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

Today's Daf Yomi

March 9, 2022 | 讜壮 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 2

Yevamot bookmark and checklist

Presentation in PDF format (for the proper effect, open with a Reader such as Adobe and view in Read or Presentation mode)

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.”

This week’s learning is sponsored by Suri Davis-Stern in honor of her son鈥檚 engagement and daughter’s wedding. 鈥淗akarat hatov to Hkbh on the engagement of my son, Yosef Stern to Rivka Cohen and the forthcoming wedding of my daughter, Esther Stern to Shai Goldman.”

Today鈥檚 daf is sponsored by Harriet Hartman in loving memory of Professor Dianne Ashton 鈥淪he was taken from us suddenly in January of this year. A strong woman who beat all odds for her years and strongly advocated for woman’s achievements and spirituality and modeled them herself.鈥

Today鈥檚 daf is sponsored by Naomi Ferziger and Debbie Gevir in loving memory of their friend Ruti Greenberg. 鈥淩uti was our wonderful, vivacious and beautiful friend who died on Pesach 8 years ago. Ruti’s chessed, which is exemplified in her name “Rut”, was just one of her special characteristics. Her optimism and strength coupled with her joie de vivre, wit and beauty continue to live in our hearts. Ruti, we miss you so much and think of you often. Yehi zichra baruch.鈥

If a married man died without having children, his wife would be designated to enter into a levirate marriage with his brother in order to fulfill the name of the dead brother (continue his legacy). However, if he has one brother and that brother happens to be forbidden to the wife due to one of 15 forbidden relationships described in the Mishna, she would be exempt from levirate marriage and would be permitted to marry anyone else. Not only is she permitted without levirate marriage, but if he had other wives, they would be permitted as well. If there was a third brother to whom the wife was not related to in a forbidden manner, and the second wife (tzara) entering into a levirate marriage with him and then he died without children, the first wife, the second wife (the one who is now married to the third brother, and if the third brother had another wife, they would all be exempt from levirate marriage with the other brother (the one to whom the first wife was forbidden to in the first place). However, if the first wife were to die before the husband, then the forbidden relationship is no longer in existence and the other wives would be permitted (and therefore obligated) to enter into a levirate marriage with the brother. All these laws are derived from the case of “his wife’s sister” – if so, why does the Mishna start with “his daughter” and not that case?

Yevamot 2 – Cases 1-9

Yevamot 2 – Cases 10-15

V

诪转谞讬壮 讞诪砖 注砖专讛 谞砖讬诐 驻讜讟专讜转 爪专讜转讬讛谉 讜爪专讜转 爪专讜转讬讛谉 诪谉 讛讞诇讬爪讛 讜诪谉 讛讬讬讘讜诐 注讚 住讜祝 讛注讜诇诐

The Torah law obligating a man whose brother died without children [yavam] to marry his deceased brother鈥檚 widow [yevama] or to free her from her levirate bonds through the act of 岣litza applies only when it is permitted for the widow to marry her surviving brother-in-law. However, in cases where the yevama is forbidden to her yavam due to her status as a close family relative, the mitzva of levirate marriage is not applicable, and she is exempt from both levirate marriage and 岣litza.
The Sages further taught that the exemption of a yevama from levirate marriage also exempts her rival wife. In other words, if the deceased brother had two wives, each a so-called rival of the other, and only one wife is a relative of the surviving brother, then the rival wife is also exempt from both levirate marriage and 岣litza. Moreover, if that same rival wife entered into levirate marriage with a different brother of the deceased, one to whom she is not forbidden, then were this third brother also to die childless, so that the obligation of levirate marriage would again be incurred by the second brother, not only is the forbidden rival wife exempt from levirate marriage and 岣litza, her new rival wives from her second marriage are also exempt.
That is to say, any other wife of the third brother is exempt from the mitzva of levirate marriage, as she is the rival wife of that first rival wife, who was exempted from levirate marriage following her first husband鈥檚 death due the exemption of her original rival wife. The same principle applies if that second rival wife subsequently enters into levirate marriage with another permitted brother, and so on. In summary, every widow who is exempt from marrying her brother-in-law due to her status as rival wife of a forbidden relative is treated as a forbidden relative herself and is therefore exempt from both 岣litza and levirate marriage and causes exemption for future rival wives as well.

MISHNA: The mishna describes various cases that invoke the principles above. Fifteen categories of women constitute familial relations that are forbidden as incestuous, and consequently, these women exempt their rival wives and the rival wives of their rival wives from 岣litza and from levirate marriage forever, i.e., they also exempt rival wives of rival wives of rival wives, and so on.

讜讗诇讜 讛谉 讘转讜 讜讘转 讘转讜 讜讘转 讘谞讜 讘转 讗砖转讜

And these women are: The daughter of the yavam, i.e., the deceased brother had married a daughter of his brother, which means that when he died childless, his brother鈥檚 own daughter came before her father for levirate marriage, and therefore she is exempt. And the same applies if the deceased brother鈥檚 widow is the daughter of the daughter of the yavam, or if she is the daughter of his son, or the daughter of his wife.

讜讘转 讘谞讛 讜讘转 讘转讛 讞诪讜转讜 讜讗诐 讞诪讜转讜 讜讗诐 讞诪讬讜

And similarly, if the yevama is the daughter of the son of the wife of her yavam or the daughter of his wife鈥檚 daughter, or if she is the mother-in-law of her yavam, or his mother-in-law鈥檚 mother, or his father-in-law鈥檚 mother, then she is exempt from 岣litza and levirate marriage.

讗讞讜转讜 诪讗诪讜 讜讗讞讜转 讗诪讜 讜讗讞讜转 讗砖转讜 讜讗砖转 讗讞讬讜 诪讗诪讜

The mishna continues its list of close relatives. If the yevama is the maternal half sister of the yavam, or if she is the sister of his mother, or his wife鈥檚 sister, then she is exempt from both 岣litza and levirate marriage Or if she was the wife of his maternal half brother, and after this brother died or divorced his wife, she married another of his father鈥檚 brothers, who was not her relative, and this brother died, she is exempt. In this case, the obligation to enter into levirate marriage should be incurred by the surviving brother, but since she was previously the wife of his maternal brother, she is exempt.

讜讗砖转 讗讞讬讜 砖诇讗 讛讬讛 讘注讜诇诪讜 讜讻诇转讜 讛专讬 讗诇讜 驻讜讟专讜转 爪专讜转讬讛谉 讜爪专讜转 爪专讜转讬讛谉 诪谉 讛讞诇讬爪讛 讜诪谉 讛讬讬讘讜诐 注讚 住讜祝 讛注讜诇诐

And the same applies to the wife of a brother with whom he did not coexist, i.e., the wife of a man who died before his brother was born. As will be explained, the obligation of levirate marriage does not apply to the yavam in this case. Since levirate marriage does not apply to him, the yevama remains forbidden to him as his brother鈥檚 wife. And the last case is if one鈥檚 yevama had previously been his daughter-in-law, and after his son had died one鈥檚 brother married her, before he too passed away. These fifteen women exempt their rival wives and the rival wives of their rival wives from 岣litza and levirate marriage forever.

讜讻讜诇谉 讗诐 诪转讜 讗讜 诪讬讗谞讜

And with regard to all of these women listed as prohibited relations, these halakhot apply only if they were married to the deceased brother until the time of his death. However, this is not the case if they died during the deceased brother鈥檚 lifetime, or if they refused their husbands when they were minors. This refusal is referring to the decree of the Sages that a girl under the age of twelve whose father is no longer alive may be married off by her mother or brothers. However, this marriage is not final, as she can terminate it by performing an act of refusal, i.e., by declaring, while still a minor, that she does not desire this marriage. In this case, the marriage is annulled retroactively and she is considered as though she were never married at all.

讗讜 谞转讙专砖讜 讗讜 砖谞诪爪讗讜 讗讬诇讜谞讬转 爪专讜转讬讛谉 诪讜转专讜转

Or if those women were divorced by their husband, the deceased brother, or were found to be a sexually underdeveloped woman [aylonit], i.e., a woman who is so underdeveloped that she is not considered a woman in the full sense, these halakhot do not apply. Her marriage is considered a mistaken marriage and is null and void. In all these cases their rival wives are permitted, as the exemption for rival wives of forbidden relatives applies only when the forbidden relative was the brother鈥檚 wife at the time of his death, when the halakhot of levirate marriage came into effect.

讜讗讬 讗转讛 讬讻讜诇 诇讜诪专 讘讞诪讜转讜 讜讘讗诐 讞诪讜转讜 讜讘讗诐 讞诪讬讜 砖谞诪爪讗讜 讗讬诇讜谞讬转 讗讜 砖诪讬讗谞讜

And the mishna comments that the language of this principle is imprecise, as you cannot say with regard to his mother-in-law and with regard to his mother-in-law鈥檚 mother and with regard to his father-in-law鈥檚 mother that they were found to be an aylonit, as an aylonit is sterile and therefore cannot become a mother or a mother-in-law. Nor is the mishna precise when it states: Or refused, as refusal applies only to minors, who cannot give birth.

讻讬爪讚 驻讜讟专讜转 爪专讜转讬讛谉 讛讬转讛 讘转讜 讗讜 讗讞转 诪讻诇 讛注专讬讜转 讛讗诇讜 谞砖讜讗讜转 诇讗讞讬讜 讜诇讜 讗砖讛 讗讞专转 讜诪转 讻砖诐 砖讘转讜 驻讟讜专讛 讻讱 爪专转讛 驻讟讜专讛 讛诇讻讛 爪专转 讘转讜 讜谞砖讗转 诇讗讞讬讜 讛砖谞讬 讜诇讜 讗砖讛 讗讞专转 讜诪转 讻砖诐 砖爪专转 讘转讜 驻讟讜专讛 讻讱 爪专转 爪专转讛 驻讟讜专讛

搂 The mishna explains: How do these women exempt their rival wives? If, for example, his daughter or any one of those women with whom relations are forbidden was married to his brother and this brother had another wife, and the brother died, then just as his daughter is exempt from levirate marriage, so too her rival wife is exempt. If his daughter鈥檚 rival wife subsequently went and married his second brother, to whom she is permitted, and he had another wife, and he died childless as well, which means that his wife comes before the first yavam, the daughter鈥檚 father, for levirate marriage, then just as his daughter鈥檚 rival wife is exempt, so too the rival wife of her rival wife is exempt.

讗驻讬诇讜 讛谉 诪讗讛

The mishna adds: Even if they are one hundred brothers, the same logic applies. If a woman is exempt from levirate marriage because she is the rival wife of a forbidden relative or the rival wife of a rival wife of this kind, and she herself has an additional rival wife, this rival wife is also exempt and in turn exempts her own rival wives from levirate marriage.

讻讬爪讚 讗诐 诪转讜 爪专讜转讬讛谉 诪讜转专讜转 讛讬转讛 讘转讜 讗讜 讗讞转 诪讻诇 讛注专讬讜转 讛讗诇讜 谞砖讜讗讜转 诇讗讞讬讜 讜诇讜 讗砖讛 讗讞专转 诪转讛 讘转讜 讗讜 谞转讙专砖讛 讜讗讞专 讻讱 诪转 讗讞讬讜 爪专转讛 诪讜转专转

How so? What are the cases in which if they died their rival wives are permitted? If, for example, one鈥檚 daughter or any one of those women with whom relations are forbidden was married to his brother, and this brother had another wife, and then his daughter died or was divorced and afterward his brother died, her rival wife is permitted to him.

讜讻诇 讛讬讻讜诇讛 诇诪讗谉 讜诇讗 诪讬讗谞讛 爪专转讛 讞讜诇爪转 讜诇讗 诪转讬讬讘诪转

搂 The mishna states another principle: And if any of these forbidden relatives was a minor who could refuse her husband, then even if she did not refuse, her rival wife performs 岣litza and does not enter into levirate marriage. The rival wife may not enter into levirate marriage, as she is the rival wife of a forbidden relative. However, she is not entirely exempt from levirate marriage and must be released by 岣litza because the marriage of the forbidden relative was not a fully valid marriage, and therefore, by Torah law, the other woman is not considered a rival wife of a forbidden relative.

讙诪壮 诪讻讚讬 讻讜诇讛讜 诪讗讞讜转 讗砖讛 讬诇驻讬谞谉 诇讬转谞讬 讗讞讜转 讗砖讛 讘专讬砖讗

GEMARA: The Gemara asks a question with regard to the order of the mishna鈥檚 list: Now, since the halakha that all these women with whom relations are forbidden are exempt from levirate marriage and exempt their rival wives is derived from the case of a wife鈥檚 sister, as demonstrated later, let the mishna teach the case of a wife鈥檚 sister first and only afterward mention the other instances, which are derived from that halakha.

讜讻讬 转讬诪讗 转谞讗 讞讜诪专讬 讞讜诪专讬 谞拽讟 讜专讘讬 砖诪注讜谉 讛讬讗 讚讗诪专 砖专讬驻讛 讞诪讜专讛

And if you would say that the tanna cited the cases in order of severity, then you must say that it is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Shimon, who says that execution by burning is more severe than stoning. For this reason, the tanna began with the cases of one鈥檚 daughter and his daughter鈥檚 daughter and his son鈥檚 daughter and so forth, since one who has relations with these women is punished by burning, after which the tanna listed those cases that entail a lesser penalty.

讗讬 讛讻讬 诇讬转谞讬 讞诪讜转讜 讘专讬砖讗 讚注讬拽专 砖专讬驻讛 讘讞诪讜转讜 讻转讬讘讗 讜注讜讚 讘转专 讞诪讜转讜 诇讬转谞讬 讻诇转讜 讚讘转专 砖专讬驻讛 住拽讬诇讛 讞诪讜专讛

However, the Gemara argues that even so, the order of the mishna remains problematic. If so, let him teach the case of one鈥檚 mother-in-law first, as the main transgression that entails burning is written with regard to his mother-in-law, as it is stated: 鈥淎nd if a man take with his wife also her mother, it is wickedness; they shall be burnt with fire, both he and they鈥 (Leviticus 20:14). And furthermore, after his mother-in-law let him teach his daughter-in-law, as after execution by burning, stoning is the most severe of the other capital punishments imposed by the courts.

讗诇讗 讘转讜 讻讬讜谉 讚讗转讬讗 诪讚专砖讗 讞讘讬讘讗 诇讬讛

Rather, the Gemara retracts the previous explanation in favor of the following: With regard to his daughter, since this prohibition is actually derived from a homiletical interpretation and is not explicitly stated in the Torah, it is therefore dear to the tanna. Consequently, he listed this novel case of a daughter first.

  • 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 1 (2-16): 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: 2-8 – Daf Yomi One Week at a Time

This week we will begin learning Masechet Yevamot. We will learn about the mitzvah of Yibum, Levirate Marriage, and who...
Powerful Words and Powerful Actions_ Introduction to Seder Nashim - Rabbanit Leah Sarna

Powerful Words and Powerful Actions: Introduction to Seder Nashim

From Hadran's Siyum Seder Moed https://youtu.be/pq7wmQG_oP4
talking talmud_square

Yevamot 2: Ervah By Association

Diving right in... Introducing Masekhet Yevamot and Seder Nashim! Defining the case of yibum, the Levirate marriage. Defining halitzah. Defining...

Yevamot 2

The William Davidson Talmud | Powered by Sefaria

Yevamot 2

诪转谞讬壮 讞诪砖 注砖专讛 谞砖讬诐 驻讜讟专讜转 爪专讜转讬讛谉 讜爪专讜转 爪专讜转讬讛谉 诪谉 讛讞诇讬爪讛 讜诪谉 讛讬讬讘讜诐 注讚 住讜祝 讛注讜诇诐

The Torah law obligating a man whose brother died without children [yavam] to marry his deceased brother鈥檚 widow [yevama] or to free her from her levirate bonds through the act of 岣litza applies only when it is permitted for the widow to marry her surviving brother-in-law. However, in cases where the yevama is forbidden to her yavam due to her status as a close family relative, the mitzva of levirate marriage is not applicable, and she is exempt from both levirate marriage and 岣litza.
The Sages further taught that the exemption of a yevama from levirate marriage also exempts her rival wife. In other words, if the deceased brother had two wives, each a so-called rival of the other, and only one wife is a relative of the surviving brother, then the rival wife is also exempt from both levirate marriage and 岣litza. Moreover, if that same rival wife entered into levirate marriage with a different brother of the deceased, one to whom she is not forbidden, then were this third brother also to die childless, so that the obligation of levirate marriage would again be incurred by the second brother, not only is the forbidden rival wife exempt from levirate marriage and 岣litza, her new rival wives from her second marriage are also exempt.
That is to say, any other wife of the third brother is exempt from the mitzva of levirate marriage, as she is the rival wife of that first rival wife, who was exempted from levirate marriage following her first husband鈥檚 death due the exemption of her original rival wife. The same principle applies if that second rival wife subsequently enters into levirate marriage with another permitted brother, and so on. In summary, every widow who is exempt from marrying her brother-in-law due to her status as rival wife of a forbidden relative is treated as a forbidden relative herself and is therefore exempt from both 岣litza and levirate marriage and causes exemption for future rival wives as well.

MISHNA: The mishna describes various cases that invoke the principles above. Fifteen categories of women constitute familial relations that are forbidden as incestuous, and consequently, these women exempt their rival wives and the rival wives of their rival wives from 岣litza and from levirate marriage forever, i.e., they also exempt rival wives of rival wives of rival wives, and so on.

讜讗诇讜 讛谉 讘转讜 讜讘转 讘转讜 讜讘转 讘谞讜 讘转 讗砖转讜

And these women are: The daughter of the yavam, i.e., the deceased brother had married a daughter of his brother, which means that when he died childless, his brother鈥檚 own daughter came before her father for levirate marriage, and therefore she is exempt. And the same applies if the deceased brother鈥檚 widow is the daughter of the daughter of the yavam, or if she is the daughter of his son, or the daughter of his wife.

讜讘转 讘谞讛 讜讘转 讘转讛 讞诪讜转讜 讜讗诐 讞诪讜转讜 讜讗诐 讞诪讬讜

And similarly, if the yevama is the daughter of the son of the wife of her yavam or the daughter of his wife鈥檚 daughter, or if she is the mother-in-law of her yavam, or his mother-in-law鈥檚 mother, or his father-in-law鈥檚 mother, then she is exempt from 岣litza and levirate marriage.

讗讞讜转讜 诪讗诪讜 讜讗讞讜转 讗诪讜 讜讗讞讜转 讗砖转讜 讜讗砖转 讗讞讬讜 诪讗诪讜

The mishna continues its list of close relatives. If the yevama is the maternal half sister of the yavam, or if she is the sister of his mother, or his wife鈥檚 sister, then she is exempt from both 岣litza and levirate marriage Or if she was the wife of his maternal half brother, and after this brother died or divorced his wife, she married another of his father鈥檚 brothers, who was not her relative, and this brother died, she is exempt. In this case, the obligation to enter into levirate marriage should be incurred by the surviving brother, but since she was previously the wife of his maternal brother, she is exempt.

讜讗砖转 讗讞讬讜 砖诇讗 讛讬讛 讘注讜诇诪讜 讜讻诇转讜 讛专讬 讗诇讜 驻讜讟专讜转 爪专讜转讬讛谉 讜爪专讜转 爪专讜转讬讛谉 诪谉 讛讞诇讬爪讛 讜诪谉 讛讬讬讘讜诐 注讚 住讜祝 讛注讜诇诐

And the same applies to the wife of a brother with whom he did not coexist, i.e., the wife of a man who died before his brother was born. As will be explained, the obligation of levirate marriage does not apply to the yavam in this case. Since levirate marriage does not apply to him, the yevama remains forbidden to him as his brother鈥檚 wife. And the last case is if one鈥檚 yevama had previously been his daughter-in-law, and after his son had died one鈥檚 brother married her, before he too passed away. These fifteen women exempt their rival wives and the rival wives of their rival wives from 岣litza and levirate marriage forever.

讜讻讜诇谉 讗诐 诪转讜 讗讜 诪讬讗谞讜

And with regard to all of these women listed as prohibited relations, these halakhot apply only if they were married to the deceased brother until the time of his death. However, this is not the case if they died during the deceased brother鈥檚 lifetime, or if they refused their husbands when they were minors. This refusal is referring to the decree of the Sages that a girl under the age of twelve whose father is no longer alive may be married off by her mother or brothers. However, this marriage is not final, as she can terminate it by performing an act of refusal, i.e., by declaring, while still a minor, that she does not desire this marriage. In this case, the marriage is annulled retroactively and she is considered as though she were never married at all.

讗讜 谞转讙专砖讜 讗讜 砖谞诪爪讗讜 讗讬诇讜谞讬转 爪专讜转讬讛谉 诪讜转专讜转

Or if those women were divorced by their husband, the deceased brother, or were found to be a sexually underdeveloped woman [aylonit], i.e., a woman who is so underdeveloped that she is not considered a woman in the full sense, these halakhot do not apply. Her marriage is considered a mistaken marriage and is null and void. In all these cases their rival wives are permitted, as the exemption for rival wives of forbidden relatives applies only when the forbidden relative was the brother鈥檚 wife at the time of his death, when the halakhot of levirate marriage came into effect.

讜讗讬 讗转讛 讬讻讜诇 诇讜诪专 讘讞诪讜转讜 讜讘讗诐 讞诪讜转讜 讜讘讗诐 讞诪讬讜 砖谞诪爪讗讜 讗讬诇讜谞讬转 讗讜 砖诪讬讗谞讜

And the mishna comments that the language of this principle is imprecise, as you cannot say with regard to his mother-in-law and with regard to his mother-in-law鈥檚 mother and with regard to his father-in-law鈥檚 mother that they were found to be an aylonit, as an aylonit is sterile and therefore cannot become a mother or a mother-in-law. Nor is the mishna precise when it states: Or refused, as refusal applies only to minors, who cannot give birth.

讻讬爪讚 驻讜讟专讜转 爪专讜转讬讛谉 讛讬转讛 讘转讜 讗讜 讗讞转 诪讻诇 讛注专讬讜转 讛讗诇讜 谞砖讜讗讜转 诇讗讞讬讜 讜诇讜 讗砖讛 讗讞专转 讜诪转 讻砖诐 砖讘转讜 驻讟讜专讛 讻讱 爪专转讛 驻讟讜专讛 讛诇讻讛 爪专转 讘转讜 讜谞砖讗转 诇讗讞讬讜 讛砖谞讬 讜诇讜 讗砖讛 讗讞专转 讜诪转 讻砖诐 砖爪专转 讘转讜 驻讟讜专讛 讻讱 爪专转 爪专转讛 驻讟讜专讛

搂 The mishna explains: How do these women exempt their rival wives? If, for example, his daughter or any one of those women with whom relations are forbidden was married to his brother and this brother had another wife, and the brother died, then just as his daughter is exempt from levirate marriage, so too her rival wife is exempt. If his daughter鈥檚 rival wife subsequently went and married his second brother, to whom she is permitted, and he had another wife, and he died childless as well, which means that his wife comes before the first yavam, the daughter鈥檚 father, for levirate marriage, then just as his daughter鈥檚 rival wife is exempt, so too the rival wife of her rival wife is exempt.

讗驻讬诇讜 讛谉 诪讗讛

The mishna adds: Even if they are one hundred brothers, the same logic applies. If a woman is exempt from levirate marriage because she is the rival wife of a forbidden relative or the rival wife of a rival wife of this kind, and she herself has an additional rival wife, this rival wife is also exempt and in turn exempts her own rival wives from levirate marriage.

讻讬爪讚 讗诐 诪转讜 爪专讜转讬讛谉 诪讜转专讜转 讛讬转讛 讘转讜 讗讜 讗讞转 诪讻诇 讛注专讬讜转 讛讗诇讜 谞砖讜讗讜转 诇讗讞讬讜 讜诇讜 讗砖讛 讗讞专转 诪转讛 讘转讜 讗讜 谞转讙专砖讛 讜讗讞专 讻讱 诪转 讗讞讬讜 爪专转讛 诪讜转专转

How so? What are the cases in which if they died their rival wives are permitted? If, for example, one鈥檚 daughter or any one of those women with whom relations are forbidden was married to his brother, and this brother had another wife, and then his daughter died or was divorced and afterward his brother died, her rival wife is permitted to him.

讜讻诇 讛讬讻讜诇讛 诇诪讗谉 讜诇讗 诪讬讗谞讛 爪专转讛 讞讜诇爪转 讜诇讗 诪转讬讬讘诪转

搂 The mishna states another principle: And if any of these forbidden relatives was a minor who could refuse her husband, then even if she did not refuse, her rival wife performs 岣litza and does not enter into levirate marriage. The rival wife may not enter into levirate marriage, as she is the rival wife of a forbidden relative. However, she is not entirely exempt from levirate marriage and must be released by 岣litza because the marriage of the forbidden relative was not a fully valid marriage, and therefore, by Torah law, the other woman is not considered a rival wife of a forbidden relative.

讙诪壮 诪讻讚讬 讻讜诇讛讜 诪讗讞讜转 讗砖讛 讬诇驻讬谞谉 诇讬转谞讬 讗讞讜转 讗砖讛 讘专讬砖讗

GEMARA: The Gemara asks a question with regard to the order of the mishna鈥檚 list: Now, since the halakha that all these women with whom relations are forbidden are exempt from levirate marriage and exempt their rival wives is derived from the case of a wife鈥檚 sister, as demonstrated later, let the mishna teach the case of a wife鈥檚 sister first and only afterward mention the other instances, which are derived from that halakha.

讜讻讬 转讬诪讗 转谞讗 讞讜诪专讬 讞讜诪专讬 谞拽讟 讜专讘讬 砖诪注讜谉 讛讬讗 讚讗诪专 砖专讬驻讛 讞诪讜专讛

And if you would say that the tanna cited the cases in order of severity, then you must say that it is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Shimon, who says that execution by burning is more severe than stoning. For this reason, the tanna began with the cases of one鈥檚 daughter and his daughter鈥檚 daughter and his son鈥檚 daughter and so forth, since one who has relations with these women is punished by burning, after which the tanna listed those cases that entail a lesser penalty.

讗讬 讛讻讬 诇讬转谞讬 讞诪讜转讜 讘专讬砖讗 讚注讬拽专 砖专讬驻讛 讘讞诪讜转讜 讻转讬讘讗 讜注讜讚 讘转专 讞诪讜转讜 诇讬转谞讬 讻诇转讜 讚讘转专 砖专讬驻讛 住拽讬诇讛 讞诪讜专讛

However, the Gemara argues that even so, the order of the mishna remains problematic. If so, let him teach the case of one鈥檚 mother-in-law first, as the main transgression that entails burning is written with regard to his mother-in-law, as it is stated: 鈥淎nd if a man take with his wife also her mother, it is wickedness; they shall be burnt with fire, both he and they鈥 (Leviticus 20:14). And furthermore, after his mother-in-law let him teach his daughter-in-law, as after execution by burning, stoning is the most severe of the other capital punishments imposed by the courts.

讗诇讗 讘转讜 讻讬讜谉 讚讗转讬讗 诪讚专砖讗 讞讘讬讘讗 诇讬讛

Rather, the Gemara retracts the previous explanation in favor of the following: With regard to his daughter, since this prohibition is actually derived from a homiletical interpretation and is not explicitly stated in the Torah, it is therefore dear to the tanna. Consequently, he listed this novel case of a daughter first.

Scroll To Top