The sheniyoth interdicted by the soferim (see 2:4): "If she were shniyah to the husband and not to the yavam [e.g., the mother of her husband's mother, but not of the yavam's mother, as when they were brothers from the father but not from the mother], she is forbidden to the husband and permitted to the yavam. If she were shniyah to the yavam and not to the husband, she is forbidden to the yavam and permitted to the husband. If she were shniyah to both, she is forbidden to both. She has no kethubah [It is the hundred and two hundred, which is the principal of the kethubah, which she does not have, but she does have the addition], and she does not have fruit [He does not pay her for the fruit of her nichsei melog. And even though the rabbis granted him fruit for his obligation to redeem her, and he has no obligation to redeem this one, in that she does not satisfy: "And I shall cause you to dwell with me as a wife" — so that it would seem that he should reimburse her for what he ate of her nichsei melog — still, the rabbis penalized her to have no claim on the fruit that he ate as a condition of the kethubah, just as they penalized her to have no claim on the principal of the kethubah. For a condition of the kethubah is likened to the kethubah itself.], and she does not have sustenance [It goes without saying that he does not have to feed her while she is still with him, for he is obliged to send her away. But even if he went abroad and she borrowed and ate, he need not pay. For with a kasher wife, if she borrowed and ate, the husband is obliged to pay. For the lender claims what he lent her and she claims it of her husband. For it is only when one fed her not by way of loan that we say in Kethuvoth that the halachah is according to Chanan, who said that if one went abroad and another fed his wife, he (the latter) has placed his money "on a deer's horn." For since he fed her for the sake of her husband, and he lent her nothing, from whom can he claim payment? She did not borrow anything, and her husband did not ask him to feed her. Therefore, he has performed a mitzvah (but he can make no claim). If he lent her, and she is kasher, her husband must repay him, but if she is one of the shniyoth, he is not obliged to pay.], and she does not receive belaoth [If the husband used her nichsei melog until they were "worn out" (balu), he need not reimburse her. For we might think that since she has no kethubah, if the husband ate her nichsei melog, he must reimburse her for what was "worn away"; we are, therefore, apprised that the rabbis penalized her, that her husband not pay belaoth, but whatever she finds remaining (of the nichsei melog) she takes], and the child (of the union) is kasher, and we force him to send her away. A widow to a high-priest, a divorcée and a chalutzah to a regular priest, a mamzereth and a Nethinah to an Israelite, the daughter of an Israelite to a Nathin or to a mamzer have a kethubah. [They have a kethubah and fruit, the husband paying them for the fruit he ate of their nichsei melog. And they have sustenance, being fed from his property (but only after his death. While he is alive, he is not forced to feed her, for he is obliged to send her away. And if someone lent her food in her husband's lifetime, he need not repay the loan.) They also have belaoth, the husband being obliged to return what he "wore away" of their nichsei melog. And this is only when he knew them (to be a widow, etc.), but if he did not know them to be so, they have neither kethubah, fruit, sustenance, nor belaoth. But they do have the addition and the belaoth which remain. As to the shniyoth not having kethubah, fruit, sustenance, or belaoth, and a widow to a high-priest, and a divorcée or a chalutzah to a regular priest having them — this is because the former are interdicted (only) by the scribes and require reinforcement (of the interdict), whereas the latter are interdicted by the Torah and do not require reinforcement. In the chapter "These receive stripes," it is shown that a chalutzah to a high-priest is interdicted by the Torah. And even though a chalutzah to a regular priest is interdicted by the scribes, it was likened to Torah-interdicted in this regard.]
Bartenura on Mishnah Yevamot
שניה לבעל ולא שניה ליבם – if the husband’s mother and not of the levir, such as for example, brothers from the father bu not from the mother.
Ask RabbiBookmarkShareCopy
English Explanation of Mishnah Yevamot
Introduction
In mishnah 2:4, we learned that there are secondary incest prohibitions that were instituted by the scribes.
Ask RabbiBookmarkShareCopy
Bartenura on Mishnah Yevamot
אין לה כתובה – a Maneh (i.e., 100 Dinar or 25 shekels) and Two-Hundred, which are the essence of the Ketubah and she does not have [anything] from the secondary relationship (which are prohibited as incestuous by rabbinic decree), but she does have the supplement.
Ask RabbiBookmarkShareCopy
English Explanation of Mishnah Yevamot
[Concerning] relatives of the second degree [of incest laws who are forbidden] by the words of the scribes: [A woman who is] a second degree of kinship to the husband but not a second degree of kinship to the yavam, is forbidden to the husband and permitted to the yavam; A woman could be a second degree of kinship to her husband but not to her yavam if she was the husband’s grandmother, and her husband had a brother with the same father but not the same mother. The mishnah teaches that although the marriage was forbidden, she may still have yibbum. This is because the prohibition of second degree kinship is only of rabbinic origin.
Ask RabbiBookmarkShareCopy
Bartenura on Mishnah Yevamot
ולא פירות – he doesn’t pay her the usufruct of the wife’s estate of which the husband has the fruition without responsibility for loss or deterioration that he consumed which are hers, [and even though] that the usufruct, the Rabbis instituted (see Talmud Ketubot 47b) [the duty of support as an equivalent for her handiwork], and that of redemption as an equivalent for the privilege of usufruct [of her property], but he is not liable to redeem her, for we do not call her ואותבינך לי לאינתו /and I will make you to be my wife, and therefore, it was appropriate that he would pay her what he had consumed from the usufruct of her estate, even so, the Rabbis fined her that she should not collect from him the usufruct that he consumed as conditions of the Ketubah. For just as they fined her that she should not collect from him the essence of the Ketubah, for the conditions of the Ketubah are like the Ketubah itself.
Ask RabbiBookmarkShareCopy
English Explanation of Mishnah Yevamot
[A woman who is] a second degree of kinship to the yavam but not a second degree of kinship to the husband is forbidden to the yavam and permitted to the husband; The same is true in the opposite case, if she is a second degree of kinship to her yavam but not to her husband. As we learned above in 2:3-4, in such a case she must have halitzah and not yibbum.
Ask RabbiBookmarkShareCopy
Bartenura on Mishnah Yevamot
ולא מזונות – it is not necessary to state that he is not obligated to support her while she is still under him, for but surely, it is his duty to divorce her (literally: “he stands under the charge to get up and make her go out” – how, then, could he be expected to maintain her? ). But rather, even if he went abroad and he and he lent her and consumed from her [property], he does not pay, for if we were dealing with a fit woman, if he borrowed from her and consumed from her [property], the husband would be obligated to pay [her back]. For the loan claims her what he lent to her and she makes a claim to her husband. And especially for someone who supported her not through the matter of a loan, we state in Ketubot (see Tractate Ketubot, Chapter 13, Mishnah 2) that the Halakha is like Hanan, as he stated: He who went overseas and someone went and supported his wife, he left his money on the horn of a deer for since it was for her support from her husband, and he did not lend her anything – whom can he make a claim? She did not borrow and he husband did not request from him that he should support her, therefore, it was Mitzvah that he did, but if he lent her, the husband is liable to pay if she is fit, and if she is from one of the relationships of the second degree (i.e., of the second generation), he is not liable to pay.
Ask RabbiBookmarkShareCopy
English Explanation of Mishnah Yevamot
[A woman who is] a second degree of kinship to the one and to the other is forbidden to the one as well as to the other. If she was a second degree to both, she is forbidden to both.
Ask RabbiBookmarkShareCopy
Bartenura on Mishnah Yevamot
ולא בלאות – if the husband used her usufruct until they wore out, he is not liable to pay for you might think I would say, for since she lacks a Ketubah, but the husband ate from her usufruct, he is liable to pay what was lost and worn out, it comes to tell us that the Rabbis fined her so that the husband would not pay for worn clothes (i.e.., and indemnity for clothes which have completely worn out), but what he finds from them existing, she takes them.
Ask RabbiBookmarkShareCopy
English Explanation of Mishnah Yevamot
She cannot claim her ketubah or usufruct or support money, or her worn clothes. The child is fit [to marry a priest], but the husband is compelled to divorce her. If a couple transgressed the rabbinic prohibition and the man married a woman who was a second degree of kinship, there are serious economic consequences for the woman. The woman does not receive her ketubah (marriage payment), nor does she receive in return the usufruct, meaning the profit that the husband accrued from the use of her property while they were married. She does not receive support (food, clothing or shelter), nor does she receive in return the reduction in the value of her things that he has used while married. However, the status of the child is not effected, since the level of prohibition was only derabbanan. He is forced to divorce her. In summary, the consequences of this forbidden marriage are mostly economic and they are mostly upon the woman.
Ask RabbiBookmarkShareCopy
Bartenura on Mishnah Yevamot
אלמנה לכהן גדול וכו' – they have a Ketubah and usufruct and the husband pays them (i.e., his wives) for the usufruct that he ate from his wive’s estates of which the husband has fruition without responsibility for loss or deterioration and food that they have as they are supported from his property [and especially after] [his] death. But during his lifetime, we don’t force him to support/feed them for we uphold regarding him that it is his duty to divorce her (i.e., literally, he stands under (the charge) to get up and make her go out) and if one of them borrowed her support during the life of her husband, the husband is not liable to pay the lender. And worn out clothing also, there are those who state that he is liable to restore what was worn out and lost from their usufruct, and these words, are when he recognized them, but if he did not recognize them, they have neither a Ketubah, nor usufruct, nor support, nor worn-out clothing, but they do have the supplement and the worn-out clothing that they have in their sight. But second-degree relations do not have a Ketubah, nor usufruct, nor support nor worn-out clothing and a widow [married to] a High Priest, a divorcee and/or a woman who had Halitzah performed to a standard Kohen, ,etc., they have a Ketubah, and usufruct and support and worn out clothing, because these things are from the words of the Scribes and require strengthening. And in the [third chapter of Tractate Makkot}: “Who are they who are flogged?” it is proven that the prohibition of a woman who had undergone Halitzah [is prohibited] to a [High] Priest from the Torah, and even though that [the prohibition] of a woman who had undergone Halitzah [who is married] to a regular Kohen is from the worlds of the Scribes, they made it of Torah law for this law.
Ask RabbiBookmarkShareCopy
English Explanation of Mishnah Yevamot
A widow who was married to a high priest, a divorcee or halutzah who was married to an ordinary priest, a mamzer or a netinah who was married to an Israelite, or the daughter of an Israelite who was married to a natin or a mamzer is entitled to her ketubah. The mishnah now contrasts this type of forbidden marriage, with a marriage that was forbidden according to Torah law, but that was nevertheless an effective marriage. That is to say if a man betrothed one of these women, he has transgressed the prohibition, but she still requires a divorce. In all of these cases the woman receives her ketubah and all of the other rights listed in the mishnah. In the comparison of these two sections, we see that the consequences of marrying a second degree of kinship which is only a rabbinic prohibition are more serious than those of marrying one who is biblically prohibited. The reason is that a rabbinic prohibition needs the extra “strengthening” while the biblical prohibition does not.
