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

Today's Daf Yomi

March 26, 2022 | 讻状讙 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 19

Presentation in PDF format.

This is the daf for Shabbat. For Friday’s daf, click here.

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 brother鈥檚 wife? Rabbi Oshaya holds that he disagrees about both, based on the principle that zika is strong 鈥 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 Papa鈥檚 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?

 

诪讘讬转 讗讞讚 讬讘讜诪讬 讞讚讗 讜讗讬驻讟讜专 讗讬讚讱 诇讗 讚讚诇诪讗 讗讬谉 讝讬拽讛 讻讻谞讜住讛 讜讛讜讜 诇讛讜 砖转讬 讬讘诪讜转 讛讘讗讜转 诪砖谞讬 讘转讬诐 讗诇诪讗 诪住驻拽讗 诇讬讛

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: 鈥淭o build his brother鈥檚 house,鈥 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 brother鈥檚 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.

讜讻讬 转讬诪讗 诪讚讗讜专讬讬转讗 讛讻讬 谞诪讬 讚诪讬讬讘诪讗 讞讚讗 讜诪驻讟专讗 讞讚讗 讜诪讚专讘谞谉 讛讜讗 讚讗住讜专 讙讝讬专讛 诪砖讜诐 砖诪讗 讬讗诪专讜 砖转讬 讬讘诪讜转 讛讘讗讜转 诪砖谞讬 讘转讬诐 讞讚讗 诪讬讬讘诪讗 讜讗讬讚讱 诪讬驻讟专讗 讘讜诇讗 讻诇讜诐

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 岣litza is to avoid the possibility of such a mistake.

讜讛讗 讟注诪讗 讚专讘讬 砖诪注讜谉 诪砖讜诐 诪讗诪专 讜诇讗讜 诪讗诪专 讛讜讗 讚转谞讬讗 讗诪专 诇讛诐 专讘讬 砖诪注讜谉 诇讞讻诪讬诐 讗诐 诪讗诪专讜 砖诇 砖谞讬 诪讗诪专 讗砖转 砖谞讬 讛讜讗 讘讜注诇

But this cannot be, as Rabbi Shimon鈥檚 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.

讜讗诐 诪讗诪专讜 砖诇 砖谞讬 讗讬谞讜 诪讗诪专 讗砖转 专讗砖讜谉 讛讜讗 讘讜注诇

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 Shimon鈥檚 uncertainty is related to the questions concerning the strength of the levirate betrothal.

讗诪专 诇讬讛 讗讘讬讬 讜诇讗 砖谞讬 诇讱 讘讬谉 讝讬拽转 讬讘诐 讗讞讚 诇讝讬拽转 砖谞讬 讬讘诪讬诐 讚诇诪讗 讻讬 讗诪专 专讘讬 砖诪注讜谉 讝讬拽讛 讻讻谞讜住讛 讚诪讬讗 讘讬讘诐 讗讞讚 讗讘诇 讘砖谞讬 讬讘诪讬谉 诇讗

Abaye said to him: From here you cannot prove what Rabbi Shimon鈥檚 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 Shimon鈥檚 uncertainty is with regard to the case of a levirate bond with two yevamin.

讜诪讬 砖谞讬 诇讬讛 诇专讘讬 砖诪注讜谉 讜讛转谞讬讗 讻诇诇 讗诪专 专讘讬 砖诪注讜谉 讻诇 砖讛诇讬讚讛 拽讜讚诪转 诇谞砖讜讗讬谉 诇讗 讞讜诇爪转 讜诇讗 诪转讬讬讘诪转 谞砖讜讗讬谉 拽讜讚诐 诇诇讬讚讛 讗讜 讞讜诇爪转 讗讜 诪转讬讬讘诪转

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 岣litza 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 岣litza or enters into levirate marriage.

诪讗讬 诇讗讜 讘讬讘诐 讗讞讚 讜拽转谞讬 诇讗 讞讜诇爪转 讜诇讗 诪转讬讬讘诪转 诇讗 讘砖谞讬 讬讘诪讬诐

What, is it not referring to the case of a single yavam, and it is taught in a baraita: She does not perform 岣litza 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.

讗讘诇 讘讬讘诐 讗讞讚 诪讗讬 讛讻讬 谞诪讬 讗讜 讞讜诇爪转 讗讜 诪转讬讬讘诪转 讗讬 讛讻讬 讗讚转谞讬 谞砖讜讗讬谉 拽讜讚诪讬谉 诇诇讬讚讛 讗讜 讞讜诇爪转 讗讜 诪转讬讬讘诪转 诇讬驻诇讜讙 讜诇讬转谞讬 讘讚讬讚讛 讘诪讛 讚讘专讬诐 讗诪讜专讬诐 讘砖谞讬 讬讘诪讬诐 讗讘诇 讘讬讘诐 讗讞讚 讗讜 讞讜诇爪转 讗讜 诪转讬讬讘诪转

The Gemara asks: But what, then, is the ruling for a single yavam? So too, one should say she either performs 岣litza 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 岣litza 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 岣litza or enters into levirate marriage.

讻讜诇讛 讘砖谞讬 讬讘诪讬谉 拽诪讬讬专讬 讜讗诇讗 诪讗讬 讻诇诇讗

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.

讜注讜讚 诪转讬讘 专讘 讗讜砖注讬讗 砖诇砖讛 讗讞讬谉 砖谞讬诐 诪讛谉 谞砖讜讗讬谉 砖转讬 讗讞讬讜转 讗讜 讗砖讛 讜讘转讛 讗讜 讗砖讛 讜讘转 讘转讛 讗讜 讗砖讛 讜讘转 讘谞讛 讛专讬 讗诇讜 讞讜诇爪讜转 讜诇讗 诪转讬讬讘诪讜转 讜专讘讬 砖诪注讜谉 驻讜讟专

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 daughter鈥檚 daughter, or a woman and her son鈥檚 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 岣litza 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 岣litza.

讜讗讬 住诇拽讗 讚注转讱 拽住讘专 专讘讬 砖诪注讜谉 讝讬拽讛 讻讻谞讜住讛 讚诪讬讗 诇讬讬讘诐 诇拽诪讬讬转讗 讜转讬驻讟专 讗讬讚讱

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.

讗诪专 专讘 注诪专诐 诪讗讬 驻讜讟专 谞诪讬 驻讜讟专 讘砖谞讬讛 讜讛转谞讬讗 专讘讬 砖诪注讜谉 驻讜讟专 讘砖转讬讛谉

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.

讗诪专 专讘讗 砖谞讬讛 砖讘讝讜讙 讝讛 讜讛砖谞讬讛 砖讘讝讜讙 讝讛

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.

拽讗 讟注讬 专讘讗 讘讗专讘注讛 讝讜讙讬 讞讚讗 讚讗讜 讗讜 拽转谞讬 讜注讜讚 专讘讬 砖诪注讜谉 驻讜讟专 讘讗专讘注转谉 诪讬讘注讬 诇讬讛

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 daughter鈥檚 daughter, or a woman and her son鈥檚 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.

讜注讜讚 转谞讬讗 专讘讬 砖诪注讜谉 驻讜讟专 讘砖转讬讛谉 诪谉 讛讞诇讬爪讛 讜诪谉 讛讬讬讘讜诐 砖谞讗诪专 讜讗砖讛 讗诇 讗讞讜转讛 诇讗 转拽讞 诇爪专讜专 讘砖注讛 砖谞注砖讜 爪专讜转 讝讜 诇讝讜 诇讗 讬讛讗 诇讱 诇讬拽讜讞讬谉 讗驻讬诇讜 讘讗讞转 诪讛谉

And further, it is taught explicitly in a baraita that Rabbi Shimon exempts both of them from both 岣litza and levirate marriage, as it is stated: 鈥淎nd you shall not take a woman to her sister, to be a rival to her鈥 (Leviticus聽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 Rava鈥檚 explanation is rejected.

讗诇讗 讗诪专 专讘 讗砖讬 讗讬 讚谞驻讜诇 讘讝讛 讗讞专 讝讛 讛讻讬 谞诪讬 讛讻讗 讘诪讗讬 注住拽讬谞谉 讚谞驻讜诇 讘讘转 讗讞转 讜专讘讬 砖诪注讜谉 住讘专 诇讛 讻专讘讬 讬讜住讬 讛讙诇讬诇讬 讚讗诪专 讗驻砖专 诇爪诪爪诐

Rather, Rav Ashi said an alternative answer to the Gemara鈥檚 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.

专讘 驻驻讗 讗诪专 讘讬讬讘诐 讜讗讞专 讻讱 谞讜诇讚 驻诇讬讙 专讘讬 砖诪注讜谉 讘谞讜诇讚 讜讗讞专 讻讱 讬讬讘诐 诇讗 驻诇讬讙

Until this point the Gemara dealt with Rav Oshaya鈥檚 opinion stating that according to Rabbi Shimon鈥檚 statement, even in the case of one who was born before his brother鈥檚 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.

讜转专讜讜讬讬讛讜 诇专讘谞谉 讗讬爪讟专讬讱 讜诇讗 讝讜 讗祝 讝讜 拽转谞讬

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.

转谞讬讗 讻讜讜转讬讛 讚专讘 驻驻讗 讜转讬讜讘转讗 讚专讘讬 讗讜砖注讬讗 砖谞讬 讗讞讬诐 讘注讜诇诐 讗讞讚 讜诪转 讗讞讚 诪讛诐 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

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 岣litza 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 岣litza or enters into levirate marriage. She was never the rival wife of the widow of the first brother.

注砖讛 讘讛 诪讗诪专 讜讗讞专 讻讱 谞讜诇讚 讗讞 讗讜 砖谞讜诇讚 诇讜 讗讞 讜讗讞专 讻讱 注砖讛 讘讛 诪讗诪专 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 讞讜诇爪转 讜诇讗 诪转讬讬讘诪转

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 岣litza 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.

专讘讬 砖诪注讜谉 讗讜诪专 讘讬讗转讛 讗讜 讞诇讬爪转讛 砖诇 讗讞转 诪讛诐 驻讜讟专转 爪专转讛 讞诇抓 诇讘注诇转 诪讗诪专 诇讗 谞驻讟专讛 爪专讛 讻谞住讛 讜诪转 讜讗讞专 讻讱 谞讜诇讚 诇讜 讗讞 讗讜 砖谞讜诇讚 诇讜 讗讞 讜讗讞专 讻讱 讻谞住讛 讜诪转 砖转讬讛谉 驻讟讜专讜转 诪谉 讛讞诇讬爪讛 讜诪谉 讛讬讬讘讜诐

Rabbi Shimon says: Intercourse or 岣litza with one of them, i.e., the wife of the second brother, exempts her rival wife, but if he performed 岣litza 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 brother鈥檚 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 岣litza 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.

讻谞住讛 讜谞讜诇讚 诇讜 讗讞 讜讗讞专 讻讱 诪转 砖转讬讛谉 驻讟讜专讜转 诪谉 讛讞诇讬爪讛 讜诪谉 讛讬讬讘讜诐 讚讘专讬 专讘讬 诪讗讬专 讜专讘讬 砖诪注讜谉 讗讜诪专 讛讜讗讬诇 讜讘讗 讜诪爪讗讛 讘讛讬转专 讜诇讗 注诪讚讛 注诇讬讜 砖注讛 讗讞转 讘讗讬住讜专 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

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 岣litza 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 岣litza with whichever he wishes.

讛讗 讘讘讗 讚住讬驻讗 诇诪讗谉 拽转谞讬 诇讛 讗讬诇讬诪讗 诇专讘讬 诪讗讬专 拽转谞讬 诇讛 诪讻讚讬 诇讗 砖谞讬 诇讬讛 诇专讘讬 诪讗讬专 讘讬谉 讬讬讘诐 讜讗讞专 讻讱 谞讜诇讚 讘讬谉 谞讜诇讚 讜讗讞专 讻讱 讬讬讘诐 诇注专讘讬谞讛讜 讜诇转谞讬谞讛讜

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.

讗诇讗 诇讗讜 专讘讬 砖诪注讜谉 讜讘讬讬讘诐 讜讗讞专 讻讱 谞讜诇讚 驻诇讬讙 讘谞讜诇讚 讜讗讞专 讻讱 讬讬讘诐 诇讗 驻诇讬讙 砖诪注 诪讬谞讛

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.

讗诪专 诪专 注诪讚 讛砖谞讬 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 诪讗诪专 讘讬讘诪转讜 注讚 砖谞讜诇讚 诇讜 讗讞 讜诪转 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 诪讗讬 注诪讚 讜诪讗讬 诇讗 讛住驻讬拽 讗讬 注讘讚 注讘讚 讜讗讬 诇讗 注讘讚 诇讗 注讘讚

搂 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 岣litza 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 岣litza 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.

讗诇讗 注诪讚 诪讚注转讛 讜诇讗 讛住驻讬拽 诪讚注转讛 讗诇讗 讘注诇 讻专讞讛 讜讚诇讗 讻专讘讬 讚转谞讬讗 讛注讜砖讛 诪讗诪专 讘讬讘诪转讜 砖诇讗 诪讚注转讛 专讘讬 讗讜诪专 拽谞讛 讜讞讻诪讬诐 讗讜诪专讬诐 诇讗 拽谞讛

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.

诪讗讬 讟注诪讗 讚专讘讬 讙诪专 诪讘讬讗讛 讚讬讘诪讛 诪讛 讘讬讗讛 讚讬讘诪讛 讘注诇 讻专讞讛 讗祝 拽讚讜砖讬谉 讚讬讘诪讛 讘注诇 讻专讞讛 讜专讘谞谉 讙诪专讬 诪拽讚讜砖讬谉 讚注诇诪讗 诪讛 拽讚讜砖讬谉 讚注诇诪讗 诪讚注转讛 讗祝 拽讚讜砖讬谉 讚讬讘诪讛 诪讚注转讛

The Gemara explains: What is the reason for Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi鈥檚 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.

讘诪讗讬 拽诪讬驻诇讙讬 诪专 住讘专 诪讬诇讬 讚讬讘诪讛 诪诪讬诇讬 讚讬讘诪讛 讛讜讛 诇讬讛 诇诪讬诇祝 讜诪专 住讘专 诪讬诇讬 讚拽讚讜砖讬谉 诪诪讬诇讬 讚拽讚讜砖讬谉 讛讜讛 诇讬讛 诇诪讬诇祝

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.

注砖讛 讘讛 诪讗诪专 讜讗讞专 讻讱 谞讜诇讚 诇讜 讗讞 讗讜 砖谞讜诇讚 诇讜 讗讞 讜讗讞专 讻讱 注砖讛 讘讛 诪讗诪专 讜诪转 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 讞讜诇爪转 讜诇讗 诪转讬讬讘诪转 专讘讬 砖诪注讜谉 讗讜诪专 讘讬讗转讛 讗讜 讞诇讬爪转讛 砖诇 讗讞转 诪讛谉 驻讜讟专转 爪专转讛

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 岣litza but does not enter into levirate marriage. Rabbi Shimon says: Intercourse or 岣litza with one of them exempts her rival wife.

专讘讬 砖诪注讜谉 讗讛讬讬讗 拽讗讬 讗讬诇讬诪讗 讗谞讜诇讚 诇讜 讗讞 讜讗讞专 讻讱 注砖讛 讘讛 诪讗诪专 讛讗 讗诪专转 讘谞讜诇讚 讜诇讘住讜祝 讬讬讘诐 诇讗 驻诇讬讙 专讘讬 砖诪注讜谉 讗诇讗 讗注砖讛 讘讛 诪讗诪专 讜讗讞专 讻讱 谞讜诇讚 诇讜 讗讞

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, didn鈥檛 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.

讞诇抓 诇讘注诇转 诪讗诪专 诇讗 谞驻讟专讛 爪专讛 诪讗讬 讟注诪讗 诪砖讜诐 讚讛讜讗讬 爪专讛 讜讚讗讬 讜讘注诇转 诪讗诪专 住驻拽 讜讗讬谉 住驻拽 诪讜爪讬讗 诪讬讚讬 讜讚讗讬

Later in the baraita it is taught: If the third brother performed 岣litza 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 岣litza, since the status of the first woman鈥檚 obligation is uncertain, the status of the 岣litza itself is uncertain, as it is possible that she did not require 岣litza at all. Consequently, this 岣litza is not sufficient to exempt her rival wife. This teaches that he must perform 岣litza or levirate marriage with the woman who is definitely obligated, and then the other will be exempt.

讬转讬讘 专讘 诪谞砖讛 讘专 讝讘讬讚 拽诪讬讛 讚专讘 讛讜谞讗 讜讬转讬讘 讜拽讗诪专 诪讗讬 讟注诪讗 讚专讘讬 砖诪注讜谉 诪讗讬 讟注诪讗 讚专讘讬 砖诪注讜谉 讻讚讗诪专 讟注诪讗 讛讜讗讬诇 讜讘讗 讜诪爪讗讛 讘讛讬转专 讜诇讗 注诪讚讛 注诇讬讜 砖注讛 讗讞转 讘讗讬住讜专

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 Shimon鈥檚 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.

讗诇讗 诪讗讬 讟注诪讗 讚专讘谞谉 讗诪专 拽专讗 讜诇拽讞讛 诇讜 诇讗砖讛 讜讬讘诪讛 注讚讬讬谉 讬讘讜诪讬诐 讛专讗砖讜谞讬诐 注诇讬讛 讗诇讗 讛讗 讚转谞谉 讻谞住讛 讛专讬 讛讬讗 讻讗砖转讜 诇讻诇 讚讘专 讜讗诪专 专讘讬 讬讜住讬 讘专 讞谞讬谞讗 诪诇诪讚

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 Rabbis鈥 opinion? The Gemara answers that the verse states: 鈥淗er brother-in-law will鈥take her to him to be his wife and consummate the levirate marriage [veyibbema]鈥 (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 岣nina said: This teaches

  • 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 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

诪讘讬转 讗讞讚 讬讘讜诪讬 讞讚讗 讜讗讬驻讟讜专 讗讬讚讱 诇讗 讚讚诇诪讗 讗讬谉 讝讬拽讛 讻讻谞讜住讛 讜讛讜讜 诇讛讜 砖转讬 讬讘诪讜转 讛讘讗讜转 诪砖谞讬 讘转讬诐 讗诇诪讗 诪住驻拽讗 诇讬讛

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: 鈥淭o build his brother鈥檚 house,鈥 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 brother鈥檚 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.

讜讻讬 转讬诪讗 诪讚讗讜专讬讬转讗 讛讻讬 谞诪讬 讚诪讬讬讘诪讗 讞讚讗 讜诪驻讟专讗 讞讚讗 讜诪讚专讘谞谉 讛讜讗 讚讗住讜专 讙讝讬专讛 诪砖讜诐 砖诪讗 讬讗诪专讜 砖转讬 讬讘诪讜转 讛讘讗讜转 诪砖谞讬 讘转讬诐 讞讚讗 诪讬讬讘诪讗 讜讗讬讚讱 诪讬驻讟专讗 讘讜诇讗 讻诇讜诐

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 岣litza is to avoid the possibility of such a mistake.

讜讛讗 讟注诪讗 讚专讘讬 砖诪注讜谉 诪砖讜诐 诪讗诪专 讜诇讗讜 诪讗诪专 讛讜讗 讚转谞讬讗 讗诪专 诇讛诐 专讘讬 砖诪注讜谉 诇讞讻诪讬诐 讗诐 诪讗诪专讜 砖诇 砖谞讬 诪讗诪专 讗砖转 砖谞讬 讛讜讗 讘讜注诇

But this cannot be, as Rabbi Shimon鈥檚 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.

讜讗诐 诪讗诪专讜 砖诇 砖谞讬 讗讬谞讜 诪讗诪专 讗砖转 专讗砖讜谉 讛讜讗 讘讜注诇

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 Shimon鈥檚 uncertainty is related to the questions concerning the strength of the levirate betrothal.

讗诪专 诇讬讛 讗讘讬讬 讜诇讗 砖谞讬 诇讱 讘讬谉 讝讬拽转 讬讘诐 讗讞讚 诇讝讬拽转 砖谞讬 讬讘诪讬诐 讚诇诪讗 讻讬 讗诪专 专讘讬 砖诪注讜谉 讝讬拽讛 讻讻谞讜住讛 讚诪讬讗 讘讬讘诐 讗讞讚 讗讘诇 讘砖谞讬 讬讘诪讬谉 诇讗

Abaye said to him: From here you cannot prove what Rabbi Shimon鈥檚 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 Shimon鈥檚 uncertainty is with regard to the case of a levirate bond with two yevamin.

讜诪讬 砖谞讬 诇讬讛 诇专讘讬 砖诪注讜谉 讜讛转谞讬讗 讻诇诇 讗诪专 专讘讬 砖诪注讜谉 讻诇 砖讛诇讬讚讛 拽讜讚诪转 诇谞砖讜讗讬谉 诇讗 讞讜诇爪转 讜诇讗 诪转讬讬讘诪转 谞砖讜讗讬谉 拽讜讚诐 诇诇讬讚讛 讗讜 讞讜诇爪转 讗讜 诪转讬讬讘诪转

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 岣litza 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 岣litza or enters into levirate marriage.

诪讗讬 诇讗讜 讘讬讘诐 讗讞讚 讜拽转谞讬 诇讗 讞讜诇爪转 讜诇讗 诪转讬讬讘诪转 诇讗 讘砖谞讬 讬讘诪讬诐

What, is it not referring to the case of a single yavam, and it is taught in a baraita: She does not perform 岣litza 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.

讗讘诇 讘讬讘诐 讗讞讚 诪讗讬 讛讻讬 谞诪讬 讗讜 讞讜诇爪转 讗讜 诪转讬讬讘诪转 讗讬 讛讻讬 讗讚转谞讬 谞砖讜讗讬谉 拽讜讚诪讬谉 诇诇讬讚讛 讗讜 讞讜诇爪转 讗讜 诪转讬讬讘诪转 诇讬驻诇讜讙 讜诇讬转谞讬 讘讚讬讚讛 讘诪讛 讚讘专讬诐 讗诪讜专讬诐 讘砖谞讬 讬讘诪讬诐 讗讘诇 讘讬讘诐 讗讞讚 讗讜 讞讜诇爪转 讗讜 诪转讬讬讘诪转

The Gemara asks: But what, then, is the ruling for a single yavam? So too, one should say she either performs 岣litza 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 岣litza 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 岣litza or enters into levirate marriage.

讻讜诇讛 讘砖谞讬 讬讘诪讬谉 拽诪讬讬专讬 讜讗诇讗 诪讗讬 讻诇诇讗

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.

讜注讜讚 诪转讬讘 专讘 讗讜砖注讬讗 砖诇砖讛 讗讞讬谉 砖谞讬诐 诪讛谉 谞砖讜讗讬谉 砖转讬 讗讞讬讜转 讗讜 讗砖讛 讜讘转讛 讗讜 讗砖讛 讜讘转 讘转讛 讗讜 讗砖讛 讜讘转 讘谞讛 讛专讬 讗诇讜 讞讜诇爪讜转 讜诇讗 诪转讬讬讘诪讜转 讜专讘讬 砖诪注讜谉 驻讜讟专

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 daughter鈥檚 daughter, or a woman and her son鈥檚 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 岣litza 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 岣litza.

讜讗讬 住诇拽讗 讚注转讱 拽住讘专 专讘讬 砖诪注讜谉 讝讬拽讛 讻讻谞讜住讛 讚诪讬讗 诇讬讬讘诐 诇拽诪讬讬转讗 讜转讬驻讟专 讗讬讚讱

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.

讗诪专 专讘 注诪专诐 诪讗讬 驻讜讟专 谞诪讬 驻讜讟专 讘砖谞讬讛 讜讛转谞讬讗 专讘讬 砖诪注讜谉 驻讜讟专 讘砖转讬讛谉

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.

讗诪专 专讘讗 砖谞讬讛 砖讘讝讜讙 讝讛 讜讛砖谞讬讛 砖讘讝讜讙 讝讛

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.

拽讗 讟注讬 专讘讗 讘讗专讘注讛 讝讜讙讬 讞讚讗 讚讗讜 讗讜 拽转谞讬 讜注讜讚 专讘讬 砖诪注讜谉 驻讜讟专 讘讗专讘注转谉 诪讬讘注讬 诇讬讛

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 daughter鈥檚 daughter, or a woman and her son鈥檚 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.

讜注讜讚 转谞讬讗 专讘讬 砖诪注讜谉 驻讜讟专 讘砖转讬讛谉 诪谉 讛讞诇讬爪讛 讜诪谉 讛讬讬讘讜诐 砖谞讗诪专 讜讗砖讛 讗诇 讗讞讜转讛 诇讗 转拽讞 诇爪专讜专 讘砖注讛 砖谞注砖讜 爪专讜转 讝讜 诇讝讜 诇讗 讬讛讗 诇讱 诇讬拽讜讞讬谉 讗驻讬诇讜 讘讗讞转 诪讛谉

And further, it is taught explicitly in a baraita that Rabbi Shimon exempts both of them from both 岣litza and levirate marriage, as it is stated: 鈥淎nd you shall not take a woman to her sister, to be a rival to her鈥 (Leviticus聽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 Rava鈥檚 explanation is rejected.

讗诇讗 讗诪专 专讘 讗砖讬 讗讬 讚谞驻讜诇 讘讝讛 讗讞专 讝讛 讛讻讬 谞诪讬 讛讻讗 讘诪讗讬 注住拽讬谞谉 讚谞驻讜诇 讘讘转 讗讞转 讜专讘讬 砖诪注讜谉 住讘专 诇讛 讻专讘讬 讬讜住讬 讛讙诇讬诇讬 讚讗诪专 讗驻砖专 诇爪诪爪诐

Rather, Rav Ashi said an alternative answer to the Gemara鈥檚 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.

专讘 驻驻讗 讗诪专 讘讬讬讘诐 讜讗讞专 讻讱 谞讜诇讚 驻诇讬讙 专讘讬 砖诪注讜谉 讘谞讜诇讚 讜讗讞专 讻讱 讬讬讘诐 诇讗 驻诇讬讙

Until this point the Gemara dealt with Rav Oshaya鈥檚 opinion stating that according to Rabbi Shimon鈥檚 statement, even in the case of one who was born before his brother鈥檚 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.

讜转专讜讜讬讬讛讜 诇专讘谞谉 讗讬爪讟专讬讱 讜诇讗 讝讜 讗祝 讝讜 拽转谞讬

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.

转谞讬讗 讻讜讜转讬讛 讚专讘 驻驻讗 讜转讬讜讘转讗 讚专讘讬 讗讜砖注讬讗 砖谞讬 讗讞讬诐 讘注讜诇诐 讗讞讚 讜诪转 讗讞讚 诪讛诐 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

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 岣litza 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 岣litza or enters into levirate marriage. She was never the rival wife of the widow of the first brother.

注砖讛 讘讛 诪讗诪专 讜讗讞专 讻讱 谞讜诇讚 讗讞 讗讜 砖谞讜诇讚 诇讜 讗讞 讜讗讞专 讻讱 注砖讛 讘讛 诪讗诪专 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 讞讜诇爪转 讜诇讗 诪转讬讬讘诪转

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 岣litza 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.

专讘讬 砖诪注讜谉 讗讜诪专 讘讬讗转讛 讗讜 讞诇讬爪转讛 砖诇 讗讞转 诪讛诐 驻讜讟专转 爪专转讛 讞诇抓 诇讘注诇转 诪讗诪专 诇讗 谞驻讟专讛 爪专讛 讻谞住讛 讜诪转 讜讗讞专 讻讱 谞讜诇讚 诇讜 讗讞 讗讜 砖谞讜诇讚 诇讜 讗讞 讜讗讞专 讻讱 讻谞住讛 讜诪转 砖转讬讛谉 驻讟讜专讜转 诪谉 讛讞诇讬爪讛 讜诪谉 讛讬讬讘讜诐

Rabbi Shimon says: Intercourse or 岣litza with one of them, i.e., the wife of the second brother, exempts her rival wife, but if he performed 岣litza 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 brother鈥檚 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 岣litza 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.

讻谞住讛 讜谞讜诇讚 诇讜 讗讞 讜讗讞专 讻讱 诪转 砖转讬讛谉 驻讟讜专讜转 诪谉 讛讞诇讬爪讛 讜诪谉 讛讬讬讘讜诐 讚讘专讬 专讘讬 诪讗讬专 讜专讘讬 砖诪注讜谉 讗讜诪专 讛讜讗讬诇 讜讘讗 讜诪爪讗讛 讘讛讬转专 讜诇讗 注诪讚讛 注诇讬讜 砖注讛 讗讞转 讘讗讬住讜专 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

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 岣litza 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 岣litza with whichever he wishes.

讛讗 讘讘讗 讚住讬驻讗 诇诪讗谉 拽转谞讬 诇讛 讗讬诇讬诪讗 诇专讘讬 诪讗讬专 拽转谞讬 诇讛 诪讻讚讬 诇讗 砖谞讬 诇讬讛 诇专讘讬 诪讗讬专 讘讬谉 讬讬讘诐 讜讗讞专 讻讱 谞讜诇讚 讘讬谉 谞讜诇讚 讜讗讞专 讻讱 讬讬讘诐 诇注专讘讬谞讛讜 讜诇转谞讬谞讛讜

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.

讗诇讗 诇讗讜 专讘讬 砖诪注讜谉 讜讘讬讬讘诐 讜讗讞专 讻讱 谞讜诇讚 驻诇讬讙 讘谞讜诇讚 讜讗讞专 讻讱 讬讬讘诐 诇讗 驻诇讬讙 砖诪注 诪讬谞讛

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.

讗诪专 诪专 注诪讚 讛砖谞讬 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 诪讗诪专 讘讬讘诪转讜 注讚 砖谞讜诇讚 诇讜 讗讞 讜诪转 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 诪讗讬 注诪讚 讜诪讗讬 诇讗 讛住驻讬拽 讗讬 注讘讚 注讘讚 讜讗讬 诇讗 注讘讚 诇讗 注讘讚

搂 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 岣litza 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 岣litza 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.

讗诇讗 注诪讚 诪讚注转讛 讜诇讗 讛住驻讬拽 诪讚注转讛 讗诇讗 讘注诇 讻专讞讛 讜讚诇讗 讻专讘讬 讚转谞讬讗 讛注讜砖讛 诪讗诪专 讘讬讘诪转讜 砖诇讗 诪讚注转讛 专讘讬 讗讜诪专 拽谞讛 讜讞讻诪讬诐 讗讜诪专讬诐 诇讗 拽谞讛

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.

诪讗讬 讟注诪讗 讚专讘讬 讙诪专 诪讘讬讗讛 讚讬讘诪讛 诪讛 讘讬讗讛 讚讬讘诪讛 讘注诇 讻专讞讛 讗祝 拽讚讜砖讬谉 讚讬讘诪讛 讘注诇 讻专讞讛 讜专讘谞谉 讙诪专讬 诪拽讚讜砖讬谉 讚注诇诪讗 诪讛 拽讚讜砖讬谉 讚注诇诪讗 诪讚注转讛 讗祝 拽讚讜砖讬谉 讚讬讘诪讛 诪讚注转讛

The Gemara explains: What is the reason for Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi鈥檚 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.

讘诪讗讬 拽诪讬驻诇讙讬 诪专 住讘专 诪讬诇讬 讚讬讘诪讛 诪诪讬诇讬 讚讬讘诪讛 讛讜讛 诇讬讛 诇诪讬诇祝 讜诪专 住讘专 诪讬诇讬 讚拽讚讜砖讬谉 诪诪讬诇讬 讚拽讚讜砖讬谉 讛讜讛 诇讬讛 诇诪讬诇祝

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.

注砖讛 讘讛 诪讗诪专 讜讗讞专 讻讱 谞讜诇讚 诇讜 讗讞 讗讜 砖谞讜诇讚 诇讜 讗讞 讜讗讞专 讻讱 注砖讛 讘讛 诪讗诪专 讜诪转 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 讞讜诇爪转 讜诇讗 诪转讬讬讘诪转 专讘讬 砖诪注讜谉 讗讜诪专 讘讬讗转讛 讗讜 讞诇讬爪转讛 砖诇 讗讞转 诪讛谉 驻讜讟专转 爪专转讛

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 岣litza but does not enter into levirate marriage. Rabbi Shimon says: Intercourse or 岣litza with one of them exempts her rival wife.

专讘讬 砖诪注讜谉 讗讛讬讬讗 拽讗讬 讗讬诇讬诪讗 讗谞讜诇讚 诇讜 讗讞 讜讗讞专 讻讱 注砖讛 讘讛 诪讗诪专 讛讗 讗诪专转 讘谞讜诇讚 讜诇讘住讜祝 讬讬讘诐 诇讗 驻诇讬讙 专讘讬 砖诪注讜谉 讗诇讗 讗注砖讛 讘讛 诪讗诪专 讜讗讞专 讻讱 谞讜诇讚 诇讜 讗讞

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, didn鈥檛 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.

讞诇抓 诇讘注诇转 诪讗诪专 诇讗 谞驻讟专讛 爪专讛 诪讗讬 讟注诪讗 诪砖讜诐 讚讛讜讗讬 爪专讛 讜讚讗讬 讜讘注诇转 诪讗诪专 住驻拽 讜讗讬谉 住驻拽 诪讜爪讬讗 诪讬讚讬 讜讚讗讬

Later in the baraita it is taught: If the third brother performed 岣litza 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 岣litza, since the status of the first woman鈥檚 obligation is uncertain, the status of the 岣litza itself is uncertain, as it is possible that she did not require 岣litza at all. Consequently, this 岣litza is not sufficient to exempt her rival wife. This teaches that he must perform 岣litza or levirate marriage with the woman who is definitely obligated, and then the other will be exempt.

讬转讬讘 专讘 诪谞砖讛 讘专 讝讘讬讚 拽诪讬讛 讚专讘 讛讜谞讗 讜讬转讬讘 讜拽讗诪专 诪讗讬 讟注诪讗 讚专讘讬 砖诪注讜谉 诪讗讬 讟注诪讗 讚专讘讬 砖诪注讜谉 讻讚讗诪专 讟注诪讗 讛讜讗讬诇 讜讘讗 讜诪爪讗讛 讘讛讬转专 讜诇讗 注诪讚讛 注诇讬讜 砖注讛 讗讞转 讘讗讬住讜专

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 Shimon鈥檚 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.

讗诇讗 诪讗讬 讟注诪讗 讚专讘谞谉 讗诪专 拽专讗 讜诇拽讞讛 诇讜 诇讗砖讛 讜讬讘诪讛 注讚讬讬谉 讬讘讜诪讬诐 讛专讗砖讜谞讬诐 注诇讬讛 讗诇讗 讛讗 讚转谞谉 讻谞住讛 讛专讬 讛讬讗 讻讗砖转讜 诇讻诇 讚讘专 讜讗诪专 专讘讬 讬讜住讬 讘专 讞谞讬谞讗 诪诇诪讚

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 Rabbis鈥 opinion? The Gemara answers that the verse states: 鈥淗er brother-in-law will鈥take her to him to be his wife and consummate the levirate marriage [veyibbema]鈥 (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 岣nina said: This teaches

Scroll To Top