אַח מֵאַב וְלֹא מֵאֵם וְהוּא בַּעֲלַהּ דְּאֵם וַאֲנָא בְּרַתַּהּ דְּאִנְתְּתֵיהּ אָמַר רָמֵי בַּר חָמָא דְּלָא כְּרַבִּי יְהוּדָה דְּמַתְנִיתִין § The opinion that a man may marry a woman raped or seduced by his father can lead to the existence of an unusual family relationship. A woman says: I have a half brother from my father and not from my mother, and my half brother is the husband of my mother, and I am the daughter of his wife. Rami bar Ḥama said: This state of affairs is not legitimate according to the opinion of Rabbi Yehuda in the mishna, who holds that a man may not marry a woman with whom his father engaged in intercourse, even if they were not married. However, according to the Rabbis, a woman whose father was not married to her mother can legitimately have a paternal half brother who is married to her mother.
אָח הוּא וּבְרִי הוּא אֲחָתֵיהּ אֲנָא דְּהַאי דְּדָרֵינָא אַכַּתְפַּאי מַשְׁכַּחַתְּ לַהּ בְּגוֹי הַבָּא עַל בִּתּוֹ The Gemara cites another riddle about a bizarre family relationship. A woman says: He is my brother and he is my son; I am the sister of this one, whom I carry on my shoulders. What is the solution? You find it in the case of a gentile who engaged in intercourse with his daughter, and she bore him a son, who is therefore both her brother and her son. The Gemara is referring to a gentile because it does not wish to entertain the idea that a Jew would act in such a manner.
שְׁלָמָא לָךְ בְּרִי בַּת אֲחָתִיךְ אֲנָא מַשְׁכַּחַתְּ לַהּ בְּגוֹי הַבָּא עַל בַּת בִּתּוֹ The Gemara cites another riddle: Peace upon you, my son; I am the daughter of your sister. You find the solution in the case of a gentile who engaged in intercourse with the daughter of his daughter, who bore him a son. This son’s mother is related to him from her mother’s side as well, as she is his sister’s daughter.
דַּלָּאֵי דְּדָלוּ דַּוְולָא לִיפּוֹל בְּכוּ סְתַר פְּתַר דְּהַאי דְּדָרֵינָא הוּא בַּר וַאֲנָא בְּרַת אֲחוּהּ מַשְׁכַּחַתְּ לַהּ בְּגוֹי הַבָּא עַל בַּת בְּנוֹ The Gemara cites another riddle: Water drawers, who draw water in buckets to irrigate fields, let this cryptic riddle fall among you: This boy whom I carry is my son, and I am the daughter of his brother. You find the solution in the case of a gentile who engaged in intercourse with the daughter of his son, as their son is also her uncle.
בִּיָּיא בִּיָּיא מֵאַח וְהוּא אַב וְהוּא בְּעֵל וְהוּא בַּר בְּעֵל וְהוּא בַּעְלַהּ דְּאֵם וַאֲנָא בְּרַתַּהּ דְּאִיתְּתֵיהּ וְלָא יָהֵיב פִּיתָּא לַאֲחוּהּ יַתְמֵי בְּנֵי בְרַתֵּיה מַשְׁכַּחַתְּ לַהּ בְּגוֹי הַבָּא עַל אִמּוֹ וְהוֹלִיד מִמֶּנָּה בַּת וְחָזַר וּבָא עַל אוֹתָהּ בַּת וְחָזַר זָקֵן וּבָא עָלֶיהָ וְהוֹלִיד מִמֶּנָּה בָּנִים The Gemara cites another riddle: Woe, woe [baya, baya] for my brother, who is my father, and who is my husband, and who is the son of my husband, and who is the husband of my mother, and I am the daughter of his wife; and he does not provide bread for his brothers, who are orphans, the sons of me, his daughter. You find the solution in the case of a gentile who engaged in intercourse with his mother, and she bore him a daughter. This daughter is both his sister and his daughter. And he engaged in intercourse with that daughter. And then the old man, his father, engaged in intercourse with her, and she bore him sons. This woman is therefore the wife of her father-brother, and he is also the son of her husband, the old man. Her father’s brothers, i.e., the sons she had with the old man, are his daughter’s sons.
אֲנָא וְאַתְּ אַחֵי אֲנָא וַאֲבוּךְ אַחֵי אֲנָא וְאִמָּךְ אַחֵי מַשְׁכַּחַתְּ לַהּ בְּגוֹי הַבָּא עַל אִמּוֹ וְהוֹלִיד מִמֶּנָּה שְׁתֵּי בָנוֹת וְחָזַר וּבָא עַל אַחַת מֵהֶן וְהוֹלִיד מִמֶּנָּה בֵּן וְקָרְיָא לֵיהּ אֲחָתֵיהּ דְּאִימָּא וְקָאָמְרָה לֵיהּ הָכִי The Gemara cites another riddle: You and I are siblings; your father and I are siblings; your mother and I are siblings. You find the solution in the case of a gentile who engaged in intercourse with his mother, and she bore him two daughters, and he then engaged in intercourse with one of them, and she bore him a son. And the sister of the son’s mother calls him and says this statement to him, as she is his sister from his father’s side and his father’s sister from their mother’s side, and she is his mother’s sister from both sides.
אֲנָא וְאַתְּ בְּנֵי אַחֵי אֲנָא וַאֲבוּךְ בְּנֵי אַחֵי אֲנָא וְאִמָּךְ בְּנֵי אַחֵי הָא בְּהֶיתֵּירָא נָמֵי מַשְׁכַּחַתְּ לַהּ כְּגוֹן רְאוּבֵן שֶׁיֵּשׁ לוֹ שְׁתֵּי בָנוֹת וַאֲתָא שִׁמְעוֹן וּנְסַב חֲדָא מִינַּיְיהוּ וַאֲתָא בַּר לֵוִי וּנְסַב חַד מִינַּיְיהוּ וְקָאָמַר לֵיהּ בְּרֵיהּ דְּשִׁמְעוֹן לְבַר בְּרֵיהּ דְּלֵוִי The Gemara cites another riddle: You and I are cousins; your father and I are cousins; your mother and I are cousins. You find the solution to this riddle in a permitted manner as well. For example, Reuven, who has two daughters, and his brother Shimon came and married one of them, and the son of Levi, the third brother, came and married the other one of them. And the son of Shimon says this statement to the grandson of Levi. They are cousins from their mothers’ sides, Shimon’s son and Levi’s son are cousins from their fathers’ sides, and Shimon’s son and the mother of Levi’s grandson are cousins from their fathers’ sides.
מַתְנִי׳ הַגִּיּוֹרֶת שֶׁנִּתְגַּיְּירוּ בָּנֶיהָ עִמָּהּ לֹא חוֹלְצִין וְלֹא מְיַיבְּמִין אֲפִלּוּ הוֹרָתוֹ שֶׁל רִאשׁוֹן שֶׁלֹּא בִּקְדוּשָּׁה וְלֵידָתוֹ בִּקְדוּשָּׁה וְהַשֵּׁנִי הוֹרָתוֹ וְלֵידָתוֹ בִּקְדוּשָּׁה וְכֵן שִׁפְחָה שֶׁנִּשְׁתַּחְרְרוּ בָּנֶיהָ עִמָּהּ MISHNA: With regard to a female convert whose sons converted with her, they do not perform ḥalitza for each other’s wives, and they do not perform levirate marriage with them, as their conversions are considered rebirth, and they are considered unrelated. This is so even if the conception of the first son was not in the sanctity of Israel, i.e., the mother had not yet converted when she conceived of him, but his birth was in the sanctity of Israel, as his mother had converted by the time she gave birth to him, whereas the second son was both conceived and born in sanctity. The first son is considered a convert, who is unrelated to his brother. And this halakha similarly applies to a maidservant whose sons were freed with her, as they too are not considered relatives.
גְּמָ׳ בְּנֵי יוּדָן אַמְתָּא אִשְׁתַּחְרוּר שְׁרָא לְהוּ רַב אַחָא בַּר יַעֲקֹב לְמִינְסַב נְשֵׁי דַּהֲדָדֵי אֲמַר לֵיהּ רָבָא וְהָא רַב שֵׁשֶׁת אָסַר אֲמַר לֵיהּ הוּא אָסַר וַאֲנָא שָׁרֵינָא GEMARA: The sons of Yudan the maidservant were freed. Rav Aḥa bar Ya’akov allowed them to marry each other’s wives after divorce. Rava said to him: Didn’t Rav Sheshet prohibit marriage in that case? Rav Aḥa bar Ya’akov said to him: He prohibited it and I permit it. I disagree with his ruling.
מִן הָאָב וְלֹא מִן הָאֵם כּוּלֵּי עָלְמָא לָא פְּלִיגִי דִּשְׁרֵי מִן הָאֵם וְלֹא מִן הָאָב כּוּלֵּי עָלְמָא לָא פְּלִיגִי דַּאֲסִיר The Gemara explains: If the two freed slaves or converts are half brothers from their father’s side and not from their mother’s side, everyone agrees that the marriage is permitted, as even a gentile and certainly a convert are considered unrelated to their father’s family. If they are half brothers from their mother and not from their father, everyone agrees that it is prohibited.
כִּי פְּלִיגִי מִן הָאָב וּמִן הָאֵם מַאן דְּשָׁרֵי בָּתַר אַבָּא שָׁדֵינַן דְּהָא בְּנֵי פְלָנְיָא קָרוּ לְהוּ וְרַב שֵׁשֶׁת קָרוּ לְהוּ נָמֵי בְּנֵי פְלוֹנִית When they disagree, it is a case where they are brothers both from their father and from their mother. The one who permits the marriage claims that we trace them after their father. Their paternal lineage is followed, since they are called the sons of so-and-so, their father. Since they are recognized by their paternal lineage, it is well known that they are considered unrelated, and there is no concern that people will infer that a man may marry his sister-in-law. And Rav Sheshet maintains that they are also called the sons of so-and-so, their mother. Therefore, this concern does exist, as it is not common knowledge that a convert is considered reborn and unrelated to his mother’s family.
וְאִיכָּא דְּאָמַר פְּלִיג רַב אַחָא בַּר יַעֲקֹב אֲפִילּוּ בְּאַחִין מִן הָאֵם וּמַאי טַעְמָא גֵּר שֶׁנִּתְגַּיֵּיר כְּקָטָן שֶׁנּוֹלַד דָּמֵי And some say a different version of this dispute: Rav Aḥa bar Ya’akov disagrees with Rav Sheshet, even with regard to maternal half brothers. And what is the reasoning behind this opinion? The legal status of a convert who just converted is like that of a child just born, and all his previous family relationships are disregarded, whether from his father’s side or from his mother’s side.
תְּנַן הַגִּיּוֹרֶת שֶׁנִּתְגַּיְּירוּ בָּנֶיהָ עִמָּהּ לֹא חוֹלְצִין וְלֹא מְיַיבְּמִין מַאי טַעְמָא לָאו מִשּׁוּם דַּאֲסִירִי לָא דְּאֵינָהּ בְּתוֹרַת חֲלִיצָה וְיִיבּוּם וְשַׁרְיָא לְעָלְמָא וְאִינְהוּ נָמֵי שְׁרוּ We learned in the mishna: With regard to a female convert whose sons converted with her, they do not perform ḥalitza with each other’s wives, and they do not perform levirate marriage with them. What is the reason that they may not perform levirate marriage? Is it not because they are prohibited from marrying them, contrary to Rav Aḥa bar Ya’akov’s opinion? The Gemara answers: No, the mishna means that these wives are not included in the law of ḥalitza and levirate marriage, as they are considered unrelated, and each wife is therefore permitted to marry anyone. And they, too, are permitted to marry her.
וְהָא קָתָנֵי אֲפִילּוּ אִי אָמְרַתְּ בִּשְׁלָמָא אֲסִירִי הַיְינוּ דְּקָתָנֵי אֲפִילּוּ דְּאַף עַל גַּב דְּרִאשׁוֹן הוֹרָתוֹ שֶׁלֹּא בִּקְדוּשָּׁה וְלֵידָתוֹ בִּקְדוּשָּׁה וְהַשֵּׁנִי הוֹרָתוֹ וְלֵידָתוֹ בִּקְדוּשָּׁה וְכִשְׁתֵּי אִמָּהוֹת דָּמוּ אֲפִילּוּ הָכִי אֲסִירִי אֶלָּא אִי אָמְרַתְּ שָׁרוּ מַאי אֲפִילּוּ The Gemara asks: But doesn’t the mishna teach that this is so even if the mother converted while pregnant with the first son, and the second converted independently? Granted, if you say that they are prohibited from marrying each other’s wives, this explanation is consistent with that which is taught: Even so they are prohibited from marriage. Although the first son was not conceived in sanctity and only his birth was in sanctity, whereas the second was both conceived and born in sanctity, and therefore they are like the sons of two different mothers, even so they are prohibited from performing levirate marriage with their sisters-in-law. But if you say they are permitted to marry each other’s wives, what is the meaning of the word even?
דְּאַף עַל גַּב דְּתַרְוַיְיהוּ לֵידָתָן בִּקְדוּשָּׁה וְאָתֵי לְאִיחַלּוֹפֵי בְּיִשְׂרָאֵל אֲפִילּוּ הָכִי שְׁרֵי The Gemara answers: The mishna means that although both of them were born in sanctity, and people might come to confuse them with Jews from birth, who may not marry their sisters-in-law, nevertheless they are permitted to marry each other’s wives.
אִיכָּא דְּאָמְרִי הָכִי נָמֵי מִסְתַּבְּרָא דִּשְׁרוּ דְּקָתָנֵי אֲפִילּוּ אִי אָמְרַתְּ בִּשְׁלָמָא שְׁרוּ הַיְינוּ דְּקָתָנֵי אֲפִילּוּ דְּאַף עַל גַּב דְּתַרְוַיְיהוּ לֵידָתָן בִּקְדוּשָּׁה דְּאָתֵי לְאִיחַלּוֹפֵי בְּיִשְׂרָאֵל אֲפִילּוּ הָכִי שְׁרוּ אֶלָּא אִי אָמְרַתְּ אֲסִירִי מַאי אֲפִילּוּ There are those who say a different version of this inference: So too, it is reasonable that they are permitted to marry their sisters-in-law, as the mishna teaches: Even if the mother converted while pregnant. Granted, if you say that they are permitted, this explanation is consistent with that which is taught: Even so they are permitted. Although both of them were born in sanctity, and people might come to confuse them with Jews from birth, nevertheless, they are permitted. But if you say that they are prohibited, what is the meaning of the word even?
דְּאַף עַל גַּב דְּרִאשׁוֹן הוֹרָתוֹ שֶׁלֹּא בִּקְדוּשָּׁה וְלֵידָתוֹ בִּקְדוּשָּׁה וְהַשֵּׁנִי הוֹרָתוֹ וְלֵידָתוֹ בִּקְדוּשָּׁה דְּכִשְׁתֵּי אִמָּהוֹת דָּמֵי אֲפִילּוּ הָכִי אֲסִירִי The Gemara answers: The mishna means that although the first son was not conceived in sanctity and only his birth was in sanctity, whereas the second was both conceived and born in sanctity, so that they are like the sons of two mothers, nevertheless, they are prohibited from marrying each other’s wives.
תָּא שְׁמַע שְׁנֵי אַחִים תְּאוֹמִים גֵּרִים וְכֵן מְשׁוּחְרָרִים לֹא חוֹלְצִין וְלֹא מְיַיבְּמִין וְאֵין חַיָּיבִין מִשּׁוּם אֵשֶׁת אָח הָיְתָה הוֹרָתָן שֶׁלֹּא בִּקְדוּשָּׁה וְלֵידָתָן בִּקְדוּשָּׁה לֹא חוֹלְצִין וְלֹא מְיַיבְּמִין אֲבָל חַיָּיבִין מִשּׁוּם אֵשֶׁת אָח הָיְתָה הוֹרָתָן וְלֵידָתָן בִּקְדוּשָּׁה הֲרֵי הֵן כְּיִשְׂרְאֵלִים לְכׇל דִּבְרֵיהֶן קָתָנֵי מִיהַת אֵין חַיָּיבִין מִשּׁוּם אֵשֶׁת אָח חִיּוּבָא לֵיכָּא The Gemara cites another proof. Come and hear: Two twin brothers who are converts, and similarly twin brothers who are freed slaves, do not perform ḥalitza for each other’s wives, and they do not perform levirate marriage with them, and if they engage in intercourse with them they are not liable to receive karet for engaging in intercourse with a brother’s wife. If they were not conceived in sanctity and only their birth was in sanctity, they do not perform ḥalitza or levirate marriage, but they are liable for engaging in intercourse with a brother’s wife. If they were conceived and born in sanctity, they are like Jews from birth in all of their matters. In any event, the baraita is teaching that regular converts are not liable for engaging in intercourse with a brother’s wife. It can be inferred that while there is no liability by Torah law,