his brother is from his father or from his mother alone; only his brother from his father, when he dies without children, does he perform yibbum with his wife. One who cohabits with his brother's wife is liable for karet and shall die childless, whether during his brother's lifetime or after his death when he left offspring. And regarding his brother's wife from his mother alone, even when he did not leave offspring, he is liable for karet and childless. We do not find a death penalty by beit din for his brother's wife, and also there are no sheniyot regarding his brother's wife. However, the wife of his father's brother, who is also among the arayot of those liable for karet as she is his aunt—there are sheniyot for this, for from the Torah she is only forbidden if she is the wife of his father's brother from the father, and his punishment is equal to the punishment of his brother's wife: karet and childless. And the sages decreed even upon the wife of his father's brother from the mother, and likewise the wife of his mother's brother, whether from the father or from the mother, they forbade them midirabbanan because perhaps regarding the wife of his father's brother from the father, they are similar to one another and they will come to exchange them; and there is no difference in this ervah and its sheniyot whether during the husband's lifetime or after his death.

His sister is among the arayot for which one is liable for kareth, and there is no death penalty by beit din for this, whether she is his sister from his father or his sister from his mother alone, as it is written: "The nakedness of your sister, the daughter of your father or the daughter of your mother" (Leviticus 18:9), whether she was born from marriage or from promiscuity. And even if his father cohabited with an ervah and fathered a daughter from her—she is his sister and he is liable for kareth for her. And regarding this it is said (ibid.): "born at home or born outside"—meaning, whether we say to your father "keep her" or whether we say to him "put her out," for she is forbidden to you [Yevamot 23, and see Rashi on the Chumash and it requires further study]. And there are no sheniyot regarding his sister. And for his sister who was born to his father in a permitted manner—he is liable on account of "his sister" and on account of "the daughter of his father's wife" [ibid. 22].

A daughter born to his father from a maidservant or a gentile woman—he is permitted to marry her, for their offspring are not genealogically related after him but rather after them, as was written in siman 4, and she is not his sister. Nevertheless, it is forbidden for him ab initio to cohabit with her, because there are those who are uncertain, saying that perhaps only according to the Torah does the offspring follow them, but according to the rabbis, it is his seed; therefore, one should be stringent ab initio. Aside from this, it is a "from whatever side" argument: for if while she is still a maidservant—she is forbidden as a maidservant, and after she has been manumitted—she is like a newborn child and it is obvious that she is permitted [Levush], and likewise with a gentile woman.

And all this is regarding a general maidservant, but if his father cohabited with his maidservant and fathered a daughter from her – there are some of our teachers who are of the opinion that she is his full sister according to the Torah. This is not only if he married her, for he certainly emancipated her, but even if he cohabited with her in an act of zenut, we say that he presumably emancipated her; and even if he said that he intended for the sake of zenut, he is not believed, for a person does not leave aside that which is permitted and consume that which is forbidden. The Rambam, of blessed memory, brought this proof in the name of some of the Geonim in the tenth chapter of Hilkhot Gerushin and disagreed with them, for the sages only said "a person does not make his cohabitation a cohabitation of zenut" regarding his wife whom he divorced and returned to cohabit with her, and not regarding a general unmarried woman. See what I wrote in Yoreh Deah siman 267 and in Hoshen Mishpat siman 279.

His daughter, his daughter's daughter, and his son's daughter are among the arayot who are liable for karet, and in a case of intentional violation and warning, they are put to death by burning. His daughter is not explicitly stated in the Torah, only from that which is written, "The nakedness of your son's daughter or your daughter's daughter, you shall not uncover their nakedness"—all the more so his daughter; and for this reason the verse concludes, "for they are your own nakedness," meaning that they come from the nakedness of your daughter or your son. And burning is written in the verse regarding a woman and her mother, as it is written, "with fire they shall burn him and them," and our sages, of blessed memory, learned from this also his daughter, his daughter's daughter, and his son's daughter [beginning of chapter 9 of Sanhedrin]. And there is no difference whether it is his daughter from his married wife or if she came through zanit, even if he came upon an ervah and fathered a daughter, except for his daughter from a maidservant or a gentile woman, as I have written regarding his sister, and likewise regarding his daughter's daughter and his son's daughter. And one who comes upon his daughter from his married wife is liable for two—on account of his daughter and on account of "The nakedness of a woman and her daughter you shall not uncover" (Leviticus 18:17), and there are those who disagree.

Their second-degree relatives: the daughter of his son's son, and the daughter of his son's daughter, and the daughter of his daughter's son, and the daughter of his daughter's daughter—are forbidden by rabbinic law and there is no cessation to them for even a hundred generations. And so it says in the Yerushalmi, that our father Abraham is forbidden to all the women of Israel and our mother Sarah is forbidden to all the men of Israel because of the status of the daughter of their son and the daughter of their daughter. The Rambam, of blessed memory, disagrees on this. Most of the poskim agreed with the first opinion, because from the Yerushalmi it implies as such, and according to the Rambam we would need to press the matter [see Be'er Sheva and the Gra].

The daughter of his wife, and the daughter of her daughter, and the daughter of her son, are among the forbidden relations subject to the penalty of karet, as it is written: "The nakedness of a woman and her daughter you shall not uncover; you shall not take her son's daughter or her daughter's daughter" etc. (Leviticus 18:17), and the daughter is from another man. And if it was intentional and with warning—their death is by burning, as we derive ibid. from "a woman and her mother." However, according to the opinion of the Rambam in chapter 2 of Issurei Biah, the obligation of burning applies only during his wife's lifetime, but after her death it is subject to karet alone; and there are those who disagree with this see there in the Maggid Mishneh. And specifically his married wife, but if he had relations with a woman in a state of zenut, even if she gave birth from him—nevertheless, her daughter from another man is permitted to him, for regarding these forbidden relations the term "taking" is written: "And a man who takes a woman and her mother" (ibid. 20:14), and "taking" is a term for kiddushin. And even by rabbinic law she is permitted to him after the death of her mother, but not during her lifetime, so that he should not commit zenut with her and incur the obligation of karet; for when the first is married, he is liable for karet even if he had relations in zenut with the second, and for the second kiddushin is not applicable since she is a forbidden relation and kiddushin does not take effect with her. And even during her lifetime, if he married her—he need not divorce her, since this is only due to a decree, and he should be careful that the mother does not come to his house. And it is a simple matter that when she is married, even if by a negative prohibition, nevertheless, since kiddushin takes effect with her, he is liable for karet if he had relations with her daughter or her mother and with all the forbidden relations that stem from them.

Secondary to them: the daughter of the daughter of the daughter of his wife, and the daughter of the son of the son of his wife, and they have no cessation even until a hundred generations. And according to the Rambam they have a cessation – for a generation above what we have explained is permitted.

A man's mother-in-law, her mother, and the mother of his wife's father are among the arayot who are liable for karet, and with intent and warning, their death is by burning, as it is written: "And if a man take a wife and her mother, it is lewdness; they shall be burnt with fire, both he and they" (Leviticus 20:14). And it is impossible to say that this refers to his wife—for what was her sin? Rather, it refers to the mother of her mother, and the explanation of "and they" refers to her mother and the mother of her mother, and automatically the same applies to the mother of her father, as they are of one degree. And also, this is only regarding a woman married to him, but if he had relations with her through zenut—her mother and the mother of her mother are not forbidden, except that by rabbinic decree they are forbidden during her lifetime for the reason that was explained regarding her daughter. And according to the Rambam, after her death they are subject to karet but not burning, and some say that they are not even subject to karet—only a general prohibition. See there in the Maggid Mishneh.

The secondary prohibitions of these: the mother of the mother of the mother of his wife, and the mother of the mother of the father of his wife, and the mother of the father of the father of his wife, and the mother of the father of the mother of his wife, and they have no cessation even to the highest levels. But according to the Rambam they have a cessation, for in a generation higher than what we have explained—they are permitted to him.

The sister of his father and the sister of his mother are also among the arayot who are subject to karem and are not subject to death by beit din, whether the sibling relationship is from the father or from the mother alone. And there are no sheniyot among them. A man is permitted to the daughter of his father's brother and the daughter of his mother's brother, and likewise the brother of his father and the brother of his mother are permitted to his wife when she is divorced or widowed, and to his daughter.

It has already been explained that the wife of one's father's brother from the father is forbidden by the Torah and is among those liable for koret, and her shniyot are the wife of one's father's brother from the mother and the wife of one's mother's brother, whether from the father or from the mother; and from here onwards, such as the wife of the brother of one's father's father from the mother and the wife of the brother of one's mother's mother, whether from the father or from the mother—they are permitted. And there are those who disagree on this. And the wife of the brother of one's father's father from the father, and the sister of the father's father, whether from the mother or from the father, and the sister of the mother's mother—they are also permitted, and there are several opinions that forbid these, but the aforementioned "those who disagree" is a singular opinion. And the wife of a brother from the mother is also a shniyah like all the shniyot, and they compel him to divorce her when he has married her.

The wife of his son is an ervah of those liable for karet, and she is the daughter-in-law mentioned in the Torah; and if done intentionally and with warning, he is liable for stoning, as it is written, "their blood is upon them" (Leviticus 20:12), and we learn this from a medium and a necromancer, as has been explained. And the liability applies whether during the lifetime of his son or after his death, and whether she was the wife of his son from marriage or from betrothal. And if he had relations with her during the lifetime of his son, he is liable for two—on account of his daughter-in-law and on account of a married woman [Sanhedrin 53].

Her second-degree relatives: the wife of his grandson, and there is no cessation to this, and every woman from him is forbidden to our father Jacob. And the wife of his daughter's son is forbidden, and there is a cessation to this, for above this she is permitted, as it is not similar to the wife of his son's son where there is the factor of a Torah-level daughter-in-law, but the wife of his daughter's son where there is no Torah-level connection—it is sufficient that they decreed on one generation. And some say that even the wife of the son of his daughter's son is forbidden by rabbinic law [see Beit Shmuel, subsection 17], and it has already been explained that the wife of his wife's son is permitted to him, and his wife's son is permitted to his wife. And his brother's wife—whether from the father or from the mother—is an ervah, whether he is his brother from his father's marriage or from zanat, and he is liable for karet. And two step-siblings are permitted to one another as written in section 6. And two step-siblings who grew up together—each is permitted to the wife of the other after death or divorce, and we do not concern ourselves with marit ayin to say that she appears like his brother's wife because there is a rumor regarding this that they are not related to one another, as written there.

According to our Shas, a man is permitted to marry the wife of his father-in-law when she is not the mother of his wife, and his father-in-law is permitted to marry another wife that he has when he dies or divorces her. However, in the Yerushalmi it is found that a man is forbidden to marry the wife of his father-in-law, and our teachers wrote that in the later generations they forbade it. And there was an incident where one sought to marry the wife of his father-in-law and prepared the feast, and Rabbeinu Tam, of blessed memory, caused him to lose his feast. And likewise, his father-in-law is forbidden to marry his wife [the Gra]. And the prohibition appears to apply both during the lifetime of his father-in-law and after his death, except that there is one who says that if he married her after his death—she does not go out, and one must deliberate on this [see Noda BiYehudah siman 26]. And a man is permitted to marry the wife of his brother's son and the wife of his sister's son when they are divorced or when they died, and he is permitted to marry the daughter of his brother and the daughter of his sister, as I wrote in siman 2 that it is a mitzvah to marry the daughter of his sister, see there.

His wife's sister is an ervah from among those liable for karet, and there is no death penalty by beit din for it. There is no distinction between her sister from the father or from the mother alone. She is only forbidden during the lifetime of his wife, even if he divorced her; but if his wife died – he is permitted to marry her sister. Anyone who divorces, even due to a mere rumor, is forbidden to her sister and to all her relatives who are arayot. If he betrothed her on a condition and the condition was not fulfilled – he is permitted to her sister and all her relatives, for even regarding a get on a condition, when the condition was not fulfilled, she is permitted even to a kohen. And there are no sheniyot for this ervah. The rabbis did not decree for after death because there is a great distinction in the matter and one will not come to confuse it with divorce. And regarding all sheniyot for arayot, when they married them, they compel them to divorce even if they married them under duress; once the duress has passed – he is obligated to divorce her. And even if someone ruled to permit one of the sheniyot that we have enumerated – they compel them to divorce, for this is not a ruling but an error [Beit Shmuel, subsection 18], and see Yoreh Deah siman 157 regarding the matter of "be killed and do not transgress."

That which we wrote in section 1 regarding the twenty sheniyot according to the Rambam, these are they: his mother's mother, and the mother of his mother's father, and his father's mother, and the mother of his father's father, and the wife of his father's father, and the wife of his mother's father, and the wife of his father's brother from the mother, and the wife of his mother's brother, and his son's daughter-in-law, and his daughter's daughter-in-law – and this is the wife of his son's son and the wife of his daughter's son mentioned in section 21, and the daughter of his son's daughter, and the daughter of his son's son, and the daughter of his daughter's daughter, and the daughter of his daughter's son, and the daughter of his wife's son's son, and the daughter of his wife's daughter's daughter, and the mother of the mother of his wife's father, and the mother of the father of his wife's mother, and the mother of the mother of his wife's mother, and the mother of the father of his wife's father. And those who counted them as sixteen do not disagree with all of this, but rather that those ten sheniyot that we counted from the daughter of his son's daughter until the end, they counted as six; and the reason is that when we counted the daughter of his son's son and the daughter of his daughter's daughter, the daughter of his son's daughter and the daughter of his daughter's son are automatically included, as they are of one level, and similarly regarding the mother of the father of his wife's father and the mother of the mother of his wife's mother, there are also included the mother of the mother of his wife's father and the mother of the father of his wife's mother, as they are of one level, and four are subtracted from the twenty. And those who counted them as eighteen are those sixteen plus two that they add to the opinion of the Rambam, of blessed memory, and they are the wife of his father's mother's father and also the mother of his father's father's father, as written in section 5, see there. And his father-in-law's wife we did not count among the sheniyot since they only prohibited her because of marit ayin, and similarly that which his father-in-law is prohibited to his wife is only because of marit ayin and is not similar to all the sheniyot, for the reason for their prohibition is because one might come to exchange them for the ervah itself. And the arayot we counted as eighteen and these are they: his mother, and his father's wife, and his brother's wife, and his father's brother's wife, and his sister from the father and from the mother, and his daughter, and his daughter's daughter, and his son's daughter, and his wife's daughter, and her daughter's daughter, and her son's daughter, and his wife's mother, and her mother, and the mother of his wife's father, and his father's sister, and his mother's sister, and his wife's sister, and there are four more arayot that we did not count here – niddah, and a married woman, and a male, and an animal. And know that his sister constitutes two arayot – his sister from the father and his sister from the mother.

If his wife went to a distant land and they told him that she died, and he married her sister and afterwards his wife arrived, if his wife was married to him—she is permitted to return to him. There is no suspicion here that they will say the second one was married to him and now he is marrying her sister during her lifetime, for everyone knows that kiddushin do not take effect with a wife's sister and he married her in error. And by the fact that he committed zenut with her, his wife is not forbidden to him even if he was committing zenut with her intentionally, for the zenut that one commits with his wife's relatives does not forbid his wife to him. And some say that if the relatives are frequent visitors to him by way of his wife—we compel him to divorce his wife so that he does not come to a stumbling block, but many disagree with this, for this poor woman, what is her sin and why should we compel to divorce her—we should compel that they do not enter his house [see Beit Shmuel, subsection 52].

And since everyone knows that he married her in error, it follows that her sister does not require a get from him, and he is permitted to the relatives of the second one, such as her daughter, her daughter's daughter, and her other forbidden relations, for through zenut the relatives are not prohibited, as I wrote in section 16; and likewise, the second one is permitted to his relatives, and if the first one died, he is permitted to her. And some say that by rabbinic decree he is prohibited to the relatives of the second one all the days of the second one's life, for the reason explained in section 14 regarding his daughter, so that he should not come to commit zenut with her. And there are those who disagree regarding this, for here he did not intend for zenut such that we should further fear zenut, for he married her in error based on witnesses [Taz]; nevertheless, one should be concerned about this [Beit Shmuel].

But if his wife was only his betrothed and they told him she died, and he married her sister, and afterward she came—he is forbidden to both of them and both of them require a get from him, and consequently the relatives of the second one are also forbidden since we required her to have a get. However, if one of them died—he is permitted to the other, for in this case it is not appropriate to penalize, since the sister of one's wife is always permitted after her death. And the Rambam wrote in the tenth chapter of Gerushin that all these ways apply to them, and so wrote our teacher, the Beit Yosef, in section 27, that all the ways taught in the chapter "Ha-Isha Rabbah" and in the chapter "Ha-Zorek" apply to them, and these ways will be explained at the end of siman 17 with the help of Heaven. And it appears to me that it is a scribal error and it should say: "that all these ways apply to her," meaning to the second one, because she did not investigate whether her sister died or not, just as with a woman who was told her husband died and she married and afterward her husband came, where we penalize her for this reason as is written there; but the first betrothed, what is her sin and why should we penalize her?

And for what reason did they require a get for the sister of his betrothed? For perhaps they will say there was a condition in the first betrothal and the condition was not fulfilled, and he married her sister permissibly, and consequently she requires a get; and since she requires a get, consequently her sister, who is his first betrothed, becomes forbidden to him so that they should not say he married the sister of his divorcee. However, regarding his married wife, this concern does not exist, for there is no condition in marriage, as even if he stipulated some condition beforehand—he certainly waived it at the time he cohabited with her, for a person does not make his cohabitation a cohabitation of licentiousness, and if the condition were not fulfilled, the cohabitation would be a cohabitation of licentiousness. Therefore, it is revealed to all that the marriage of the second is nothing but mere licentiousness. And even though if he stipulated also at the time of cohabitation his condition would stand, nevertheless, it is an uncommon matter. And all this is when he married her sister, but if he only betrothed her and did not marry her—she does not require a get; since they have not yet committed a prohibited act, we do not penalize them, for such is the law also regarding a woman who was told her husband died and she became betrothed and afterwards her husband arrived, that we do not penalize her, as I wrote in siman 17 [it appears to me]. And if one witness is believed to testify that his wife died and he marries her sister—there is a dispute of the poskim regarding this, and it will be explained with the help of Heaven in siman 17. [See Beit Shmuel at the end of subsection 20 who was stringent due to the enactment of Rabbeinu Gershom, and in my humble opinion it is no greater than this, and delve into it].

And if they told him his wife died and he married her sister, and afterward they told him that initially, at the time he married her, his wife was alive and now she has died – he is permitted to maintain her as has been written. However, if she gave birth to a child at the time his wife was alive – the child is an absolute mamzer according to the Torah, as he was born from a forbidden relation; but the children he will father from her after her death are completely legitimate, since she is permitted to be maintained.

That which we have said, that regarding his married wife she is not forbidden to him through the marriage of her sister—this is only when her sister was unmarried. However, when her sister was married and witnesses testified regarding his wife and regarding the husband of his wife's sister that they died, and he married her sister, and afterwards it became clear that they are alive—his wife is also forbidden to him. The reason is because since the sister became forbidden to her husband, therefore his wife also became forbidden to him; for the wife's sister is forbidden to her husband according to what we have established in siman 17, that a married woman whose husband's death was testified to—whether two witnesses testified or whether one witness testified and a beit din permitted her based on the witness, according to what we have established that one witness is believed to testify that her husband died—and we have established there that when she marries another and afterwards her husband arrives, she requires a get from this one and from that one and is forbidden to both of them. The reason she is forbidden to the first is because we concern ourselves lest they say the first divorced her and the second married her and divorced her, and it turns out this one is taking back his divorcee after she had been married. And since the wife's sister is forbidden to his brother-in-law and requires a get from this one as well—consequently his wife is forbidden to him because of the prohibition of a "sister of his divorcee." And even though some say that when she married here based on witnesses she does not require a get from this one, for behold there is no concern here that they will say this one divorced her and that one married her, for behold in any case she is forbidden because of being his wife's sister, and according to this, in a case of a married woman we should have permitted his wife to this one and to the husband of the wife's sister since there is no concern of "lest they say," nevertheless we concern ourselves lest his brother-in-law comes without the wife of this one and they will still say that his wife died and his brother-in-law divorced his wife and he married her and she requires a get from him, and when she returns to his brother-in-law they will say that he married a divorcee after she had been married to another. And so ruled the Rif, the Rambam, the Rosh, the Tur, and our teachers the authors of the Shulchan Aruch; see what I wrote in siman 159.

Our teacher, the Rema, wrote: If one committed an act of zenut with his wife's sister, and his wife and his brother-in-law subsequently died—some say that he is forbidden to later marry his wife's sister, for just as she is forbidden to the husband, so too she is forbidden to the bo'el, even though she was forbidden to him regardless. Thus far his words. And even though in the case of a Cuthean in such a circumstance she is permitted to him, as is written in siman 178—that is regarding a Cuthean who is not subject to kiddushin at all, which is not the case for a wife's sister, who is fit for others, and also for him himself she would have been fit to be betrothed upon the death of his wife; and see what I wrote in siman 11, section 3, and from here is also a proof for what I wrote there.

As has been explained that through zenut her relatives do not become forbidden, likewise, even if she was designated for him like a pilegesh, her relatives do not become forbidden and we do not concern ourselves with kiddushin. This is so even according to the opinion of the Geonim that was explained in section 11, that regarding his maidservant we say that he emancipated her because a person does not make his cohabitation a cohabitation of zenut; a maidservant is different because the offspring is not attributed to him, which is not the case with a free Jewish woman. However, if there are witnesses that she said he betrothed her in the presence of two witnesses and they went to a province overseas—we concern ourselves with her words and they are forbidden to each other's relatives. But if she said "he betrothed me" without specification and did not say "in the presence of two witnesses"—this is nothing, for even if he betrothed her between him and her alone, it is not kiddushin at all, and we do not rely on saying that such was her intention that he betrothed her with witnesses, for if so, she would have clarified her words. And it has already been explained that even if he betrothed her but it was on a condition and the condition was not fulfilled, he is permitted to her relatives. And likewise, a father who betrothed his daughter without her knowledge and she was found to be a bogeret, such that he has no authority to betroth her—this is not kiddushin at all and he is permitted to her relatives, even if she consented to the kiddushin, since it was without her knowledge; and see what I wrote in siman 35 and siman 37. And specifically when there was no get, but if there was a get, even if it was only because of a mere rumor and not by law—her relatives become forbidden because of the name of the get as I wrote, and in siman 48 more will be explained regarding this with the help of Heaven, see there. [And although in the responsa of the Rosh and in the Shulchan Aruch it is explained only that she is forbidden to his relatives, nevertheless, it is obvious that he is also forbidden to her relatives based on her statement, for there is a basis for the matter since she was designated for him].