The gemara discusses various ways to disprove the opinion of Rabbi Eliezer, that גירושי חוץ/גירושין על מנת (either a divorce that does not work for one person, or a divorce that's made on condition that the lady won't marry a specific person or persons) works, on Gitin 83a.

One of these is from Rabbi Yosi Haglili:

נענה ר' יוסי הגלילי ואמר היכן מצינו אסור לזה ומותר לזה האסור אסור לכל והמותר מותר לכל ולא והרי תרומה וקדשים שאסורה לזה ומותרת לזה באיסור אשה קא אמרינן והרי עריות באישות קאמרינן הרי אשת איש היינו פירכא

R. Jose the Galilean argued as follows: Where do we find that the same thing should be forbidden to one and permitted to another? What is forbidden is forbidden to all and what is permitted is permitted to all’. Is that so? What of terumah and holy meats which are forbidden to one class and permitted to another? — We are speaking of sexual prohibitions. But what of forbidden degrees of consanguinity? — We speak of marriage. But there is the case of a married woman? — This is the flaw in the argument.

(Soncino translation)

Following the (very quick) arguments of this gemara tell us that עריות were held up as the example of something that is אסור לזה ומותר לזה, something that is forbidden to one and permitted to another (I can't marry my sister, but others can), so we came back and said no, we're talking about prohibitions that are caused by marriage (see Rashi).

What is a case of אישות that is האסור אסור לכל?
Obviously, we can't use אשת איש, as that is the final question that's brought against Rabbi Yosi Haglili; but what case of a marriage-created prohibition is there that the prohibition is equal to all? Take אשת אביו, a father's wife, for example. She's prohibited to the son of her husband, but is still permitted to everyone else on the termination of her first marriage. I couldn't find a case of an איסור אישות that is האסור אסור לכל.
Is there one?

  • Marriage to a king?
    – Double AA
    Jan 26, 2015 at 5:37
  • @DoubleAA If it's true, I guess. ....find a source that says that, and that's an answer.
    – MTL
    Jan 26, 2015 at 5:47
  • hebrewbooks.org/rambam.aspx?rid=14912
    – Double AA
    Jan 26, 2015 at 5:49
  • @DoubleAA ....what's the halacha with a פלגש? ....is this a prohibition that comes from marriage, or from having been with a king?
    – MTL
    Jan 26, 2015 at 5:50
  • I don't think that is discussed in early sources. My guess is it's either: Kiddushin OR Biah would do the trick, as it seems to be all about Kevodo. However, the Mishna Sanhedrin 2:1 might indicate that Chalutzat Melech would be permitted were the king permitted to do Chalitza, which might indicate that Biah is the only factor. In any event, I don't really think this is what your Gemara is getting at.
    – Double AA
    Jan 26, 2015 at 5:58

2 Answers 2


I think that is what Rashi is answering:

נאסרה ע"י קידושין

A woman who has Kiddushin, but not Nissuin, is forbidden to everybody.

  • I was thinking this (ואסר לנו את הארוסות) but was too lazy to check up in the gemara to see if it worked. +1
    – user6591
    Feb 26, 2015 at 0:54

There are many cases of agunot that are forbidden to everyone, and the relationship is marriage induced.

For example, based on the mishna Yevamot 13:4, if there are two brothers and two sisters, where one of each pair is of sound mind and the other is a cheresh/chereshet (deaf-mute), and those of sound mind marry, and the cheresh and the chereshet marry, and then the brother of sound mind dies without children, the result is that the woman of sound mind becomes forbidden to everyone: to the cheresh because he must divorce his wife, and then is forbidden to marry his divorcée's sister, and to everyone else, because a cheresh cannot perform chalitzah.

  • 2
    Isn't that just the prohibition of Eishes Ish, which is the case the Gemara holds up as not being forbidden to all? And an aguna isn't forbidden to her husband, he just may not be alive. Jan 26, 2015 at 15:47
  • She's not forbidden to both her husband and everyone else at the same time.
    – Double AA
    Jan 26, 2015 at 20:26
  • @YeZ You and DoubleAA are right. I should've used a different case. See the edit.
    – magicker72
    Jan 26, 2015 at 22:04

You must log in to answer this question.

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged .