Please ensure Javascript is enabled for purposes of website accessibility Skip to content

Today's Daf Yomi

March 25, 2022 | 讻状讘 讘讗讚专 讘壮 转砖驻状讘

  • This month's learning is sponsored by Terri Krivosha for the Refuah Shlemah of her husband Harav Hayim Yehuda Ben Faiga Rivah.聽

  • This month's learning is dedicated by Debbie and Yossi Gevir to Rabbanit Michelle and the Hadran Zoom group for their kindness, support, and care during a medically challenging year.

  • Masechet Yevamot is sponsored by Ahava Leibtag and family in memory of her grandparents, Leo and Esther Aaron. "They always stressed the importance of a Torah life, mesorah and family. May their memory always be a blessing for their children, grandchildren, great-grandchildren and great-great grandchildren".

Yevamot 18

Presentation in PDF format.

This week’s learning is sponsored by Rena and Mark Goldstein in loving memory of Moe Septee on the occasion of his 25th yahrzeit. “He presented the Beatles and brought Yentl to Broadway. But, he would be most proud of the fact that his children, grandchildren, and great-grandchildren are all committed Jews.”

Today’s daf is sponsored in honor of Nachshon Shwartz on his Bar Mitzvah. Mazal tov to Pam and Yoav and all of his grandparents, aunts and uncles.聽聽

To what extent is there a connection (zika, meaning it is as if they were married) between the potential man and woman that are supposed to engage in yibum? Rav Huna in the name of Rav and Rav Yehuda disagree about this issue. Two questions are raised against Rav Yehuda who held that there is zika. Both questions are resolved. His opinion is attributed to Shmuel. Shmuel in fact had two instances in which he expressed this opinion – why were both necessary? The Mishna brings a debate between Rabbi Shimon and the rabbis about a case where the husband died and after yibum was performed, a third brother was born. Rabbi Shimon permits that brother. Did Rabbi Shimon disagree with the rabbis if the brother was born after the death of the first husband in any case where the brother was born after the death of the first husband or only if he was born after the yibum? Rabbi Oshaya holds that he disagrees about both, based on the principle that zika is strong 鈥 it is as if they are already married. Rav Yosef questions him by showing from other sources that Rabbi Shimon is in doubt whether zika and maamar are considered strong enough to connect her to the yabam?

 

讛讜讛 讗诪讬谞讗 诪讞讬讬诐 讗讘诇 诇讗讞专 诪讬转讛 驻拽注讛 诇讛 讝讬拽讛 拽讗 诪砖诪注 诇谉 讚讝讬拽讛 讘讻讚讬 诇讗 驻拽注讛 诇讬诪讗 诪住讬讬注 诇讬讛 讬讘诪转讜 砖诪转讛 诪讜转专 讘讗讞讜转讛 讘讗讞讜转讛 讗讬谉 讘讗诪讛 诇讗

I would say that the levirate bond applies as long as the yevama requiring levirate marriage is alive but that after her death the bond was terminated. In other words, after the yevama died any relationship between the two dissolved. This comes to teach us that the bond is not terminated without cause but instead requires an actual act, such as 岣litza or levirate marriage. Until one of these acts is performed, the bond remains in place. Let us say that it supports Rav Yehuda鈥檚 opinion from that which was taught: If his yevama dies, he is permitted to marry her sister. From here the Gemara deduces: Her sister, yes; her mother, no, in accordance with the opinion of Rav Yehuda.

讛讜讗 讛讚讬谉 讚讗驻讬诇讜 讘讗诪讛 讜讗讬讬讚讬 讚转谞讗 专讬砖讗 讗砖转讜 砖诪转讛 诪讜转专 讘讗讞讜转讛 讚讜拽讗 讘讗讞讜转讛 讗讘诇 讘讗诪讛 诇讗 讚讛讜讬讗 诇讛 讗讬住讜专讗 讚讗讜专讬讬转讗 转谞讗 谞诪讬 住讬驻讗 诪讜转专 讘讗讞讜转讛

The Gemara rejects this: The same is true, that even her mother is permitted. And this language was used only since he taught in the first clause of the baraita: If his wife dies he is permitted to take her sister; specifically her sister but not her mother, as she is forbidden by Torah law. Therefore, he also taught in the latter clause that he is permitted to marry her sister.

诪转讬讘 专讘 讛讜谞讗 讘专 讞讬讬讗 注砖讛 讘讛 诪讗诪专 讜诪转 砖谞讬讛 讞讜诇爪转 讜诇讗 诪转讬讬讘诪转 讟注诪讗 讚注讘讚 讘讛 诪讗诪专 讛讗 诇讗 注讘讚 讘讛 诪讗诪专 砖谞讬讛 谞诪讬 讬讘讜诪讬 诪讬讬讘诪讛 讜讗讬 讗诪专转 讬砖 讝讬拽讛 讛讜讬讗 诇讛 爪专转 讗砖转 讗讞讬讜 砖诇讗 讛讬讛 讘注讜诇诪讜 讘讝讬拽讛

Rav Huna bar 岣yya raised an objection to this from the mishna: If he performed levirate betrothal with her and then died, the second woman performs 岣litza and may not enter into levirate marriage. This implies that the reason is specifically that he performed levirate betrothal with her. Had the brother not performed levirate betrothal with her, the second woman would also be permitted to enter into levirate marriage. And if you say that the levirate bond is substantial, then she would be considered a rival wife of the wife of a brother with whom the third brother did not coexist by that bond. Since the wife of a brother with whom he did not coexist is prohibited from entering into levirate marriage, her rival wife would likewise be forbidden from doing so.

讗诪专 专讘讛 讛讜讗 讛讚讬谉 讚讗祝 注诇 讙讘 讚诇讗 注讘讚 讘讛 诪讗诪专 砖谞讬讛 诪讞诇抓 讞诇爪讛 讬讘讜诪讬 诇讗 诪讬讬讘诪讛

Rabba said: This should not be read precisely, as the same is true even if the second brother did not perform levirate betrothal; the second woman must perform 岣litza but may not enter into levirate marriage, as the levirate bond renders her a rival wife of the wife of a brother with whom the third brother did not coexist.

讜讛讗 讚拽转谞讬 诪讗诪专 诇讗驻讜拽讬 诪讘讬转 砖诪讗讬 讚讗诪专讬 诪讗诪专 拽讜谞讛 拽谞讬谉 讙诪讜专 拽讗 诪砖诪注 诇谉

And the reason that it teaches the case of levirate betrothal specifically was in order to exclude the opinion of Beit Shammai, who said: The legal status of levirate betrothal with a yevama eligible for levirate marriage is that of a full-fledged acquisition, and it is legally binding to the same degree as an actual betrothal. Therefore, even 岣litza would be unnecessary, similar to the case of a rival wife of a forbidden relation. This is what it comes to teach us: Even if he performed levirate betrothal she is not truly considered the rival wife of a forbidden relation; the prohibition concerning her is by rabbinic law, and she is therefore required to perform 岣litza.

讗讬转讬讘讬讛 讗讘讬讬 砖谞讬 讗讞讬谉 讘注讜诇诐 讗讞讚 讜诪转 讗讞讚 诪讛谉 讘诇讗 讜诇讚 讜注诪讚 讛砖谞讬 讛讝讛 诇注砖讜转 诪讗诪专 讘讬讘诪转讜 讜诇讗 讛住驻讬拽 诇注砖讜转 讘讛 诪讗诪专 注讚 砖谞讜诇讚 诇讜 讗讞 讜诪转 讛专讗砖讜谞讛 讬讜爪讗讛 诪砖讜诐 讗砖转 讗讞讬讜 砖诇讗 讛讬讛 讘注讜诇诪讜 讜砖谞讬讛 讗讜 讞讜诇爪转 讗讜 诪转讬讬讘诪转 讜讗讬 讗诪专转 讬砖 讝讬拽讛 讛讜讬讗 诇讛 爪专转 讗砖转 讗讞讬讜 砖诇讗 讛讬讛 讘注讜诇诪讜 讘讝讬拽讛

Abaye raised an objection to this from that which was taught: In the case of two brothers who coexisted, and one died childless and the second arose to perform levirate betrothal with his yevama but did not manage to perform levirate betrothal before a third brother was born, and then the second brother, who also had a wife, died, whereby both women would fall before the newly born brother for levirate marriage, then the first goes out and is not obligated in levirate marriage because she is the wife of his brother with whom he did not coexist, and the second woman, who was the wife of the second brother, either performs 岣litza or enters into levirate marriage. But if you say that the levirate bond is substantial, then the wife of the second brother would be rendered a rival wife of the wife of a brother with whom he did not coexist by that bond.

讛讗 诪谞讬 专讘讬 诪讗讬专 讛讬讗 讚讗诪专 讗讬谉 讝讬拽讛 讜诪讬 住讘讬专讗 诇讬讛 诇专讘讬 诪讗讬专 讗讬谉 讝讬拽讛 讜讛转谞谉 讗专讘注讛 讗讞讬诐 砖谞讬诐 诪讛谉 谞砖讜讗讬诐 砖转讬 讗讞讬讜转 讜诪转讜 讛谞砖讜讗讬谉 讛讗讞讬讜转 讛专讬 讗诇讜 讞讜诇爪讜转 讜诇讗 诪转讬讬讘诪讜转

The Gemara rejects that: In accordance with whose opinion is this? It is the opinion of Rabbi Meir, who said: The levirate bond is not substantial. The Gemara asks: Does Rabbi Meir hold that the levirate bond is not substantial? After all, unattributed mishnayot are in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Meir, and didn鈥檛 we learn in a mishna (26a): In the case of four brothers, two of whom are married to two sisters, if those married to the sisters died, whereby both sisters fall before the surviving brothers for levirate marriage, then those two sisters must perform 岣litza and may not enter into levirate marriage. It would seem that the reason for this is that each of the sisters has a levirate bond to both remaining brothers.

讜讗讬 住诇拽讗 讚注转讱 住讘专 专讘讬 诪讗讬专 讗讬谉 讝讬拽讛 讛谞讬 诪转专讬 讘转讬 拽讗转讬讬谉 讛讗讬 诇讬讬讘诐 讞讚讗 讜讛讗讬 诇讬讬讘诐 讞讚讗

And if it enters your mind to say that Rabbi Meir held that the levirate bond is not substantial, didn鈥檛 these two sisters come from two different houses, as each was married to a different brother? If so, one brother should take one in levirate marriage and the other should take one in levirate marriage.

诇注讜诇诐 讗讬谉 讝讬拽讛 诪砖讜诐 讚拽住讘专 讗住讜专 诇讘讟诇 诪爪讜转 讬讘诪讬谉 讚讚诇诪讗 讗讚诪讬讬讘诐 讞讚 诪讬讬转 讗讬讚讱 讜拽讗 讘讟诇转 诪爪讜转 讬讘诪讬谉

The Gemara answers: Actually, in Rabbi Meir鈥檚 opinion the levirate bond is not substantial. The mishna states that they perform 岣litza and do not enter into levirate marriage because he held that it is prohibited to nullify the mitzva of levirate marriage. That is to say, it is prohibited to act in such a way that the mitzva of levirate marriage becomes obviated. Under these circumstances there is concern that perhaps as one brother performs levirate marriage to one of the sisters the other brother dies before he manages to perform levirate marriage to the other. If that were to happen, you would thereby nullify the mitzva of levirate marriage since the sister that would now fall before the remaining brother would be his wife鈥檚 sister and therefore prohibited from entering into levirate marriage with him.

讜讗讬 讗讬谉 讝讬拽讛 转讬讘讟诇 讚讛讗 专讘谉 讙诪诇讬讗诇 讗诪专 讗讬谉 讝讬拽讛 讜诪讜转专 诇讘讟诇 诪爪讜转 讬讘诪讬谉

The Gemara objects: But if the levirate bond is not substantial, then let the mitzva of levirate marriage be nullified. That is, if the levirate bond does not carry any real obligation, then the mitzva itself never truly came into effect. As Rabban Gamliel said: The levirate bond is not substantial, and it is permitted to nullify the mitzva of levirate marriage.

讚转谞谉 专讘谉 讙诪诇讬讗诇 讗讜诪专 讗诐 诪讗谞讛 诪讗谞讛 讜讗诐 诇讗 诪讗谞讛 转诪转讬谉 注讚 砖转讙讚讬诇 讜转爪讗 讛诇讝讜 诪砖讜诐 讗讞讜转 讗砖讛

As we learned in a mishna (109a): That mishna discusses a case of two brothers who were married to two sisters. One sister is an adult and therefore her marriage was fully effectual, and one sister is still a minor, and she was orphaned from her father, and her marriage was valid only by rabbinic ordinance. If the brother who was married to the elder sister died, then that sister falls for levirate marriage before the brother married to the minor. Under these circumstances, the Sages suggested directing the minor to refuse her marriage to her husband so that he would be able to take his brother鈥檚 wife in levirate marriage. If the minor does not do so, he would be unable to take her sister in marriage, as she would be the sister of his minor wife and thereby fully exempt from the levirate obligation. Rabban Gamliel said: If the minor refused in the meantime of her own accord, then she refused, but if she did not refuse, let her wait until she reaches the age of maturity, and then that other adult sister will be exempt from performing 岣litza or levirate marriage due to the fact that she is his wife鈥檚 sister. Here it is apparent that Rabban Gamliel is not concerned about nullifying the mitzva of levirate marriage from one of them.

讗诪专 诇讬讛 讚专讘谉 讙诪诇讬讗诇 讗讚专讘讬 诪讗讬专 拽专诪讬转 诇讗 讛讻讬 拽讗诪专讬谞谉 专讘讬 诪讗讬专 讞讬讬砖 讗驻讬诇讜 诇住驻讬拽讗 专讘谉 讙诪诇讬讗诇 讗驻讬诇讜 诇讜讚讗讬 诇讗 讞讬讬砖 讚诇诪讗 诪讗谉 讚诇讗 讞讬讬砖 讗驻讬诇讜 诇讜讚讗讬 诇讗 讞讬讬砖 讜诪讗谉 讚讞讬讬砖 讗驻讬诇讜 诇住驻讬拽讗 讞讬讬砖

Rabba said to Abaye: Do you wish to raise a contradiction between the words of Rabban Gamliel and Rabbi Meir? This would imply that the contradiction needs to be resolved, but statements from two different tanna鈥檌m do not need to agree or to be resolved. Abaye responded: No, in fact this is what we meant to say: How could one possibly say that Rabbi Meir is concerned lest there be nullification of the mitzva of levirate marriage even when it is uncertain because perhaps the first brother will not die, whereas Rabban Gamliel is not concerned that the mitzva be nullified even when it is certain? It is surprising that there should be such a great difference between the tannaitic opinions. Rabba answered: Perhaps the one who is not concerned about nullification of the mitzva of levirate marriage is not concerned even if nullification is certain, and the one who is concerned is concerned even if nullification is uncertain.

讗诪专 诇讬讛 讗讘讬讬 诇专讘 讬讜住祝 讛讗 讚专讘 讬讛讜讚讛 讚砖诪讜讗诇 讛讬讗 讚转谞谉

With regard to the actual dispute between Rav Huna and Rav Yehuda, Abaye said to Rav Yosef: This halakha stated by Rav Yehuda, that even if a woman waiting for levirate marriage dies her mother is still forbidden to the yavam, is from his teacher Shmuel and not from Rav, who was also one of his teachers. Evidence for this can be found in that which we learned in a mishna (41a):

砖讜诪专转 讬讘诐 砖拽讚砖 讗讞讬讜 讗转 讗讞讜转讛 诪砖讜诐 专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 讘谉 讘转讬专讛 讗诪专讜 讗讜诪专讬诐 诇讜 讛诪转谉 注讚 砖讬注砖讛 讗讞讬讱 诪注砖讛 讜讗诪专 砖诪讜讗诇 讛诇讻讛 讻专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 讘谉 讘转讬专讛

In the case of a widow waiting for her yavam to take her in levirate marriage or perform 岣litza, if his brother betrothed her sister they said in the name of Rabbi Yehuda ben Beteira: They say to the brother who betrothed her: Wait and do not marry your betrothed until your brother performs the required action, either 岣litza or levirate marriage. This is because until that time the levirate bond is still applicable and the woman betrothed to you is forbidden to you as the sister of a woman bonded to you. And Shmuel said: The halakha is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yehuda ben Beteira. From here one may infer that Shmuel holds that the levirate bond is substantial.

讗诪专 诇讬讛 讚讗讬 讚专讘 诪讗讬 (讗诪专 诇讬讛) 拽砖讬讗 讚专讘 讗讚专讘 讚诇诪讗 讗诪讜专讗讬 谞讬谞讛讜 讜讗诇讬讘讗 讚专讘 讻讬讜谉 讚讗讬转诪专 诪砖诪讬讛 讚砖诪讜讗诇 讘讛讚讬讗 讜诪砖诪讬讛 讚专讘 讻讗诪讜专讗讬 诇讗 砖讘拽讬谞谉 诪砖诪讬讛 讚砖诪讜讗诇 讘讛讚讬讗 讜诪讜拽诪讬谞谉 讻讗诪讜专讗讬 讜讗诇讬讘讗 讚专讘

Rav Yosef said to him: And if it were the opinion of Rav, what problem would there be? Abaye said to him: It is difficult because there would be a contradiction between the opinion of Rav and another statement of Rav, since Rav Huna cited Rav, and the conclusion from his statements was that the levirate bond is not substantial. He said to him: Rav Huna and Rav Yehuda each cited Rav. Perhaps they are amora鈥檌m and disagree in accordance with the opinion of Rav, i.e., with regard to his opinion? The Gemara answers: Since that which was stated in the name of Shmuel was explicit, while that said in the name of Rav must be explained as an amoraic dispute, we will not leave that statement said explicitly in the name of Shmuel and explain it as an amoraic dispute according to the opinion of Rav.

讗诪专 专讘 讻讛谞讗 讗诪专讬转讛 诇砖诪注转讗 拽诪讬讛 讚专讘 讝讘讬讚 诪谞讛专讚注讗 讗诪专 讗转讜谉 讛讻讬 诪转谞讬转讜 诇讛 讗谞谉 讘讛讚讬讗 诪转谞讬谞谉 讗诪专 专讘 讬讛讜讚讛 讗诪专 砖诪讜讗诇 砖讜诪专转 讬讘诐 砖诪转讛 讗住讜专 讘讗诪讛 讗诇诪讗 拽住讘专 讬砖 讝讬拽讛 讜讗讝讚讗 砖诪讜讗诇 诇讟注诪讬讛 讚讗诪专 砖诪讜讗诇 讛诇讻讛 讻专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 讘谉 讘转讬专讛

Rav Kahana said: I reported this discussion before Rav Zevid of Neharde鈥檃. He said: That is how you teach this, without knowing for certain that Rav Yehuda was stating the halakha in the name of Shmuel. We learn it explicitly: Rav Yehuda said that Shmuel said: In the case of a widow waiting for her yavam who died before he could perform 岣litza or levirate marriage, he is prohibited from marrying her mother. Apparently Shmuel holds that the levirate bond is substantial. And Shmuel conforms to his standard line of reasoning, as Shmuel also said: The halakha is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yehuda ben Beteira.

讜爪专讬讻讬 讚讗讬 讗砖诪注讬谞谉 讬砖 讝讬拽讛 讛讜讛 讗诪讬谞讗 讛谞讬 诪讬诇讬 讘讞讚 讗讘诇 讘转专讬 诇讗 拽讗 诪砖诪注 诇谉 讜讗讬 讗砖诪注讬谞谉 讛诇讻讛 讻专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 讘谉 讘转讬专讛 讛讜讛 讗诪讬谞讗 讛谞讬 诪讬诇讬 诪讞讬讬诐 讗讘诇 诇讗讞专 诪讬转讛 驻拽注讛 诇讛 讝讬拽讛 拽讗 诪砖诪注 诇谉 讚讝讬拽讛 讘讻讚讬 诇讗 驻拽注讛

The Gemara comments: Both statements by Shmuel on the subject are necessary and there was no redundancy here, as, if he were to teach us only the principle that the levirate bond is substantial, I would say that this applies only to the case of one yavam but not to a case of two yevamin, where the levirate bond is not as strong. This comes to teach us that even in the case of two yevamin there is a bond, and that is the conclusive halakha put forth by Rabbi Yehuda ben Beteira. And if he were to teach us only that the halakha is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yehuda ben Beteira, I would say that this applies only in the case where the woman awaiting levirate marriage is living, but after her death the levirate bond is terminated and he is permitted to marry her relatives. This comes to teach us that the levirate bond is not terminated without cause but rather it is necessary to perform some act in order to exempt her from it.

诪转谞讬壮 砖谞讬 讗讞讬诐 讜诪转 讗讞讚 诪讛谉 讜讬讘诐 讛砖谞讬 讗转 讗砖转 讗讞讬讜 讜讗讞专 讻讱 谞讜诇讚 诇讛谉 讗讞 讜诪转 讛专讗砖讜谞讛 讬讜爪讗讛 诪砖讜诐 讗砖转 讗讞讬讜 砖诇讗 讛讬讛 讘注讜诇诪讜 讜讛砖谞讬讛 诪砖讜诐 爪专转讛 注砖讛 讘讛 诪讗诪专 讜诪转 讛砖谞讬讛 讞讜诇爪转 讜诇讗 诪转讬讬讘诪转

MISHNA: If there were two brothers, and one died, and the second entered into levirate marriage with his brother鈥檚 wife while he was already married to another woman, and subsequently a third brother was born to them, and the second brother then died, whereby both of his wives happened before the third brother for levirate marriage, then the first woman, who was the wife of the first brother, is exempt due to the fact that she is the wife of a brother with whom the third brother did not coexist, and the second woman, who was the first wife of the second brother, is exempt due to her rival wife. If the second brother had performed only levirate betrothal with her and then died before fully marrying her, the second woman performs 岣litza and may not enter into levirate marriage, as the levirate betrothal is not considered a sufficiently valid marriage so as to render her the rival wife of a relation forbidden to the third brother.

专讘讬 砖诪注讜谉 讗讜诪专 诪讬讬讘诐 诇讗讬讝讜 诪讛谉 砖讬专爪讛 讗讜 讞讜诇抓 诇讗讬讝讜 诪讛谉 砖讬专爪讛

Rabbi Shimon says with regard to the first clause of the mishna: The third brother either enters into levirate marriage with whichever one he wishes, or he performs 岣litza with whichever one he wishes. Since he was born after his second brother had already entered into levirate marriage with the first brother鈥檚 widow, she is considered the wife of a brother with whom he did coexist, not the wife of a brother with whom he did not coexist. Therefore, he may enter into levirate marriage with her.

讙诪壮 讗诪专 专讘 讗讜砖注讬讗 讞诇讜拽 讛讬讛 专讘讬 砖诪注讜谉 讗祝 讘专讗砖讜谞讛 诪诪讗讬 诪讚拽转谞讬 诪砖谞讛 讬转讬专讛

GEMARA: Rav Oshaya said: Rabbi Shimon鈥檚 opinion differed even on the first mishna. That is, Rabbi Shimon disagreed not only in the case stated explicitly in this mishna, in which the newly born brother came into the world after the widow of his first brother had already married his second brother, but he also disagreed in the case of the first mishna in the chapter, where the third brother was born prior to his second brother entering into levirate marriage with the widow. From where is this derived? Rav Oshaya came to this conclusion from the fact that it teaches a superfluous mishna.

讘讘讗 讚专讬砖讗 诇诪讗谉 拽转谞讬 诇讛 讗讬诇讬诪讗 诇专讘谞谉 讛砖转讗 讬讘诐 讜诇讘住讜祝 谞讜诇讚 讚讻讬 讗砖讻讞讛 讘讛转讬专讗 讗砖讻讞讛 讗住专讬 专讘谞谉 谞讜诇讚 讜讗讞专 讻讱 讬讘诐 诪讬讘注讬讗 讗诇讗 诇讗讜 诇专讘讬 砖诪注讜谉 讗讬爪讟专讬讱

How so? In accordance with whose opinion is it teaching the section of the first clause, i.e., the previous mishna? If we say it is the opinion of the Rabbis, who prohibit marriage to the wife of a brother with whom one did not coexist in all cases, then let us look at the second mishna. Now that even in the case where the second brother entered into levirate marriage and afterward the third brother was born, such that when he found her, i.e., when he was born, she had a permitted status, as she was already married to the second brother, she was never in his lifetime the wife of a brother with whom he did not coexist but was in fact for him the wife of a living brother. Nevertheless, even under such circumstances, the Rabbis prohibit him from entering into levirate marriage with her. Is it necessary, then, to teach the case presented in the first mishna of a third brother who was born and subsequently the second brother entered into levirate marriage with the wife of the first brother? According to the opinion of the Rabbis, this first mishna is redundant. Rather, is it not that it was necessary to state this first mishna for the opinion of Rabbi Shimon?

讜转谞讗 专讬砖讗 诇讛讜讚讬注讱 讻讞讜 讚专讘讬 砖诪注讜谉 讜转谞讗 住讬驻讗 诇讛讜讚讬注讱 讻讞谉 讚专讘谞谉 讜讘讚讬谉 讛讜讗 讚谞驻诇讜讙 专讘讬 砖诪注讜谉 讘专讬砖讗 讗诇讗 谞讟专 诇讛讜 诇专讘谞谉 注讚 讚诪住讬讬诪讬 诇诪讬诇转讬讬讛讜 讜讛讚专 驻诇讬讙 注诇讬讬讛讜

If so, this is how it must be understood: The first mishna was taught in order to convey to you the far-reaching nature of the opinion of Rabbi Shimon, which allows even the case specified in the first mishna, and the latter clause, i.e., the present mishna, was taught to convey the far-reaching nature of the opinion of the Rabbis, that even if the third brother was born after levirate marriage to the second brother she remains forbidden to the third brother. And by right it should have explained that Rabbi Shimon disagrees even in the first mishna, but the author of the mishna waited until the Rabbis finished their words, and then he went back and wrote that Rabbi Shimon disagreed with them.

讗诇讗 讗砖转 讗讞讬讜 砖诇讗 讛讬讛 讘注讜诇诪讜 诇专讘讬 砖诪注讜谉 讛讬讻讬 诪砖讻讞转 诇讛 讘讞讚 讗讞讗 讜诪讬转 讜谞讜诇讚 诇讜 讗讞 讗讬 谞诪讬 讘转专讬 讜诇讗 讬讘诐 讜诇讗 诪讬转

The Gemara asks: But according to the opinion of Rabbi Shimon, how can you find this case of the wife of a brother with whom he did not coexist? The Gemara answers: It is in the case of a single brother who died and subsequently another brother was born to him. Here, the widow would be the wife of a brother with whom he did not coexist, and she would not be required to perform 岣litza or enter into levirate marriage with him. Alternatively, it can be found in the case of two brothers, one of whom died, and the remaining brother did not take the deceased brother鈥檚 wife in levirate marriage, and did not die, and in the meantime a third brother was born. She still has the levirate bond due to the deceased brother, who was a brother with whom the newly born brother did not coexist.

讘砖诇诪讗 讬讘诐 讜讗讞专 讻讱 谞讜诇讚 讻讬 讗砖讻讞讛 讘讛转讬专讗 讗砖讻讞讛 讗诇讗 谞讜诇讚 讜讗讞专 讻讱 讬讘诐 诪讗讬 讟注诪讗 拽住讘专 讬砖 讝讬拽讛 讜讝讬拽讛 讻讻谞讜住讛 讚诪讬讗

The Gemara proceeds to clarify Rabbi Shimon鈥檚 position: Granted, in the case when the second brother first performed levirate marriage and subsequently the third brother was born, it is possible to explain that when the third brother found her, i.e., when he was born, he found her in a permitted state because when he was born she was already the wife of a living brother with whom he coexisted. But if he was born and subsequently the second brother performed levirate marriage, what is the reason that Rabbi Shimon renders her permitted? The Gemara answers: One must say that Rabbi Shimon holds that the levirate bond is substantial, and that the bond itself created a tie of kinship. Moreover, a woman with a levirate bond is considered like a married woman. Since there is a bond between the yevama and the living brother it is as though she were already married to him. Accordingly, she is, for the new brother, like the wife of his brother with whom he coexisted.

诪转拽讬祝 诇讛 专讘 讬讜住祝 讛砖转讗 讝讬拽讛 讜诪讗诪专 诪住驻拽讗 诇讬讛 诇专讘讬 砖诪注讜谉 讗讬 讻讻谞讜住讛 讚诪讬讗 讗讬 诇讗讜 讻讻谞讜住讛 讚诪讬讗 讝讬拽讛 诇讞讜讚讛 诪讬讘注讬讗

Rav Yosef strongly objects to this: Now that in the case of a levirate bond and a levirate betrothal together Rabbi Shimon is uncertain as to whether she is similar to a married woman or an unmarried woman, is it necessary to say that by levirate bond alone she is not like a married woman? If so, how can the Gemara assume that for Rabbi Shimon, the levirate bond alone gives her the status of a married woman?

诪讗讬 讛讬讗 讚转谞谉 砖诇砖讛 讗讞讬谉 谞砖讜讗讬谉 砖诇砖 谞砖讬诐 谞讻专讬讜转 讜诪转 讗讞讚 诪讛诐 讜注砖讛 讘讛 砖谞讬 诪讗诪专 讜诪转 讛专讬 讗诇讜 讞讜诇爪讜转 讜诇讗 诪转讬讬讘诪讜转

What is the proof that this is Rabbi Shimon鈥檚 opinion? As we learned in a mishna (31b): In the case of three brothers who were married to three unrelated women, and one of the brothers died, and the second brother performed levirate betrothal with the widow and subsequently died, then these women, both the first wife of the second brother and the betrothed widow of the first brother, must perform 岣litza and may not enter into levirate marriage with the third brother.

砖谞讗诪专 讜诪转 讗讞讚 诪讛诐 讬讘诪讛 讬讘讗 注诇讬讛 诪讬 砖注诇讬讛 讝讬拽转 讬讘诐 讗讞讚 讜诇讗 砖注诇讬讛 讝讬拽转 砖谞讬 讬讘诪讬谉

What is the reason that the wife of the first brother is not eligible for levirate marriage? As it is stated: 鈥淎nd one of them dies鈥er brother-in-law will have intercourse with her and will take her to him to be his wife and consummate the levirate marriage鈥 (Deuteronomy 25:5). From here it is derived: She who is subject to a levirate bond with a single yavam enters levirate marriage and not she who is subject to a levirate bond with two yevamin. This woman requires levirate marriage due to the death of the first brother, and also, due to the subsequent levirate betrothal, requires levirate marriage following the death of the second brother.

专讘讬 砖诪注讜谉 讗讜诪专 诪讬讬讘诐 诇讗讬讝讛讜 诪讛谉 砖讬专爪讛 讜讞讜诇抓 诇砖谞讬讛 讬讘讜诪讬 转专讜讬讬讛讜 诇讗 讚讚诇诪讗 讬砖 讝讬拽讛 讜讛讜讜 砖谞讬 讬讘诪讜转 讛讘讗讜转

However, Rabbi Shimon says: Let him enter into levirate marriage with whichever he wishes and perform 岣litza with the second. Rabbi Shimon does not accept the homiletical interpretation forbidding a woman who is subject to two levirate bonds. The Gemara explains his opinion: Rabbi Shimon does not allow him to take both in levirate marriage. Why not? Perhaps the levirate bond is substantial, and combined with the levirate bond to the second brother the woman might be considered to be already married to the second brother, and then these two women would be two yevamot who come

  • This month's learning is sponsored by Terri Krivosha for the Refuah Shlemah of her husband Harav Hayim Yehuda Ben Faiga Rivah.聽

  • This month's learning is dedicated by Debbie and Yossi Gevir to Rabbanit Michelle and the Hadran Zoom group for their kindness, support, and care during a medically challenging year.

  • Masechet Yevamot is sponsored by Ahava Leibtag and family in memory of her grandparents, Leo and Esther Aaron. "They always stressed the importance of a Torah life, mesorah and family. May their memory always be a blessing for their children, grandchildren, great-grandchildren and great-great grandchildren".

Want to explore more about the Daf?

See insights from our partners, contributors and community of women learners

thumbnail yevamot tools

Chapter 2 (17-25): Visual Tools for Yevamot

For Masechet Yevamot, Hadran's staff has created dynamic presentations to help visualize the cases we will be learning. For Chapter...
learn daf yomi one week at a time with tamara spitz

Yevamot: 16-22 – Daf Yomi One Week at a Time

After finishing the first chapter, we will begin the second chapter of Masechet Yevamot. We will learn about a brother...
talking talmud_square

Yevamot 18: 5 Sages and Their Approaches

A lengthy discussion on how to understand the mishnah: R. Huna, R. Yehudah, R. Yehudah Ben Beteira, R. Meir, and...

Yevamot 18

The William Davidson Talmud | Powered by Sefaria

Yevamot 18

讛讜讛 讗诪讬谞讗 诪讞讬讬诐 讗讘诇 诇讗讞专 诪讬转讛 驻拽注讛 诇讛 讝讬拽讛 拽讗 诪砖诪注 诇谉 讚讝讬拽讛 讘讻讚讬 诇讗 驻拽注讛 诇讬诪讗 诪住讬讬注 诇讬讛 讬讘诪转讜 砖诪转讛 诪讜转专 讘讗讞讜转讛 讘讗讞讜转讛 讗讬谉 讘讗诪讛 诇讗

I would say that the levirate bond applies as long as the yevama requiring levirate marriage is alive but that after her death the bond was terminated. In other words, after the yevama died any relationship between the two dissolved. This comes to teach us that the bond is not terminated without cause but instead requires an actual act, such as 岣litza or levirate marriage. Until one of these acts is performed, the bond remains in place. Let us say that it supports Rav Yehuda鈥檚 opinion from that which was taught: If his yevama dies, he is permitted to marry her sister. From here the Gemara deduces: Her sister, yes; her mother, no, in accordance with the opinion of Rav Yehuda.

讛讜讗 讛讚讬谉 讚讗驻讬诇讜 讘讗诪讛 讜讗讬讬讚讬 讚转谞讗 专讬砖讗 讗砖转讜 砖诪转讛 诪讜转专 讘讗讞讜转讛 讚讜拽讗 讘讗讞讜转讛 讗讘诇 讘讗诪讛 诇讗 讚讛讜讬讗 诇讛 讗讬住讜专讗 讚讗讜专讬讬转讗 转谞讗 谞诪讬 住讬驻讗 诪讜转专 讘讗讞讜转讛

The Gemara rejects this: The same is true, that even her mother is permitted. And this language was used only since he taught in the first clause of the baraita: If his wife dies he is permitted to take her sister; specifically her sister but not her mother, as she is forbidden by Torah law. Therefore, he also taught in the latter clause that he is permitted to marry her sister.

诪转讬讘 专讘 讛讜谞讗 讘专 讞讬讬讗 注砖讛 讘讛 诪讗诪专 讜诪转 砖谞讬讛 讞讜诇爪转 讜诇讗 诪转讬讬讘诪转 讟注诪讗 讚注讘讚 讘讛 诪讗诪专 讛讗 诇讗 注讘讚 讘讛 诪讗诪专 砖谞讬讛 谞诪讬 讬讘讜诪讬 诪讬讬讘诪讛 讜讗讬 讗诪专转 讬砖 讝讬拽讛 讛讜讬讗 诇讛 爪专转 讗砖转 讗讞讬讜 砖诇讗 讛讬讛 讘注讜诇诪讜 讘讝讬拽讛

Rav Huna bar 岣yya raised an objection to this from the mishna: If he performed levirate betrothal with her and then died, the second woman performs 岣litza and may not enter into levirate marriage. This implies that the reason is specifically that he performed levirate betrothal with her. Had the brother not performed levirate betrothal with her, the second woman would also be permitted to enter into levirate marriage. And if you say that the levirate bond is substantial, then she would be considered a rival wife of the wife of a brother with whom the third brother did not coexist by that bond. Since the wife of a brother with whom he did not coexist is prohibited from entering into levirate marriage, her rival wife would likewise be forbidden from doing so.

讗诪专 专讘讛 讛讜讗 讛讚讬谉 讚讗祝 注诇 讙讘 讚诇讗 注讘讚 讘讛 诪讗诪专 砖谞讬讛 诪讞诇抓 讞诇爪讛 讬讘讜诪讬 诇讗 诪讬讬讘诪讛

Rabba said: This should not be read precisely, as the same is true even if the second brother did not perform levirate betrothal; the second woman must perform 岣litza but may not enter into levirate marriage, as the levirate bond renders her a rival wife of the wife of a brother with whom the third brother did not coexist.

讜讛讗 讚拽转谞讬 诪讗诪专 诇讗驻讜拽讬 诪讘讬转 砖诪讗讬 讚讗诪专讬 诪讗诪专 拽讜谞讛 拽谞讬谉 讙诪讜专 拽讗 诪砖诪注 诇谉

And the reason that it teaches the case of levirate betrothal specifically was in order to exclude the opinion of Beit Shammai, who said: The legal status of levirate betrothal with a yevama eligible for levirate marriage is that of a full-fledged acquisition, and it is legally binding to the same degree as an actual betrothal. Therefore, even 岣litza would be unnecessary, similar to the case of a rival wife of a forbidden relation. This is what it comes to teach us: Even if he performed levirate betrothal she is not truly considered the rival wife of a forbidden relation; the prohibition concerning her is by rabbinic law, and she is therefore required to perform 岣litza.

讗讬转讬讘讬讛 讗讘讬讬 砖谞讬 讗讞讬谉 讘注讜诇诐 讗讞讚 讜诪转 讗讞讚 诪讛谉 讘诇讗 讜诇讚 讜注诪讚 讛砖谞讬 讛讝讛 诇注砖讜转 诪讗诪专 讘讬讘诪转讜 讜诇讗 讛住驻讬拽 诇注砖讜转 讘讛 诪讗诪专 注讚 砖谞讜诇讚 诇讜 讗讞 讜诪转 讛专讗砖讜谞讛 讬讜爪讗讛 诪砖讜诐 讗砖转 讗讞讬讜 砖诇讗 讛讬讛 讘注讜诇诪讜 讜砖谞讬讛 讗讜 讞讜诇爪转 讗讜 诪转讬讬讘诪转 讜讗讬 讗诪专转 讬砖 讝讬拽讛 讛讜讬讗 诇讛 爪专转 讗砖转 讗讞讬讜 砖诇讗 讛讬讛 讘注讜诇诪讜 讘讝讬拽讛

Abaye raised an objection to this from that which was taught: In the case of two brothers who coexisted, and one died childless and the second arose to perform levirate betrothal with his yevama but did not manage to perform levirate betrothal before a third brother was born, and then the second brother, who also had a wife, died, whereby both women would fall before the newly born brother for levirate marriage, then the first goes out and is not obligated in levirate marriage because she is the wife of his brother with whom he did not coexist, and the second woman, who was the wife of the second brother, either performs 岣litza or enters into levirate marriage. But if you say that the levirate bond is substantial, then the wife of the second brother would be rendered a rival wife of the wife of a brother with whom he did not coexist by that bond.

讛讗 诪谞讬 专讘讬 诪讗讬专 讛讬讗 讚讗诪专 讗讬谉 讝讬拽讛 讜诪讬 住讘讬专讗 诇讬讛 诇专讘讬 诪讗讬专 讗讬谉 讝讬拽讛 讜讛转谞谉 讗专讘注讛 讗讞讬诐 砖谞讬诐 诪讛谉 谞砖讜讗讬诐 砖转讬 讗讞讬讜转 讜诪转讜 讛谞砖讜讗讬谉 讛讗讞讬讜转 讛专讬 讗诇讜 讞讜诇爪讜转 讜诇讗 诪转讬讬讘诪讜转

The Gemara rejects that: In accordance with whose opinion is this? It is the opinion of Rabbi Meir, who said: The levirate bond is not substantial. The Gemara asks: Does Rabbi Meir hold that the levirate bond is not substantial? After all, unattributed mishnayot are in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Meir, and didn鈥檛 we learn in a mishna (26a): In the case of four brothers, two of whom are married to two sisters, if those married to the sisters died, whereby both sisters fall before the surviving brothers for levirate marriage, then those two sisters must perform 岣litza and may not enter into levirate marriage. It would seem that the reason for this is that each of the sisters has a levirate bond to both remaining brothers.

讜讗讬 住诇拽讗 讚注转讱 住讘专 专讘讬 诪讗讬专 讗讬谉 讝讬拽讛 讛谞讬 诪转专讬 讘转讬 拽讗转讬讬谉 讛讗讬 诇讬讬讘诐 讞讚讗 讜讛讗讬 诇讬讬讘诐 讞讚讗

And if it enters your mind to say that Rabbi Meir held that the levirate bond is not substantial, didn鈥檛 these two sisters come from two different houses, as each was married to a different brother? If so, one brother should take one in levirate marriage and the other should take one in levirate marriage.

诇注讜诇诐 讗讬谉 讝讬拽讛 诪砖讜诐 讚拽住讘专 讗住讜专 诇讘讟诇 诪爪讜转 讬讘诪讬谉 讚讚诇诪讗 讗讚诪讬讬讘诐 讞讚 诪讬讬转 讗讬讚讱 讜拽讗 讘讟诇转 诪爪讜转 讬讘诪讬谉

The Gemara answers: Actually, in Rabbi Meir鈥檚 opinion the levirate bond is not substantial. The mishna states that they perform 岣litza and do not enter into levirate marriage because he held that it is prohibited to nullify the mitzva of levirate marriage. That is to say, it is prohibited to act in such a way that the mitzva of levirate marriage becomes obviated. Under these circumstances there is concern that perhaps as one brother performs levirate marriage to one of the sisters the other brother dies before he manages to perform levirate marriage to the other. If that were to happen, you would thereby nullify the mitzva of levirate marriage since the sister that would now fall before the remaining brother would be his wife鈥檚 sister and therefore prohibited from entering into levirate marriage with him.

讜讗讬 讗讬谉 讝讬拽讛 转讬讘讟诇 讚讛讗 专讘谉 讙诪诇讬讗诇 讗诪专 讗讬谉 讝讬拽讛 讜诪讜转专 诇讘讟诇 诪爪讜转 讬讘诪讬谉

The Gemara objects: But if the levirate bond is not substantial, then let the mitzva of levirate marriage be nullified. That is, if the levirate bond does not carry any real obligation, then the mitzva itself never truly came into effect. As Rabban Gamliel said: The levirate bond is not substantial, and it is permitted to nullify the mitzva of levirate marriage.

讚转谞谉 专讘谉 讙诪诇讬讗诇 讗讜诪专 讗诐 诪讗谞讛 诪讗谞讛 讜讗诐 诇讗 诪讗谞讛 转诪转讬谉 注讚 砖转讙讚讬诇 讜转爪讗 讛诇讝讜 诪砖讜诐 讗讞讜转 讗砖讛

As we learned in a mishna (109a): That mishna discusses a case of two brothers who were married to two sisters. One sister is an adult and therefore her marriage was fully effectual, and one sister is still a minor, and she was orphaned from her father, and her marriage was valid only by rabbinic ordinance. If the brother who was married to the elder sister died, then that sister falls for levirate marriage before the brother married to the minor. Under these circumstances, the Sages suggested directing the minor to refuse her marriage to her husband so that he would be able to take his brother鈥檚 wife in levirate marriage. If the minor does not do so, he would be unable to take her sister in marriage, as she would be the sister of his minor wife and thereby fully exempt from the levirate obligation. Rabban Gamliel said: If the minor refused in the meantime of her own accord, then she refused, but if she did not refuse, let her wait until she reaches the age of maturity, and then that other adult sister will be exempt from performing 岣litza or levirate marriage due to the fact that she is his wife鈥檚 sister. Here it is apparent that Rabban Gamliel is not concerned about nullifying the mitzva of levirate marriage from one of them.

讗诪专 诇讬讛 讚专讘谉 讙诪诇讬讗诇 讗讚专讘讬 诪讗讬专 拽专诪讬转 诇讗 讛讻讬 拽讗诪专讬谞谉 专讘讬 诪讗讬专 讞讬讬砖 讗驻讬诇讜 诇住驻讬拽讗 专讘谉 讙诪诇讬讗诇 讗驻讬诇讜 诇讜讚讗讬 诇讗 讞讬讬砖 讚诇诪讗 诪讗谉 讚诇讗 讞讬讬砖 讗驻讬诇讜 诇讜讚讗讬 诇讗 讞讬讬砖 讜诪讗谉 讚讞讬讬砖 讗驻讬诇讜 诇住驻讬拽讗 讞讬讬砖

Rabba said to Abaye: Do you wish to raise a contradiction between the words of Rabban Gamliel and Rabbi Meir? This would imply that the contradiction needs to be resolved, but statements from two different tanna鈥檌m do not need to agree or to be resolved. Abaye responded: No, in fact this is what we meant to say: How could one possibly say that Rabbi Meir is concerned lest there be nullification of the mitzva of levirate marriage even when it is uncertain because perhaps the first brother will not die, whereas Rabban Gamliel is not concerned that the mitzva be nullified even when it is certain? It is surprising that there should be such a great difference between the tannaitic opinions. Rabba answered: Perhaps the one who is not concerned about nullification of the mitzva of levirate marriage is not concerned even if nullification is certain, and the one who is concerned is concerned even if nullification is uncertain.

讗诪专 诇讬讛 讗讘讬讬 诇专讘 讬讜住祝 讛讗 讚专讘 讬讛讜讚讛 讚砖诪讜讗诇 讛讬讗 讚转谞谉

With regard to the actual dispute between Rav Huna and Rav Yehuda, Abaye said to Rav Yosef: This halakha stated by Rav Yehuda, that even if a woman waiting for levirate marriage dies her mother is still forbidden to the yavam, is from his teacher Shmuel and not from Rav, who was also one of his teachers. Evidence for this can be found in that which we learned in a mishna (41a):

砖讜诪专转 讬讘诐 砖拽讚砖 讗讞讬讜 讗转 讗讞讜转讛 诪砖讜诐 专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 讘谉 讘转讬专讛 讗诪专讜 讗讜诪专讬诐 诇讜 讛诪转谉 注讚 砖讬注砖讛 讗讞讬讱 诪注砖讛 讜讗诪专 砖诪讜讗诇 讛诇讻讛 讻专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 讘谉 讘转讬专讛

In the case of a widow waiting for her yavam to take her in levirate marriage or perform 岣litza, if his brother betrothed her sister they said in the name of Rabbi Yehuda ben Beteira: They say to the brother who betrothed her: Wait and do not marry your betrothed until your brother performs the required action, either 岣litza or levirate marriage. This is because until that time the levirate bond is still applicable and the woman betrothed to you is forbidden to you as the sister of a woman bonded to you. And Shmuel said: The halakha is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yehuda ben Beteira. From here one may infer that Shmuel holds that the levirate bond is substantial.

讗诪专 诇讬讛 讚讗讬 讚专讘 诪讗讬 (讗诪专 诇讬讛) 拽砖讬讗 讚专讘 讗讚专讘 讚诇诪讗 讗诪讜专讗讬 谞讬谞讛讜 讜讗诇讬讘讗 讚专讘 讻讬讜谉 讚讗讬转诪专 诪砖诪讬讛 讚砖诪讜讗诇 讘讛讚讬讗 讜诪砖诪讬讛 讚专讘 讻讗诪讜专讗讬 诇讗 砖讘拽讬谞谉 诪砖诪讬讛 讚砖诪讜讗诇 讘讛讚讬讗 讜诪讜拽诪讬谞谉 讻讗诪讜专讗讬 讜讗诇讬讘讗 讚专讘

Rav Yosef said to him: And if it were the opinion of Rav, what problem would there be? Abaye said to him: It is difficult because there would be a contradiction between the opinion of Rav and another statement of Rav, since Rav Huna cited Rav, and the conclusion from his statements was that the levirate bond is not substantial. He said to him: Rav Huna and Rav Yehuda each cited Rav. Perhaps they are amora鈥檌m and disagree in accordance with the opinion of Rav, i.e., with regard to his opinion? The Gemara answers: Since that which was stated in the name of Shmuel was explicit, while that said in the name of Rav must be explained as an amoraic dispute, we will not leave that statement said explicitly in the name of Shmuel and explain it as an amoraic dispute according to the opinion of Rav.

讗诪专 专讘 讻讛谞讗 讗诪专讬转讛 诇砖诪注转讗 拽诪讬讛 讚专讘 讝讘讬讚 诪谞讛专讚注讗 讗诪专 讗转讜谉 讛讻讬 诪转谞讬转讜 诇讛 讗谞谉 讘讛讚讬讗 诪转谞讬谞谉 讗诪专 专讘 讬讛讜讚讛 讗诪专 砖诪讜讗诇 砖讜诪专转 讬讘诐 砖诪转讛 讗住讜专 讘讗诪讛 讗诇诪讗 拽住讘专 讬砖 讝讬拽讛 讜讗讝讚讗 砖诪讜讗诇 诇讟注诪讬讛 讚讗诪专 砖诪讜讗诇 讛诇讻讛 讻专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 讘谉 讘转讬专讛

Rav Kahana said: I reported this discussion before Rav Zevid of Neharde鈥檃. He said: That is how you teach this, without knowing for certain that Rav Yehuda was stating the halakha in the name of Shmuel. We learn it explicitly: Rav Yehuda said that Shmuel said: In the case of a widow waiting for her yavam who died before he could perform 岣litza or levirate marriage, he is prohibited from marrying her mother. Apparently Shmuel holds that the levirate bond is substantial. And Shmuel conforms to his standard line of reasoning, as Shmuel also said: The halakha is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yehuda ben Beteira.

讜爪专讬讻讬 讚讗讬 讗砖诪注讬谞谉 讬砖 讝讬拽讛 讛讜讛 讗诪讬谞讗 讛谞讬 诪讬诇讬 讘讞讚 讗讘诇 讘转专讬 诇讗 拽讗 诪砖诪注 诇谉 讜讗讬 讗砖诪注讬谞谉 讛诇讻讛 讻专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 讘谉 讘转讬专讛 讛讜讛 讗诪讬谞讗 讛谞讬 诪讬诇讬 诪讞讬讬诐 讗讘诇 诇讗讞专 诪讬转讛 驻拽注讛 诇讛 讝讬拽讛 拽讗 诪砖诪注 诇谉 讚讝讬拽讛 讘讻讚讬 诇讗 驻拽注讛

The Gemara comments: Both statements by Shmuel on the subject are necessary and there was no redundancy here, as, if he were to teach us only the principle that the levirate bond is substantial, I would say that this applies only to the case of one yavam but not to a case of two yevamin, where the levirate bond is not as strong. This comes to teach us that even in the case of two yevamin there is a bond, and that is the conclusive halakha put forth by Rabbi Yehuda ben Beteira. And if he were to teach us only that the halakha is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yehuda ben Beteira, I would say that this applies only in the case where the woman awaiting levirate marriage is living, but after her death the levirate bond is terminated and he is permitted to marry her relatives. This comes to teach us that the levirate bond is not terminated without cause but rather it is necessary to perform some act in order to exempt her from it.

诪转谞讬壮 砖谞讬 讗讞讬诐 讜诪转 讗讞讚 诪讛谉 讜讬讘诐 讛砖谞讬 讗转 讗砖转 讗讞讬讜 讜讗讞专 讻讱 谞讜诇讚 诇讛谉 讗讞 讜诪转 讛专讗砖讜谞讛 讬讜爪讗讛 诪砖讜诐 讗砖转 讗讞讬讜 砖诇讗 讛讬讛 讘注讜诇诪讜 讜讛砖谞讬讛 诪砖讜诐 爪专转讛 注砖讛 讘讛 诪讗诪专 讜诪转 讛砖谞讬讛 讞讜诇爪转 讜诇讗 诪转讬讬讘诪转

MISHNA: If there were two brothers, and one died, and the second entered into levirate marriage with his brother鈥檚 wife while he was already married to another woman, and subsequently a third brother was born to them, and the second brother then died, whereby both of his wives happened before the third brother for levirate marriage, then the first woman, who was the wife of the first brother, is exempt due to the fact that she is the wife of a brother with whom the third brother did not coexist, and the second woman, who was the first wife of the second brother, is exempt due to her rival wife. If the second brother had performed only levirate betrothal with her and then died before fully marrying her, the second woman performs 岣litza and may not enter into levirate marriage, as the levirate betrothal is not considered a sufficiently valid marriage so as to render her the rival wife of a relation forbidden to the third brother.

专讘讬 砖诪注讜谉 讗讜诪专 诪讬讬讘诐 诇讗讬讝讜 诪讛谉 砖讬专爪讛 讗讜 讞讜诇抓 诇讗讬讝讜 诪讛谉 砖讬专爪讛

Rabbi Shimon says with regard to the first clause of the mishna: The third brother either enters into levirate marriage with whichever one he wishes, or he performs 岣litza with whichever one he wishes. Since he was born after his second brother had already entered into levirate marriage with the first brother鈥檚 widow, she is considered the wife of a brother with whom he did coexist, not the wife of a brother with whom he did not coexist. Therefore, he may enter into levirate marriage with her.

讙诪壮 讗诪专 专讘 讗讜砖注讬讗 讞诇讜拽 讛讬讛 专讘讬 砖诪注讜谉 讗祝 讘专讗砖讜谞讛 诪诪讗讬 诪讚拽转谞讬 诪砖谞讛 讬转讬专讛

GEMARA: Rav Oshaya said: Rabbi Shimon鈥檚 opinion differed even on the first mishna. That is, Rabbi Shimon disagreed not only in the case stated explicitly in this mishna, in which the newly born brother came into the world after the widow of his first brother had already married his second brother, but he also disagreed in the case of the first mishna in the chapter, where the third brother was born prior to his second brother entering into levirate marriage with the widow. From where is this derived? Rav Oshaya came to this conclusion from the fact that it teaches a superfluous mishna.

讘讘讗 讚专讬砖讗 诇诪讗谉 拽转谞讬 诇讛 讗讬诇讬诪讗 诇专讘谞谉 讛砖转讗 讬讘诐 讜诇讘住讜祝 谞讜诇讚 讚讻讬 讗砖讻讞讛 讘讛转讬专讗 讗砖讻讞讛 讗住专讬 专讘谞谉 谞讜诇讚 讜讗讞专 讻讱 讬讘诐 诪讬讘注讬讗 讗诇讗 诇讗讜 诇专讘讬 砖诪注讜谉 讗讬爪讟专讬讱

How so? In accordance with whose opinion is it teaching the section of the first clause, i.e., the previous mishna? If we say it is the opinion of the Rabbis, who prohibit marriage to the wife of a brother with whom one did not coexist in all cases, then let us look at the second mishna. Now that even in the case where the second brother entered into levirate marriage and afterward the third brother was born, such that when he found her, i.e., when he was born, she had a permitted status, as she was already married to the second brother, she was never in his lifetime the wife of a brother with whom he did not coexist but was in fact for him the wife of a living brother. Nevertheless, even under such circumstances, the Rabbis prohibit him from entering into levirate marriage with her. Is it necessary, then, to teach the case presented in the first mishna of a third brother who was born and subsequently the second brother entered into levirate marriage with the wife of the first brother? According to the opinion of the Rabbis, this first mishna is redundant. Rather, is it not that it was necessary to state this first mishna for the opinion of Rabbi Shimon?

讜转谞讗 专讬砖讗 诇讛讜讚讬注讱 讻讞讜 讚专讘讬 砖诪注讜谉 讜转谞讗 住讬驻讗 诇讛讜讚讬注讱 讻讞谉 讚专讘谞谉 讜讘讚讬谉 讛讜讗 讚谞驻诇讜讙 专讘讬 砖诪注讜谉 讘专讬砖讗 讗诇讗 谞讟专 诇讛讜 诇专讘谞谉 注讚 讚诪住讬讬诪讬 诇诪讬诇转讬讬讛讜 讜讛讚专 驻诇讬讙 注诇讬讬讛讜

If so, this is how it must be understood: The first mishna was taught in order to convey to you the far-reaching nature of the opinion of Rabbi Shimon, which allows even the case specified in the first mishna, and the latter clause, i.e., the present mishna, was taught to convey the far-reaching nature of the opinion of the Rabbis, that even if the third brother was born after levirate marriage to the second brother she remains forbidden to the third brother. And by right it should have explained that Rabbi Shimon disagrees even in the first mishna, but the author of the mishna waited until the Rabbis finished their words, and then he went back and wrote that Rabbi Shimon disagreed with them.

讗诇讗 讗砖转 讗讞讬讜 砖诇讗 讛讬讛 讘注讜诇诪讜 诇专讘讬 砖诪注讜谉 讛讬讻讬 诪砖讻讞转 诇讛 讘讞讚 讗讞讗 讜诪讬转 讜谞讜诇讚 诇讜 讗讞 讗讬 谞诪讬 讘转专讬 讜诇讗 讬讘诐 讜诇讗 诪讬转

The Gemara asks: But according to the opinion of Rabbi Shimon, how can you find this case of the wife of a brother with whom he did not coexist? The Gemara answers: It is in the case of a single brother who died and subsequently another brother was born to him. Here, the widow would be the wife of a brother with whom he did not coexist, and she would not be required to perform 岣litza or enter into levirate marriage with him. Alternatively, it can be found in the case of two brothers, one of whom died, and the remaining brother did not take the deceased brother鈥檚 wife in levirate marriage, and did not die, and in the meantime a third brother was born. She still has the levirate bond due to the deceased brother, who was a brother with whom the newly born brother did not coexist.

讘砖诇诪讗 讬讘诐 讜讗讞专 讻讱 谞讜诇讚 讻讬 讗砖讻讞讛 讘讛转讬专讗 讗砖讻讞讛 讗诇讗 谞讜诇讚 讜讗讞专 讻讱 讬讘诐 诪讗讬 讟注诪讗 拽住讘专 讬砖 讝讬拽讛 讜讝讬拽讛 讻讻谞讜住讛 讚诪讬讗

The Gemara proceeds to clarify Rabbi Shimon鈥檚 position: Granted, in the case when the second brother first performed levirate marriage and subsequently the third brother was born, it is possible to explain that when the third brother found her, i.e., when he was born, he found her in a permitted state because when he was born she was already the wife of a living brother with whom he coexisted. But if he was born and subsequently the second brother performed levirate marriage, what is the reason that Rabbi Shimon renders her permitted? The Gemara answers: One must say that Rabbi Shimon holds that the levirate bond is substantial, and that the bond itself created a tie of kinship. Moreover, a woman with a levirate bond is considered like a married woman. Since there is a bond between the yevama and the living brother it is as though she were already married to him. Accordingly, she is, for the new brother, like the wife of his brother with whom he coexisted.

诪转拽讬祝 诇讛 专讘 讬讜住祝 讛砖转讗 讝讬拽讛 讜诪讗诪专 诪住驻拽讗 诇讬讛 诇专讘讬 砖诪注讜谉 讗讬 讻讻谞讜住讛 讚诪讬讗 讗讬 诇讗讜 讻讻谞讜住讛 讚诪讬讗 讝讬拽讛 诇讞讜讚讛 诪讬讘注讬讗

Rav Yosef strongly objects to this: Now that in the case of a levirate bond and a levirate betrothal together Rabbi Shimon is uncertain as to whether she is similar to a married woman or an unmarried woman, is it necessary to say that by levirate bond alone she is not like a married woman? If so, how can the Gemara assume that for Rabbi Shimon, the levirate bond alone gives her the status of a married woman?

诪讗讬 讛讬讗 讚转谞谉 砖诇砖讛 讗讞讬谉 谞砖讜讗讬谉 砖诇砖 谞砖讬诐 谞讻专讬讜转 讜诪转 讗讞讚 诪讛诐 讜注砖讛 讘讛 砖谞讬 诪讗诪专 讜诪转 讛专讬 讗诇讜 讞讜诇爪讜转 讜诇讗 诪转讬讬讘诪讜转

What is the proof that this is Rabbi Shimon鈥檚 opinion? As we learned in a mishna (31b): In the case of three brothers who were married to three unrelated women, and one of the brothers died, and the second brother performed levirate betrothal with the widow and subsequently died, then these women, both the first wife of the second brother and the betrothed widow of the first brother, must perform 岣litza and may not enter into levirate marriage with the third brother.

砖谞讗诪专 讜诪转 讗讞讚 诪讛诐 讬讘诪讛 讬讘讗 注诇讬讛 诪讬 砖注诇讬讛 讝讬拽转 讬讘诐 讗讞讚 讜诇讗 砖注诇讬讛 讝讬拽转 砖谞讬 讬讘诪讬谉

What is the reason that the wife of the first brother is not eligible for levirate marriage? As it is stated: 鈥淎nd one of them dies鈥er brother-in-law will have intercourse with her and will take her to him to be his wife and consummate the levirate marriage鈥 (Deuteronomy 25:5). From here it is derived: She who is subject to a levirate bond with a single yavam enters levirate marriage and not she who is subject to a levirate bond with two yevamin. This woman requires levirate marriage due to the death of the first brother, and also, due to the subsequent levirate betrothal, requires levirate marriage following the death of the second brother.

专讘讬 砖诪注讜谉 讗讜诪专 诪讬讬讘诐 诇讗讬讝讛讜 诪讛谉 砖讬专爪讛 讜讞讜诇抓 诇砖谞讬讛 讬讘讜诪讬 转专讜讬讬讛讜 诇讗 讚讚诇诪讗 讬砖 讝讬拽讛 讜讛讜讜 砖谞讬 讬讘诪讜转 讛讘讗讜转

However, Rabbi Shimon says: Let him enter into levirate marriage with whichever he wishes and perform 岣litza with the second. Rabbi Shimon does not accept the homiletical interpretation forbidding a woman who is subject to two levirate bonds. The Gemara explains his opinion: Rabbi Shimon does not allow him to take both in levirate marriage. Why not? Perhaps the levirate bond is substantial, and combined with the levirate bond to the second brother the woman might be considered to be already married to the second brother, and then these two women would be two yevamot who come

Scroll To Top