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

Today's Daf Yomi

March 26, 2022 | ื›ืดื’ ื‘ืื“ืจ ื‘ืณ ืชืฉืคืดื‘

  • This monthโ€™s learning is sponsored by Shlomo and Amalia Klapper in honor of the birth of Chiyenna Yochana, named after her great-great-grandmother, Chiyenna Kossovsky.

  • This month's learning is sponsored by Elaine Hochberg in honor of her husband, Arie Hochberg, who continues to journey through Daf Yomi with her. โ€œAnd with thanks to Rabbanit Farber and Hadran who have made our learning possible.โ€

  • 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 19

Presentation in PDF format.

Did Rabbi Shimon disagree with the rabbis about an issue of a brother 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 of the brother to the first brotherโ€™s wife? Rabbi Oshaya holds that he disagrees about both, based on the principle that zika is strong โ€“ 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? Abaye tries to answer the difficulty but his answer is rejected and the question against Rabbi Oshaya stands. Rav Oshaya raises another question against Rabbi Oshaya but the question is resolved. Rav Papa explains that Rabbi Shimon only disagreed with the rabbis in a case where first yibum was performed and then the child was born. A braita is brought to prove his opinion. After proving Rav Papaโ€™s approach, the Gemara delves into different parts of the braita to explain them. What is the basis for the disagreement between the rabbis and Rabbi Shimon?

 

ืžื‘ื™ืช ืื—ื“ ื™ื‘ื•ืžื™ ื—ื“ื ื•ืื™ืคื˜ื•ืจ ืื™ื“ืš ืœื ื“ื“ืœืžื ืื™ืŸ ื–ื™ืงื” ื›ื›ื ื•ืกื” ื•ื”ื•ื• ืœื”ื• ืฉืชื™ ื™ื‘ืžื•ืช ื”ื‘ืื•ืช ืžืฉื ื™ ื‘ืชื™ื ืืœืžื ืžืกืคืงื ืœื™ื”

from a single household, i.e., husband, and everyone agrees that only one wife from each household may be taken in levirate marriage, as the verse states: โ€œTo build his brotherโ€™s house,โ€ which is interpreted to mean that the remaining brother may perform levirate marriage with only one wife of his late brother and not with two. To take one in levirate marriage and exempt the other without any procedure, he may not do, as perhaps the levirate bond is not substantial enough to make the first brotherโ€™s widow like a married woman to the second brother. In that case this woman whose husband died first remains the wife of the first brother, and the second woman is the wife of the second brother. Then there would be two separate levirate obligations, and one could not exempt the other; they would be two yevamot who come from two households. Therefore, apparently even when levirate betrothal was performed Rabbi Shimon is uncertain whether or not the levirate bond is substantial.

ื•ื›ื™ ืชื™ืžื ืžื“ืื•ืจื™ื™ืชื ื”ื›ื™ ื ืžื™ ื“ืžื™ื™ื‘ืžื ื—ื“ื ื•ืžืคื˜ืจื ื—ื“ื ื•ืžื“ืจื‘ื ืŸ ื”ื•ื ื“ืืกื•ืจ ื’ื–ื™ืจื” ืžืฉื•ื ืฉืžื ื™ืืžืจื• ืฉืชื™ ื™ื‘ืžื•ืช ื”ื‘ืื•ืช ืžืฉื ื™ ื‘ืชื™ื ื—ื“ื ืžื™ื™ื‘ืžื ื•ืื™ื“ืš ืžื™ืคื˜ืจื ื‘ื•ืœื ื›ืœื•ื

And if you would say that by Torah law, indeed, one of them may be taken in levirate marriage and thereby exempt the other, and this was prohibited only by rabbinic law, this would be a rabbinic decree due to the concern lest those who were not aware of the details mistakenly say that in general if two yevamot come from two households then one is taken in levirate marriage and the other is exempt without anything. One might have thought that the reason Rabbi Shimon required the other woman to perform แธฅalitza is to avoid the possibility of such a mistake.

ื•ื”ื ื˜ืขืžื ื“ืจื‘ื™ ืฉืžืขื•ืŸ ืžืฉื•ื ืžืืžืจ ื•ืœืื• ืžืืžืจ ื”ื•ื ื“ืชื ื™ื ืืžืจ ืœื”ื ืจื‘ื™ ืฉืžืขื•ืŸ ืœื—ื›ืžื™ื ืื ืžืืžืจื• ืฉืœ ืฉื ื™ ืžืืžืจ ืืฉืช ืฉื ื™ ื”ื•ื ื‘ื•ืขืœ

But this cannot be, as Rabbi Shimonโ€™s reason is mentioned explicitly in the baraita, and there he does not state that this is a decree of the Sages. Rather, his reason is due to the question with regard to the strength of levirate betrothal, specifically whether the status of marriage is achieved by levirate betrothal or not achieved by levirate betrothal. As it is taught in a baraita: Rabbi Shimon said to the Rabbis in explanation of his opinion that one of the women could enter into levirate marriage: If the levirate betrothal of the second brother is indeed levirate betrothal and is considered as a fully valid marriage, then the third brother is engaging in relations with the wife of the second brother when he takes her in levirate marriage. That is, if the levirate betrothal by the second brother has the same status as full marriage, then she becomes the wife of this second brother, and all previous connections are no longer relevant.

ื•ืื ืžืืžืจื• ืฉืœ ืฉื ื™ ืื™ื ื• ืžืืžืจ ืืฉืช ืจืืฉื•ืŸ ื”ื•ื ื‘ื•ืขืœ

But if the levirate betrothal of the second brother is not levirate betrothal, i.e., it does not have the full status of marriage, then there was never in fact any connection between the two. If she is then taken by the third brother in levirate marriage, he would be engaging in relations with the wife of the first brother. From here one can conclude that the basis for Rabbi Shimonโ€™s uncertainty is related to the questions concerning the strength of the levirate betrothal.

ืืžืจ ืœื™ื” ืื‘ื™ื™ ื•ืœื ืฉื ื™ ืœืš ื‘ื™ืŸ ื–ื™ืงืช ื™ื‘ื ืื—ื“ ืœื–ื™ืงืช ืฉื ื™ ื™ื‘ืžื™ื ื“ืœืžื ื›ื™ ืืžืจ ืจื‘ื™ ืฉืžืขื•ืŸ ื–ื™ืงื” ื›ื›ื ื•ืกื” ื“ืžื™ื ื‘ื™ื‘ื ืื—ื“ ืื‘ืœ ื‘ืฉื ื™ ื™ื‘ืžื™ืŸ ืœื

Abaye said to him: From here you cannot prove what Rabbi Shimonโ€™s opinion was. Is there no difference to you between a levirate bond to a single yavam and a bond to two yevamim? Perhaps when Rabbi Shimon said that a levirate bond is substantial enough to render her like a married woman, this applies only when there is a single yavam. If these were the circumstances of the case discussed, that when one brother died there remained only one yavam, then because the obligation of levirate marriage would apply only to him, she would be considered his wife. But perhaps he held that if there were two yevamin, then no, she would not be considered a married woman, as here the bond would apply to both at once. Accordingly, Rabbi Shimonโ€™s uncertainty is with regard to the case of a levirate bond with two yevamin.

ื•ืžื™ ืฉื ื™ ืœื™ื” ืœืจื‘ื™ ืฉืžืขื•ืŸ ื•ื”ืชื ื™ื ื›ืœืœ ืืžืจ ืจื‘ื™ ืฉืžืขื•ืŸ ื›ืœ ืฉื”ืœื™ื“ื” ืงื•ื“ืžืช ืœื ืฉื•ืื™ืŸ ืœื ื—ื•ืœืฆืช ื•ืœื ืžืชื™ื™ื‘ืžืช ื ืฉื•ืื™ืŸ ืงื•ื“ื ืœืœื™ื“ื” ืื• ื—ื•ืœืฆืช ืื• ืžืชื™ื™ื‘ืžืช

The Gemara challenges: Does Rabbi Shimon differentiate between the case of one yavam and the case of two yevamin in the matter of a wife of a brother with whom he did not coexist? But it is taught in a baraita with regard to the wife of a brother with whom he did not coexist: Rabbi Shimon stated a principle: Whenever the birth of the third brother precedes the levirate marriage of the second brother, if this second brother dies and the yevama falls before the third brother, she does not perform แธฅalitza and she does not enter into levirate marriage. In such circumstances she is the wife of a brother with whom he did not coexist. But if the levirate marriage preceded his birth, she either performs แธฅalitza or enters into levirate marriage.

ืžืื™ ืœืื• ื‘ื™ื‘ื ืื—ื“ ื•ืงืชื ื™ ืœื ื—ื•ืœืฆืช ื•ืœื ืžืชื™ื™ื‘ืžืช ืœื ื‘ืฉื ื™ ื™ื‘ืžื™ื

What, is it not referring to the case of a single yavam, and it is taught in a baraita: She does not perform แธฅalitza and she does not enter into levirate marriage. Even if there is only a single yavam this is not considered full marriage, and she remains forbidden as the wife of a brother with whom he did not coexist. Consequently, she who is subject to a levirate bond is not like a married woman. The Gemara answers: No. it refers to a case of two yevamin.

ืื‘ืœ ื‘ื™ื‘ื ืื—ื“ ืžืื™ ื”ื›ื™ ื ืžื™ ืื• ื—ื•ืœืฆืช ืื• ืžืชื™ื™ื‘ืžืช ืื™ ื”ื›ื™ ืื“ืชื ื™ ื ืฉื•ืื™ืŸ ืงื•ื“ืžื™ืŸ ืœืœื™ื“ื” ืื• ื—ื•ืœืฆืช ืื• ืžืชื™ื™ื‘ืžืช ืœื™ืคืœื•ื’ ื•ืœื™ืชื ื™ ื‘ื“ื™ื“ื” ื‘ืžื” ื“ื‘ืจื™ื ืืžื•ืจื™ื ื‘ืฉื ื™ ื™ื‘ืžื™ื ืื‘ืœ ื‘ื™ื‘ื ืื—ื“ ืื• ื—ื•ืœืฆืช ืื• ืžืชื™ื™ื‘ืžืช

The Gemara asks: But what, then, is the ruling for a single yavam? So too, one should say she either performs แธฅalitza or enters into levirate marriage, as the woman who requires levirate marriage is like the wife of the second brother for all purposes. If so, rather than teaching the case when the marriage of the second brother precedes the birth of the third brother, that if this second brother dies and she falls before the third brother, she either performs แธฅalitza or enters into levirate marriage, let Rabbi Shimon distinguish and teach the distinction within the situation itself and say: In what case is this statement said? When there are two yevamin. But if there is one yavam, she either performs แธฅalitza or enters into levirate marriage.

ื›ื•ืœื” ื‘ืฉื ื™ ื™ื‘ืžื™ืŸ ืงืžื™ื™ืจื™ ื•ืืœื ืžืื™ ื›ืœืœื

The Gemara rejects this: No, the entire baraita is in reference to two yevamin and differentiates between various cases involving two yevamin, namely, the case where the birth of the third brother preceded the marriage of the second brother and the case where the marriage of the second brother preceded the birth of the third brother. The Gemara asks: Rather, what is the principle in this matter? If Rabbi Shimon is speaking of two yevamin and not a single yavam, then it makes no sense to speak of a principle, as the halakha is different in the case of a single yavam.

ื•ืขื•ื“ ืžืชื™ื‘ ืจื‘ ืื•ืฉืขื™ื ืฉืœืฉื” ืื—ื™ืŸ ืฉื ื™ื ืžื”ืŸ ื ืฉื•ืื™ืŸ ืฉืชื™ ืื—ื™ื•ืช ืื• ืืฉื” ื•ื‘ืชื” ืื• ืืฉื” ื•ื‘ืช ื‘ืชื” ืื• ืืฉื” ื•ื‘ืช ื‘ื ื” ื”ืจื™ ืืœื• ื—ื•ืœืฆื•ืช ื•ืœื ืžืชื™ื™ื‘ืžื•ืช ื•ืจื‘ื™ ืฉืžืขื•ืŸ ืคื•ื˜ืจ

Moreover, Rav Oshaya raised an objection from that which was taught in a mishna (28b): If there were three brothers, two of whom were married to two sisters, or to a woman and her daughter, or a woman and her daughterโ€™s daughter, or a woman and her sonโ€™s daughter, who are, in each case, two women who may not be married to the same person simultaneously, and subsequently these brothers who were married to relatives died, then those two women must perform แธฅalitza and may not enter into levirate marriage. Since they both have a levirate bond to the third brother at the same time and he is prohibited from marrying both, they cause one another to be unable to perform levirate marriage. And Rabbi Shimon exempts them even from แธฅalitza.

ื•ืื™ ืกืœืงื ื“ืขืชืš ืงืกื‘ืจ ืจื‘ื™ ืฉืžืขื•ืŸ ื–ื™ืงื” ื›ื›ื ื•ืกื” ื“ืžื™ื ืœื™ื™ื‘ื ืœืงืžื™ื™ืชื ื•ืชื™ืคื˜ืจ ืื™ื“ืš

And if it enters your mind that Rabbi Shimon held that a levirate bond is substantial enough to make her like a married woman, then let the third brother consummate the levirate marriage to the widow of the first husband to die, since as soon as her husband dies she has a levirate bond with the other brothers and should be considered to be like his wife, and let the other be exempt as a result, as her levirate bond began only with the death of the second husband.

ืืžืจ ืจื‘ ืขืžืจื ืžืื™ ืคื•ื˜ืจ ื ืžื™ ืคื•ื˜ืจ ื‘ืฉื ื™ื” ื•ื”ืชื ื™ื ืจื‘ื™ ืฉืžืขื•ืŸ ืคื•ื˜ืจ ื‘ืฉืชื™ื”ืŸ

Rav Amram said: What is really the meaning of the word exempt used by Rabbi Shimon? Only the second is exempt. The Gemara objects: But it is taught in a baraita: Rabbi Shimon exempts both. From here it is clear that in his opinion a woman subject to a levirate bond does not have the same status as a married woman.

ืืžืจ ืจื‘ื ืฉื ื™ื” ืฉื‘ื–ื•ื’ ื–ื” ื•ื”ืฉื ื™ื” ืฉื‘ื–ื•ื’ ื–ื”

Rava said: In the case mentioned in that baraita, there were three brothers, two of whom died. Each of the deceased brothers had four wives who were related to the wives of the other brother as described in the mishna. One wife of the first brother was the sister of a wife of the second brother. Another wife was the mother of a wife of the second brother. Another was the daughter of the daughter of a wife of the second brother. And another was the daughter of the son of a wife of the second brother. When these brothers died, all eight women happened before the remaining brother for levirate marriage. When Rabbi Shimon deemed both of them exempt, he was referring to the second from this pair and the second from that pair. That is, since one of them was bound to the third brother her relative became exempt as a forbidden relative, and the other of the pair was her rival wife in each of the cases.

ืงื ื˜ืขื™ ืจื‘ื ื‘ืืจื‘ืขื” ื–ื•ื’ื™ ื—ื“ื ื“ืื• ืื• ืงืชื ื™ ื•ืขื•ื“ ืจื‘ื™ ืฉืžืขื•ืŸ ืคื•ื˜ืจ ื‘ืืจื‘ืขืชืŸ ืžื™ื‘ืขื™ ืœื™ื”

The Gemara comments: Rava was mistaken about there being four pairs. He mistakenly understood that the mishna spoke of two brothers who married four pairs of relatives. Why does the Gemara assume that he was mistaken? One piece of evidence is that the mishna teaches the case using the expression: Or, or. The mishna teaches: Or to a woman and her daughter, or to a woman and her daughterโ€™s daughter, or a woman and her sonโ€™s daughter, meaning that not all of the pairs happened before a single yavam for levirate marriage. And further, the baraita should have said: Rabbi Shimon exempts all four of them, i.e., the four women married to the second brother.

ื•ืขื•ื“ ืชื ื™ื ืจื‘ื™ ืฉืžืขื•ืŸ ืคื•ื˜ืจ ื‘ืฉืชื™ื”ืŸ ืžืŸ ื”ื—ืœื™ืฆื” ื•ืžืŸ ื”ื™ื™ื‘ื•ื ืฉื ืืžืจ ื•ืืฉื” ืืœ ืื—ื•ืชื” ืœื ืชืงื— ืœืฆืจื•ืจ ื‘ืฉืขื” ืฉื ืขืฉื• ืฆืจื•ืช ื–ื• ืœื–ื• ืœื ื™ื”ื ืœืš ืœื™ืงื•ื—ื™ืŸ ืืคื™ืœื• ื‘ืื—ืช ืžื”ืŸ

And further, it is taught explicitly in a baraita that Rabbi Shimon exempts both of them from both แธฅalitza and levirate marriage, as it is stated: โ€œAnd you shall not take a woman to her sister, to be a rival to herโ€ (Leviticusย 18:18). From here it is derived that when two sisters are about to become rival wives one to the other, that is, at the moment they fall before one brother for levirate marriage, you do not have the option of taking even one of them. In other words, levirate marriage to either of them is not permitted, and therefore both are exempt and not only the second. Thus Ravaโ€™s explanation is rejected.

ืืœื ืืžืจ ืจื‘ ืืฉื™ ืื™ ื“ื ืคื•ืœ ื‘ื–ื” ืื—ืจ ื–ื” ื”ื›ื™ ื ืžื™ ื”ื›ื ื‘ืžืื™ ืขืกืงื™ื ืŸ ื“ื ืคื•ืœ ื‘ื‘ืช ืื—ืช ื•ืจื‘ื™ ืฉืžืขื•ืŸ ืกื‘ืจ ืœื” ื›ืจื‘ื™ ื™ื•ืกื™ ื”ื’ืœื™ืœื™ ื“ืืžืจ ืืคืฉืจ ืœืฆืžืฆื

Rather, Rav Ashi said an alternative answer to the Gemaraโ€™s challenge: If these yevamot happened before him for levirate marriage one after the other, indeed it is so that the first woman bound is like a married woman, and she exempts the second, who is her close relative. However, here we are dealing with a case when both brothers died at once and so both women happened before him at once. And Rabbi Shimon holds in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yosei HaGelili, who said: It is possible to be precise. He held, contrary to the opinion of the Rabbis, that it was possible to be exact about measurements of time. Therefore, it is possible for two things to truly occur at once, and it is possible that both brothers died simultaneously.

ืจื‘ ืคืคื ืืžืจ ื‘ื™ื™ื‘ื ื•ืื—ืจ ื›ืš ื ื•ืœื“ ืคืœื™ื’ ืจื‘ื™ ืฉืžืขื•ืŸ ื‘ื ื•ืœื“ ื•ืื—ืจ ื›ืš ื™ื™ื‘ื ืœื ืคืœื™ื’

Until this point the Gemara dealt with Rav Oshayaโ€™s opinion stating that according to Rabbi Shimonโ€™s statement, even in the case of one who was born before his brotherโ€™s levirate marriage the ruling of a wife of a brother with whom one did not coexist would not apply. However, Rav Pappa said: Rabbi Shimon disagreed in the case where the second brother performed levirate marriage and after that the third brother was born; however, where the third brother was born after the death of the first brother and after that the second brother performed levirate marriage Rabbi Shimon did not disagree. He agreed that in this case she would be forbidden to the newly born brother as the wife of a brother with whom he did not coexist.

ื•ืชืจื•ื•ื™ื™ื”ื• ืœืจื‘ื ืŸ ืื™ืฆื˜ืจื™ืš ื•ืœื ื–ื• ืืฃ ื–ื• ืงืชื ื™

As for the question that Rav Oshaya raised with regard to the apparent redundancy of the similar rulings in both the first mishna of the chapter and the mishna on 18b, it can be explained that both were necessary for the opinion of the Rabbis who prohibited marriage to the wife of a brother with whom one did not coexist in every case. The difficulty raised concerning the apparent redundancy of the first mishna, given the greater scope of the opinion revealed in the second mishna, can be explained by saying that the tanna teaches the mishna employing the style: Not only this but also that. That is, the mishna follows the stylistic principle of first teaching the obvious case and continues by saying that this principle applies not only in the obvious case but even in the less obvious case. If so, there is no need to assume that there is an additional dispute with Rabbi Shimon.

ืชื ื™ื ื›ื•ื•ืชื™ื” ื“ืจื‘ ืคืคื ื•ืชื™ื•ื‘ืชื ื“ืจื‘ื™ ืื•ืฉืขื™ื ืฉื ื™ ืื—ื™ื ื‘ืขื•ืœื ืื—ื“ ื•ืžืช ืื—ื“ ืžื”ื ื‘ืœื ื•ืœื“ ื•ืขืžื“ ื”ืฉื ื™ ื”ื–ื” ืœืขืฉื•ืช ืžืืžืจ ื‘ื™ื‘ืžืชื• ื•ืœื ื”ืกืคื™ืง ืœืขืฉื•ืช ื‘ื” ืžืืžืจ ืขื“ ืฉื ื•ืœื“ ืœื• ืื— ื•ืžืช ื”ืจืืฉื•ื ื” ื™ื•ืฆืื” ืžืฉื•ื ืืฉืช ืื—ื™ื• ืฉืœื ื”ื™ื” ื‘ืขื•ืœืžื• ื•ืฉื ื™ื” ืื• ื—ื•ืœืฆืช ืื• ืžืชื™ื™ื‘ืžืช

The Gemara continues: It is taught in a baraita in accordance with the opinion of Rav Pappa, and this is a conclusive refutation of the opinion of Rabbi Oshaya: If there were two coexisting brothers, and one died childless, and the second was about to perform levirate betrothal with his yevama but did not manage to perform levirate betrothal before his brother was born, and then the second brother died, then the first woman goes out and is free to remarry without แธฅalitza or levirate marriage due to the fact that she was the wife of a brother with whom the third brother did not coexist, and the second either performs แธฅalitza or enters into levirate marriage. She was never the rival wife of the widow of the first brother.

ืขืฉื” ื‘ื” ืžืืžืจ ื•ืื—ืจ ื›ืš ื ื•ืœื“ ืื— ืื• ืฉื ื•ืœื“ ืœื• ืื— ื•ืื—ืจ ื›ืš ืขืฉื” ื‘ื” ืžืืžืจ ื•ืžืช ื”ืจืืฉื•ื ื” ื™ื•ืฆืื” ืžืฉื•ื ืืฉืช ืื—ื™ื• ืฉืœื ื”ื™ื” ื‘ืขื•ืœืžื• ื•ืฉื ื™ื” ื—ื•ืœืฆืช ื•ืœื ืžืชื™ื™ื‘ืžืช

If the second brother performed levirate betrothal with her and afterward his brother was born, or if his brother was born and then he performed the levirate betrothal, and then he died, the first goes out and is free to remarry as the wife of a brother with whom he did not coexist, and the second, the wife of the second brother, must perform แธฅalitza and may not enter into levirate marriage. This is because, due to the levirate betrothal, she is considered by the Rabbis to be the rival wife of a wife of a brother with whom he did not coexist.

ืจื‘ื™ ืฉืžืขื•ืŸ ืื•ืžืจ ื‘ื™ืืชื” ืื• ื—ืœื™ืฆืชื” ืฉืœ ืื—ืช ืžื”ื ืคื•ื˜ืจืช ืฆืจืชื” ื—ืœืฅ ืœื‘ืขืœืช ืžืืžืจ ืœื ื ืคื˜ืจื” ืฆืจื” ื›ื ืกื” ื•ืžืช ื•ืื—ืจ ื›ืš ื ื•ืœื“ ืœื• ืื— ืื• ืฉื ื•ืœื“ ืœื• ืื— ื•ืื—ืจ ื›ืš ื›ื ืกื” ื•ืžืช ืฉืชื™ื”ืŸ ืคื˜ื•ืจื•ืช ืžืŸ ื”ื—ืœื™ืฆื” ื•ืžืŸ ื”ื™ื™ื‘ื•ื

Rabbi Shimon says: Intercourse or แธฅalitza with one of them, i.e., the wife of the second brother, exempts her rival wife, but if he performed แธฅalitza with the one who received the levirate betrothal, then her rival wife, i.e., the wife of the second brother, is not thereby exempt, since possibly levirate betrothal does not have the same strength as marriage. If the second brother married his deceased brotherโ€™s wife and then died himself, and afterward a brother was born, or if a brother was born and then he married her and died, the two wives are both exempt from แธฅalitza and levirate marriage. In this case, one was the wife of a brother with whom he did not coexist and the other her rival wife.

ื›ื ืกื” ื•ื ื•ืœื“ ืœื• ืื— ื•ืื—ืจ ื›ืš ืžืช ืฉืชื™ื”ืŸ ืคื˜ื•ืจื•ืช ืžืŸ ื”ื—ืœื™ืฆื” ื•ืžืŸ ื”ื™ื™ื‘ื•ื ื“ื‘ืจื™ ืจื‘ื™ ืžืื™ืจ ื•ืจื‘ื™ ืฉืžืขื•ืŸ ืื•ืžืจ ื”ื•ืื™ืœ ื•ื‘ื ื•ืžืฆืื” ื‘ื”ื™ืชืจ ื•ืœื ืขืžื“ื” ืขืœื™ื• ืฉืขื” ืื—ืช ื‘ืื™ืกื•ืจ ืžื™ื™ื‘ื ืœืื™ื–ื• ืžื”ืŸ ืฉื™ืจืฆื” ืื• ื—ื•ืœืฅ ืœืื™ื–ื• ืžื”ืŸ ืฉื™ืจืฆื”

The baraita continues: If he married his yevama and then a brother was born, and then he died, both the wife of the first deceased brother and the original wife of the yavam are exempt from แธฅalitza and levirate marriage; this is the statement of Rabbi Meir. And Rabbi Shimon says: Since the third brother came and found her in a permitted state, and she was never for a moment prohibited to him, as when he was born she was already the wife of the second brother, who was still alive, he therefore takes whichever he wishes in levirate marriage, or performs แธฅalitza with whichever he wishes.

ื”ื ื‘ื‘ื ื“ืกื™ืคื ืœืžืืŸ ืงืชื ื™ ืœื” ืื™ืœื™ืžื ืœืจื‘ื™ ืžืื™ืจ ืงืชื ื™ ืœื” ืžื›ื“ื™ ืœื ืฉื ื™ ืœื™ื” ืœืจื‘ื™ ืžืื™ืจ ื‘ื™ืŸ ื™ื™ื‘ื ื•ืื—ืจ ื›ืš ื ื•ืœื“ ื‘ื™ืŸ ื ื•ืœื“ ื•ืื—ืจ ื›ืš ื™ื™ื‘ื ืœืขืจื‘ื™ื ื”ื• ื•ืœืชื ื™ื ื”ื•

The Gemara clarifies: The section of the latter clause of the baraita, which refers to the case of a brother born after the levirate marriage, according to whom is it taught? If we say it is taught for the purpose of clarifying the opinion of Rabbi Meir, it does not make sense, since it makes no difference to Rabbi Meir whether the levirate marriage preceded the birth or the birth preceded the levirate marriage. In his opinion under both circumstances she is the wife of a brother with whom he did not coexist. And if this were in fact taught for the purpose of clarifying his opinion it should have combined the cases and taught them together.

ืืœื ืœืื• ืจื‘ื™ ืฉืžืขื•ืŸ ื•ื‘ื™ื™ื‘ื ื•ืื—ืจ ื›ืš ื ื•ืœื“ ืคืœื™ื’ ื‘ื ื•ืœื“ ื•ืื—ืจ ื›ืš ื™ื™ื‘ื ืœื ืคืœื™ื’ ืฉืžืข ืžื™ื ื”

Rather, is it not that the latter segment was meant to clarify the opinion of Rabbi Shimon, since the different parts of the baraita enumerate different possibilities? And Rabbi Shimon disagrees in the case when the brother first performed levirate marriage and afterward his brother was born, but he does not disagree in the case where the younger brother was born and afterward the second brother performed levirate marriage. The Gemara summarizes: Conclude from this that Rabbi Shimon disagrees only here, as Rav Pappa explained.

ืืžืจ ืžืจ ืขืžื“ ื”ืฉื ื™ ืœืขืฉื•ืช ืžืืžืจ ื‘ื™ื‘ืžืชื• ื•ืœื ื”ืกืคื™ืง ืœืขืฉื•ืช ืžืืžืจ ื‘ื™ื‘ืžืชื• ืขื“ ืฉื ื•ืœื“ ืœื• ืื— ื•ืžืช ืจืืฉื•ื ื” ื™ื•ืฆืื” ืžืฉื•ื ืืฉืช ืื—ื™ื• ืฉืœื ื”ื™ื” ื‘ืขื•ืœืžื• ื•ืฉื ื™ื” ืื• ื—ื•ืœืฆืช ืื• ืžืชื™ื™ื‘ืžืช ืžืื™ ืขืžื“ ื•ืžืื™ ืœื ื”ืกืคื™ืง ืื™ ืขื‘ื“ ืขื‘ื“ ื•ืื™ ืœื ืขื‘ื“ ืœื ืขื‘ื“

ยง The Gemara proceeds to discuss the baraita itself. The Master said: The second was about to perform levirate betrothal with his yevama, but did not manage to perform levirate betrothal with his yevama before his brother was born, and then the second brother died. The first woman goes out and is free to remarry without แธฅalitza or levirate marriage due to the fact that she was the wife of a brother with whom the third brother did not coexist, and the second woman performs แธฅalitza or enters into levirate marriage. The Gemara asks: What is the meaning of the phrase: Was about to, and what is the meaning of: Did not manage to perform levirate betrothal? The important issue is not his intention but his actions. If he did it, he did it; and if he did not do it, he did not do it.

ืืœื ืขืžื“ ืžื“ืขืชื” ื•ืœื ื”ืกืคื™ืง ืžื“ืขืชื” ืืœื ื‘ืขืœ ื›ืจื—ื” ื•ื“ืœื ื›ืจื‘ื™ ื“ืชื ื™ื ื”ืขื•ืฉื” ืžืืžืจ ื‘ื™ื‘ืžืชื• ืฉืœื ืžื“ืขืชื” ืจื‘ื™ ืื•ืžืจ ืงื ื” ื•ื—ื›ืžื™ื ืื•ืžืจื™ื ืœื ืงื ื”

Rather, the correct interpretation is: Was about to means that he was about to perform levirate betrothal with her consent. Did not manage means that he did not manage to perform it with her consent, but instead did it against her will. Consequently, it is understood that this baraita is not in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi, as it is taught in a baraita: With regard to one who performs levirate betrothal with his yevama without her consent, Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi says: He acquired her and the betrothal is fully valid, like a consensual levirate betrothal with his yevama; and the Rabbis say: He did not acquire her.

ืžืื™ ื˜ืขืžื ื“ืจื‘ื™ ื’ืžืจ ืžื‘ื™ืื” ื“ื™ื‘ืžื” ืžื” ื‘ื™ืื” ื“ื™ื‘ืžื” ื‘ืขืœ ื›ืจื—ื” ืืฃ ืงื“ื•ืฉื™ืŸ ื“ื™ื‘ืžื” ื‘ืขืœ ื›ืจื—ื” ื•ืจื‘ื ืŸ ื’ืžืจื™ ืžืงื“ื•ืฉื™ืŸ ื“ืขืœืžื ืžื” ืงื“ื•ืฉื™ืŸ ื“ืขืœืžื ืžื“ืขืชื” ืืฃ ืงื“ื•ืฉื™ืŸ ื“ื™ื‘ืžื” ืžื“ืขืชื”

The Gemara explains: What is the reason for Rabbi Yehuda HaNasiโ€™s opinion? He learned this from the case of a yavam engaging in intercourse with a yevama. Just as even non-consensual intercourse with the yevama renders her his wife, as the matter does not require her consent, so too, betrothal of a yevama can be non-consensual. But the Rabbis learned from the halakhot of betrothal in general; just as betrothal in general requires consent by the woman, so too, betrothal of a yevama for purposes of levirate marriage requires consent.

ื‘ืžืื™ ืงืžื™ืคืœื’ื™ ืžืจ ืกื‘ืจ ืžื™ืœื™ ื“ื™ื‘ืžื” ืžืžื™ืœื™ ื“ื™ื‘ืžื” ื”ื•ื” ืœื™ื” ืœืžื™ืœืฃ ื•ืžืจ ืกื‘ืจ ืžื™ืœื™ ื“ืงื“ื•ืฉื™ืŸ ืžืžื™ืœื™ ื“ืงื“ื•ืฉื™ืŸ ื”ื•ื” ืœื™ื” ืœืžื™ืœืฃ

The Gemara explains: With regard to what principle do Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi and the Rabbis disagree? One Sage, Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi, holds that halakhic matters concerning yevamot must be inferred from matters concerning yevamot and not from other areas of halakha. And one Sage, the Rabbis, holds that halakhic matters concerning levirate betrothal must be inferred from matters concerning betrothal.

ืขืฉื” ื‘ื” ืžืืžืจ ื•ืื—ืจ ื›ืš ื ื•ืœื“ ืœื• ืื— ืื• ืฉื ื•ืœื“ ืœื• ืื— ื•ืื—ืจ ื›ืš ืขืฉื” ื‘ื” ืžืืžืจ ื•ืžืช ืจืืฉื•ื ื” ื™ื•ืฆืื” ืžืฉื•ื ืืฉืช ืื—ื™ื• ืฉืœื ื”ื™ื” ื‘ืขื•ืœืžื• ื•ืฉื ื™ื” ื—ื•ืœืฆืช ื•ืœื ืžืชื™ื™ื‘ืžืช ืจื‘ื™ ืฉืžืขื•ืŸ ืื•ืžืจ ื‘ื™ืืชื” ืื• ื—ืœื™ืฆืชื” ืฉืœ ืื—ืช ืžื”ืŸ ืคื•ื˜ืจืช ืฆืจืชื”

The Gemara clarifies another segment of the baraita. It is taught: If the second brother performed levirate betrothal with her, and afterward his brother was born, or if his brother was born and then he performed levirate betrothal and died, the first woman goes out and is free to remarry because she is the wife of a brother with whom he did not coexist, and the second, the wife of the second brother, performs แธฅalitza but does not enter into levirate marriage. Rabbi Shimon says: Intercourse or แธฅalitza with one of them exempts her rival wife.

ืจื‘ื™ ืฉืžืขื•ืŸ ืื”ื™ื™ื ืงืื™ ืื™ืœื™ืžื ืื ื•ืœื“ ืœื• ืื— ื•ืื—ืจ ื›ืš ืขืฉื” ื‘ื” ืžืืžืจ ื”ื ืืžืจืช ื‘ื ื•ืœื“ ื•ืœื‘ืกื•ืฃ ื™ื™ื‘ื ืœื ืคืœื™ื’ ืจื‘ื™ ืฉืžืขื•ืŸ ืืœื ืืขืฉื” ื‘ื” ืžืืžืจ ื•ืื—ืจ ื›ืš ื ื•ืœื“ ืœื• ืื—

The Gemara asks: To which case is Rabbi Shimon referring? If we say that he is referring to the case when his brother was born and then he performed levirate betrothal with her, didnโ€™t you already say that Rabbi Shimon did not dispute the case where the brother was born and then ultimately he performed a levirate marriage, and she would be forbidden as the wife of a brother with whom he did not coexist. Rather, one must say that Rabbi Shimon disputed the case where he performed levirate betrothal with her and afterward his brother was born.

ื—ืœืฅ ืœื‘ืขืœืช ืžืืžืจ ืœื ื ืคื˜ืจื” ืฆืจื” ืžืื™ ื˜ืขืžื ืžืฉื•ื ื“ื”ื•ืื™ ืฆืจื” ื•ื“ืื™ ื•ื‘ืขืœืช ืžืืžืจ ืกืคืง ื•ืื™ืŸ ืกืคืง ืžื•ืฆื™ื ืžื™ื“ื™ ื•ื“ืื™

Later in the baraita it is taught: If the third brother performed แธฅalitza with the wife of the first brother, to whom the second brother performed levirate betrothal, her rival wife is not exempt. The Gemara clarifies: What is the reason for this? It is because the rival wife, the widow of the second brother, has a definite legal status that requires an act to free her to remarry, as she is the wife of a brother with whom he did coexist, whereas the widow of the first brother with whom the second brother performed levirate betrothal had only an uncertain legal status, as it is not clear if she is to be considered truly the wife of the second brother by means of the levirate betrothal or not. And the principle is that an uncertainty does not override a certainty. Therefore, even if the third brother performs แธฅalitza, since the status of the first womanโ€™s obligation is uncertain, the status of the แธฅalitza itself is uncertain, as it is possible that she did not require แธฅalitza at all. Consequently, this แธฅalitza is not sufficient to exempt her rival wife. This teaches that he must perform แธฅalitza or levirate marriage with the woman who is definitely obligated, and then the other will be exempt.

ื™ืชื™ื‘ ืจื‘ ืžื ืฉื” ื‘ืจ ื–ื‘ื™ื“ ืงืžื™ื” ื“ืจื‘ ื”ื•ื ื ื•ื™ืชื™ื‘ ื•ืงืืžืจ ืžืื™ ื˜ืขืžื ื“ืจื‘ื™ ืฉืžืขื•ืŸ ืžืื™ ื˜ืขืžื ื“ืจื‘ื™ ืฉืžืขื•ืŸ ื›ื“ืืžืจ ื˜ืขืžื ื”ื•ืื™ืœ ื•ื‘ื ื•ืžืฆืื” ื‘ื”ื™ืชืจ ื•ืœื ืขืžื“ื” ืขืœื™ื• ืฉืขื” ืื—ืช ื‘ืื™ืกื•ืจ

Rav Menashe bar Zevid sat before Rav Huna. He sat and said: What is the reason that Rabbi Shimon allows the third brother to marry the wife of his brother with whom he did not coexist where she was taken in levirate marriage prior to his birth? The Gemara also wonders: What is Rabbi Shimonโ€™s reason? The reason is as he stated in that same baraita: Since the third brother came and found her in a permitted state, and she was never for a moment prohibited to him he may perform levirate marriage with her.

ืืœื ืžืื™ ื˜ืขืžื ื“ืจื‘ื ืŸ ืืžืจ ืงืจื ื•ืœืงื—ื” ืœื• ืœืืฉื” ื•ื™ื‘ืžื” ืขื“ื™ื™ืŸ ื™ื‘ื•ืžื™ื ื”ืจืืฉื•ื ื™ื ืขืœื™ื” ืืœื ื”ื ื“ืชื ืŸ ื›ื ืกื” ื”ืจื™ ื”ื™ื ื›ืืฉืชื• ืœื›ืœ ื“ื‘ืจ ื•ืืžืจ ืจื‘ื™ ื™ื•ืกื™ ื‘ืจ ื—ื ื™ื ื ืžืœืžื“

Rather, the question was as follows: Rabbi Shimon gave such a persuasive explanation of his opinion that it raises the question: What is the reason for the Rabbisโ€™ opinion? The Gemara answers that the verse states: โ€œHer brother-in-law willโ€ฆtake her to him to be his wife and consummate the levirate marriage [veyibbema]โ€ (Deuteronomy 25:5). This means that the first levirate bond is still upon her. Even after she is taken as a wife by the second brother, her earlier status as wife of her late first husband is still in effect. The Gemara challenges this: But what about that which we learn in a mishna (38a): If he took his yevama in marriage as his wife, then her legal status is that of his wife in every sense; and Rabbi Yosei bar แธคanina said: This teaches

  • This monthโ€™s learning is sponsored by Shlomo and Amalia Klapper in honor of the birth of Chiyenna Yochana, named after her great-great-grandmother, Chiyenna Kossovsky.

  • This month's learning is sponsored by Elaine Hochberg in honor of her husband, Arie Hochberg, who continues to journey through Daf Yomi with her. โ€œAnd with thanks to Rabbanit Farber and Hadran who have made our learning possible.โ€

  • 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 19: With or Without Consent Maamar

The kind of case we've been dealing with, but with ma'amar, not full yibum - with an entrance to probe...

Yevamot 19

The William Davidson Talmud | Powered by Sefaria

Yevamot 19

ืžื‘ื™ืช ืื—ื“ ื™ื‘ื•ืžื™ ื—ื“ื ื•ืื™ืคื˜ื•ืจ ืื™ื“ืš ืœื ื“ื“ืœืžื ืื™ืŸ ื–ื™ืงื” ื›ื›ื ื•ืกื” ื•ื”ื•ื• ืœื”ื• ืฉืชื™ ื™ื‘ืžื•ืช ื”ื‘ืื•ืช ืžืฉื ื™ ื‘ืชื™ื ืืœืžื ืžืกืคืงื ืœื™ื”

from a single household, i.e., husband, and everyone agrees that only one wife from each household may be taken in levirate marriage, as the verse states: โ€œTo build his brotherโ€™s house,โ€ which is interpreted to mean that the remaining brother may perform levirate marriage with only one wife of his late brother and not with two. To take one in levirate marriage and exempt the other without any procedure, he may not do, as perhaps the levirate bond is not substantial enough to make the first brotherโ€™s widow like a married woman to the second brother. In that case this woman whose husband died first remains the wife of the first brother, and the second woman is the wife of the second brother. Then there would be two separate levirate obligations, and one could not exempt the other; they would be two yevamot who come from two households. Therefore, apparently even when levirate betrothal was performed Rabbi Shimon is uncertain whether or not the levirate bond is substantial.

ื•ื›ื™ ืชื™ืžื ืžื“ืื•ืจื™ื™ืชื ื”ื›ื™ ื ืžื™ ื“ืžื™ื™ื‘ืžื ื—ื“ื ื•ืžืคื˜ืจื ื—ื“ื ื•ืžื“ืจื‘ื ืŸ ื”ื•ื ื“ืืกื•ืจ ื’ื–ื™ืจื” ืžืฉื•ื ืฉืžื ื™ืืžืจื• ืฉืชื™ ื™ื‘ืžื•ืช ื”ื‘ืื•ืช ืžืฉื ื™ ื‘ืชื™ื ื—ื“ื ืžื™ื™ื‘ืžื ื•ืื™ื“ืš ืžื™ืคื˜ืจื ื‘ื•ืœื ื›ืœื•ื

And if you would say that by Torah law, indeed, one of them may be taken in levirate marriage and thereby exempt the other, and this was prohibited only by rabbinic law, this would be a rabbinic decree due to the concern lest those who were not aware of the details mistakenly say that in general if two yevamot come from two households then one is taken in levirate marriage and the other is exempt without anything. One might have thought that the reason Rabbi Shimon required the other woman to perform แธฅalitza is to avoid the possibility of such a mistake.

ื•ื”ื ื˜ืขืžื ื“ืจื‘ื™ ืฉืžืขื•ืŸ ืžืฉื•ื ืžืืžืจ ื•ืœืื• ืžืืžืจ ื”ื•ื ื“ืชื ื™ื ืืžืจ ืœื”ื ืจื‘ื™ ืฉืžืขื•ืŸ ืœื—ื›ืžื™ื ืื ืžืืžืจื• ืฉืœ ืฉื ื™ ืžืืžืจ ืืฉืช ืฉื ื™ ื”ื•ื ื‘ื•ืขืœ

But this cannot be, as Rabbi Shimonโ€™s reason is mentioned explicitly in the baraita, and there he does not state that this is a decree of the Sages. Rather, his reason is due to the question with regard to the strength of levirate betrothal, specifically whether the status of marriage is achieved by levirate betrothal or not achieved by levirate betrothal. As it is taught in a baraita: Rabbi Shimon said to the Rabbis in explanation of his opinion that one of the women could enter into levirate marriage: If the levirate betrothal of the second brother is indeed levirate betrothal and is considered as a fully valid marriage, then the third brother is engaging in relations with the wife of the second brother when he takes her in levirate marriage. That is, if the levirate betrothal by the second brother has the same status as full marriage, then she becomes the wife of this second brother, and all previous connections are no longer relevant.

ื•ืื ืžืืžืจื• ืฉืœ ืฉื ื™ ืื™ื ื• ืžืืžืจ ืืฉืช ืจืืฉื•ืŸ ื”ื•ื ื‘ื•ืขืœ

But if the levirate betrothal of the second brother is not levirate betrothal, i.e., it does not have the full status of marriage, then there was never in fact any connection between the two. If she is then taken by the third brother in levirate marriage, he would be engaging in relations with the wife of the first brother. From here one can conclude that the basis for Rabbi Shimonโ€™s uncertainty is related to the questions concerning the strength of the levirate betrothal.

ืืžืจ ืœื™ื” ืื‘ื™ื™ ื•ืœื ืฉื ื™ ืœืš ื‘ื™ืŸ ื–ื™ืงืช ื™ื‘ื ืื—ื“ ืœื–ื™ืงืช ืฉื ื™ ื™ื‘ืžื™ื ื“ืœืžื ื›ื™ ืืžืจ ืจื‘ื™ ืฉืžืขื•ืŸ ื–ื™ืงื” ื›ื›ื ื•ืกื” ื“ืžื™ื ื‘ื™ื‘ื ืื—ื“ ืื‘ืœ ื‘ืฉื ื™ ื™ื‘ืžื™ืŸ ืœื

Abaye said to him: From here you cannot prove what Rabbi Shimonโ€™s opinion was. Is there no difference to you between a levirate bond to a single yavam and a bond to two yevamim? Perhaps when Rabbi Shimon said that a levirate bond is substantial enough to render her like a married woman, this applies only when there is a single yavam. If these were the circumstances of the case discussed, that when one brother died there remained only one yavam, then because the obligation of levirate marriage would apply only to him, she would be considered his wife. But perhaps he held that if there were two yevamin, then no, she would not be considered a married woman, as here the bond would apply to both at once. Accordingly, Rabbi Shimonโ€™s uncertainty is with regard to the case of a levirate bond with two yevamin.

ื•ืžื™ ืฉื ื™ ืœื™ื” ืœืจื‘ื™ ืฉืžืขื•ืŸ ื•ื”ืชื ื™ื ื›ืœืœ ืืžืจ ืจื‘ื™ ืฉืžืขื•ืŸ ื›ืœ ืฉื”ืœื™ื“ื” ืงื•ื“ืžืช ืœื ืฉื•ืื™ืŸ ืœื ื—ื•ืœืฆืช ื•ืœื ืžืชื™ื™ื‘ืžืช ื ืฉื•ืื™ืŸ ืงื•ื“ื ืœืœื™ื“ื” ืื• ื—ื•ืœืฆืช ืื• ืžืชื™ื™ื‘ืžืช

The Gemara challenges: Does Rabbi Shimon differentiate between the case of one yavam and the case of two yevamin in the matter of a wife of a brother with whom he did not coexist? But it is taught in a baraita with regard to the wife of a brother with whom he did not coexist: Rabbi Shimon stated a principle: Whenever the birth of the third brother precedes the levirate marriage of the second brother, if this second brother dies and the yevama falls before the third brother, she does not perform แธฅalitza and she does not enter into levirate marriage. In such circumstances she is the wife of a brother with whom he did not coexist. But if the levirate marriage preceded his birth, she either performs แธฅalitza or enters into levirate marriage.

ืžืื™ ืœืื• ื‘ื™ื‘ื ืื—ื“ ื•ืงืชื ื™ ืœื ื—ื•ืœืฆืช ื•ืœื ืžืชื™ื™ื‘ืžืช ืœื ื‘ืฉื ื™ ื™ื‘ืžื™ื

What, is it not referring to the case of a single yavam, and it is taught in a baraita: She does not perform แธฅalitza and she does not enter into levirate marriage. Even if there is only a single yavam this is not considered full marriage, and she remains forbidden as the wife of a brother with whom he did not coexist. Consequently, she who is subject to a levirate bond is not like a married woman. The Gemara answers: No. it refers to a case of two yevamin.

ืื‘ืœ ื‘ื™ื‘ื ืื—ื“ ืžืื™ ื”ื›ื™ ื ืžื™ ืื• ื—ื•ืœืฆืช ืื• ืžืชื™ื™ื‘ืžืช ืื™ ื”ื›ื™ ืื“ืชื ื™ ื ืฉื•ืื™ืŸ ืงื•ื“ืžื™ืŸ ืœืœื™ื“ื” ืื• ื—ื•ืœืฆืช ืื• ืžืชื™ื™ื‘ืžืช ืœื™ืคืœื•ื’ ื•ืœื™ืชื ื™ ื‘ื“ื™ื“ื” ื‘ืžื” ื“ื‘ืจื™ื ืืžื•ืจื™ื ื‘ืฉื ื™ ื™ื‘ืžื™ื ืื‘ืœ ื‘ื™ื‘ื ืื—ื“ ืื• ื—ื•ืœืฆืช ืื• ืžืชื™ื™ื‘ืžืช

The Gemara asks: But what, then, is the ruling for a single yavam? So too, one should say she either performs แธฅalitza or enters into levirate marriage, as the woman who requires levirate marriage is like the wife of the second brother for all purposes. If so, rather than teaching the case when the marriage of the second brother precedes the birth of the third brother, that if this second brother dies and she falls before the third brother, she either performs แธฅalitza or enters into levirate marriage, let Rabbi Shimon distinguish and teach the distinction within the situation itself and say: In what case is this statement said? When there are two yevamin. But if there is one yavam, she either performs แธฅalitza or enters into levirate marriage.

ื›ื•ืœื” ื‘ืฉื ื™ ื™ื‘ืžื™ืŸ ืงืžื™ื™ืจื™ ื•ืืœื ืžืื™ ื›ืœืœื

The Gemara rejects this: No, the entire baraita is in reference to two yevamin and differentiates between various cases involving two yevamin, namely, the case where the birth of the third brother preceded the marriage of the second brother and the case where the marriage of the second brother preceded the birth of the third brother. The Gemara asks: Rather, what is the principle in this matter? If Rabbi Shimon is speaking of two yevamin and not a single yavam, then it makes no sense to speak of a principle, as the halakha is different in the case of a single yavam.

ื•ืขื•ื“ ืžืชื™ื‘ ืจื‘ ืื•ืฉืขื™ื ืฉืœืฉื” ืื—ื™ืŸ ืฉื ื™ื ืžื”ืŸ ื ืฉื•ืื™ืŸ ืฉืชื™ ืื—ื™ื•ืช ืื• ืืฉื” ื•ื‘ืชื” ืื• ืืฉื” ื•ื‘ืช ื‘ืชื” ืื• ืืฉื” ื•ื‘ืช ื‘ื ื” ื”ืจื™ ืืœื• ื—ื•ืœืฆื•ืช ื•ืœื ืžืชื™ื™ื‘ืžื•ืช ื•ืจื‘ื™ ืฉืžืขื•ืŸ ืคื•ื˜ืจ

Moreover, Rav Oshaya raised an objection from that which was taught in a mishna (28b): If there were three brothers, two of whom were married to two sisters, or to a woman and her daughter, or a woman and her daughterโ€™s daughter, or a woman and her sonโ€™s daughter, who are, in each case, two women who may not be married to the same person simultaneously, and subsequently these brothers who were married to relatives died, then those two women must perform แธฅalitza and may not enter into levirate marriage. Since they both have a levirate bond to the third brother at the same time and he is prohibited from marrying both, they cause one another to be unable to perform levirate marriage. And Rabbi Shimon exempts them even from แธฅalitza.

ื•ืื™ ืกืœืงื ื“ืขืชืš ืงืกื‘ืจ ืจื‘ื™ ืฉืžืขื•ืŸ ื–ื™ืงื” ื›ื›ื ื•ืกื” ื“ืžื™ื ืœื™ื™ื‘ื ืœืงืžื™ื™ืชื ื•ืชื™ืคื˜ืจ ืื™ื“ืš

And if it enters your mind that Rabbi Shimon held that a levirate bond is substantial enough to make her like a married woman, then let the third brother consummate the levirate marriage to the widow of the first husband to die, since as soon as her husband dies she has a levirate bond with the other brothers and should be considered to be like his wife, and let the other be exempt as a result, as her levirate bond began only with the death of the second husband.

ืืžืจ ืจื‘ ืขืžืจื ืžืื™ ืคื•ื˜ืจ ื ืžื™ ืคื•ื˜ืจ ื‘ืฉื ื™ื” ื•ื”ืชื ื™ื ืจื‘ื™ ืฉืžืขื•ืŸ ืคื•ื˜ืจ ื‘ืฉืชื™ื”ืŸ

Rav Amram said: What is really the meaning of the word exempt used by Rabbi Shimon? Only the second is exempt. The Gemara objects: But it is taught in a baraita: Rabbi Shimon exempts both. From here it is clear that in his opinion a woman subject to a levirate bond does not have the same status as a married woman.

ืืžืจ ืจื‘ื ืฉื ื™ื” ืฉื‘ื–ื•ื’ ื–ื” ื•ื”ืฉื ื™ื” ืฉื‘ื–ื•ื’ ื–ื”

Rava said: In the case mentioned in that baraita, there were three brothers, two of whom died. Each of the deceased brothers had four wives who were related to the wives of the other brother as described in the mishna. One wife of the first brother was the sister of a wife of the second brother. Another wife was the mother of a wife of the second brother. Another was the daughter of the daughter of a wife of the second brother. And another was the daughter of the son of a wife of the second brother. When these brothers died, all eight women happened before the remaining brother for levirate marriage. When Rabbi Shimon deemed both of them exempt, he was referring to the second from this pair and the second from that pair. That is, since one of them was bound to the third brother her relative became exempt as a forbidden relative, and the other of the pair was her rival wife in each of the cases.

ืงื ื˜ืขื™ ืจื‘ื ื‘ืืจื‘ืขื” ื–ื•ื’ื™ ื—ื“ื ื“ืื• ืื• ืงืชื ื™ ื•ืขื•ื“ ืจื‘ื™ ืฉืžืขื•ืŸ ืคื•ื˜ืจ ื‘ืืจื‘ืขืชืŸ ืžื™ื‘ืขื™ ืœื™ื”

The Gemara comments: Rava was mistaken about there being four pairs. He mistakenly understood that the mishna spoke of two brothers who married four pairs of relatives. Why does the Gemara assume that he was mistaken? One piece of evidence is that the mishna teaches the case using the expression: Or, or. The mishna teaches: Or to a woman and her daughter, or to a woman and her daughterโ€™s daughter, or a woman and her sonโ€™s daughter, meaning that not all of the pairs happened before a single yavam for levirate marriage. And further, the baraita should have said: Rabbi Shimon exempts all four of them, i.e., the four women married to the second brother.

ื•ืขื•ื“ ืชื ื™ื ืจื‘ื™ ืฉืžืขื•ืŸ ืคื•ื˜ืจ ื‘ืฉืชื™ื”ืŸ ืžืŸ ื”ื—ืœื™ืฆื” ื•ืžืŸ ื”ื™ื™ื‘ื•ื ืฉื ืืžืจ ื•ืืฉื” ืืœ ืื—ื•ืชื” ืœื ืชืงื— ืœืฆืจื•ืจ ื‘ืฉืขื” ืฉื ืขืฉื• ืฆืจื•ืช ื–ื• ืœื–ื• ืœื ื™ื”ื ืœืš ืœื™ืงื•ื—ื™ืŸ ืืคื™ืœื• ื‘ืื—ืช ืžื”ืŸ

And further, it is taught explicitly in a baraita that Rabbi Shimon exempts both of them from both แธฅalitza and levirate marriage, as it is stated: โ€œAnd you shall not take a woman to her sister, to be a rival to herโ€ (Leviticusย 18:18). From here it is derived that when two sisters are about to become rival wives one to the other, that is, at the moment they fall before one brother for levirate marriage, you do not have the option of taking even one of them. In other words, levirate marriage to either of them is not permitted, and therefore both are exempt and not only the second. Thus Ravaโ€™s explanation is rejected.

ืืœื ืืžืจ ืจื‘ ืืฉื™ ืื™ ื“ื ืคื•ืœ ื‘ื–ื” ืื—ืจ ื–ื” ื”ื›ื™ ื ืžื™ ื”ื›ื ื‘ืžืื™ ืขืกืงื™ื ืŸ ื“ื ืคื•ืœ ื‘ื‘ืช ืื—ืช ื•ืจื‘ื™ ืฉืžืขื•ืŸ ืกื‘ืจ ืœื” ื›ืจื‘ื™ ื™ื•ืกื™ ื”ื’ืœื™ืœื™ ื“ืืžืจ ืืคืฉืจ ืœืฆืžืฆื

Rather, Rav Ashi said an alternative answer to the Gemaraโ€™s challenge: If these yevamot happened before him for levirate marriage one after the other, indeed it is so that the first woman bound is like a married woman, and she exempts the second, who is her close relative. However, here we are dealing with a case when both brothers died at once and so both women happened before him at once. And Rabbi Shimon holds in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yosei HaGelili, who said: It is possible to be precise. He held, contrary to the opinion of the Rabbis, that it was possible to be exact about measurements of time. Therefore, it is possible for two things to truly occur at once, and it is possible that both brothers died simultaneously.

ืจื‘ ืคืคื ืืžืจ ื‘ื™ื™ื‘ื ื•ืื—ืจ ื›ืš ื ื•ืœื“ ืคืœื™ื’ ืจื‘ื™ ืฉืžืขื•ืŸ ื‘ื ื•ืœื“ ื•ืื—ืจ ื›ืš ื™ื™ื‘ื ืœื ืคืœื™ื’

Until this point the Gemara dealt with Rav Oshayaโ€™s opinion stating that according to Rabbi Shimonโ€™s statement, even in the case of one who was born before his brotherโ€™s levirate marriage the ruling of a wife of a brother with whom one did not coexist would not apply. However, Rav Pappa said: Rabbi Shimon disagreed in the case where the second brother performed levirate marriage and after that the third brother was born; however, where the third brother was born after the death of the first brother and after that the second brother performed levirate marriage Rabbi Shimon did not disagree. He agreed that in this case she would be forbidden to the newly born brother as the wife of a brother with whom he did not coexist.

ื•ืชืจื•ื•ื™ื™ื”ื• ืœืจื‘ื ืŸ ืื™ืฆื˜ืจื™ืš ื•ืœื ื–ื• ืืฃ ื–ื• ืงืชื ื™

As for the question that Rav Oshaya raised with regard to the apparent redundancy of the similar rulings in both the first mishna of the chapter and the mishna on 18b, it can be explained that both were necessary for the opinion of the Rabbis who prohibited marriage to the wife of a brother with whom one did not coexist in every case. The difficulty raised concerning the apparent redundancy of the first mishna, given the greater scope of the opinion revealed in the second mishna, can be explained by saying that the tanna teaches the mishna employing the style: Not only this but also that. That is, the mishna follows the stylistic principle of first teaching the obvious case and continues by saying that this principle applies not only in the obvious case but even in the less obvious case. If so, there is no need to assume that there is an additional dispute with Rabbi Shimon.

ืชื ื™ื ื›ื•ื•ืชื™ื” ื“ืจื‘ ืคืคื ื•ืชื™ื•ื‘ืชื ื“ืจื‘ื™ ืื•ืฉืขื™ื ืฉื ื™ ืื—ื™ื ื‘ืขื•ืœื ืื—ื“ ื•ืžืช ืื—ื“ ืžื”ื ื‘ืœื ื•ืœื“ ื•ืขืžื“ ื”ืฉื ื™ ื”ื–ื” ืœืขืฉื•ืช ืžืืžืจ ื‘ื™ื‘ืžืชื• ื•ืœื ื”ืกืคื™ืง ืœืขืฉื•ืช ื‘ื” ืžืืžืจ ืขื“ ืฉื ื•ืœื“ ืœื• ืื— ื•ืžืช ื”ืจืืฉื•ื ื” ื™ื•ืฆืื” ืžืฉื•ื ืืฉืช ืื—ื™ื• ืฉืœื ื”ื™ื” ื‘ืขื•ืœืžื• ื•ืฉื ื™ื” ืื• ื—ื•ืœืฆืช ืื• ืžืชื™ื™ื‘ืžืช

The Gemara continues: It is taught in a baraita in accordance with the opinion of Rav Pappa, and this is a conclusive refutation of the opinion of Rabbi Oshaya: If there were two coexisting brothers, and one died childless, and the second was about to perform levirate betrothal with his yevama but did not manage to perform levirate betrothal before his brother was born, and then the second brother died, then the first woman goes out and is free to remarry without แธฅalitza or levirate marriage due to the fact that she was the wife of a brother with whom the third brother did not coexist, and the second either performs แธฅalitza or enters into levirate marriage. She was never the rival wife of the widow of the first brother.

ืขืฉื” ื‘ื” ืžืืžืจ ื•ืื—ืจ ื›ืš ื ื•ืœื“ ืื— ืื• ืฉื ื•ืœื“ ืœื• ืื— ื•ืื—ืจ ื›ืš ืขืฉื” ื‘ื” ืžืืžืจ ื•ืžืช ื”ืจืืฉื•ื ื” ื™ื•ืฆืื” ืžืฉื•ื ืืฉืช ืื—ื™ื• ืฉืœื ื”ื™ื” ื‘ืขื•ืœืžื• ื•ืฉื ื™ื” ื—ื•ืœืฆืช ื•ืœื ืžืชื™ื™ื‘ืžืช

If the second brother performed levirate betrothal with her and afterward his brother was born, or if his brother was born and then he performed the levirate betrothal, and then he died, the first goes out and is free to remarry as the wife of a brother with whom he did not coexist, and the second, the wife of the second brother, must perform แธฅalitza and may not enter into levirate marriage. This is because, due to the levirate betrothal, she is considered by the Rabbis to be the rival wife of a wife of a brother with whom he did not coexist.

ืจื‘ื™ ืฉืžืขื•ืŸ ืื•ืžืจ ื‘ื™ืืชื” ืื• ื—ืœื™ืฆืชื” ืฉืœ ืื—ืช ืžื”ื ืคื•ื˜ืจืช ืฆืจืชื” ื—ืœืฅ ืœื‘ืขืœืช ืžืืžืจ ืœื ื ืคื˜ืจื” ืฆืจื” ื›ื ืกื” ื•ืžืช ื•ืื—ืจ ื›ืš ื ื•ืœื“ ืœื• ืื— ืื• ืฉื ื•ืœื“ ืœื• ืื— ื•ืื—ืจ ื›ืš ื›ื ืกื” ื•ืžืช ืฉืชื™ื”ืŸ ืคื˜ื•ืจื•ืช ืžืŸ ื”ื—ืœื™ืฆื” ื•ืžืŸ ื”ื™ื™ื‘ื•ื

Rabbi Shimon says: Intercourse or แธฅalitza with one of them, i.e., the wife of the second brother, exempts her rival wife, but if he performed แธฅalitza with the one who received the levirate betrothal, then her rival wife, i.e., the wife of the second brother, is not thereby exempt, since possibly levirate betrothal does not have the same strength as marriage. If the second brother married his deceased brotherโ€™s wife and then died himself, and afterward a brother was born, or if a brother was born and then he married her and died, the two wives are both exempt from แธฅalitza and levirate marriage. In this case, one was the wife of a brother with whom he did not coexist and the other her rival wife.

ื›ื ืกื” ื•ื ื•ืœื“ ืœื• ืื— ื•ืื—ืจ ื›ืš ืžืช ืฉืชื™ื”ืŸ ืคื˜ื•ืจื•ืช ืžืŸ ื”ื—ืœื™ืฆื” ื•ืžืŸ ื”ื™ื™ื‘ื•ื ื“ื‘ืจื™ ืจื‘ื™ ืžืื™ืจ ื•ืจื‘ื™ ืฉืžืขื•ืŸ ืื•ืžืจ ื”ื•ืื™ืœ ื•ื‘ื ื•ืžืฆืื” ื‘ื”ื™ืชืจ ื•ืœื ืขืžื“ื” ืขืœื™ื• ืฉืขื” ืื—ืช ื‘ืื™ืกื•ืจ ืžื™ื™ื‘ื ืœืื™ื–ื• ืžื”ืŸ ืฉื™ืจืฆื” ืื• ื—ื•ืœืฅ ืœืื™ื–ื• ืžื”ืŸ ืฉื™ืจืฆื”

The baraita continues: If he married his yevama and then a brother was born, and then he died, both the wife of the first deceased brother and the original wife of the yavam are exempt from แธฅalitza and levirate marriage; this is the statement of Rabbi Meir. And Rabbi Shimon says: Since the third brother came and found her in a permitted state, and she was never for a moment prohibited to him, as when he was born she was already the wife of the second brother, who was still alive, he therefore takes whichever he wishes in levirate marriage, or performs แธฅalitza with whichever he wishes.

ื”ื ื‘ื‘ื ื“ืกื™ืคื ืœืžืืŸ ืงืชื ื™ ืœื” ืื™ืœื™ืžื ืœืจื‘ื™ ืžืื™ืจ ืงืชื ื™ ืœื” ืžื›ื“ื™ ืœื ืฉื ื™ ืœื™ื” ืœืจื‘ื™ ืžืื™ืจ ื‘ื™ืŸ ื™ื™ื‘ื ื•ืื—ืจ ื›ืš ื ื•ืœื“ ื‘ื™ืŸ ื ื•ืœื“ ื•ืื—ืจ ื›ืš ื™ื™ื‘ื ืœืขืจื‘ื™ื ื”ื• ื•ืœืชื ื™ื ื”ื•

The Gemara clarifies: The section of the latter clause of the baraita, which refers to the case of a brother born after the levirate marriage, according to whom is it taught? If we say it is taught for the purpose of clarifying the opinion of Rabbi Meir, it does not make sense, since it makes no difference to Rabbi Meir whether the levirate marriage preceded the birth or the birth preceded the levirate marriage. In his opinion under both circumstances she is the wife of a brother with whom he did not coexist. And if this were in fact taught for the purpose of clarifying his opinion it should have combined the cases and taught them together.

ืืœื ืœืื• ืจื‘ื™ ืฉืžืขื•ืŸ ื•ื‘ื™ื™ื‘ื ื•ืื—ืจ ื›ืš ื ื•ืœื“ ืคืœื™ื’ ื‘ื ื•ืœื“ ื•ืื—ืจ ื›ืš ื™ื™ื‘ื ืœื ืคืœื™ื’ ืฉืžืข ืžื™ื ื”

Rather, is it not that the latter segment was meant to clarify the opinion of Rabbi Shimon, since the different parts of the baraita enumerate different possibilities? And Rabbi Shimon disagrees in the case when the brother first performed levirate marriage and afterward his brother was born, but he does not disagree in the case where the younger brother was born and afterward the second brother performed levirate marriage. The Gemara summarizes: Conclude from this that Rabbi Shimon disagrees only here, as Rav Pappa explained.

ืืžืจ ืžืจ ืขืžื“ ื”ืฉื ื™ ืœืขืฉื•ืช ืžืืžืจ ื‘ื™ื‘ืžืชื• ื•ืœื ื”ืกืคื™ืง ืœืขืฉื•ืช ืžืืžืจ ื‘ื™ื‘ืžืชื• ืขื“ ืฉื ื•ืœื“ ืœื• ืื— ื•ืžืช ืจืืฉื•ื ื” ื™ื•ืฆืื” ืžืฉื•ื ืืฉืช ืื—ื™ื• ืฉืœื ื”ื™ื” ื‘ืขื•ืœืžื• ื•ืฉื ื™ื” ืื• ื—ื•ืœืฆืช ืื• ืžืชื™ื™ื‘ืžืช ืžืื™ ืขืžื“ ื•ืžืื™ ืœื ื”ืกืคื™ืง ืื™ ืขื‘ื“ ืขื‘ื“ ื•ืื™ ืœื ืขื‘ื“ ืœื ืขื‘ื“

ยง The Gemara proceeds to discuss the baraita itself. The Master said: The second was about to perform levirate betrothal with his yevama, but did not manage to perform levirate betrothal with his yevama before his brother was born, and then the second brother died. The first woman goes out and is free to remarry without แธฅalitza or levirate marriage due to the fact that she was the wife of a brother with whom the third brother did not coexist, and the second woman performs แธฅalitza or enters into levirate marriage. The Gemara asks: What is the meaning of the phrase: Was about to, and what is the meaning of: Did not manage to perform levirate betrothal? The important issue is not his intention but his actions. If he did it, he did it; and if he did not do it, he did not do it.

ืืœื ืขืžื“ ืžื“ืขืชื” ื•ืœื ื”ืกืคื™ืง ืžื“ืขืชื” ืืœื ื‘ืขืœ ื›ืจื—ื” ื•ื“ืœื ื›ืจื‘ื™ ื“ืชื ื™ื ื”ืขื•ืฉื” ืžืืžืจ ื‘ื™ื‘ืžืชื• ืฉืœื ืžื“ืขืชื” ืจื‘ื™ ืื•ืžืจ ืงื ื” ื•ื—ื›ืžื™ื ืื•ืžืจื™ื ืœื ืงื ื”

Rather, the correct interpretation is: Was about to means that he was about to perform levirate betrothal with her consent. Did not manage means that he did not manage to perform it with her consent, but instead did it against her will. Consequently, it is understood that this baraita is not in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi, as it is taught in a baraita: With regard to one who performs levirate betrothal with his yevama without her consent, Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi says: He acquired her and the betrothal is fully valid, like a consensual levirate betrothal with his yevama; and the Rabbis say: He did not acquire her.

ืžืื™ ื˜ืขืžื ื“ืจื‘ื™ ื’ืžืจ ืžื‘ื™ืื” ื“ื™ื‘ืžื” ืžื” ื‘ื™ืื” ื“ื™ื‘ืžื” ื‘ืขืœ ื›ืจื—ื” ืืฃ ืงื“ื•ืฉื™ืŸ ื“ื™ื‘ืžื” ื‘ืขืœ ื›ืจื—ื” ื•ืจื‘ื ืŸ ื’ืžืจื™ ืžืงื“ื•ืฉื™ืŸ ื“ืขืœืžื ืžื” ืงื“ื•ืฉื™ืŸ ื“ืขืœืžื ืžื“ืขืชื” ืืฃ ืงื“ื•ืฉื™ืŸ ื“ื™ื‘ืžื” ืžื“ืขืชื”

The Gemara explains: What is the reason for Rabbi Yehuda HaNasiโ€™s opinion? He learned this from the case of a yavam engaging in intercourse with a yevama. Just as even non-consensual intercourse with the yevama renders her his wife, as the matter does not require her consent, so too, betrothal of a yevama can be non-consensual. But the Rabbis learned from the halakhot of betrothal in general; just as betrothal in general requires consent by the woman, so too, betrothal of a yevama for purposes of levirate marriage requires consent.

ื‘ืžืื™ ืงืžื™ืคืœื’ื™ ืžืจ ืกื‘ืจ ืžื™ืœื™ ื“ื™ื‘ืžื” ืžืžื™ืœื™ ื“ื™ื‘ืžื” ื”ื•ื” ืœื™ื” ืœืžื™ืœืฃ ื•ืžืจ ืกื‘ืจ ืžื™ืœื™ ื“ืงื“ื•ืฉื™ืŸ ืžืžื™ืœื™ ื“ืงื“ื•ืฉื™ืŸ ื”ื•ื” ืœื™ื” ืœืžื™ืœืฃ

The Gemara explains: With regard to what principle do Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi and the Rabbis disagree? One Sage, Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi, holds that halakhic matters concerning yevamot must be inferred from matters concerning yevamot and not from other areas of halakha. And one Sage, the Rabbis, holds that halakhic matters concerning levirate betrothal must be inferred from matters concerning betrothal.

ืขืฉื” ื‘ื” ืžืืžืจ ื•ืื—ืจ ื›ืš ื ื•ืœื“ ืœื• ืื— ืื• ืฉื ื•ืœื“ ืœื• ืื— ื•ืื—ืจ ื›ืš ืขืฉื” ื‘ื” ืžืืžืจ ื•ืžืช ืจืืฉื•ื ื” ื™ื•ืฆืื” ืžืฉื•ื ืืฉืช ืื—ื™ื• ืฉืœื ื”ื™ื” ื‘ืขื•ืœืžื• ื•ืฉื ื™ื” ื—ื•ืœืฆืช ื•ืœื ืžืชื™ื™ื‘ืžืช ืจื‘ื™ ืฉืžืขื•ืŸ ืื•ืžืจ ื‘ื™ืืชื” ืื• ื—ืœื™ืฆืชื” ืฉืœ ืื—ืช ืžื”ืŸ ืคื•ื˜ืจืช ืฆืจืชื”

The Gemara clarifies another segment of the baraita. It is taught: If the second brother performed levirate betrothal with her, and afterward his brother was born, or if his brother was born and then he performed levirate betrothal and died, the first woman goes out and is free to remarry because she is the wife of a brother with whom he did not coexist, and the second, the wife of the second brother, performs แธฅalitza but does not enter into levirate marriage. Rabbi Shimon says: Intercourse or แธฅalitza with one of them exempts her rival wife.

ืจื‘ื™ ืฉืžืขื•ืŸ ืื”ื™ื™ื ืงืื™ ืื™ืœื™ืžื ืื ื•ืœื“ ืœื• ืื— ื•ืื—ืจ ื›ืš ืขืฉื” ื‘ื” ืžืืžืจ ื”ื ืืžืจืช ื‘ื ื•ืœื“ ื•ืœื‘ืกื•ืฃ ื™ื™ื‘ื ืœื ืคืœื™ื’ ืจื‘ื™ ืฉืžืขื•ืŸ ืืœื ืืขืฉื” ื‘ื” ืžืืžืจ ื•ืื—ืจ ื›ืš ื ื•ืœื“ ืœื• ืื—

The Gemara asks: To which case is Rabbi Shimon referring? If we say that he is referring to the case when his brother was born and then he performed levirate betrothal with her, didnโ€™t you already say that Rabbi Shimon did not dispute the case where the brother was born and then ultimately he performed a levirate marriage, and she would be forbidden as the wife of a brother with whom he did not coexist. Rather, one must say that Rabbi Shimon disputed the case where he performed levirate betrothal with her and afterward his brother was born.

ื—ืœืฅ ืœื‘ืขืœืช ืžืืžืจ ืœื ื ืคื˜ืจื” ืฆืจื” ืžืื™ ื˜ืขืžื ืžืฉื•ื ื“ื”ื•ืื™ ืฆืจื” ื•ื“ืื™ ื•ื‘ืขืœืช ืžืืžืจ ืกืคืง ื•ืื™ืŸ ืกืคืง ืžื•ืฆื™ื ืžื™ื“ื™ ื•ื“ืื™

Later in the baraita it is taught: If the third brother performed แธฅalitza with the wife of the first brother, to whom the second brother performed levirate betrothal, her rival wife is not exempt. The Gemara clarifies: What is the reason for this? It is because the rival wife, the widow of the second brother, has a definite legal status that requires an act to free her to remarry, as she is the wife of a brother with whom he did coexist, whereas the widow of the first brother with whom the second brother performed levirate betrothal had only an uncertain legal status, as it is not clear if she is to be considered truly the wife of the second brother by means of the levirate betrothal or not. And the principle is that an uncertainty does not override a certainty. Therefore, even if the third brother performs แธฅalitza, since the status of the first womanโ€™s obligation is uncertain, the status of the แธฅalitza itself is uncertain, as it is possible that she did not require แธฅalitza at all. Consequently, this แธฅalitza is not sufficient to exempt her rival wife. This teaches that he must perform แธฅalitza or levirate marriage with the woman who is definitely obligated, and then the other will be exempt.

ื™ืชื™ื‘ ืจื‘ ืžื ืฉื” ื‘ืจ ื–ื‘ื™ื“ ืงืžื™ื” ื“ืจื‘ ื”ื•ื ื ื•ื™ืชื™ื‘ ื•ืงืืžืจ ืžืื™ ื˜ืขืžื ื“ืจื‘ื™ ืฉืžืขื•ืŸ ืžืื™ ื˜ืขืžื ื“ืจื‘ื™ ืฉืžืขื•ืŸ ื›ื“ืืžืจ ื˜ืขืžื ื”ื•ืื™ืœ ื•ื‘ื ื•ืžืฆืื” ื‘ื”ื™ืชืจ ื•ืœื ืขืžื“ื” ืขืœื™ื• ืฉืขื” ืื—ืช ื‘ืื™ืกื•ืจ

Rav Menashe bar Zevid sat before Rav Huna. He sat and said: What is the reason that Rabbi Shimon allows the third brother to marry the wife of his brother with whom he did not coexist where she was taken in levirate marriage prior to his birth? The Gemara also wonders: What is Rabbi Shimonโ€™s reason? The reason is as he stated in that same baraita: Since the third brother came and found her in a permitted state, and she was never for a moment prohibited to him he may perform levirate marriage with her.

ืืœื ืžืื™ ื˜ืขืžื ื“ืจื‘ื ืŸ ืืžืจ ืงืจื ื•ืœืงื—ื” ืœื• ืœืืฉื” ื•ื™ื‘ืžื” ืขื“ื™ื™ืŸ ื™ื‘ื•ืžื™ื ื”ืจืืฉื•ื ื™ื ืขืœื™ื” ืืœื ื”ื ื“ืชื ืŸ ื›ื ืกื” ื”ืจื™ ื”ื™ื ื›ืืฉืชื• ืœื›ืœ ื“ื‘ืจ ื•ืืžืจ ืจื‘ื™ ื™ื•ืกื™ ื‘ืจ ื—ื ื™ื ื ืžืœืžื“

Rather, the question was as follows: Rabbi Shimon gave such a persuasive explanation of his opinion that it raises the question: What is the reason for the Rabbisโ€™ opinion? The Gemara answers that the verse states: โ€œHer brother-in-law willโ€ฆtake her to him to be his wife and consummate the levirate marriage [veyibbema]โ€ (Deuteronomy 25:5). This means that the first levirate bond is still upon her. Even after she is taken as a wife by the second brother, her earlier status as wife of her late first husband is still in effect. The Gemara challenges this: But what about that which we learn in a mishna (38a): If he took his yevama in marriage as his wife, then her legal status is that of his wife in every sense; and Rabbi Yosei bar แธคanina said: This teaches

Scroll To Top