משנה: הַחוֹלֵץ לִיבִמְתּוֹ הוּא אָסוּר בִּקְרוֹבוֹתֶיהָ וְהִיא אֲסוּרָה בִקְרוֹבָיו. הוּא אָסוּר בְּאִמָּהּ וּבְאֵם אִמָּהּ וּבְאֵם אָבִיהָ בְּבִתָּהּ בְּבַת בִּתָּהּ וּבְבַת בְּנָהּ וּבַאֲחוֹתָהּ בִּזְמַן שֶׁהִיא קַייֶמֶת. הָאַחִין מוּתָּרִין. הִיא אֲסוּרָה בְאַבִיו בַּאֲבִי אָבִיו בִּבְנוֹ וּבְבֶן בְּנוֹ בְּאָחִיו וּבְבֶן אָחִיו. מוּתָּר אָדָם בִּקְרוֹבַת צָרַת חֲלוּצָתוֹ וְאָסוּר בְּצָרַת קְרוֹבַת חֲלוּצָתוֹ. MISHNAH: He who performs ḥalîṣah with his sister-in-law is forbidden her relatives and his relatives are forbidden to her116All relatives forbidden after a divorce (biblical or rabbinic) are rabbinically forbidden after ḥalîṣah; cf. also Mishnah 4:13.. Forbidden to him are her mother and her mother’s mother, her father’s mother, her daughter, her daughter’s daughter and her son’s daughter, and her sister as long as she is alive. The brothers are permitted. Forbidden to her are his father, his father’s father, his son and his son’s son, his brother and his brother’s son. The relative of a co-wife of a person who had ḥalîṣah with him is permitted to him, but the co-wife of a relative of a person who had ḥalîṣah with him is forbidden117Mishnah 1:1..
הלכה: הַחוֹלֵץ לִיבִמְתּוֹ כול׳. מִפְּנֵי שֶׁחָלַץ לָהּ. הָא לֹא חָלַץ לָהּ וּמֵתָה מוּתָּר בְּאִמָּהּ. אָמַר רִבִּי אֲבִינָא. הָדָא הִיא דָמַר רִבִּי יַעֲקֹב בַּר אָחָא בְשֵׁם רִבִּי לָעְזָר. שׁוֹמֶרֶת יָבָם שֶׁמֵּתָה מוּתָּר בְּאִמָּהּ. זִיקָה הָּיְתָה לוֹ בָהּ. כֵּיוָן שֶׁמֵּתָה בָֽטְלָה לוֹ זִיקָתָהּ. וְהָכָא כֵּיוָן שֶׁמֵּת בָּֽטְלָה זִיקָתוֹ. רִבִּי אָבוּן שָׁמַע לָהּ מִן דְּבַתְרָה. וּבַאֲחוֹתָהּ בִּזְמַן שֶׁהִיא קַייֶמֶת וְהָאַחִין מוּתָּרִין. וַאֲחוֹתָהּ אֵצֶל הָאַחִין לֹא כְמֵתָה הִיא. HALAKHAH: “He who performs ḥalîṣah with his sister-in-law,” etc. Because he performed ḥalîṣah with her. Therefore, if he did not perform ḥalîṣah with her but she died, her mother is permitted to him. 118Chapter 2, Notes 28–29. That is what Rebbi Jacob bar Aḥa said in the name of Rebbi Eleazar: If a woman waiting for her levir died, her mother is permitted to him. He had in her an interest of candidacy. When she died, the candidacy was eliminated. And here, when he died, the candidacy was eliminated. Rebbi Abun understood it from what follows: “And her sister as long as she is alive, but the brothers are permitted.” Is her sister’s position relative to the brothers not as if119Relative to the brother chosen to perform ḥalîṣah. she herself had died?
אֲסוּרָה בְאַבִיו וּבַאֲבִי אָבִיו בִּבְנוֹ וּבְבֶן בְּנוֹ וּבְאָחִיו וּבְבֶן אָחִיו. הָדָא אָֽמְרָה שֶׁנִּיתְּנוּ שְׁנִיּוֹת לַחוֹלֵץ. וְהַייְדָא אָֽמְרָה דָא. בִּבְנוֹ וּבְבֶן בְּנוֹ בְּאָחִיו וּבְבֶן אָחִיו. הָדָא אָֽמְרָה שֶׁנִּיתְּנוּ שְׁנִיּוֹת לַחוֹלֵץ. “Forbidden to her are his father, his father’s father, his son and his son’s son, his brother and his brother’s son.” Does this imply that secondary prohibitions are imposed on the one performing ḥalîṣah? That says it, “his son and his son’s son, his brother and his brother’s son.” That implies that secondary prohibitions are imposed on the one performing ḥalîṣah120It seems that the first quote is too long and should only refer to his father’s father. The Babli, 40b, also raises the question why the paternal grandfather is forbidden and answers that the prohibition has nothing to do with ḥalîṣah since that grandfather was forbidden to her from the moment she married her husband. But the son’s and the brother’s sons are secondary prohibitions. This is also the conclusion of the Babli which, however, restricts secondary prohibitions arising from ḥalîṣah strictly to those enumerated in the Mishnah..
כֵּינִי מַתְנִיתָא. מוּתָּר הוּא אָדָם בִּקְרוֹבַת צָרַת חֲלוּצָתוֹ וְאָסוּר בְּצָרַת קְרוֹבַת חֲלוּצָתוֹ. הָדָא מְסַייְעָא לְהַהִיא דְאָמַר רִבִּי הִילָא בְשֵׁם רִבִּי אֲבִינָא. קַל וָחוֹמֶר. מַה אֲחוֹת חֲלוּצָתוֹ שֶׁהוּא מִדִּבְרֵיהֶן נָֽתְנוּ לָהּ חֲכָמִים צָרָה. כָּאן שֶׁיֵּשׁ כָּאן אִיסּוּר אָחִיו לֹא כָּל־שֶׁכֵּן. So is the Mishnah: “The relative of a co-wife of a person who had ḥalîṣah with him is permitted to him, but the co-wife of a relative of a person who had ḥalîṣah with him is forbidden121This is the text of the Mishnah. It seems that the intent of this note is not to correct the text but to reject the formulation “the sister of a co-wife …”, quoted in Chapter 3 (Note 50).”. 122The text is from Chapter 3; explained there in Notes 24, 25. Rebbi Hila in the name of Rebbi Avina: It is an inference de minore ad majus. If the Sages gave a co-wife to the sister of a woman for whom he performed ḥalîṣah, which is rabbinic, here, where there is the prohibition of sisters, not so much more?