Study Kiddushin folio 68A with parallel Hebrew-English text, traditional commentary, and modern study tools. Free access to Babylonian Talmud online.
then even if he betrothed a menstruating woman as well, his betrothal should not be effective and the offspring should be a mamzer, as a menstruating woman is included in the list in that chapter of those with whom sex is forbidden. If so, why did Abaye say: All concede with regard to one who has s
The Talmud asks: After all, there is the possibility of juxtaposing all other forbidden relatives to a menstruating woman, and there is also the possibility of juxtaposing them to a wife’s sister. What did you see that you juxtaposed them to a wife’s sister? Why not juxtapose them instead to a mens
Rav Aḥa bar Ya’akov said that there is a different source for the halakha that betrothal is ineffective with forbidden relatives: This principle is derived by means of an a fortiori inference from the case of a yevama: Just as a yevama, before she is released from the yavam through ḥalitza, is forb
Rav Pappa says: It is written explicitly in the Torah that a man can betroth women with whom he is liable for violating ordinary prohibitions of sex. The Torah states in a different context: “If a man has two wives, the one beloved and the one hated” (Deuteronomy 21:15). Rav Pappa asks rhetorically:
The Talmud asks: And according to the opinion of R' Akiva, who says: Betrothal does not take effect even with those women with whom one is only liable for violating a prohibition of having sex, with regard to what case does he establish the verse: “If a man has two wives”? The Talmud answers: He exp