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

Today's Daf Yomi

October 30, 2014 | 讜壮 讘诪专讞砖讜讜谉 转砖注状讛

  • 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 26

Study Guide Yevamot 26


If the lesson doesn't play, click "Download"

讘专谞谞讛 诇讗 诪驻拽讬谞谉 讛讻讗 谞诪讬 讘专谞谞讛 诇讗 诪驻拽讬谞谉

we do not remove her from her husband owing to suspicion due to rumor alone. Here too, we do not remove her from her husband due to a rumor.

诪转谞讬壮 讜讻讜诇诐 砖讛讬讜 诇讛诐 谞砖讬诐 讜诪转讜 诪讜转专讜转 诇讬谞砖讗 诇讛诐

MISHNA: And for all of these who were involved in permitting the wife to remarry, i.e., the judge, the agent who brought a bill of divorce, and the one who testified for a woman that her husband died, if they had wives at the time of the ruling or the testimony and their wives died thereafter, then those women they had set free are permitted to be married to them. There is no concern that while their wives were still alive these individuals set their eyes upon another woman.

讜讻讜诇谉 砖谞讬砖讗讜 诇讗讞专讬诐 讜谞转讙专砖讜 讗讜 砖谞转讗诇诪谞讜 诪讜转专讜转 诇讬谞砖讗 诇讛诐 讜讻讜诇谉 诪讜转专讜转 诇讘谞讬讛诐 讗讜 诇讗讞讬讛诐

And with regard to all of these women who were prohibited from marrying a certain man due to some suspicion, if they were subsequently married to others and then were divorced or widowed from the second husband, they are permitted to be married to them, i.e., to the judge, messenger, or witness who permitted her to remarry. And all of these women who were prohibited from marrying due to some suspicion are permitted to the sons or to the brothers of those who set them free.

讙诪壮 诪转讜 讗讬谉 谞转讙专砖讜 诇讗

GEMARA: The mishna taught that if any of the men had wives who subsequently died, they may marry those women freed by them. The Gemara deduces from here: If the wives of those who rendered the woman permitted died, yes, they are permitted to marry the woman that they freed for marriage; but if the wives were divorced, no, it is prohibited. In such a case, marrying the woman that one had rendered permitted would raise suspicions that he had in fact planned to marry her all along.

讗诪专 诇讬讛 专讘 讛诇诇 诇专讘 讗砖讬 讜讛转谞讬讗 讗驻讬诇讜 谞转讙专砖讜 诇讗 拽砖讬讗 讛讗 讚讛讜讗讬 拽讟讟讛 讛讗 讚诇讗 讛讜讗讬 拽讟讟讛

Rav Hillel said to Rav Ashi: Yet it is taught in a baraita: Even if they were divorced from their first wives they are permitted to marry the women they freed. The Gemara responds: This is not difficult: This mishna is referring to a case when there was a quarrel between the husband and the wife at the time that he freed the other woman, as then there is legitimate concern that he was already interested in her. That case of the baraita was when there was no quarrel between them at the time, and therefore the divorce clearly resulted from some other reason.

讜讗讬讘注讬转 讗讬诪讗 讛讗 讜讛讗 讚诇讗 讛讜讗讬 拽讟讟讛 讜诇讗 拽砖讬讗 讛讗 讚讗专讙讬诇 讛讜讗 讛讗 讚讗专讙讬诇讛 讛讬讗

And if you wish, say: Both this and that were said in cases when there was no quarrel between the one who freed the woman and his first wife, and only later did they quarrel and divorce. And this is not difficult: This case of the mishna was when he started the quarrel himself, as then there is legitimate concern that he had an interest in this other woman and therefore sought out a reason to divorce his wife. And that case of the baraita was when his wife started the quarrel, as then there would be no reason to suspect him of freeing the other woman in order to marry her.

讜讻讜诇谉 砖谞讬砖讗讜 讜讻讜壮 拽讗 住诇拽讗 讚注转讬谉 诪讬转讛 讗诪讬转讛 讜讙讬专讜砖讬谉 讗讙讬专讜砖讬谉

The mishna stated: And with regard to all of these women, if they were married to others and then were divorced or widowed, it is permitted for them to marry those who caused them to be free to marry in the first place. It enters our mind to say that the case referred to here was one of death after death, i.e., the case of a woman whose first husband鈥檚 death had been substantiated by a single witness but whose second husband died as well, and also to the case of divorce following a bill of divorce that had been validated by a single witness.

谞讬诪讗 诪转谞讬转讬谉 讚诇讗 讻专讘讬 讚讗讬 讻专讘讬 讛讗诪专 讘转专讬 讝讬诪谞讬 讛讜讬讗 讞讝拽讛

Based on this, should we say that the mishna, which permits a woman to remarry even after her two previous husbands have died, is not in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi? As, if it is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi, didn鈥檛 Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi say: After two times a woman has the presumptive status to cause death to her husbands, and such a woman is considered murderous. Therefore, she may not remarry. Since there is no mention of such concern in the mishna, it appears that the mishna is not in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi.

诇讗 诪讬转讛 讗讙讬专讜砖讬谉 讜讙讬专讜砖讬谉 讗诪讬转讛

The Gemara rejects this: No evidence can be derived from here, as the reference here may be to death after divorce or divorce after death. The mishna could be referring either to a woman who was at first divorced and then later widowed by her second husband鈥檚 death, or to a woman whose first husband died and who was subsequently divorced, but not to a case where she was widowed by the death of two husbands.

讜讻讜诇谉 诪讜转专讜转 诇讘谞讬讛诐 讗讜 诇讗讞讬讛诐 诪讗讬 砖谞讗 诪讛讗 讚转谞谉 讛谞讟注谉 诪谉 讛讗砖讛 讗住讜专 讘讗诪讛 讜讘讘转讛 讜讘讗讞讜转讛

搂 The mishna taught: And all of these women who were prohibited from marrying the man who freed them due to some suspicion are permitted to the sons or to the brothers of those who set them free. The Gemara asks: In what way is this case different from that which we learned in the Tosefta (4:5) that one suspected of adultery with a specific woman is prohibited not only from marrying her, but also from marrying her mother, and her daughter, and her sister. Yet here we allow his sons and brothers to marry the woman despite the suspicion.

谞砖讬 诇讙讘讬 谞砖讬 砖讻讬讞谉 讚讗讝诇谉 讙讘专讬 诇讙讘讬 讙讘专讬 诇讗 砖讻讬讞谉

The Gemara answers: There is a distinction between the situations, for it is common for women to be at the house of other women and to stay overnight. Therefore, there is concern that a relative of the alleged adulterer鈥檚 wife, with whom he was suspected of misconduct, might frequent his house and he might be tempted to repeat his transgression. On the other hand, it is not common for men to be at the house of other men, so that even if she was married to his relative, the one suspected of misconduct would not generally sleep at the house of the husband.

讗讬 谞诪讬 谞砖讬 讚诇讗 讗住专谉 砖讻讬讘转谉 讗讛讚讚讬 诇讗 拽驻讚讬 讗讛讚讚讬 讙讘专讬 讚讗住专谉 砖讻讬讘转谉 讗讛讚讚讬 拽驻讚讬 讗讛讚讚讬

Alternatively, a different argument could be made: Women are not so strict with one another, as lying with them and having sexual relations with them does not render them mutually forbidden. In other words, if a man commits adultery with his wife鈥檚 close relative, his wife does not become forbidden to him, so she may not pay attention to his behavior with the woman under suspicion. However, men are strict with one another, as lying with them and having sexual relations with the other man鈥檚 wife does render them, the husband and wife, mutually forbidden. In other words, if another man has relations with a married woman, she is forbidden to her husband, and so men pay close attention to what the others are doing.

讗讬 讛讻讬 讗讘讬讜 谞诪讬 诇讗 诪讬讘注讬讗 拽讗诪专 诇讗 诪讬讘注讬讗 讗讘讬讜 讚讘讝讬讝 讘谞讬讛 诪讬谞讬讛 讗讘诇 讘谞讜 讚诇讗 讘讝讬讝 讗讘讬讜 诪讬谞讬讛 讗讬诪讗 诇讗 拽讗 诪砖诪注 诇谉

The Gemara asks: If so, one鈥檚 father should be permitted to marry a woman set free by his son as well. So why does the mishna say: Their sons or their brothers, and not: Their fathers? The Gemara answers: Certainly his father is allowed as well, but the mishna is speaking utilizing the style of: It is not necessary. It is not necessary to mention the case of his father because he is most certainly permitted to marry a woman set free by his son, as his son is embarrassed [baziz] before him and so would not come to sleep with his father鈥檚 wife. But I might say that since the father is not embarrassed before his son, she may not be married to the son of one for whom there is suspicion. Therefore, this comes to teach us that there is no such concern.

讛讚专谉 注诇讱 讻讬爪讚 讗砖转 讗讞讬讜

 

诪转谞讬壮 讗专讘注讛 讗讞讬谉 砖谞讬诐 诪讛诐 谞砖讜讗讬诐 砖转讬 讗讞讬讜转 讜诪转讜 讛谞砖讜讗讬诐 讗转 讛讗讞讬讜转 讛专讬 讗诇讜 讞讜诇爪讜转 讜诇讗 诪转讬讬讘诪讜转 讜讗诐 拽讚诪讜 讜讻谞住讜 讬讜爪讬讗讜 专讘讬 讗诇讬注讝专 讗讜诪专 讘讬转 砖诪讗讬 讗讜诪专讬诐 讬拽讬讬诐 讜讘讬转 讛诇诇 讗讜诪专讬诐 讬讜爪讬讗讜

MISHNA: In the case of four brothers, two of whom were married to two sisters, and the ones married to the sisters died, then those sisters must perform 岣litza and may not enter into levirate marriage. Since both sisters require levirate marriage with each of the surviving brothers, a levirate bond exists between each sister and the brothers. Each of them is considered the sister of a woman with whom each brother has a levirate bond and is therefore forbidden to him by rabbinic law. And if they married the sisters before consulting the court, they should divorce them, for the Sages decreed that in this situation they may not remain married. Rabbi Eliezer says that there is a dispute in this matter: Beit Shammai say: He may maintain her as his wife, while Beit Hillel say: They must divorce them.

讛讬转讛 讗讞转 诪讛谉 讗住讜专讛 注诇 讛讗讞讚 讗讬住讜专 注专讜讛 讗住讜专 讘讛 讜诪讜转专 讘讗讞讜转讛 讜讛砖谞讬 讗住讜专 讘砖转讬讛谉

If one of the sisters was forbidden to one of the brothers due to a prohibition against forbidden relations because she was a relative of his wife or a relative on his mother鈥檚 side, then he is forbidden to marry her but permitted to marry her sister. Because she is his close relative, she is exempt from levirate marriage with him, and therefore she is not bound to him with a levirate bond. Consequently, her sister is not considered the sister of a woman with whom he has a levirate bond, and he is permitted to enter into levirate marriage with her. But the second brother, who is not a close relative of either sister, is forbidden to marry both of them. Indeed, for him each woman remains the sister of a woman with whom he has a levirate bond.

讗讬住讜专 诪爪讜讛 讜讗讬住讜专 拽讚讜砖讛 讞讜诇爪转 讜诇讗 诪转讬讬讘诪转

If a prohibition resulting from a mitzva or a prohibition stemming from sanctity will be transgressed when one of the women marries one of the brothers, then her sister must perform 岣litza and may not enter into levirate marriage, as she is considered the sister of a woman with whom he has a levirate bond. In this case, the sister who is forbidden to the brother due to a mitzva or due to sanctity is bound to the brother for the purpose of 岣litza.

讛讬转讛 讗讞转 诪讛谉 讗住讜专讛 注诇 讝讛 讗讬住讜专 注专讜讛 讜讛砖谞讬讛 讗住讜专讛 注诇 讝讛 讗讬住讜专 注专讜讛 讛讗住讜专讛 诇讝讛 诪讜转专转 诇讝讛 讜讛讗住讜专讛 诇讝讛 诪讜转专转 诇讝讛

If one of those women was forbidden to this one brother due to a prohibition against forbidden relations and the second woman was forbidden to that second brother due to a prohibition against forbidden relations, then she who is forbidden to this brother is permitted to that brother, and she who is forbidden to that brother is permitted to this one.

讜讝讜 讛讬讗 砖讗诪专讜 讗讞讜转讛 讻砖讛讬讗 讬讘诪转讛 讗讜 讞讜诇爪转 讗讜 诪转讬讬讘诪转

And this is the case that was referred to when they said: When her sister is also her yevama, i.e., in a case where two sisters are also yevamot and therefore happened for levirate marriage before two brothers, she either performs 岣litza or enters into levirate marriage. This must be referring to a case where each sister is forbidden to one of the brothers due to a prohibition concerning forbidden relatives. In this case, each sister has a levirate bond only with the one brother to whom she is permitted, and the prohibition against marrying the sister of a woman with whom one has a levirate bond does not apply. Therefore, each brother can either perform the act of 岣litza or consummate the levirate marriage with the sister to whom he is not related.

讙诪壮 砖诪注 诪讬谞讛 讬砖 讝讬拽讛 讚讗讬 讗讬谉 讝讬拽讛 诪讻讚讬 讛谞讬 诪转专讬 讘转讬 拽讗转讬讬谉 讛讗讬 诇讬讬讘诐 讞讚讗 讜讛讗讬 诇讬讬讘诐 讞讚讗

GEMARA: The Gemara deduces from the halakha cited in the mishna: Conclude from here that the levirate bond is substantial. That is, the very obligation of levirate marriage creates a bond that is similar to marriage. For if the levirate bond were not substantial, why would these two women not enter into levirate marriage? After all, these two women come from two households, as each had a different husband, and they both require levirate marriage. Let this brother consummate the levirate marriage with one sister and let that brother consummate the levirate marriage with the other sister. The fact that the mishna requires 岣litza in this situation indicates that the levirate bond is substantial and resembles marriage to the extent that each sister is forbidden to each brother due to the prohibition against marrying the sister of a woman to whom one has a levirate bond.

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

The Gemara rejects this: Actually, I could say to you that according to this tanna the levirate bond is not substantial, and yet they are prohibited from entering levirate marriage for a different reason. It is because the tanna holds that it is prohibited to negate the mitzva of levirate marriage. It is prohibited to act in a way that would lead to a situation where the mitzva to perform levirate marriage is negated. How would this situation arise? Perhaps before one brother consummates the levirate marriage, the other brother dies, and only one brother remains. In that case, the second sister would also happen before him for levirate marriage, and by performing levirate marriage with one sister he would thereby negate the mitzva of levirate marriage with the other sister. When the remaining brother marries one of the sisters, the mitzva to enter into levirate marriage or perform 岣litza is automatically negated from the second sister, as she is then forbidden to him as his wife鈥檚 sister.

讗讬 讛讻讬 转诇转讗 谞诪讬

The Gemara asks: If so, if this is the rationale behind the ruling in the mishna, then the same concern would exist if there were three brothers, as well. Why did the mishna specify four brothers? It could have cited the case of three brothers, two of whom were married to two sisters. In these circumstances, the concern for negating the mitzva of levirate marriage also exists.

诇讗 诪讬讘注讬讗 拽讗诪专讬谞谉 诇讗 诪讬讘注讬讗 转诇转讗 讚讜讚讗讬 讘讟诇讛 诪爪讜转 讬讘诪讬谉 讗讘诇 讗专讘注讛 诇诪讬转讛 诇讗 讞讬讬砖讬谞谉 拽讗 诪砖诪注 诇谉

The Gemara answers: Indeed, the ruling would be the same in that case. However, the mishna is speaking utilizing the style of: It is not necessary. It is not necessary to specify that the women must perform 岣litza in a case involving three brothers, as certainly the mitzva of levirate marriage is negated with one of the sisters when the yavam marries the other sister. But in the case of four brothers, where there is concern only over the possibility that one of the brothers might die, we might have said that we are not concerned over the possibility of the death of a brother and therefore allow the brothers to consummate the levirate marriage. The mishna therefore teaches us that even in the case where there is concern only for the negation of the mitzva, they must perform 岣litza and not consummate the levirate marriage.

讗讬 讛讻讬

The Gemara asks: If so, i.e., if we are concerned over the possibility that the remaining brother might die,

讞诪砖讛 谞诪讬 诇诪讬转讛 讚转专讬 诇讗 讞讬讬砖讬谞谉

then this should also be true in a case of five brothers, two of whom were married to two sisters and died, and their wives happened before the three remaining brothers for levirate marriage. The Gemara answers: We are not concerned over the possibility of the death of two brothers in such a short period of time.

讗诪专 专讘讗 讘专 专讘 讛讜谞讗 讗诪专 专讘 砖诇砖 讗讞讬讜转 讬讘诪讜转 砖谞驻诇讜 诇驻谞讬 砖谞讬 讗讞讬谉 讬讘诪讬谉 讝讛 讞讜诇抓 诇讗讞转 讜讝讛 讞讜诇抓 诇讗讞转 讜讗诪爪注讬转 爪专讬讻讛 讞诇讬爪讛 诪砖谞讬讛诐

Rava bar Rav Huna said that Rav said: In a case where three sisters who were married to three brothers became yevamot and happened before two remaining brothers who were their yevamin for levirate marriage, then this one brother performs 岣litza with one of the women, and that brother performs 岣litza with another one of the women. And the middle, i.e., third, sister requires 岣litza with both of the brothers.

讗诪专 诇讬讛 专讘讛 诪讚拽讗诪专转 讗诪爪注讬转 爪专讬讻讛 讞诇讬爪讛 诪砖谞讬讛诐 拽住讘专转 讬砖 讝讬拽讛 讜讛讜讬讗 诇讛 讞诇讬爪讛 驻住讜诇讛 讜讞诇讬爪讛 驻住讜诇讛 爪专讬讱 诇讞讝讜专 注诇 讻诇 讛讗讞讬谉

Rabba said to them: From the fact that you say that the middle one requires 岣litza with both of the brothers, it can be deduced that you hold that the levirate bond is substantial and creates a familial relationship, and similarly this 岣litza performed by each of the brothers with the third sister is invalid 岣litza. Since the third woman is the sister of a woman with whom he performed 岣litza, it is not possible to consummate the levirate marriage with her. Therefore, the 岣litza performed with her is not entirely valid and does not release her from the levirate bond between her and the two brothers. And there is a principle that invalid 岣litza must be repeated by all of the brothers; each of them must perform an act of 岣litza with this woman.

讗讬 讛讻讬 拽诪讬讬转讗 谞诪讬

The Gemara asks: If that is so, the first two women should also require 岣litza from each of the brothers because each act of 岣litza was invalid, as each woman has the status of the sister of a woman with whom the man has a levirate bond, and it is therefore prohibited for the men to consummate the levirate marriage with them.

讗讬 讚谞驻讜诇 讘讘转 讗讞转 讛讻讬 谞诪讬 诇讗 爪专讬讻讗 讚谞驻讜诇 讘讝讜 讗讞专 讝讜

The Gemara responds: If the case is that they, i.e., the sisters, happened before the brothers simultaneously, it is indeed so that the two brothers would each be obligated to perform 岣litza with each of the three sisters. This halakha is necessary only in the case where they happened before the brothers, one after the other.

谞驻诇讛 讞讚讗 讞诇抓 诇讛 专讗讜讘谉 谞驻诇讛 讗讬讚讱 讞诇抓 诇讛 砖诪注讜谉

How so? One sister happened before the brothers for levirate marriage and then Reuven, one of the brothers, performed valid 岣litza with her. Another sister happened before the brothers for levirate marriage, and the brother Shimon performed 岣litza with her. In this case, Shimon was allowed to consummate the levirate marriage with her if he so desired, as she had no family relationship to him at all. When Reuven performed 岣litza with the first sister, he removed the levirate bond between her and the other brothers, such that Shimon has no relationship with the first sister at all and is free to marry the second sister. Therefore, when he performed 岣litza, the act was valid.

谞驻诇讛 讗讬讚讱 讞诇抓 诇讛 讛讗讬 诪驻拽注 讝讬拽转讜 讞诇抓 诇讛 讛讗讬 诪驻拽注 讝讬拽转讜

Another third sister then happened before the brothers for levirate marriage. When this first brother performs 岣litza with her, he terminates his levirate bond, and when this second brother performs 岣litza with her, he terminates his levirate bond. However, neither brother can, by performing 岣litza, terminate the other brother鈥檚 levirate bond because each brother鈥檚 岣litza is invalid, as each brother is unable to consummate the levirate marriage in this case. This is due to the woman鈥檚 status as the sister of a woman with whom he performed 岣litza.

讜讛讗诪专 专讘 讗讬谉 讝讬拽讛 诇讚讘专讬 讛讗讜诪专 讬砖 讝讬拽讛 拽讗诪专

The Gemara asks: How can this statement be cited in the name of Rav? But didn鈥檛 Rav say: The levirate bond is not substantial. This halakha, however, was explained based on the assumption that the levirate bond is substantial. The Gemara answers: Indeed, according to Rav himself it is unnecessary to perform 岣litza with multiple brothers. He, however, states this halakha in accordance with the statement of the one who says that the levirate bond is substantial, despite the fact that he does not hold this himself.

讜砖诪讜讗诇 讗诪专 讗讞讚 讞讜诇抓 诇讻讜诇谉 诪讻讚讬 砖诪注讬谞谉 诇讬讛 诇砖诪讜讗诇 讚讗诪专 讞诇讬爪讛 诪注诇讬讗 讘注讬谞谉 讚讗诪专 砖诪讜讗诇

And with regard to the above case Shmuel said a different halakhic ruling: It is sufficient if one brother performs 岣litza with each of the sisters. The Gemara raises a difficulty: But since we have heard that Shmuel said: We require a full-fledged 岣litza, and invalid 岣litza does not result in complete exemption, this ruling is difficult. It is not clear why the invalid 岣litza in this case would be sufficient, as Shmuel said:

  • 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

learn daf yomi one week at a time with tamara spitz

Yevamot: 23-29 – Daf Yomi One Week at a Time

This week the Gemara will introduce us to numerous cases with numerous brothers who marry numerous sisters and then some...
Gefet in english with rabbanit yael shimoni

Principles of Uncertainty – Gefet 31

https://youtu.be/lON7WSBZAHM The mishna on daf 24b discusses a situation where there is a suspicion that a man had forbidden relations...
thumbnail yevamot tools

Chapter 3: Visual Tools for Yevamot (26-32)

For Masechet Yevamot, Hadran's staff has created dynamic presentations to help visualize the cases we will be learning. For Chapter...
talking talmud_square

Yevamot 26: Yibum Word Problems

Finishing chapter 2, and starting chapter 3, with a mishnah apiece. First, a case where a woman was able to...

Yevamot 26

The William Davidson Talmud | Powered by Sefaria

Yevamot 26

讘专谞谞讛 诇讗 诪驻拽讬谞谉 讛讻讗 谞诪讬 讘专谞谞讛 诇讗 诪驻拽讬谞谉

we do not remove her from her husband owing to suspicion due to rumor alone. Here too, we do not remove her from her husband due to a rumor.

诪转谞讬壮 讜讻讜诇诐 砖讛讬讜 诇讛诐 谞砖讬诐 讜诪转讜 诪讜转专讜转 诇讬谞砖讗 诇讛诐

MISHNA: And for all of these who were involved in permitting the wife to remarry, i.e., the judge, the agent who brought a bill of divorce, and the one who testified for a woman that her husband died, if they had wives at the time of the ruling or the testimony and their wives died thereafter, then those women they had set free are permitted to be married to them. There is no concern that while their wives were still alive these individuals set their eyes upon another woman.

讜讻讜诇谉 砖谞讬砖讗讜 诇讗讞专讬诐 讜谞转讙专砖讜 讗讜 砖谞转讗诇诪谞讜 诪讜转专讜转 诇讬谞砖讗 诇讛诐 讜讻讜诇谉 诪讜转专讜转 诇讘谞讬讛诐 讗讜 诇讗讞讬讛诐

And with regard to all of these women who were prohibited from marrying a certain man due to some suspicion, if they were subsequently married to others and then were divorced or widowed from the second husband, they are permitted to be married to them, i.e., to the judge, messenger, or witness who permitted her to remarry. And all of these women who were prohibited from marrying due to some suspicion are permitted to the sons or to the brothers of those who set them free.

讙诪壮 诪转讜 讗讬谉 谞转讙专砖讜 诇讗

GEMARA: The mishna taught that if any of the men had wives who subsequently died, they may marry those women freed by them. The Gemara deduces from here: If the wives of those who rendered the woman permitted died, yes, they are permitted to marry the woman that they freed for marriage; but if the wives were divorced, no, it is prohibited. In such a case, marrying the woman that one had rendered permitted would raise suspicions that he had in fact planned to marry her all along.

讗诪专 诇讬讛 专讘 讛诇诇 诇专讘 讗砖讬 讜讛转谞讬讗 讗驻讬诇讜 谞转讙专砖讜 诇讗 拽砖讬讗 讛讗 讚讛讜讗讬 拽讟讟讛 讛讗 讚诇讗 讛讜讗讬 拽讟讟讛

Rav Hillel said to Rav Ashi: Yet it is taught in a baraita: Even if they were divorced from their first wives they are permitted to marry the women they freed. The Gemara responds: This is not difficult: This mishna is referring to a case when there was a quarrel between the husband and the wife at the time that he freed the other woman, as then there is legitimate concern that he was already interested in her. That case of the baraita was when there was no quarrel between them at the time, and therefore the divorce clearly resulted from some other reason.

讜讗讬讘注讬转 讗讬诪讗 讛讗 讜讛讗 讚诇讗 讛讜讗讬 拽讟讟讛 讜诇讗 拽砖讬讗 讛讗 讚讗专讙讬诇 讛讜讗 讛讗 讚讗专讙讬诇讛 讛讬讗

And if you wish, say: Both this and that were said in cases when there was no quarrel between the one who freed the woman and his first wife, and only later did they quarrel and divorce. And this is not difficult: This case of the mishna was when he started the quarrel himself, as then there is legitimate concern that he had an interest in this other woman and therefore sought out a reason to divorce his wife. And that case of the baraita was when his wife started the quarrel, as then there would be no reason to suspect him of freeing the other woman in order to marry her.

讜讻讜诇谉 砖谞讬砖讗讜 讜讻讜壮 拽讗 住诇拽讗 讚注转讬谉 诪讬转讛 讗诪讬转讛 讜讙讬专讜砖讬谉 讗讙讬专讜砖讬谉

The mishna stated: And with regard to all of these women, if they were married to others and then were divorced or widowed, it is permitted for them to marry those who caused them to be free to marry in the first place. It enters our mind to say that the case referred to here was one of death after death, i.e., the case of a woman whose first husband鈥檚 death had been substantiated by a single witness but whose second husband died as well, and also to the case of divorce following a bill of divorce that had been validated by a single witness.

谞讬诪讗 诪转谞讬转讬谉 讚诇讗 讻专讘讬 讚讗讬 讻专讘讬 讛讗诪专 讘转专讬 讝讬诪谞讬 讛讜讬讗 讞讝拽讛

Based on this, should we say that the mishna, which permits a woman to remarry even after her two previous husbands have died, is not in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi? As, if it is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi, didn鈥檛 Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi say: After two times a woman has the presumptive status to cause death to her husbands, and such a woman is considered murderous. Therefore, she may not remarry. Since there is no mention of such concern in the mishna, it appears that the mishna is not in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi.

诇讗 诪讬转讛 讗讙讬专讜砖讬谉 讜讙讬专讜砖讬谉 讗诪讬转讛

The Gemara rejects this: No evidence can be derived from here, as the reference here may be to death after divorce or divorce after death. The mishna could be referring either to a woman who was at first divorced and then later widowed by her second husband鈥檚 death, or to a woman whose first husband died and who was subsequently divorced, but not to a case where she was widowed by the death of two husbands.

讜讻讜诇谉 诪讜转专讜转 诇讘谞讬讛诐 讗讜 诇讗讞讬讛诐 诪讗讬 砖谞讗 诪讛讗 讚转谞谉 讛谞讟注谉 诪谉 讛讗砖讛 讗住讜专 讘讗诪讛 讜讘讘转讛 讜讘讗讞讜转讛

搂 The mishna taught: And all of these women who were prohibited from marrying the man who freed them due to some suspicion are permitted to the sons or to the brothers of those who set them free. The Gemara asks: In what way is this case different from that which we learned in the Tosefta (4:5) that one suspected of adultery with a specific woman is prohibited not only from marrying her, but also from marrying her mother, and her daughter, and her sister. Yet here we allow his sons and brothers to marry the woman despite the suspicion.

谞砖讬 诇讙讘讬 谞砖讬 砖讻讬讞谉 讚讗讝诇谉 讙讘专讬 诇讙讘讬 讙讘专讬 诇讗 砖讻讬讞谉

The Gemara answers: There is a distinction between the situations, for it is common for women to be at the house of other women and to stay overnight. Therefore, there is concern that a relative of the alleged adulterer鈥檚 wife, with whom he was suspected of misconduct, might frequent his house and he might be tempted to repeat his transgression. On the other hand, it is not common for men to be at the house of other men, so that even if she was married to his relative, the one suspected of misconduct would not generally sleep at the house of the husband.

讗讬 谞诪讬 谞砖讬 讚诇讗 讗住专谉 砖讻讬讘转谉 讗讛讚讚讬 诇讗 拽驻讚讬 讗讛讚讚讬 讙讘专讬 讚讗住专谉 砖讻讬讘转谉 讗讛讚讚讬 拽驻讚讬 讗讛讚讚讬

Alternatively, a different argument could be made: Women are not so strict with one another, as lying with them and having sexual relations with them does not render them mutually forbidden. In other words, if a man commits adultery with his wife鈥檚 close relative, his wife does not become forbidden to him, so she may not pay attention to his behavior with the woman under suspicion. However, men are strict with one another, as lying with them and having sexual relations with the other man鈥檚 wife does render them, the husband and wife, mutually forbidden. In other words, if another man has relations with a married woman, she is forbidden to her husband, and so men pay close attention to what the others are doing.

讗讬 讛讻讬 讗讘讬讜 谞诪讬 诇讗 诪讬讘注讬讗 拽讗诪专 诇讗 诪讬讘注讬讗 讗讘讬讜 讚讘讝讬讝 讘谞讬讛 诪讬谞讬讛 讗讘诇 讘谞讜 讚诇讗 讘讝讬讝 讗讘讬讜 诪讬谞讬讛 讗讬诪讗 诇讗 拽讗 诪砖诪注 诇谉

The Gemara asks: If so, one鈥檚 father should be permitted to marry a woman set free by his son as well. So why does the mishna say: Their sons or their brothers, and not: Their fathers? The Gemara answers: Certainly his father is allowed as well, but the mishna is speaking utilizing the style of: It is not necessary. It is not necessary to mention the case of his father because he is most certainly permitted to marry a woman set free by his son, as his son is embarrassed [baziz] before him and so would not come to sleep with his father鈥檚 wife. But I might say that since the father is not embarrassed before his son, she may not be married to the son of one for whom there is suspicion. Therefore, this comes to teach us that there is no such concern.

讛讚专谉 注诇讱 讻讬爪讚 讗砖转 讗讞讬讜

 

诪转谞讬壮 讗专讘注讛 讗讞讬谉 砖谞讬诐 诪讛诐 谞砖讜讗讬诐 砖转讬 讗讞讬讜转 讜诪转讜 讛谞砖讜讗讬诐 讗转 讛讗讞讬讜转 讛专讬 讗诇讜 讞讜诇爪讜转 讜诇讗 诪转讬讬讘诪讜转 讜讗诐 拽讚诪讜 讜讻谞住讜 讬讜爪讬讗讜 专讘讬 讗诇讬注讝专 讗讜诪专 讘讬转 砖诪讗讬 讗讜诪专讬诐 讬拽讬讬诐 讜讘讬转 讛诇诇 讗讜诪专讬诐 讬讜爪讬讗讜

MISHNA: In the case of four brothers, two of whom were married to two sisters, and the ones married to the sisters died, then those sisters must perform 岣litza and may not enter into levirate marriage. Since both sisters require levirate marriage with each of the surviving brothers, a levirate bond exists between each sister and the brothers. Each of them is considered the sister of a woman with whom each brother has a levirate bond and is therefore forbidden to him by rabbinic law. And if they married the sisters before consulting the court, they should divorce them, for the Sages decreed that in this situation they may not remain married. Rabbi Eliezer says that there is a dispute in this matter: Beit Shammai say: He may maintain her as his wife, while Beit Hillel say: They must divorce them.

讛讬转讛 讗讞转 诪讛谉 讗住讜专讛 注诇 讛讗讞讚 讗讬住讜专 注专讜讛 讗住讜专 讘讛 讜诪讜转专 讘讗讞讜转讛 讜讛砖谞讬 讗住讜专 讘砖转讬讛谉

If one of the sisters was forbidden to one of the brothers due to a prohibition against forbidden relations because she was a relative of his wife or a relative on his mother鈥檚 side, then he is forbidden to marry her but permitted to marry her sister. Because she is his close relative, she is exempt from levirate marriage with him, and therefore she is not bound to him with a levirate bond. Consequently, her sister is not considered the sister of a woman with whom he has a levirate bond, and he is permitted to enter into levirate marriage with her. But the second brother, who is not a close relative of either sister, is forbidden to marry both of them. Indeed, for him each woman remains the sister of a woman with whom he has a levirate bond.

讗讬住讜专 诪爪讜讛 讜讗讬住讜专 拽讚讜砖讛 讞讜诇爪转 讜诇讗 诪转讬讬讘诪转

If a prohibition resulting from a mitzva or a prohibition stemming from sanctity will be transgressed when one of the women marries one of the brothers, then her sister must perform 岣litza and may not enter into levirate marriage, as she is considered the sister of a woman with whom he has a levirate bond. In this case, the sister who is forbidden to the brother due to a mitzva or due to sanctity is bound to the brother for the purpose of 岣litza.

讛讬转讛 讗讞转 诪讛谉 讗住讜专讛 注诇 讝讛 讗讬住讜专 注专讜讛 讜讛砖谞讬讛 讗住讜专讛 注诇 讝讛 讗讬住讜专 注专讜讛 讛讗住讜专讛 诇讝讛 诪讜转专转 诇讝讛 讜讛讗住讜专讛 诇讝讛 诪讜转专转 诇讝讛

If one of those women was forbidden to this one brother due to a prohibition against forbidden relations and the second woman was forbidden to that second brother due to a prohibition against forbidden relations, then she who is forbidden to this brother is permitted to that brother, and she who is forbidden to that brother is permitted to this one.

讜讝讜 讛讬讗 砖讗诪专讜 讗讞讜转讛 讻砖讛讬讗 讬讘诪转讛 讗讜 讞讜诇爪转 讗讜 诪转讬讬讘诪转

And this is the case that was referred to when they said: When her sister is also her yevama, i.e., in a case where two sisters are also yevamot and therefore happened for levirate marriage before two brothers, she either performs 岣litza or enters into levirate marriage. This must be referring to a case where each sister is forbidden to one of the brothers due to a prohibition concerning forbidden relatives. In this case, each sister has a levirate bond only with the one brother to whom she is permitted, and the prohibition against marrying the sister of a woman with whom one has a levirate bond does not apply. Therefore, each brother can either perform the act of 岣litza or consummate the levirate marriage with the sister to whom he is not related.

讙诪壮 砖诪注 诪讬谞讛 讬砖 讝讬拽讛 讚讗讬 讗讬谉 讝讬拽讛 诪讻讚讬 讛谞讬 诪转专讬 讘转讬 拽讗转讬讬谉 讛讗讬 诇讬讬讘诐 讞讚讗 讜讛讗讬 诇讬讬讘诐 讞讚讗

GEMARA: The Gemara deduces from the halakha cited in the mishna: Conclude from here that the levirate bond is substantial. That is, the very obligation of levirate marriage creates a bond that is similar to marriage. For if the levirate bond were not substantial, why would these two women not enter into levirate marriage? After all, these two women come from two households, as each had a different husband, and they both require levirate marriage. Let this brother consummate the levirate marriage with one sister and let that brother consummate the levirate marriage with the other sister. The fact that the mishna requires 岣litza in this situation indicates that the levirate bond is substantial and resembles marriage to the extent that each sister is forbidden to each brother due to the prohibition against marrying the sister of a woman to whom one has a levirate bond.

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

The Gemara rejects this: Actually, I could say to you that according to this tanna the levirate bond is not substantial, and yet they are prohibited from entering levirate marriage for a different reason. It is because the tanna holds that it is prohibited to negate the mitzva of levirate marriage. It is prohibited to act in a way that would lead to a situation where the mitzva to perform levirate marriage is negated. How would this situation arise? Perhaps before one brother consummates the levirate marriage, the other brother dies, and only one brother remains. In that case, the second sister would also happen before him for levirate marriage, and by performing levirate marriage with one sister he would thereby negate the mitzva of levirate marriage with the other sister. When the remaining brother marries one of the sisters, the mitzva to enter into levirate marriage or perform 岣litza is automatically negated from the second sister, as she is then forbidden to him as his wife鈥檚 sister.

讗讬 讛讻讬 转诇转讗 谞诪讬

The Gemara asks: If so, if this is the rationale behind the ruling in the mishna, then the same concern would exist if there were three brothers, as well. Why did the mishna specify four brothers? It could have cited the case of three brothers, two of whom were married to two sisters. In these circumstances, the concern for negating the mitzva of levirate marriage also exists.

诇讗 诪讬讘注讬讗 拽讗诪专讬谞谉 诇讗 诪讬讘注讬讗 转诇转讗 讚讜讚讗讬 讘讟诇讛 诪爪讜转 讬讘诪讬谉 讗讘诇 讗专讘注讛 诇诪讬转讛 诇讗 讞讬讬砖讬谞谉 拽讗 诪砖诪注 诇谉

The Gemara answers: Indeed, the ruling would be the same in that case. However, the mishna is speaking utilizing the style of: It is not necessary. It is not necessary to specify that the women must perform 岣litza in a case involving three brothers, as certainly the mitzva of levirate marriage is negated with one of the sisters when the yavam marries the other sister. But in the case of four brothers, where there is concern only over the possibility that one of the brothers might die, we might have said that we are not concerned over the possibility of the death of a brother and therefore allow the brothers to consummate the levirate marriage. The mishna therefore teaches us that even in the case where there is concern only for the negation of the mitzva, they must perform 岣litza and not consummate the levirate marriage.

讗讬 讛讻讬

The Gemara asks: If so, i.e., if we are concerned over the possibility that the remaining brother might die,

讞诪砖讛 谞诪讬 诇诪讬转讛 讚转专讬 诇讗 讞讬讬砖讬谞谉

then this should also be true in a case of five brothers, two of whom were married to two sisters and died, and their wives happened before the three remaining brothers for levirate marriage. The Gemara answers: We are not concerned over the possibility of the death of two brothers in such a short period of time.

讗诪专 专讘讗 讘专 专讘 讛讜谞讗 讗诪专 专讘 砖诇砖 讗讞讬讜转 讬讘诪讜转 砖谞驻诇讜 诇驻谞讬 砖谞讬 讗讞讬谉 讬讘诪讬谉 讝讛 讞讜诇抓 诇讗讞转 讜讝讛 讞讜诇抓 诇讗讞转 讜讗诪爪注讬转 爪专讬讻讛 讞诇讬爪讛 诪砖谞讬讛诐

Rava bar Rav Huna said that Rav said: In a case where three sisters who were married to three brothers became yevamot and happened before two remaining brothers who were their yevamin for levirate marriage, then this one brother performs 岣litza with one of the women, and that brother performs 岣litza with another one of the women. And the middle, i.e., third, sister requires 岣litza with both of the brothers.

讗诪专 诇讬讛 专讘讛 诪讚拽讗诪专转 讗诪爪注讬转 爪专讬讻讛 讞诇讬爪讛 诪砖谞讬讛诐 拽住讘专转 讬砖 讝讬拽讛 讜讛讜讬讗 诇讛 讞诇讬爪讛 驻住讜诇讛 讜讞诇讬爪讛 驻住讜诇讛 爪专讬讱 诇讞讝讜专 注诇 讻诇 讛讗讞讬谉

Rabba said to them: From the fact that you say that the middle one requires 岣litza with both of the brothers, it can be deduced that you hold that the levirate bond is substantial and creates a familial relationship, and similarly this 岣litza performed by each of the brothers with the third sister is invalid 岣litza. Since the third woman is the sister of a woman with whom he performed 岣litza, it is not possible to consummate the levirate marriage with her. Therefore, the 岣litza performed with her is not entirely valid and does not release her from the levirate bond between her and the two brothers. And there is a principle that invalid 岣litza must be repeated by all of the brothers; each of them must perform an act of 岣litza with this woman.

讗讬 讛讻讬 拽诪讬讬转讗 谞诪讬

The Gemara asks: If that is so, the first two women should also require 岣litza from each of the brothers because each act of 岣litza was invalid, as each woman has the status of the sister of a woman with whom the man has a levirate bond, and it is therefore prohibited for the men to consummate the levirate marriage with them.

讗讬 讚谞驻讜诇 讘讘转 讗讞转 讛讻讬 谞诪讬 诇讗 爪专讬讻讗 讚谞驻讜诇 讘讝讜 讗讞专 讝讜

The Gemara responds: If the case is that they, i.e., the sisters, happened before the brothers simultaneously, it is indeed so that the two brothers would each be obligated to perform 岣litza with each of the three sisters. This halakha is necessary only in the case where they happened before the brothers, one after the other.

谞驻诇讛 讞讚讗 讞诇抓 诇讛 专讗讜讘谉 谞驻诇讛 讗讬讚讱 讞诇抓 诇讛 砖诪注讜谉

How so? One sister happened before the brothers for levirate marriage and then Reuven, one of the brothers, performed valid 岣litza with her. Another sister happened before the brothers for levirate marriage, and the brother Shimon performed 岣litza with her. In this case, Shimon was allowed to consummate the levirate marriage with her if he so desired, as she had no family relationship to him at all. When Reuven performed 岣litza with the first sister, he removed the levirate bond between her and the other brothers, such that Shimon has no relationship with the first sister at all and is free to marry the second sister. Therefore, when he performed 岣litza, the act was valid.

谞驻诇讛 讗讬讚讱 讞诇抓 诇讛 讛讗讬 诪驻拽注 讝讬拽转讜 讞诇抓 诇讛 讛讗讬 诪驻拽注 讝讬拽转讜

Another third sister then happened before the brothers for levirate marriage. When this first brother performs 岣litza with her, he terminates his levirate bond, and when this second brother performs 岣litza with her, he terminates his levirate bond. However, neither brother can, by performing 岣litza, terminate the other brother鈥檚 levirate bond because each brother鈥檚 岣litza is invalid, as each brother is unable to consummate the levirate marriage in this case. This is due to the woman鈥檚 status as the sister of a woman with whom he performed 岣litza.

讜讛讗诪专 专讘 讗讬谉 讝讬拽讛 诇讚讘专讬 讛讗讜诪专 讬砖 讝讬拽讛 拽讗诪专

The Gemara asks: How can this statement be cited in the name of Rav? But didn鈥檛 Rav say: The levirate bond is not substantial. This halakha, however, was explained based on the assumption that the levirate bond is substantial. The Gemara answers: Indeed, according to Rav himself it is unnecessary to perform 岣litza with multiple brothers. He, however, states this halakha in accordance with the statement of the one who says that the levirate bond is substantial, despite the fact that he does not hold this himself.

讜砖诪讜讗诇 讗诪专 讗讞讚 讞讜诇抓 诇讻讜诇谉 诪讻讚讬 砖诪注讬谞谉 诇讬讛 诇砖诪讜讗诇 讚讗诪专 讞诇讬爪讛 诪注诇讬讗 讘注讬谞谉 讚讗诪专 砖诪讜讗诇

And with regard to the above case Shmuel said a different halakhic ruling: It is sufficient if one brother performs 岣litza with each of the sisters. The Gemara raises a difficulty: But since we have heard that Shmuel said: We require a full-fledged 岣litza, and invalid 岣litza does not result in complete exemption, this ruling is difficult. It is not clear why the invalid 岣litza in this case would be sufficient, as Shmuel said:

Scroll To Top