לזכות
ר' זאב שלמה בן בינה
ר' פסח בן רינה עליזה
וכן ר' מרדכי בן ברוריה
לברכה והצלחה בכל מעשי ידיהם
ולרפואת ר' מרדכי בן שרה
Rav Yosef Engel offers a proof that the איסור of יבמה לשוק Is NOT an ervah. The Gemara in Yevamos [42a] says as follows:
רבא אמר גזירה שמא ישא את אחותו מאביו וייבם אשת אחיו מאמו
Rava stated a different reason for the need to wait: It is a rabbinic decree lest a child be born and be incorrectly identified as the son of his mother’s second husband when he is fact the son of her first husband. This could result in him marrying his paternal sister, unaware of the true relationship between them, or consummating a levirate marriage with the wife of his maternal brother under the misconception that his maternal brother was also his paternal brother. This would be prohibited because the prohibition to engage in relations with one’s brother’s wife is waived only in the case where there is a mitzva of levirate marriage, which applies only to paternal brothers.
ויוציא את אמו לשוק ויפטור את יבמתו לשוק
Or in the event that his mother’s second husband died and he was assumed to be his only offspring, he would cause his mother to go out and be permitted to the general public because, under the misconception that he was the offspring of the deceased, he assumed that there was no mitzva of levirate marriage. Or, in the event that his maternal brother died childless and the brother’s widow became subject to levirate marriage, under the misconception that he was the paternal brother of the deceased he might perform ḥalitza and permit his supposed yevama to marry a man from the general public. To avoid these problems, the Sages decreed that a woman must wait before remarrying.
מתיב רב חנניה בכולן אני קורא בהן משום תקנת ערוה וכאן משום תקנת ולד ואם איתא כולהו משום תקנת ערוה
Rav Ḥananya raised an objection from a baraita: In all of those cases where the Sages prohibit a woman from marrying or consummating a levirate marriage, I identify that the prohibition is due to an ordinance instituted to prevent a violation of forbidden relations, and here, with regard to the prohibition against marrying within three months, it is due to an ordinance for the benefit of the offspring. Rav Ḥananya explains the challenge: And if it is so that Rava’s understanding of the prohibition against marrying within three months is correct, [that we are concerned lest he marry his paternal sister, unaware of the true relationship between them] then all of the cases of forbidden marriages are due to an ordinance to prevent violation of forbidden relations. However, the baraita indicates otherwise.
האי משום תקנת ולד דלא לפגע בהו ערוה
The Gemara defends Rava’s opinion and explains that the baraita can be interpreted in a way that is consistent with his understanding: When the baraita says that this prohibition is due to an ordinance for the benefit of the offspring, it means that due to the prohibition the offspring will not encounter a prohibition of forbidden relations.
Now, Rava also said that הבחנה is required lest שמא יוציא אמו לשוק, which would seem to be an איסור ערוה, so how can the Gemara answer that it is a תקנת ולד דלא לפגע בהו ערוה. It is more than that according to Rava - it is a clear cut תקנת ערוה - namely that the mother who is a יבמה shouldn't marry a man to whom she is forbidden.
It must be that the Gemara understood that a יבמה marrying a man to whom she is forbidden is NOT an איסור ערוה!
