Yevamot 23
וְאֵימָא: פְּרָט לְחַיָּיבֵי לָאוִין! אָמַר רַב פָּפָּא: חַיָּיבֵי לָאוִין תָּפְשִׂי בְּהוּ קִדּוּשִׁין,
The Gemara raises a challenge: And say that the verse: “The daughter of your father’s wife” comes to exclude women who were forbidden, as they are liable for violating prohibitions but were nevertheless married to his father, such as a mamzeret. If so, his sister from such a union would not be considered his sister. Rav Pappa said: Betrothal comes into effect with women who are forbidden, and one would be liable for violating prohibitions despite the fact that union with them is forbidden, and so she is called the wife of your father.
דִּכְתִיב: ״כִּי תִהְיֶיןָ לְאִישׁ שְׁתֵּי נָשִׁים הָאַחַת אֲהוּבָה וְהָאַחַת שְׂנוּאָה״, וְכִי יֵשׁ אֲהוּבָה לִפְנֵי הַמָּקוֹם וְיֵשׁ שְׂנוּאָה לִפְנֵי הַמָּקוֹם? אֶלָּא: ״אֲהוּבָה״ — אֲהוּבָה בְּנִישּׂוּאֶיהָ, ״שְׂנוּאָה״ — שְׂנוּאָה בְּנִישּׂוּאֶיהָ, וְאָמַר רַחֲמָנָא: ״כִּי תִּהְיֶיןָ״.
This is derived from the verse in which it is written: “If a man has two wives, the one beloved, and the other hated” (Deuteronomy 21:15). Is there one who is loved by the Omnipresent and one who is hated by the Omnipresent? Rather, “beloved” means her marriage is beloved, as it was permitted for her to be married, in accordance with halakha, and “hated” means her marriage is hated because it was not permitted for her to be married, according to halakha. And the Merciful One states: “If a man has two wives,” meaning that both are considered to be married.
וְאֵימָא: פְּרָט לְחַיָּיבֵי כָּרֵיתוֹת! אָמַר רָבָא, אָמַר קְרָא: ״עֶרְוַת אֲחוֹתְךָ בַת אָבִיךָ אוֹ בַת אִמֶּךָ מוֹלֶדֶת בַּיִת אוֹ מוֹלֶדֶת חוּץ״, בֵּין שֶׁאוֹמְרִים לוֹ לְאָבִיךָ קַיֵּים, בֵּין שֶׁאוֹמְרִים לוֹ לְאָבִיךָ הוֹצֵא, וְאָמַר רַחֲמָנָא: ״אֲחוֹתְךָ הִיא״.
The Gemara asks: Say that this verse comes to exclude a union between one’s father and a woman that is forbidden to him as they are liable to receive karet, and that since betrothal does not come into effect with her there is no marriage bond. Perhaps a sister born of such a woman would not be prohibited as the daughter of one’s father’s wife. Rava said that the verse states: “The nakedness of your sister, the daughter of your father, or the daughter of your mother, whether born at home or born outside” (Leviticus 18:9). This includes all daughters, whether from a woman for whom the Sages tell your father: Maintain her within your home, or whether the Sages tell your father she is a woman who is forbidden to him and therefore: Send her out of your home. And the Merciful One states that nevertheless: “She is your sister.” Even the daughter of a woman who was forbidden to your father such that both parties are liable to receive karet is called your sister.
אֵימָא: בֵּין שֶׁאוֹמֵר לוֹ אָבִיךָ קַיֵּים, בֵּין שֶׁאוֹמֵר לוֹ אָבִיךָ הוֹצֵא, וְאָמַר רַחֲמָנָא: ״אֲחוֹתְךָ הִיא״, לְרַבּוֹת אֲחוֹתוֹ מִשִּׁפְחָה וְגוֹיָה! אָמַר קְרָא: ״בַּת אֵשֶׁת אָבִיךָ״ — מִי שֶׁיֵּשׁ לוֹ אִישׁוּת לְאָבִיךָ בָּהּ, פְּרָט לַאֲחוֹתוֹ מִשִּׁפְחָה וְגוֹיָה.
The Gemara asks: Say that whether the Sages say to your father: Maintain her, or whether they say to your father: Send her out, and the Merciful One states that “she is your sister,” this comes to include the additional cases of his sister from a Canaanite maidservant or a gentile woman. The Gemara rejects this: The verse states: “The daughter of your father’s wife,” and this means whoever can enter a marriage bond with your father. This excludes his sister from a Canaanite maidservant or gentile woman, with whom no marital bond is possible.
וּמָה רָאִיתָ? מִסְתַּבְּרָא חַיָּיבֵי כָּרֵיתוֹת הֲוָה לֵיהּ לְרַבּוֹת, שֶׁכֵּן תָּפְסִי בָּהֶן קִדּוּשִׁין לְעָלְמָא.
The Gemara asks: Since the verse rendering his sister forbidden both includes and excludes cases, what did you see as a reason to include a daughter from a woman who is forbidden and both parties are liable to receive karet, and to exclude the daughter of a Canaanite maidservant or gentile woman? The Gemara answers: It stands to reason that those relationships that are forbidden because they render both parties liable to receive karet should be included, since in general betrothal can come into effect with them. This is because although this woman is forbidden to his father, she is nevertheless permitted to other men.
אַדְּרַבָּה: שִׁפְחָה וְגוֹיָה הֲוָה לֵיהּ לְרַבּוֹת, דְּאִי מִגַּיְּירָה לְדִידֵיהּ נָמֵי, תָּפְסִי בַּהּ קִדּוּשִׁין! לְכִי מִגַּיְּירָה — גּוּפָא אַחֲרִינָא הִיא.
The Gemara rejects this: On the contrary, it should include a Canaanite maidservant or a gentile woman, as, if she converts, betrothal can come into effect with the father himself. The Gemara answers: When she converts, she is considered like a different body, i.e., a new person, but when she was a gentile there was no possibility of marital relations with her. Therefore, the verse excludes her.
וְרַבָּנַן, לְמַעוֹטֵי שִׁפְחָה וְגוֹיָה מְנָא לְהוּ? נָפְקָא לְהוּ מֵ״הָאִשָּׁה וִילָדֶיהָ תִּהְיֶה לַאדוֹנֶיהָ״.
The Gemara asks: And with regard to the Rabbis, who infer a different matter from the verse “your father’s wife’s nakedness,” from where do they derive the halakha to exclude one’s sister from a Canaanite maidservant or gentile woman? The Gemara answers: They derive it from that which was said with regard to a Canaanite maidservant who was married to a Hebrew slave: “The wife and her children shall be her master’s” (Exodus 21:4). From here they learn that the lineage of the maidservant’s children is connected only to their mother and not at all connected to their Jewish father.
וְרַבִּי יוֹסֵי בְּרַבִּי יְהוּדָה? חַד בְּשִׁפְחָה, וְחַד בְּגוֹיָה. וּצְרִיכִי, דְּאִי אַשְׁמְעִינַן שִׁפְחָה: מִשּׁוּם דְּאֵין לָהּ חַיִיס, אֲבָל גּוֹיָה דְּאִית לַהּ חַיִיס — אֵימָא לָא.
The Gemara asks: And why does Rabbi Yosei, son of Rabbi Yehuda, not learn this from here? The Gemara responds: One verse was necessary to teach the case of a Canaanite maidservant, and one verse was necessary to teach the case of a gentile woman. And both verses are necessary, as, if the Torah taught us only about a Canaanite maidservant, one could say she is excluded only because she does not have a pedigree, since the Torah ascribes no family relationships to maidservants, but with regard to a gentile woman who does have a pedigree, say no. It was therefore necessary to say that one’s daughter by a gentile woman does not have the legal status of a daughter.
וְאִי אַשְׁמְעִינַן גּוֹיָה — מִשּׁוּם דְּלָא שָׁיְיכָא בְּמִצְוֹת. אֲבָל שִׁפְחָה, דְּשָׁיְיכָא בְּמִצְוֹת — אֵימָא לָא, צְרִיכָא.
Conversely, if it would teach us only the case of a gentile woman, one might say that this is because she does not have any connection with the mitzvot and therefore her children are in no way Jewish. But since a Canaanite maidservant has a connection with the mitzvot, as she is obligated to observe the prohibitions in the same way as a Jewish woman, say no, i.e., her children should be considered children of their Jewish father. Therefore, this additional proof is necessary.
וְרַבָּנַן, אַשְׁכְּחַן שִׁפְחָה, גּוֹיָה מְנָא לְהוּ? וְכִי תֵּימָא: נֵילַף מִשִּׁפְחָה — הָנְהוּ מִצְרָךְ צְרִיכִי!
The Gemara asks: And according to the opinion of the Rabbis, we found a source that the children of a Canaanite maidservant are not considered the children of their Jewish father, but from where do we derive that children born to a Jewish father by a gentile woman are not considered his children? And if you say: Let us derive it from the case of the Canaanite maidservant, it has already been shown that these are both necessary, and one cannot be derived from the other.
אָמַר רַבִּי יוֹחָנָן מִשּׁוּם רַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן בֶּן יוֹחַי, אָמַר קְרָא: ״כִּי יָסִיר אֶת בִּנְךָ מֵאַחֲרַי״, בִּנְךָ מִיִּשְׂרְאֵלִית קָרוּי בִּנְךָ, וְאֵין בִּנְךָ הַבָּא מִן הַגּוֹיָה קָרוּי בִּנְךָ, אֶלָּא בְּנָהּ.
The Gemara answers: Rabbi Yoḥanan said in the name of Rabbi Shimon ben Yoḥai: The verse states: “Neither shall you make marriages with them: Your daughter you shall not give unto his son, nor his daughter shall you take unto your son, for he will turn away your son from following Me” (Deuteronomy 7:3–4). This teaches that your son born from a Jewish woman is called your son, but your son born from a gentile woman is not called your son, but her son. The verse teaches that since the son of a gentile woman is her son alone, he is not considered related at all to his Jewish father.
אָמַר רָבִינָא, שְׁמַע מִינַּהּ: בֶּן בִּתְּךָ הַבָּא מִן הַגּוֹי קָרוּי בִּנְךָ. לֵימָא קָסָבַר רָבִינָא גּוֹי וְעֶבֶד הַבָּא עַל בַּת יִשְׂרָאֵל הַוָּלָד כָּשֵׁר? נְהִי דְּמַמְזֵר לָא הָוֵי — כָּשֵׁר נָמֵי לָא הָוֵי, יִשְׂרָאֵל פָּסוּל מִיקְּרֵי.
Ravina said: Conclude from here that the son of your daughter by a gentile father is nevertheless called your son, i.e., grandson. The Gemara asks: Shall we say that Ravina holds that if a gentile or slave engaged in intercourse with a Jewish woman, the offspring is of unflawed lineage? The Gemara answers: There is no conclusive proof from here, because granted, she is not a mamzer, but nevertheless she is still not of unflawed lineage; rather, she is called a Jew who is unfit to marry into the priesthood.
הַאי בְּשִׁבְעָה גּוֹיִם כְּתִיב? ״כִּי יָסִיר״ — לְרַבּוֹת כׇּל הַמְּסִירִים.
The Gemara asks with regard to Rabbi Shimon’s reasoning: Was this verse not written in relation to the seven nations who inhabited the land of Canaan when Joshua entered Eretz Yisrael but not with regard to other nations? The Gemara responds that the words “He will turn away” comes to include all those who would turn one’s grandson away from God, i.e., any gentile.
הָנִיחָא לְרַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן, דְּדָרֵישׁ טַעְמָא דִּקְרָא, אֶלָּא לְרַבָּנַן מְנָא לְהוּ? מַאן תַּנָּא דִּפְלִיג עֲלֵיהּ דְּרַבִּי יוֹסֵי בְּרַבִּי יְהוּדָה — רַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן הִיא.
The Gemara asks: This works out well for Rabbi Shimon, who interprets the rationale behind the mitzva in the verse and draws halakhic conclusions based on that interpretation. Although the verse is stated with regard to the seven nations, the reason for the verse applies to all other gentile nations. However, according to the opinion of the Rabbis, who do not draw inferences from the rationale of the verse to apply this ruling to all other nations, from where do they derive this halakha? The Gemara answers: Who is the tanna who disagrees with Rabbi Yosei, son of Rabbi Yehuda? It is Rabbi Shimon, who applies the rationale of the verse to all other nations.
מַתְנִי׳ מִי שֶׁקִּידֵּשׁ אַחַת מִשְׁתֵּי אֲחָיוֹת, וְאֵין יוֹדֵעַ אֵי זֹה מֵהֶן קִידֵּשׁ — נוֹתֵן גֵּט לָזוֹ וְגֵט לָזוֹ. מֵת וְלוֹ אָח אֶחָד — חוֹלֵץ לִשְׁתֵּיהֶן.
MISHNA: In the case of one who betrothed one of two sisters and does not know which of them he betrothed, so that both are forbidden to him, he gives a bill of divorce to this one and a bill of divorce to that one due to the uncertainty. If the man who had betrothed one of these women died before he could give a bill of divorce, and he had one brother, that brother performs ḥalitza with both of them, but he may not take either in levirate marriage. This is because he does not know which woman is his yevama and which is forbidden to him as the sister of a woman with whom he has a levirate bond.
הָיוּ לוֹ שְׁנַיִם — אֶחָד חוֹלֵץ וְאֶחָד מְיַיבֵּם. קָדְמוּ וְכָנְסוּ — אֵין מוֹצִיאִין מִיָּדָם.
If the man who betrothed one of these women had two brothers, one of them performs ḥalitza with one of the sisters, but he may not enter into levirate marriage with her due to the possibility that she is the sister of a woman with whom he has a levirate bond. And one takes the other in levirate marriage if he so desires. If the two brothers married the two sisters before consulting the court, the court does not remove them from their marriage and they are permitted to remain married. The couple who performed levirate marriage second was even permitted to do so, since there was no longer any doubt about the levirate bond.
שְׁנַיִם שֶׁקִּדְּשׁוּ שְׁתֵּי אֲחָיוֹת, זֶה אֵינוֹ יוֹדֵעַ אֵי זוֹ קִידֵּשׁ, וְזֶה אֵינוֹ יוֹדֵעַ אֵיזוֹ קִידֵּשׁ — זֶה נוֹתֵן שְׁנֵי גִיטִּין, וְזֶה נוֹתֵן שְׁנֵי גִיטִּין. מֵתוּ, לָזֶה אָח וְלָזֶה אָח — זֶה חוֹלֵץ לִשְׁתֵּיהֶן, וְזֶה חוֹלֵץ לִשְׁתֵּיהֶן.
Furthermore, in the case of two unrelated men who betrothed two sisters: If this one does not know which sister he betrothed and that one does not know which sister he betrothed, this one gives two bills of divorce, one to each of the women, and that one gives two bills of divorce. If the two men died before they divorced, and this one had a brother and that one had a brother, then this brother performs ḥalitza with both of them, and that brother performs ḥalitza with both of them.
לָזֶה אֶחָד וְלָזֶה שְׁנַיִם — הַיָּחִיד חוֹלֵץ לִשְׁתֵּיהֶן, וְהַשְּׁנַיִם — אֶחָד חוֹלֵץ, וְאֶחָד מְיַיבֵּם. קָדְמוּ וְכָנְסוּ, אֵין מוֹצִיאִין מִיָּדָם. לָזֶה שְׁנַיִם וְלָזֶה שְׁנַיִם — אָחִיו שֶׁל זֶה חוֹלֵץ לְאַחַת, וְאָחִיו שֶׁל זֶה חוֹלֵץ לְאַחַת. אָחִיו שֶׁל זֶה מְיַיבֵּם חֲלוּצָתוֹ שֶׁל זֶה, וְאָחִיו שֶׁל זֶה מְיַיבֵּם חֲלוּצָתוֹ שֶׁל זֶה.
If this one had one brother and that one had two brothers, the single brother performs ḥalitza with both of them, and of the two brothers, one performs ḥalitza and one performs levirate marriage if he so desires. If they married the sisters before consulting the court, the court does not remove them from the marriage and they are not told to divorce them. If this one had two brothers and that one had two brothers, the brother of this one performs ḥalitza with one sister, and the brother of that one performs ḥalitza with one sister. The brother of this one who performed ḥalitza may take the woman who performed ḥalitza [ḥalutza] of that other’s brother in levirate marriage, and the brother of that second one who performed ḥalitza may take the ḥalutza of that other’s brother in levirate marriage.
קָדְמוּ שְׁנַיִם וְחָלְצוּ — לֹא יְיַבְּמוּ הַשְּׁנַיִם, אֶלָּא אֶחָד חוֹלֵץ וְאֶחָד מְיַיבֵּם. קָדְמוּ וְכָנְסוּ — אֵין מוֹצִיאִין מִיָּדָם.
If the two brothers performed ḥalitza with both wives before consulting the court, the two brothers of the second man may not takeeither sister in levirate marriage lest one marry the sister of a woman with whom he had a levirate bond. Rather, one performs ḥalitza and one performs levirate marriage if he so desires. If they married their wives before consulting the court, the court does not remove them from the marriage.
גְּמָ׳ שְׁמַע מִינַּהּ: קִדּוּשִׁין שֶׁאֵין מְסוּרִין לְבִיאָה — הָווּ קִדּוּשִׁין!
GEMARA: Learn from here in the mishna that betrothals that cannot ultimately lead to consummation are nevertheless betrothals. There is a dispute between Abaye and Rava in tractate Kiddushin with regard to a case of a betrothal that, due to some halakhic complication, can never be consummated. The cases in this mishna may not be consummated, since each of the two sisters is forbidden due to the uncertainty as to whether she is the woman he betrothed or the sister of the woman he betrothed. Therefore, both are forbidden to him. Nevertheless, the mishna instructs that he must give a bill of divorce to both of them. This implies that such betrothals are valid, in contrast to Rava’s opinion that betrothals that cannot ultimately be consummated are not betrothals at all.
הָכָא בְּמַאי עָסְקִינַן — כְּשֶׁהוּכְּרוּ וּלְבַסּוֹף נִתְעָרְבוּ. דַּיְקָא נָמֵי, דְּקָתָנֵי: ״וְאֵינוֹ יוֹדֵעַ״, וְלָא קָתָנֵי: ״וְאֵינוֹ יָדוּעַ״. שְׁמַע מִינַּהּ.
The Gemara rejects this: With what are we dealing here? We are dealing with a case when at first both sisters were recognized and at the moment of betrothal he knew whom he betrothed; it was a betrothal destined for consummation. But later the two sisters were mixed up so that he was no longer certain which he betrothed. If so, there was not any flaw in the betrothal itself initially. The language of the mishna is also precise, as it teaches: And he does not know which of them he betrothed, but it does not teach: It is unknown completely. This implies that the matter was known at some time. The Gemara adds: Conclude from here that this is the case.
מַאי קָא מַשְׁמַע לַן? סֵיפָא אִיצְטְרִיכָא לֵיהּ: מֵת וְלוֹ אָח אֶחָד — חוֹלֵץ לִשְׁתֵּיהֶן, הָיוּ לוֹ שְׁנַיִם — אֶחָד חוֹלֵץ וְאֶחָד מְיַיבֵּם. דַּוְקָא מִיחְלָץ וַהֲדַר יַבּוֹמֵי, אֲבָל יַבּוֹמֵי בְּרֵישָׁא — לָא, דְּקָא פָּגַע בַּאֲחוֹת זְקוּקָתוֹ.
The Gemara asks: If so, what is the mishna teaching us in the segment of the mishna referring to the giving of two bills of divorce? That is obvious. The Gemara answers: It was necessary to teach the last clause of the mishna, as there it teaches: If he died and he had one brother, that brother performs ḥalitza with both of them; if he had two brothers, one performs ḥalitza and the other one enters into levirate marriage if he so desires. Specifically, one brother must perform ḥalitza first, and only subsequently the other brother may perform levirate marriage. But one brother may not enter levirate marriage first, before the other brother has performed ḥalitza, as he would thereby encounter the sister of a woman with whom he has a levirate bond.
שְׁנַיִם שֶׁקִּדְּשׁוּ שְׁתֵּי אֲחָיוֹת וְכוּ׳. שְׁמַע מִינַּהּ: קִדּוּשִׁין שֶׁאֵין מְסוּרִין לְבִיאָה — הָווּ קִדּוּשִׁין! הָכָא נָמֵי, כְּשֶׁהוּכְּרוּ וּלְבַסּוֹף נִתְעָרְבוּ. דַּיְקָא נָמֵי, דְּקָתָנֵי: ״וְאֵין יוֹדֵעַ״, וְלָא קָתָנֵי ״וְאֵין יָדוּעַ״. שְׁמַע מִינַּהּ.
The mishna says: In the case of two unrelated men who betrothed two sisters: If this one does not know which sister he betrothed and that one does not know which sister he betrothed, this one gives two bills of divorce, one to each of the women, and that one gives two bills of divorce. The Gemara asks: Learn from here that betrothals that cannot ultimately lead to consummation are valid betrothals. The Gemara rejects this: Here too, this is referring to a case where they were recognized and later mixed up. The language is also precise, as it teaches: And he does not know, meaning that he does not know now whom he betrothed, and it does not teach: It is unknown. The Gemara summarizes: Indeed, conclude this from here that this is the case.
וּמַאי קָא מַשְׁמַע לַן? סֵיפָא אִיצְטְרִיכָא לֵיהּ: מֵתוּ, לָזֶה אֶחָד וְלָזֶה שְׁנַיִם — הַיָּחִיד חוֹלֵץ לִשְׁתֵּיהֶן, וְהַשְּׁנַיִם — אֶחָד חוֹלֵץ וְאֶחָד מְיַיבֵּם.
The Gemara asks: If so, what does it come to teach us in relating that both of them must give bills of divorce? The Gemara explains: It was necessary to teach the last clause, where it says: If they died and this one had one brother and this one had two, the single brother performs ḥalitza with both of them. And of the two, one performs ḥalitza and one enters levirate marriage if he so desires.
פְּשִׁיטָא, הַיְינוּ רֵישָׁא! מַהוּ דְּתֵימָא: לִיגְזוֹר תְּרֵי אַטּוּ חַד, קָא מַשְׁמַע לַן.
The Gemara asks: That is obvious, as this is identical to the halakha taught in the first clause of the mishna. Why should this case be different from the previous case of two brothers? The Gemara answers: It is necessary to teach this lest you say the Sages should issue a decree in the case of two brothers due to the case of one brother. In a case of one brother he may only perform ḥalitza but may not enter into levirate marriage. Without this mishna one may have thought the same should be true for two brothers. This comes to teach us that they did not issue such a decree, and in this case one of them is allowed to enter into levirate marriage.
וְדַוְקָא מִיחְלָץ וַהֲדַר יַבּוֹמֵי, אֲבָל יַבּוֹמֵי בְּרֵישָׁא — לָא, דְּקָא פָּגַע בִּיבָמָה לַשּׁוּק.
And this is specifically if the brother of one man first performs ḥalitza and subsequently the brother of the other man consummates the levirate marriage, but if he consummated the levirate marriage first, then no, that is prohibited. And why is that? He might be encountering the prohibition of a yevama to a member of the public. Possibly the woman he married was not his yevama but someone else’s yevama, and until the other man’s brother performs ḥalitza with her she is still forbidden to other men.
לָזֶה שְׁנַיִם וְלָזֶה שְׁנַיִם וְכוּ׳. הָא תּוּ לְמָה לִי? הַיְינוּ הָךְ! מַהוּ דְּתֵימָא: לִיגְזוֹר דִּלְמָא מְיַיבֵּם בְּלֹא חֲלִיצָה, קָא מַשְׁמַע לַן.
The mishna taught: If this one had two brothers and that one had two brothers, the brother of this who performed ḥalitza may take the ḥalutza of that other’s brother in levirate marriage, and the brother of that second one who performed ḥalitza may take the ḥalutza of that other’s brother in levirate marriage. The Gemara asks: Why do I need this as well? This clause is identical to that previous halakha. The Gemara answers: It is necessary lest you say: Let the Sages issue a decree lest he consummate the levirate marriage without the other first performing ḥalitza at all. This comes to teach us that such a decree is not issued. Rather, one of each pair of brothers can enter a levirate marriage.
מַאי שְׁנָא מֵהָא דִּתְנַן: אַרְבָּעָה אַחִין, שְׁנַיִם מֵהֶן נְשׂוּאִין שְׁתֵּי אֲחָיוֹת, וּמֵתוּ הַנְּשׂוּאִין אֶת הָאֲחָיוֹת — הֲרֵי אֵלּוּ חוֹלְצוֹת וְלֹא מִתְיַיבְּמוֹת?
The Gemara asks: In what way is this case different from that which we learned in a mishna (26a): If there were four brothers, and two of them were married to two sisters, and those married to the sisters died, then those two sisters perform ḥalitza but may not enter into levirate marriage with the remaining brothers, since each woman is the sister of a woman with a levirate bond to each of the brothers. Why not say here as well that each is the sister of a woman with a levirate bond?
הָכִי הַשְׁתָּא?!
The Gemara rejects this: How can these cases be compared?
