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 sexual intercourse is forbidden. If so, why did Abaye say: All concede with regard to one who engages in intercourse with a menstruating woman or with a sota, a woman forbidden to her husband on suspicion of being unfaithful to him, that the offspring is not a mamzer? Ḥizkiyya said: In the case of a menstruating woman, the verse states: “And her impurity be [ut’hi] upon him” (Leviticus 15:24), from which it is derived that even at the time of her impurity, the type of becoming [havaya] stated with regard to betrothal (see Deuteronomy 24:2) should apply to her. The Gemara is interpreting the connection between the words ut’hi and havaya, as both share the same Hebrew root.

The Gemara 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 menstruating woman? The Gemara answers: When there is an option of juxtaposing a case in a manner that leads to a leniency, or juxtaposing it to a halakha that entails a stringency, we juxtapose it in a fashion that leads to a stringency.

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 forbidden by a mere prohibition, which entails lashes, and yet betrothal is not effective with her, with regard to those people with whom sexual intercourse renders one liable to receive the death penalty or liable to be punished with karet, is it not all the more so the case that betrothal should not be effective in these cases? The Gemara asks: If so, meaning that this is the source, one should also derive that betrothal is ineffective with any other people with whom one is only liable for violating a prohibition of engaging in intercourse, by means of the same analogy.

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 intercourse. 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: But is there one who is hated before the Omnipresent and one who is beloved before the Omnipresent? Rather, “beloved” means beloved in her marriage, i.e., her marriage is permitted; “hated” means hated in her marriage, i.e., her marriage involves the violation of a prohibition. And despite the fact that the latter marriage is between a man and a woman who are forbidden to one another, their union still has the status of a marriage, as the Merciful One states: “If a man has two wives,” i.e., he is married to both of them.

The Gemara asks: And according to the opinion of Rabbi Akiva, who says: Betrothal does not take effect even with those women with whom one is only liable for violating a prohibition of engaging in intercourse, with regard to what case does he establish the verse: “If a man has two wives”? The Gemara answers: He explains that this verse is referring to a widow married to a High Priest, and this is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Simai.

As it is taught in a baraita that Rabbi Simai says: From all relationships that involve prohibitions, Rabbi Akiva would render the offspring a mamzer, except for the marriage of a widow to a High Priest, as the Torah said: “And he shall not profane [yeḥallel]” (Leviticus 21:15), which teaches that he renders them profane [ḥillulim], i.e., his children from this marriage are ḥalalim, but he does not render them labeled with mamzer status.

The Gemara asks: And what can be said according to the opinion of Rabbi Yeshevav, who says: Come, let us shout at Akiva ben Yosef, who would say: In every case where a Jew may not engage in intercourse with a particular woman, and he does so, the offspring that results from this union is a mamzer, even the child of a widow and a High Priest? This works out well even according to the opinion of Rabbi Yeshevav if he comes to exclude the reason of Rabbi Simai, i.e., if he means to take issue with the ruling of Rabbi Akiva in the specific case mentioned by Rabbi Simai, that of a widow married to a High Priest, then Rabbi Yeshevav too concedes that according to the opinion of Rabbi Akiva, betrothal does take effect in a case where a positive mitzva is violated by the betrothal. Accordingly, one can establish the phrase “and the one hated” (Deuteronomy 21:15) as referring to those whose marriage entailed the violation of a positive mitzva.

But if he states a reasoning of his own, i.e., he states an independent statement critical of Rabbi Akiva’s ruling that the child of any illicit union is a mamzer, and it is a categorical statement that applies to all illicit unions, even those liable for violating a positive mitzva, i.e., Rabbi Akiva holds that even the offspring of this relationship is a mamzer, with regard to what case does he interpret the “hated” woman of the above verse?

The Gemara answers: Rabbi Yeshevav would say that the verse is referring to a non-virgin married to a High Priest, as there is a positive mitzva that a High Priest should marry a virgin. The Gemara asks: And in what way is this case different from the previous ones? If Rabbi Yeshevav holds that a child born of any act of intercourse prohibited by a positive mitzva is a mamzer, the marriage of a non-virgin to a High Priest likewise involves the violation of a positive mitzva. The Gemara answers: Because it is a positive mitzva that is not equally applicable to all, and since this command applies only to a High Priest and not to other Jews, its violation is considered less severe than that of other positive mitzvot.

The Gemara asks: And with regard to the Rabbis, who disagree with Rabbi Akiva’s opinion, rather than establishing the verse: “If a man has two wives, the one beloved and the one hated” (Deuteronomy 21:15), as referring to those who are liable for violating prohibitions, let them establish it as referring to those liable for violating a positive mitzva. In other words, betrothal should not be effective if it involves the violation of a prohibition. And as for the “hated” woman whose marriage is nevertheless valid, mentioned in that verse, this is referring to one whose engaging in sexual intercourse violates a positive mitzva.

The Gemara responds: These cases where they are liable for violating a positive mitzva, what are they? If you say that both wives are Egyptian converts, they are both hated, as both marriages are prohibited. If you claim that one is an Egyptian woman and the other a Jewish woman of unflawed lineage, this cannot be the case, as we require “two wives” from the same nation, since the Torah equates the two women. If the hated one is a non-virgin married to a High Priest, this too is problematic, as, is it written: If a priest has two wives? The verse merely says: “If a man has two wives.” Consequently, the verse cannot be interpreted as referring to those who are liable for violating a positive mitzva.

The Gemara asks: But according to the opinion of Rabbi Akiva, that betrothal that involves a prohibition does not take effect, this verse can be referring only to a non-virgin who marries a High Priest, or marriage to a female Egyptian convert, which involve the violation of positive mitzvot. Can the verse really be interpreted as concerning such unlikely cases? The Gemara answers: You are forced to leave this verse aside, as it establishes itself as dealing with a difficult case. In other words, as Rabbi Akiva claims that betrothal is ineffective if any prohibition is involved, he has no choice but to explain the verse that says: “If a man has two wives,” in this forced manner.

§ The mishna teaches: And in any case where a woman cannot join in betrothal with him or with others, the offspring is like her. This ruling refers specifically to a Canaanite maidservant or a gentile woman. The Gemara asks: From where do we derive that betrothal with a Canaanite maidservant is ineffective? Rav Huna says: The verse states that Abraham commanded his slaves: “You abide here with [im] the donkey” (Genesis 22:5), which alludes to the fact that his slaves belong to a nation [am] similar to a donkey; just as betrothal is ineffective with animals, it is likewise ineffective with Canaanite maidservants. The Gemara comments: We have found that betrothal is ineffective with a Canaanite maidservant;