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

Today's Daf Yomi

April 4, 2022 | 讙壮 讘谞讬住谉 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 28

Presentation in PDF format.聽

Today’s daf is sponsored by Tina Senders Lamm for a refuah shleima of Fruma Devorah bat Chana.

Rabbi Yochanan had answered the difficulty raised by Rabbi Yosi son of Rabbi Chanina based on the Mishna by rejecting the Mishna. The Gemara suggests all sorts of other possibilities Rabbi Yochanan could have used without having to reject the reading of the Mishna and then explains the weakness of each suggestion. Another question is raised against Rabbi Yochanan from the continuation of our聽 Mishna. To resolve this, the Gemara answers that the case in the Mishna happened in a particular order. There are different versions brought of the debate between Beit Shamai and Beit Hillel mentioned in the Mishna regarding a case where both brothers went ahead (against the law) and married both sisters, do they need to divorce them? A comparison is made between the cases in our Mishna and cases brought in the Mishna on Yevamot 20. Since they are based on the same principle, why are the cases in our Mishna necessary? Why was it necessary for our Mishna to bring a case when two sisters are forbidden to both brothers to whom they fall to yibum, if it already brought a case of one forbidden to one brother? Couldn’t we derive one from the other? Why was the second part of the Mishna brought (with two women who are forbidden to two brothers) when that could have been derived from the earlier case in the Mishna of one sister forbidden to one of the brothers? “This is the case of…” What is it coming to exclude and why? The braita of Rabbi Chiya is brought who connected the Mishna to the first Mishna in Yevamot and said that all of those cases of forbidden relationships (15) can have a case of two sisters who are each forbidden to one of the brothers and therefore can each do yibum with the other. There are three interpretations brought as to whether it can really apply to all the cases of the Mishna or not.

诇讻转讞诇讛 拽转谞讬 讜诇讬诪讗 诇讬讛 讙讝讬专讛 讚诇诪讗 拽讚讬诐 讜讞诇讬抓 诇专讗砖讜谞讛 讘专讬砖讗 讜诇讗 诪转讬讬讘诪讜转 拽转谞讬 讚诇讬讻讗 讚讬谉 讬讘讜诐 讛讻讗 讻诇诇

implies that the mishna teaches a case in which 岣litza is performed ab initio. This indicates that this is the first course of action and the only way to resolve the situation. The Gemara asks further: And let him say to him the following: The mishna prohibits levirate marriage ab initio in this case, due to a rabbinic decree lest he proceed and perform the 岣litza with the first sister first, whereby it would be prohibited to consummate the levirate marriage with the second. Perhaps for this reason the Sages decreed that it is prohibited to consummate the levirate marriage even if 岣litza was performed with the second sister. The Gemara answers: It teaches: They may not enter into levirate marriage. This indicates that the halakha of levirate marriage does not apply here at all. Accordingly, even after the fact, if he performed 岣litza with the second sister, the halakha of levirate marriage would not apply to the first sister.

讜诇讬诪讗 诇讬讛 讙讝讬专讛 砖诪讗 讬诪讜转 讜讗住讜专 诇讘讟诇 诪爪讜转 讬讘诪讬谉 专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 诇诪讬转讛 诇讗 讞讬讬砖

The Gemara asks: And let him say to him a different reason for the ruling of the mishna: It is due to a rabbinic decree lest the second brother die, and it is prohibited to negate the mitzva of levirate marriage. Perhaps for this reason it would be forbidden to consummate the levirate marriage in the case where two sisters happened before him for levirate marriage, and not due to the prohibition proscribing the sister of a woman with whom he has a levirate bond. The Gemara answers: Rabbi Yo岣nan was not concerned over the possibility of the death of a brother, and in his opinion there is no need to make a decree to address such cases.

讜诇讬诪讗 诇讬讛 专讘讬 讗诇注讝专 讛讬讗 讚讗诪专 讻讬讜谉 砖注诪讚讛 注诇讬讜 砖注讛 讗讞转 讘讗讬住讜专 谞讗住专讛 注诇讬讜 注讜诇诪讬转 诪讚住讬驻讗 专讘讬 讗诇注讝专 专讬砖讗 诇讗讜 专讘讬 讗诇注讝专

The Gemara asks: And let Rabbi Yo岣nan say to him that this mishna is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Elazar, who said: Once the yevama stood before him at one time as forbidden, even if it was not at the time that she happened before him, she remains forbidden to him forever. Perhaps the mishna could be explained according to Rabbi Elazar鈥檚 opinion. The Gemara answers: Since the opinion of Rabbi Elazar is cited explicitly in the latter clause of the mishna, it can be deduced that the first clause is not according to the opinion of Rabbi Elazar. Therefore, this ruling cannot be attributed to Rabbi Elazar.

讜谞讬诪讗 诇讛讜 讚谞驻讜诇 讘讘转 讗讞转 讜专讘讬 讬讜住讬 讛讙诇讬诇讬 讛讬讗 讚讗诪专 讗驻砖专 诇爪诪爪诐 诇讗 住转诐 诇谉 转谞讗 讻专讘讬 讬讜住讬 讛讙诇讬诇讬

The Gemara asks: And let him say to him that here the reference is to a situation where the two brothers died at once, and consequently both of the women happened before the yevamin for levirate marriage at the same time. And this mishna is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yosei HaGelili, who says: It is possible to be precise. It is possible to determine that two events occurred at exactly the same moment, both sisters were forbidden at the time that they happened before the brothers-in-law. The Gemara answers: The tanna did not teach an unattributed mishna in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yosei HaGelili. Any time the mishna is cited in accordance with Rabbi Yosei HaGelili鈥檚 opinion, it is always attributed to him explicitly.

讜诇讬诪讗 诇讬讛 讚诇讗 讬讚注讬谞谉 讛讬 谞驻讜诇 讘专讬砖讗

The Gemara asks: And let him say to him a different explanation for the ruling: This mishna is indeed addressing a case where the brothers died one after the other, yet we do not know which sister happened before the yevamin for levirate marriage first. In that case, it would be impossible to determine which sister would be permitted.

讗讬 讛讻讬 讛讬讬谞讜 讚拽转谞讬 拽讚诪讜 讜讻谞住讜 讬讜爪讬讗讜 讘砖诇诪讗 专讗砖讜谞讛 讗诪专讬谞谉 诇讬讛 诪讗谉 砖专讬讗 诇讱 讗诇讗 砖谞讬讛 讗诪专 讞讘专讗讬 砖谞讬讛 讬讬讘诐 讗谞讗 专讗砖讜谞讛 诪讬讬讘诐

The Gemara answers: If so, that which the mishna teaches in the latter clause: And if they married their wives before consulting the court they should divorce them, is difficult. Why must they divorce their wives in this situation? Granted, the brother who took the first sister in levirate marriage must divorce her, as we say to him: Who permitted her to you? Indeed, she was forbidden as the sister of a woman with whom he had a levirate bond, and so he must divorce her. However, the brother who took the second sister could say: My fellow brother consummated the levirate marriage with the second sister, but I am consummating the levirate marriage with the first sister. It is possible that after the other brother consummated the levirate marriage with the second sister, the first sister would then be permitted to him after the fact, and he is not required to divorce her unless it is certain that he violated a prohibition.

讛讬讬谞讜 讚拽讗诪专 诇讬讛 讗讞讬讜转 讗讬谞讬 讬讜讚注 诪讬 砖谞讗谉

The Gemara concludes: Indeed, this is what Rabbi Yo岣nan meant when he said to Rabbi Yosei bar 岣nina: I do not know who taught: Sisters, for according to these considerations he cannot properly resolve the ruling of this mishna.

转谞谉 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 住诇拽讗 讚注转讱 讚谞驻诇讛 讞诪讜转讜 转讞诇讛

We learned in the mishna: If one of the sisters was forbidden to one of the brothers due to a prohibition against forbidden relatives because she was a relative of his wife or a relative from his mother鈥檚 side, then he is prohibited from marrying her but permitted to marry her sister. But the second brother, who is not a close relative of either sister, is prohibited from marrying both of them. It enters your mind to say that a forbidden woman, such as his mother-in-law, happened before the yavam for levirate marriage first.

讜讗诪讗讬 诇讬拽讜 讞转谉 诇讬讬讘诐 讛讱 讚讗讬谞讛 讞诪讜转讜 讘专讬砖讗 讜转讛讜讬 讞诪讜转讜 诇讙讘讬 讗讬讚讱 讻讬讘诪讛 砖讛讜转专讛 讜谞讗住专讛 讜讞讝专讛 讜讛讜转专讛 转讞讝讜专 诇讛讬转专讛 讛专讗砖讜谉

Accordingly, the Gemara asks: And why would both women be forbidden to the second brother? Let the son-in-law rise and consummate the levirate marriage with the sister who is not his mother-in-law first. Consequently, with regard to the other brother, his mother-in-law would be considered a yevama who was permitted to perform levirate marriage at the time that she happened before him, and then forbidden when her sister happened before him for levirate marriage as well, and then subsequently became permitted when his brother consummated the levirate marriage with her sister. If so, the mother-in-law should return to her original permitted status and may enter into levirate marriage with him.

讗诪专 专讘 驻驻讗 讻讙讜谉 讚谞驻诇讛 讛讱 讚讗讬谞讛 讞诪讜转讜 讘专讬砖讗

Rav Pappa said: The mishna is referring to a case where the woman who was not his mother-in-law happened before the brothers for levirate marriage first, in which case she was permitted to both of them. When her sister, i.e., the mother-in-law, happened before them for levirate marriage as well, both women were rendered forbidden to the second brother, as each one is the sister of a woman with whom he has a levirate bond. Because the mother-in-law was forbidden from the time that she happened before the yavam for levirate marriage, she can never be permitted to him.

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 讜讻讜壮 转谞讬讗 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 讬拽讬讬诪讜 讜讘讬转 讛诇诇 讗讜诪专讬诐 讬讜爪讬讗讜 专讘讬 砖诪注讜谉 讗讜诪专 讬拽讬讬诪讜 讗讘讗 砖讗讜诇 讗讜诪专 拽诇 讛讬讛 诇讛诐 诇讘讬转 讛诇诇 讘讚讘专 讝讛 砖讘讬转 砖诪讗讬 讗讜诪专讬诐 讬讜爪讬讗讜 讜讘讬转 讛诇诇 讗讜诪专讬诐 讬拽讬讬诪讜

搂 With regard to the case of two brothers who married their wives before consulting the court, the mishna states that the women should be divorced. Rabbi Eliezer disagrees and says that this is a matter of dispute between Beit Shammai and Beit Hillel, as Beit Shammai say: They may maintain them as their wives, and Beit Hillel say: They should divorce them. An expanded version of this discussion is taught in the Tosefta (5:1): Rabbi Eliezer says that Beit Shammai say: They may maintain them as their wives, and Beit Hillel say: They should divorce them. Rabbi Shimon says: They may maintain them as their wives. Abba Shaul disagrees with Rabbi Eliezer and says: This was a matter of leniency for Beit Hillel. They were the ones who put forth a lenient ruling, as Beit Shammai say: They should divorce them, and Beit Hillel say: They may maintain them as their wives.

专讘讬 砖诪注讜谉 讻诪讗谉 讗讬 讻讘讬转 砖诪讗讬 讛讬讬谞讜 专讘讬 讗诇讬注讝专 讗讬 讻讘讬转 讛诇诇 讛讬讬谞讜 讗讘讗 砖讗讜诇 讛讻讬 拽讗诪专 诇讗 谞讞诇拽讜 讘讬转 砖诪讗讬 讜讘讬转 讛诇诇 讘讚讘专 讝讛

The Gemara asks about this baraita: In accordance with whose opinion is the statement of Rabbi Shimon? This matter is a dispute between Beit Hillel and Beit Shammai, with different versions of their opinions, and therefore Rabbi Shimon should not have formulated the halakha in this manner. Indeed, if he holds in accordance with the opinion of Beit Shammai, then that is the same as the opinion of Rabbi Eliezer. He would thereby conclude that the halakha is in accordance with the opinion of Beit Shammai, as per Rabbi Eliezer鈥檚 version. If so, he should have formulated his opinion in that way. If, however, he holds in accordance with the opinion of Beit Hillel, then that is the opinion of Abba Shaul. The Gemara responds: This is what he is saying: Rabbi Shimon actually maintains a third opinion: Beit Shammai and Beit Hillel did not dispute this matter; both agreed that the marriages may be maintained.

讛讬转讛 讗讞转 诪讛诐 讻讜壮 讛讗 转谞讬谞讗 讞讚讗 讝讬诪谞讗 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

搂 The mishna stated: If one of the sisters was forbidden to one of the brothers due to a prohibition against forbidden relations, then he is prohibited from marrying her but permitted to marry her sister. The Gemara asks: We already learned this on one occasion: When her sister, who is a forbidden relative to the yavam, is her yevama as well, she either performs 岣litza or enters into levirate marriage.

爪专讬讻讗 讚讗讬 讗砖诪讜注讬谞谉 讛转诐 诪砖讜诐 讚诇讬讻讗 诇诪讬讙讝专 诪砖讜诐 砖谞讬 讗讘诇 讛讻讗 讚讗讬讻讗 诇诪讬讙讝专 诪砖讜诐 砖谞讬 讗讬诪讗 诇讗

The Gemara answers: It is necessary that this be said here as well, for if it taught us this halakha only there in its more general formulation (Yevamot 20a), then I might have said: The yavam is permitted to marry the sister because there is no reason to issue a rabbinic decree due to a second brother. There, there is only one yavam, to whom one sister is permitted and the other is forbidden. Here, however, in the case of two brothers, where there is reason to issue a rabbinic decree due to the second brother, lest he consummate the levirate marriage as well, I would say that we do not allow even the first brother to perform levirate marriage, and both sisters-in-law should be forbidden to both brothers.

讜讗讬 讗砖诪讜注讬谞谉 讛讻讗 诪砖讜诐 讚讗讬讻讗 砖谞讬 讚拽讗 诪讜讻讞 讗讘诇 讛转诐 讚诇讬讻讗 砖谞讬 讗讬诪讗 诇讗 爪专讬讻讗

And if the mishna had taught us the halakha only here, it would have been possible to say that the permissibility of levirate marriage here is because there is a second brother who indicates, by refraining from performing levirate marriage, that the sister of a woman bound by a levirate bond is forbidden. However, there, where there is not a second brother, I would say no, this halakha would not apply, due to a concern that people might wrongly conclude that the sister of a woman bound by a levirate bond is permitted. Therefore, it is necessary to state this halakha in both places.

讗讬住讜专 诪爪讜讛 讻讜壮 讛讗 谞诪讬 转谞讬谞讗

It was taught in the mishna: If one of the sisters was forbidden to one of the brothers due to a prohibition resulting from a mitzva or due to a prohibition stemming from sanctity, then her sister must perform 岣litza and may not enter into levirate marriage. The Gemara wonders: We already learned this as well:

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 讛转诐 讗讬住讜专 诪爪讜讛 诇讞讜讚讛 讛讻讗 讗讬住讜专 诪爪讜讛 讜讗讞讜转讛

If a prohibition resulting from a mitzva or a prohibition stemming from sanctity will be transgressed through the levirate marriage, then the woman must perform 岣litza and she may not enter into levirate marriage. The Gemara answers: There is a novelty here: There, where the halakha is reviewed in general terms, it speaks of a prohibition due to a mitzva alone. One woman happened before the yavam for levirate marriage and it is only as a result of this prohibition that she is prevented from entering levirate marriage. Here, there is a prohibition resulting from a mitzva and, in addition, her sister happened before the yevamin for levirate marriage together with her.

住诇拽讗 讚注转讱 讗诪讬谞讗 诇讬拽讜诐 讗讬住讜专 诪爪讜讛 讘诪拽讜诐 讗讬住讜专 注专讜讛 讜转转讬讬讘诐 拽讗 诪砖诪注 诇谉

It might enter your mind to say: Let the prohibition resulting from a mitzva stand in the same place, i.e., level of severity, as the prohibition against forbidden relatives. Consequently, the woman who is forbidden to the yavam is considered a forbidden relative and her sister is permitted to him. Despite the fact that the prohibition resulting from a mitzva is not as severe, here is it is given equal status, and we might say: Let her sister enter into levirate marriage. Therefore, this comes to teach us that this is not the case.

讜转转讬讬讘诐 讻讬讜谉 讚诪讚讗讜专讬讬转讗 专诪讬讗 拽诪讬讛 拽讗 驻讙注 讘讗讞讜转 讝拽讜拽转讜 住诇拽讗 讚注转讱 讗诪讬谞讗 诪砖讜诐 诪爪讜讛 注讘讜讚 专讘谞谉 拽讗 诪砖诪注 诇谉

The Gemara asks: And why in fact does her sister not enter into levirate marriage? The Gemara answers: Her sister is forbidden to him because by Torah law the prohibited woman is still set before the yavam for levirate marriage. Were he to take the sister in levirate marriage he would essentially be encountering the sister of the woman with whom he has a levirate bond. It might enter your mind to say that due to the mitzva of levirate marriage, the Sages did as they did and nullified their decree prohibiting the sister of a woman with whom the yavam has a levirate bond from entering levirate marriage, when the original sister is forbidden only as the result of a mitzva. Therefore, it teaches us that they did not cancel their decree in this situation.

讛讬转讛 讗讞转 诪讛谉 讻讜壮 讛讗 转讜 诇诪讛 诇讬 讛讬讬谞讜 讛讱 诪讛 诇讬 诇讞讚 诪讛 诇讬 诇转专讬

It was taught in the mishna: If one of those women was forbidden to this one brother due to a prohibition against forbidden relatives and the second was forbidden to that second brother due to a prohibition against forbidden relatives, 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. The Gemara asks: Why do I need this halakha as well, for this is identical to that which was taught earlier, when the mishna stated that if one of the sisters was forbidden to one of the brothers due to a prohibition against forbidden relatives, then he is forbidden to marry her but permitted to marry her sister. However, the second brother, who is not a close relative of either sister, is prohibited from marrying both of them. Once the mishna taught that the yavam is permitted to marry the woman to whom he is not related, what is the difference to me if there is one brother or two brothers? If this happened to both brothers, clearly both should be allowed.

爪专讬讻讗 讚讗讬 讗砖诪讜注讬谞谉 讛转诐 诪砖讜诐 讚讗讬讻讗 砖谞讬 讚诪讜讻讞 讗讘诇 讛讻讗 讚诇讬讻讗 砖谞讬 讚拽讗 诪讜讻讞 讗讬诪讗 诇讗

The Gemara answers: It is necessary to state this, for if it taught us the halakha only there, in the case where only one brother is permitted, one might have said: This is because there is a second brother who indicates that the sister of a woman bound by a levirate bond is forbidden to him by refraining from levirate marriage with her. However, here, where there is not a second brother who indicates this, as both brothers are performing levirate marriage, then I would say no; this halakha would not apply, due to the concern that people might wrongly conclude that the sister of a woman with whom the yavam has a levirate bond is permitted even in cases where the other woman is not a forbidden relative.

讜讗讬 讗砖诪讜注讬谞谉 讛讻讗 讗讚专讘讛 转专讜讜讬讬讛讜 诪讜讻讞讬 讗讛讚讚讬 讗讘诇 讗讬讚讱 诇讗 爪专讬讻讗

And the opposite could also be said: If it taught us the ruling only here, in the case of two brothers, one might have said: On the contrary, they both indicate the nature of each other鈥檚 status. Each of the brothers married a specific sister-in-law, i.e., the woman who was not his close relative, indicating he does not have a levirate bond with the other sister. But in the other case, where one brother is allowed to consummate the levirate marriage and the second brother is forbidden to both sisters, I might say that no, we would not allow marriage to the first brother either. Therefore, it is necessary to state the halakha in both instances.

讝讜 讛讬讗 砖讗诪专讜 讜讻讜壮 讝讜 讛讬讗 诇诪注讜讟讬 诪讗讬 诇诪注讜讟讬 讗讬住讜专 诪爪讜讛 诇讝讛 讜讗讬住讜专 诪爪讜讛 诇讝讛

It was taught in the mishna: And this is the case that was referred to when they said: When her sister is also her yevama, she either performs 岣litza or enters into levirate marriage. The Gemara asks: What does the expression: This is, come to exclude? The Gemara answers: It excludes the case where there is a prohibition resulting from a mitzva for this one and a prohibition resulting from a mitzva for that one. Although each woman is forbidden to a different brother due to a prohibition resulting from a mitzva, they may not both enter into levirate marriage.

讛讗 转讜 诇诪讛 诇讬 讛讬讬谞讜 讛讱 诪讛 诇讬 诇讞讚 诪讛 诇讬 诇转专讬

The Gemara asks: Why do I need this as well? This is identical to that which was taught previously, that if one of the sisters was forbidden to the yavam due to a prohibition resulting from a mitzva, then he is not permitted to consummate the levirate marriage with either of them. What difference is there to me if she happened before one brother or two?

诪讛讜 讚转讬诪讗 讻讬 诇讗 讗诪专讬谞谉 讗讜拽讬 讗讬住讜专 诪爪讜讛 讘诪拽讜诐 讗讬住讜专 注专讜讛 讛讬讻讗 讚讗讬讻讗 诇诪讬讙讝专 诪砖讜诐 砖谞讬 讗讘诇 讛讬讻讗 讚诇讬讻讗 诇诪讬讙讝专 诪砖讜诐 砖谞讬 讗讬诪讗 诇讛讗讬 讗讜拽讬诪谞讗 讗讬住讜专 诪爪讜讛 讘诪拽讜诐 讗讬住讜专 注专讜讛 讜诇讛讗讬 [讗讜拽讬诪谞讗] 讗讬住讜专 诪爪讜讛 讘诪拽讜诐 讗讬住讜专 注专讜讛 讜诇讬讬讘诪讜 拽讗 诪砖诪注 诇谉

The Gemara answers: Lest you say: There is only one instance when we do not say: Let the prohibition resulting from a mitzva stand in the same place, i.e., level of severity, as a prohibition against forbidden relatives. It occurs in a case where it is appropriate to issue a rabbinic decree due to the second brother, who is prohibited from marrying both sisters. But in a case where it is not appropriate to issue a rabbinic decree due to the second brother, as the second sister is permitted to the second brother as well, I might say: For this brother, let us stand the prohibition resulting from a mitzva in the same place as a prohibition against forbidden relatives, and for this brother let us stand the prohibition resulting from a mitzva in the same place as a prohibition against forbidden relatives, and as a result both brothers may consummate the levirate marriage. Therefore, it teaches us that this is not so.

讗诪专 专讘 讬讛讜讚讛 讗诪专 专讘 讜讻谉 转谞讬 专讘讬 讞讬讬讗 讘讻讜诇谉 讗谞讬 拽讜专讗 讘讛谉 讛讗住讜专讛 诇讝讛 诪讜转专转 诇讝讛 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

搂 Incidental to this halakha, the Gemara cites the following statement: Rav Yehuda said that Rav said, and similarly Rabbi 岣yya teaches in a baraita: With regard to all of those women enumerated in the first mishna of the tractate, who are forbidden to the yevamin as forbidden relatives, the following situation could arise: These women could also be two sisters who were married to two brothers who happen before their yevamin for levirate marriage while each one is a forbidden relative to one of the yevamin. In these situations, I could apply the ruling that she who is forbidden to this brother is permitted to that brother, as well as the ruling that when her sister is also her yevama she may either perform 岣litza or enter into levirate marriage.

讜专讘 讬讛讜讚讛 诪转专讙诐 诪讞诪讜转讜 讜讗讬诇讱 讗讘诇 砖讬转讗 讘讘讬 讚专讬砖讗 诇讗

But Rav Yehuda interprets these principles as applying only to those cases found in the list from the mother-in-law of the yavam and onward, but not to the six cases at the beginning, which include his daughter, and his wife鈥檚 daughter, and their descendants.

诪讗讬 讟注诪讗 讻讬讜谉 讚讘转讜 讘讗讜谞住讬谉 讛讜讗 讚诪砖讻讞转 诇讛 讘谞砖讜讗讬谉 诇讗 诪砖讻讞转 诇讛

What is the reason for Rav Yehuda鈥檚 distinction? This is because you find the scenario where two women who are candidates for levirate marriage are both sisters as well as the daughters of the two yevamin only in a case where the women are the daughters of the yevamin through rape, but you cannot find it in a case where they are his daughters through marriage. If one brother married a woman and had a daughter with her, then this woman, the wife of a brother who has children, is forbidden to all of his brothers. Therefore, it would be impossible for another brother to have a daughter with that same woman, and therefore the two daughters could never be sisters. The scenario of daughters who are also sisters is possible only when the first brother raped a woman and gave birth to a daughter, such that the woman is not forbidden to his brothers. If one of the brothers then had a daughter with this woman and both daughters married other brothers who then died, it is possible that these daughters would happen before their fathers for levirate marriage.

讘谞砖讜讗讬谉 拽诪讬讬专讬 讘讗讜谞住讬谉 诇讗 拽讗 诪讬讬专讬

Rav Yehuda maintains that the current mishna deals with cases of marriage but does not deal with cases of rape, and therefore he does not apply the principles governing sisters to those cases.

讜讗讘讬讬 诪转专讙诐 讗祝 讘转讜 (讘讗讛) 诪讗谞讜住转讜 讻讬讜谉 讚讗砖讻讜讞讬 诪砖讻讞转 诇讛 讗讬 讘注讬讗 讘讗讜谞住讬谉 转讬讛讜讬 讗讬 讘注讬讗 讘谞砖讜讗讬谉 转讛讜讬 讗讘诇 讗砖转 讗讞讬讜 砖诇讗 讛讬讛 讘注讜诇诪讜 诇讗 讻讬讜谉 讚讗诇讬讘讗 讚专讘讬 砖诪注讜谉 讛讜讗 讚诪砖讻讞转 诇讛 讗诇讬讘讗 讚专讘谞谉 诇讗 诪砖讻讞转 诇讛 讘驻诇讜讙转讗 诇讗 拽诪讬讬专讬

And Abaye interprets these principles as applying even to his daughter from a woman he raped. Since you can find this scenario, if the statement wants to deal with cases of rape, let it; if it wants to deal with cases of marriage, let it. It is preferable to explain this matter with regard to cases of marriage, but if that is not possible, it can still be explained as dealing with cases of rape. However, it cannot be explained as referring to the wife of a brother with whom he did not coexist. Even according to the opinion of Abaye, this case cannot be included, since you can find a situation where two sisters happen before two brothers for levirate marriage while each woman is the wife of a brother with whom he did not coexist only according to the opinion of Rabbi Shimon, while such a case cannot be found according to the opinion of the Rabbis. And Rabbi 岣yya does not deal with cases that are subject to dispute.

讜专讘 住驻专讗 诪转专讙诐 讗祝 讗砖转 讗讞讬讜 砖诇讗 讛讬讛 讘注讜诇诪讜 讜诪砖讻讞转 诇讛 讘砖讬转讗 讗讞讬 讜讗诇讬讘讗 讚专讘讬 砖诪注讜谉 讜住讬诪谞讬讱 诪转 谞讜诇讚 讜讬讬讘诐 诪转 谞讜诇讚 讜讬讬讘诐

And Rav Safra interprets these principles as applying to the wife of a brother with whom he did not coexist, and you can find this scenario in the case of the six brothers and according to the opinion of Rabbi Shimon. And your mnemonic to remember how this might come about is as follows: Died, born, consummated the levirate marriage; died, born, consummated the levirate marriage.

专讗讜讘谉 讜砖诪注讜谉 谞砖讜讗讬谉 砖转讬 讗讞讬讜转 诇讜讬 讜讬讛讜讚讛 谞砖讜讗讬谉 砖转讬 谞讻专讬讜转 诪转 专讗讜讘谉 谞讜诇讚 讬砖砖讻专 讜讬讬讘诐 诇讜讬 诪转 砖诪注讜谉 谞讜诇讚 讝讘讜诇谉 讜讬讬讘诐 讬讛讜讚讛 诪转讜 诇讜讬 讜讬讛讜讚讛 讘诇讗 讘谞讬诐 讜谞驻诇讜 诇讛讜 拽诪讬 讬砖砖讻专 讜讝讘讜诇谉

How could this come about? There were two brothers, Reuven and Shimon, who were married to two sisters. And there were two other brothers, Levi and Yehuda, who were married to two unrelated women. Reuven died, Yissakhar was born, and Levi consummated the levirate marriage with Reuven鈥檚 wife. Afterward, Shimon died, Zevulun was born, and Yehuda consummated the levirate marriage with Shimon鈥檚 wife. Later, Levi and Yehuda died childless and these two sisters happened before Yissakhar and Zevulun for levirate marriage.

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 讜讗讞讜转讛 砖讛讬讗 讬讘诪转讛

In this scenario, the woman who had been Reuven鈥檚 wife is forbidden to this brother, Yissakhar, as the wife of a brother with whom he did not coexist, because he was not alive at the same time as Reuven, and yet she is nevertheless permitted to this brother, Zevulun, because when Zevulun was born this woman was already the wife of Levi, a brother with whom he did coexist. According to Rabbi Shimon, the fact that she had previously been the wife of Reuven, a brother with whom he did not coexist, is not taken into account. Similarly, with regard to Shimon鈥檚 wife, we find that she who is forbidden to this one is permitted to that one. Shimon鈥檚 wife is forbidden to Zevulun as the wife of a brother with whom he did not coexist, but she is nevertheless permitted to Yissakhar. Accordingly, the situation of her sister who is her yevama, i.e., two sisters who are yevamot and yet are allowed to perform levirate marriage, can be applied to this case as well.

诇诪讛 诇讬 讬讬讘诐 讬讛讜讚讛 讘诇讗 讬讬讘诐 讬讛讜讚讛 谞诪讬 诪砖讻讞转 诇讛

The Gemara asks: Why do I need to assume that this is referring to a scenario where Yehuda consummated the levirate marriage? You can find this possibility in a case where Yehuda did not consummate the levirate marriage as well. This scenario can also take place with only five brothers and without Yehuda: Reuven and Shimon were married to two sisters, Reuven died, Yissakhar was born, and Levi consummated the levirate marriage with Reuven鈥檚 wife. Then Shimon died and Zevulun was born. If Levi then dies, Levi鈥檚 wife is forbidden to Yissakhar as the wife of his brother Reuven, with whom he did not coexist, but she would be permitted to Zevulun because she was already the wife of Levi when Zevulun was born. Shimon鈥檚 wife would be forbidden to Zevulun but permitted to Yissakhar.

诪砖讜诐 爪专讛 讛讗 转讬谞讞 爪专讛 爪专讛 讚爪专讛 诪讗讬 讗讬讻讗 诇诪讬诪专

The Gemara responds: This is due to the rival wife. It was taught in this way in order to make the principle applicable not only to the wives, but also to their rival wives. In this scenario, Levi and Yehuda were previously married to two sisters who then became the rival wives of a wife of a brother with whom one did not coexist. This allows the ruling to apply to the case of rival wives as well. The Gemara notes: This works out well if the mishna comes to include only a rival wife herself, but what can be said about the rival wife of a rival wife? How can this case explained? If one aims to include all of the details of the mishna in Rabbi 岣yya鈥檚 principle, then the mishna must be referring not only to a case involving the brothers鈥 rival wives, but also to the rival wives of those rival wives mentioned in the mishna.

讻讙讜谉 讚讛讚专 讜讬讘诪讬谞讛讜 谞诪讬 讙讚 讜讗砖专

The Gemara answers: Therefore, one must include a case where Gad and Asher subsequently consummated the levirate marriage with these women as well. That is, initially there were two other brothers, Gad and Asher, who consummated the levirate marriage with the previous wives of Levi and Yehuda, each of whom had taken one of the wives of Reuven and Shimon. Later, when Gad and Asher died, their previous wives, who are the rival wives of the rival wives of Reuven and Shimon鈥檚 wives, happen before Yissakhar and Zevulun for levirate marriage.

诪转谞讬壮 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

MISHNA: In the case of three brothers, two of whom were married to close relatives, e.g., two sisters; or a woman and her daughter; or a woman and her daughter鈥檚 daughter; or a woman and her son鈥檚 daughter, if the two brothers who were married to two close relatives died and their wives happened before a third brother for levirate marriage, then these two women must perform 岣litza and may not enter into levirate marriage, as each of them is a relative of a woman with whom he has a levirate bond. And Rabbi Shimon exempts them even from the obligation to perform 岣litza.

讛讬转讛 讗讞转 诪讛谉 讗住讜专讛 注诇讬讜 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 讗讬住讜专 诪爪讜讛 讗讜 讗讬住讜专 拽讚讜砖讛 讞讜诇爪讜转 讜诇讗 诪转讬讬讘诪讜转

If one of them was forbidden to him, the third brother, due to a prohibition against forbidden relatives, then he is prohibited from marrying her but is permitted to marry her sister. Because the woman who is forbidden to him is not considered to be a woman who requires him for levirate marriage, there is only one woman who happens before him for levirate marriage. However, if one of the women was forbidden due to a prohibition resulting from a mitzva or a prohibition stemming from sanctity, then they must perform 岣litza and may not enter into levirate marriage. This is because these prohibitions do not completely cancel the levirate bond.

讙诪壮 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

GEMARA: It is taught in a baraita: Rabbi Shimon exempts both of them from 岣litza and from 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 18:18). This indicates that at the time that a situation arises wherein they are to become rival wives to each other, e.g., two sisters happen before one yavam for levirate marriage, you shall not have the ability to take even one of them in marriage. In his opinion, both women are exempt from both levirate marriage and 岣litza at the moment that they happen before the yavam, just as a forbidden relative is exempt from both levirate marriage and 岣litza.

讛讬转讛 讗讞转 诪讛谉 讻讜壮 讛讗 转讜 诇诪讛 诇讬 讛讬讬谞讜 讛讱

It was taught in the mishna: If one of them was forbidden to him due to a prohibition against forbidden relatives, he is prohibited from marrying her but is permitted to marry her sister. The Gemara asks: Why do I need this statement as well? This is identical to that which was taught in the previous mishna.

诇专讘讬 砖诪注讜谉 讗讬爪讟专讬讱 住诇拽讗 讚注转讱 讗诪讬谞讗 讛讜讗讬诇 讜讗诪专 专讘讬 砖诪注讜谉 砖转讬 讗讞讬讜转 诇讗 讞讜诇爪讜转 讜诇讗 诪转讬讬讘诪讜转 诇讙讝讜专 诪砖讜诐 砖转讬 讗讞讬讜转 讚注诇诪讗 拽诪砖诪注 诇谉

The Gemara answers: It was necessary to state this again here according to the opinion of Rabbi Shimon. It might enter your mind to say: Since Rabbi Shimon said that two sisters may not perform 岣litza and may not enter into levirate marriage, as the very fact that they require levirate marriage from the same man and stand to become rival wives to each other renders them forbidden, we should issue a rabbinic decree in this case as well. Although in this case only one of the sisters is eligible for levirate marriage, as the other is a forbidden relative, perhaps there should be a rabbinic decree prohibiting the yavam from marrying the permitted sister, due to the similarity to the case of two sisters in general who happen before him for levirate marriage. This teaches us that even Rabbi Shimon does not hold that there is a rabbinic decree in this case.

讗讬住讜专 诪爪讜讛 讻讜壮

It was taught in the mishna that if the wives are forbidden to the yavam due to a prohibition resulting from a mitzva or sanctity, they must perform 岣litza and may not enter into levirate marriage.

  • 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

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...
talking talmud_square

Yevamot 28: Abaye Didnt Really Rape That Woman

Trigger warning there is a discussion about rape in today鈥檚 daf. In today鈥檚 daf we learn who can decide what...
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...

Yevamot 28

The William Davidson Talmud | Powered by Sefaria

Yevamot 28

诇讻转讞诇讛 拽转谞讬 讜诇讬诪讗 诇讬讛 讙讝讬专讛 讚诇诪讗 拽讚讬诐 讜讞诇讬抓 诇专讗砖讜谞讛 讘专讬砖讗 讜诇讗 诪转讬讬讘诪讜转 拽转谞讬 讚诇讬讻讗 讚讬谉 讬讘讜诐 讛讻讗 讻诇诇

implies that the mishna teaches a case in which 岣litza is performed ab initio. This indicates that this is the first course of action and the only way to resolve the situation. The Gemara asks further: And let him say to him the following: The mishna prohibits levirate marriage ab initio in this case, due to a rabbinic decree lest he proceed and perform the 岣litza with the first sister first, whereby it would be prohibited to consummate the levirate marriage with the second. Perhaps for this reason the Sages decreed that it is prohibited to consummate the levirate marriage even if 岣litza was performed with the second sister. The Gemara answers: It teaches: They may not enter into levirate marriage. This indicates that the halakha of levirate marriage does not apply here at all. Accordingly, even after the fact, if he performed 岣litza with the second sister, the halakha of levirate marriage would not apply to the first sister.

讜诇讬诪讗 诇讬讛 讙讝讬专讛 砖诪讗 讬诪讜转 讜讗住讜专 诇讘讟诇 诪爪讜转 讬讘诪讬谉 专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 诇诪讬转讛 诇讗 讞讬讬砖

The Gemara asks: And let him say to him a different reason for the ruling of the mishna: It is due to a rabbinic decree lest the second brother die, and it is prohibited to negate the mitzva of levirate marriage. Perhaps for this reason it would be forbidden to consummate the levirate marriage in the case where two sisters happened before him for levirate marriage, and not due to the prohibition proscribing the sister of a woman with whom he has a levirate bond. The Gemara answers: Rabbi Yo岣nan was not concerned over the possibility of the death of a brother, and in his opinion there is no need to make a decree to address such cases.

讜诇讬诪讗 诇讬讛 专讘讬 讗诇注讝专 讛讬讗 讚讗诪专 讻讬讜谉 砖注诪讚讛 注诇讬讜 砖注讛 讗讞转 讘讗讬住讜专 谞讗住专讛 注诇讬讜 注讜诇诪讬转 诪讚住讬驻讗 专讘讬 讗诇注讝专 专讬砖讗 诇讗讜 专讘讬 讗诇注讝专

The Gemara asks: And let Rabbi Yo岣nan say to him that this mishna is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Elazar, who said: Once the yevama stood before him at one time as forbidden, even if it was not at the time that she happened before him, she remains forbidden to him forever. Perhaps the mishna could be explained according to Rabbi Elazar鈥檚 opinion. The Gemara answers: Since the opinion of Rabbi Elazar is cited explicitly in the latter clause of the mishna, it can be deduced that the first clause is not according to the opinion of Rabbi Elazar. Therefore, this ruling cannot be attributed to Rabbi Elazar.

讜谞讬诪讗 诇讛讜 讚谞驻讜诇 讘讘转 讗讞转 讜专讘讬 讬讜住讬 讛讙诇讬诇讬 讛讬讗 讚讗诪专 讗驻砖专 诇爪诪爪诐 诇讗 住转诐 诇谉 转谞讗 讻专讘讬 讬讜住讬 讛讙诇讬诇讬

The Gemara asks: And let him say to him that here the reference is to a situation where the two brothers died at once, and consequently both of the women happened before the yevamin for levirate marriage at the same time. And this mishna is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yosei HaGelili, who says: It is possible to be precise. It is possible to determine that two events occurred at exactly the same moment, both sisters were forbidden at the time that they happened before the brothers-in-law. The Gemara answers: The tanna did not teach an unattributed mishna in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yosei HaGelili. Any time the mishna is cited in accordance with Rabbi Yosei HaGelili鈥檚 opinion, it is always attributed to him explicitly.

讜诇讬诪讗 诇讬讛 讚诇讗 讬讚注讬谞谉 讛讬 谞驻讜诇 讘专讬砖讗

The Gemara asks: And let him say to him a different explanation for the ruling: This mishna is indeed addressing a case where the brothers died one after the other, yet we do not know which sister happened before the yevamin for levirate marriage first. In that case, it would be impossible to determine which sister would be permitted.

讗讬 讛讻讬 讛讬讬谞讜 讚拽转谞讬 拽讚诪讜 讜讻谞住讜 讬讜爪讬讗讜 讘砖诇诪讗 专讗砖讜谞讛 讗诪专讬谞谉 诇讬讛 诪讗谉 砖专讬讗 诇讱 讗诇讗 砖谞讬讛 讗诪专 讞讘专讗讬 砖谞讬讛 讬讬讘诐 讗谞讗 专讗砖讜谞讛 诪讬讬讘诐

The Gemara answers: If so, that which the mishna teaches in the latter clause: And if they married their wives before consulting the court they should divorce them, is difficult. Why must they divorce their wives in this situation? Granted, the brother who took the first sister in levirate marriage must divorce her, as we say to him: Who permitted her to you? Indeed, she was forbidden as the sister of a woman with whom he had a levirate bond, and so he must divorce her. However, the brother who took the second sister could say: My fellow brother consummated the levirate marriage with the second sister, but I am consummating the levirate marriage with the first sister. It is possible that after the other brother consummated the levirate marriage with the second sister, the first sister would then be permitted to him after the fact, and he is not required to divorce her unless it is certain that he violated a prohibition.

讛讬讬谞讜 讚拽讗诪专 诇讬讛 讗讞讬讜转 讗讬谞讬 讬讜讚注 诪讬 砖谞讗谉

The Gemara concludes: Indeed, this is what Rabbi Yo岣nan meant when he said to Rabbi Yosei bar 岣nina: I do not know who taught: Sisters, for according to these considerations he cannot properly resolve the ruling of this mishna.

转谞谉 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 住诇拽讗 讚注转讱 讚谞驻诇讛 讞诪讜转讜 转讞诇讛

We learned in the mishna: If one of the sisters was forbidden to one of the brothers due to a prohibition against forbidden relatives because she was a relative of his wife or a relative from his mother鈥檚 side, then he is prohibited from marrying her but permitted to marry her sister. But the second brother, who is not a close relative of either sister, is prohibited from marrying both of them. It enters your mind to say that a forbidden woman, such as his mother-in-law, happened before the yavam for levirate marriage first.

讜讗诪讗讬 诇讬拽讜 讞转谉 诇讬讬讘诐 讛讱 讚讗讬谞讛 讞诪讜转讜 讘专讬砖讗 讜转讛讜讬 讞诪讜转讜 诇讙讘讬 讗讬讚讱 讻讬讘诪讛 砖讛讜转专讛 讜谞讗住专讛 讜讞讝专讛 讜讛讜转专讛 转讞讝讜专 诇讛讬转专讛 讛专讗砖讜谉

Accordingly, the Gemara asks: And why would both women be forbidden to the second brother? Let the son-in-law rise and consummate the levirate marriage with the sister who is not his mother-in-law first. Consequently, with regard to the other brother, his mother-in-law would be considered a yevama who was permitted to perform levirate marriage at the time that she happened before him, and then forbidden when her sister happened before him for levirate marriage as well, and then subsequently became permitted when his brother consummated the levirate marriage with her sister. If so, the mother-in-law should return to her original permitted status and may enter into levirate marriage with him.

讗诪专 专讘 驻驻讗 讻讙讜谉 讚谞驻诇讛 讛讱 讚讗讬谞讛 讞诪讜转讜 讘专讬砖讗

Rav Pappa said: The mishna is referring to a case where the woman who was not his mother-in-law happened before the brothers for levirate marriage first, in which case she was permitted to both of them. When her sister, i.e., the mother-in-law, happened before them for levirate marriage as well, both women were rendered forbidden to the second brother, as each one is the sister of a woman with whom he has a levirate bond. Because the mother-in-law was forbidden from the time that she happened before the yavam for levirate marriage, she can never be permitted to him.

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 讜讻讜壮 转谞讬讗 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 讬拽讬讬诪讜 讜讘讬转 讛诇诇 讗讜诪专讬诐 讬讜爪讬讗讜 专讘讬 砖诪注讜谉 讗讜诪专 讬拽讬讬诪讜 讗讘讗 砖讗讜诇 讗讜诪专 拽诇 讛讬讛 诇讛诐 诇讘讬转 讛诇诇 讘讚讘专 讝讛 砖讘讬转 砖诪讗讬 讗讜诪专讬诐 讬讜爪讬讗讜 讜讘讬转 讛诇诇 讗讜诪专讬诐 讬拽讬讬诪讜

搂 With regard to the case of two brothers who married their wives before consulting the court, the mishna states that the women should be divorced. Rabbi Eliezer disagrees and says that this is a matter of dispute between Beit Shammai and Beit Hillel, as Beit Shammai say: They may maintain them as their wives, and Beit Hillel say: They should divorce them. An expanded version of this discussion is taught in the Tosefta (5:1): Rabbi Eliezer says that Beit Shammai say: They may maintain them as their wives, and Beit Hillel say: They should divorce them. Rabbi Shimon says: They may maintain them as their wives. Abba Shaul disagrees with Rabbi Eliezer and says: This was a matter of leniency for Beit Hillel. They were the ones who put forth a lenient ruling, as Beit Shammai say: They should divorce them, and Beit Hillel say: They may maintain them as their wives.

专讘讬 砖诪注讜谉 讻诪讗谉 讗讬 讻讘讬转 砖诪讗讬 讛讬讬谞讜 专讘讬 讗诇讬注讝专 讗讬 讻讘讬转 讛诇诇 讛讬讬谞讜 讗讘讗 砖讗讜诇 讛讻讬 拽讗诪专 诇讗 谞讞诇拽讜 讘讬转 砖诪讗讬 讜讘讬转 讛诇诇 讘讚讘专 讝讛

The Gemara asks about this baraita: In accordance with whose opinion is the statement of Rabbi Shimon? This matter is a dispute between Beit Hillel and Beit Shammai, with different versions of their opinions, and therefore Rabbi Shimon should not have formulated the halakha in this manner. Indeed, if he holds in accordance with the opinion of Beit Shammai, then that is the same as the opinion of Rabbi Eliezer. He would thereby conclude that the halakha is in accordance with the opinion of Beit Shammai, as per Rabbi Eliezer鈥檚 version. If so, he should have formulated his opinion in that way. If, however, he holds in accordance with the opinion of Beit Hillel, then that is the opinion of Abba Shaul. The Gemara responds: This is what he is saying: Rabbi Shimon actually maintains a third opinion: Beit Shammai and Beit Hillel did not dispute this matter; both agreed that the marriages may be maintained.

讛讬转讛 讗讞转 诪讛诐 讻讜壮 讛讗 转谞讬谞讗 讞讚讗 讝讬诪谞讗 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

搂 The mishna stated: If one of the sisters was forbidden to one of the brothers due to a prohibition against forbidden relations, then he is prohibited from marrying her but permitted to marry her sister. The Gemara asks: We already learned this on one occasion: When her sister, who is a forbidden relative to the yavam, is her yevama as well, she either performs 岣litza or enters into levirate marriage.

爪专讬讻讗 讚讗讬 讗砖诪讜注讬谞谉 讛转诐 诪砖讜诐 讚诇讬讻讗 诇诪讬讙讝专 诪砖讜诐 砖谞讬 讗讘诇 讛讻讗 讚讗讬讻讗 诇诪讬讙讝专 诪砖讜诐 砖谞讬 讗讬诪讗 诇讗

The Gemara answers: It is necessary that this be said here as well, for if it taught us this halakha only there in its more general formulation (Yevamot 20a), then I might have said: The yavam is permitted to marry the sister because there is no reason to issue a rabbinic decree due to a second brother. There, there is only one yavam, to whom one sister is permitted and the other is forbidden. Here, however, in the case of two brothers, where there is reason to issue a rabbinic decree due to the second brother, lest he consummate the levirate marriage as well, I would say that we do not allow even the first brother to perform levirate marriage, and both sisters-in-law should be forbidden to both brothers.

讜讗讬 讗砖诪讜注讬谞谉 讛讻讗 诪砖讜诐 讚讗讬讻讗 砖谞讬 讚拽讗 诪讜讻讞 讗讘诇 讛转诐 讚诇讬讻讗 砖谞讬 讗讬诪讗 诇讗 爪专讬讻讗

And if the mishna had taught us the halakha only here, it would have been possible to say that the permissibility of levirate marriage here is because there is a second brother who indicates, by refraining from performing levirate marriage, that the sister of a woman bound by a levirate bond is forbidden. However, there, where there is not a second brother, I would say no, this halakha would not apply, due to a concern that people might wrongly conclude that the sister of a woman bound by a levirate bond is permitted. Therefore, it is necessary to state this halakha in both places.

讗讬住讜专 诪爪讜讛 讻讜壮 讛讗 谞诪讬 转谞讬谞讗

It was taught in the mishna: If one of the sisters was forbidden to one of the brothers due to a prohibition resulting from a mitzva or due to a prohibition stemming from sanctity, then her sister must perform 岣litza and may not enter into levirate marriage. The Gemara wonders: We already learned this as well:

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 讛转诐 讗讬住讜专 诪爪讜讛 诇讞讜讚讛 讛讻讗 讗讬住讜专 诪爪讜讛 讜讗讞讜转讛

If a prohibition resulting from a mitzva or a prohibition stemming from sanctity will be transgressed through the levirate marriage, then the woman must perform 岣litza and she may not enter into levirate marriage. The Gemara answers: There is a novelty here: There, where the halakha is reviewed in general terms, it speaks of a prohibition due to a mitzva alone. One woman happened before the yavam for levirate marriage and it is only as a result of this prohibition that she is prevented from entering levirate marriage. Here, there is a prohibition resulting from a mitzva and, in addition, her sister happened before the yevamin for levirate marriage together with her.

住诇拽讗 讚注转讱 讗诪讬谞讗 诇讬拽讜诐 讗讬住讜专 诪爪讜讛 讘诪拽讜诐 讗讬住讜专 注专讜讛 讜转转讬讬讘诐 拽讗 诪砖诪注 诇谉

It might enter your mind to say: Let the prohibition resulting from a mitzva stand in the same place, i.e., level of severity, as the prohibition against forbidden relatives. Consequently, the woman who is forbidden to the yavam is considered a forbidden relative and her sister is permitted to him. Despite the fact that the prohibition resulting from a mitzva is not as severe, here is it is given equal status, and we might say: Let her sister enter into levirate marriage. Therefore, this comes to teach us that this is not the case.

讜转转讬讬讘诐 讻讬讜谉 讚诪讚讗讜专讬讬转讗 专诪讬讗 拽诪讬讛 拽讗 驻讙注 讘讗讞讜转 讝拽讜拽转讜 住诇拽讗 讚注转讱 讗诪讬谞讗 诪砖讜诐 诪爪讜讛 注讘讜讚 专讘谞谉 拽讗 诪砖诪注 诇谉

The Gemara asks: And why in fact does her sister not enter into levirate marriage? The Gemara answers: Her sister is forbidden to him because by Torah law the prohibited woman is still set before the yavam for levirate marriage. Were he to take the sister in levirate marriage he would essentially be encountering the sister of the woman with whom he has a levirate bond. It might enter your mind to say that due to the mitzva of levirate marriage, the Sages did as they did and nullified their decree prohibiting the sister of a woman with whom the yavam has a levirate bond from entering levirate marriage, when the original sister is forbidden only as the result of a mitzva. Therefore, it teaches us that they did not cancel their decree in this situation.

讛讬转讛 讗讞转 诪讛谉 讻讜壮 讛讗 转讜 诇诪讛 诇讬 讛讬讬谞讜 讛讱 诪讛 诇讬 诇讞讚 诪讛 诇讬 诇转专讬

It was taught in the mishna: If one of those women was forbidden to this one brother due to a prohibition against forbidden relatives and the second was forbidden to that second brother due to a prohibition against forbidden relatives, 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. The Gemara asks: Why do I need this halakha as well, for this is identical to that which was taught earlier, when the mishna stated that if one of the sisters was forbidden to one of the brothers due to a prohibition against forbidden relatives, then he is forbidden to marry her but permitted to marry her sister. However, the second brother, who is not a close relative of either sister, is prohibited from marrying both of them. Once the mishna taught that the yavam is permitted to marry the woman to whom he is not related, what is the difference to me if there is one brother or two brothers? If this happened to both brothers, clearly both should be allowed.

爪专讬讻讗 讚讗讬 讗砖诪讜注讬谞谉 讛转诐 诪砖讜诐 讚讗讬讻讗 砖谞讬 讚诪讜讻讞 讗讘诇 讛讻讗 讚诇讬讻讗 砖谞讬 讚拽讗 诪讜讻讞 讗讬诪讗 诇讗

The Gemara answers: It is necessary to state this, for if it taught us the halakha only there, in the case where only one brother is permitted, one might have said: This is because there is a second brother who indicates that the sister of a woman bound by a levirate bond is forbidden to him by refraining from levirate marriage with her. However, here, where there is not a second brother who indicates this, as both brothers are performing levirate marriage, then I would say no; this halakha would not apply, due to the concern that people might wrongly conclude that the sister of a woman with whom the yavam has a levirate bond is permitted even in cases where the other woman is not a forbidden relative.

讜讗讬 讗砖诪讜注讬谞谉 讛讻讗 讗讚专讘讛 转专讜讜讬讬讛讜 诪讜讻讞讬 讗讛讚讚讬 讗讘诇 讗讬讚讱 诇讗 爪专讬讻讗

And the opposite could also be said: If it taught us the ruling only here, in the case of two brothers, one might have said: On the contrary, they both indicate the nature of each other鈥檚 status. Each of the brothers married a specific sister-in-law, i.e., the woman who was not his close relative, indicating he does not have a levirate bond with the other sister. But in the other case, where one brother is allowed to consummate the levirate marriage and the second brother is forbidden to both sisters, I might say that no, we would not allow marriage to the first brother either. Therefore, it is necessary to state the halakha in both instances.

讝讜 讛讬讗 砖讗诪专讜 讜讻讜壮 讝讜 讛讬讗 诇诪注讜讟讬 诪讗讬 诇诪注讜讟讬 讗讬住讜专 诪爪讜讛 诇讝讛 讜讗讬住讜专 诪爪讜讛 诇讝讛

It was taught in the mishna: And this is the case that was referred to when they said: When her sister is also her yevama, she either performs 岣litza or enters into levirate marriage. The Gemara asks: What does the expression: This is, come to exclude? The Gemara answers: It excludes the case where there is a prohibition resulting from a mitzva for this one and a prohibition resulting from a mitzva for that one. Although each woman is forbidden to a different brother due to a prohibition resulting from a mitzva, they may not both enter into levirate marriage.

讛讗 转讜 诇诪讛 诇讬 讛讬讬谞讜 讛讱 诪讛 诇讬 诇讞讚 诪讛 诇讬 诇转专讬

The Gemara asks: Why do I need this as well? This is identical to that which was taught previously, that if one of the sisters was forbidden to the yavam due to a prohibition resulting from a mitzva, then he is not permitted to consummate the levirate marriage with either of them. What difference is there to me if she happened before one brother or two?

诪讛讜 讚转讬诪讗 讻讬 诇讗 讗诪专讬谞谉 讗讜拽讬 讗讬住讜专 诪爪讜讛 讘诪拽讜诐 讗讬住讜专 注专讜讛 讛讬讻讗 讚讗讬讻讗 诇诪讬讙讝专 诪砖讜诐 砖谞讬 讗讘诇 讛讬讻讗 讚诇讬讻讗 诇诪讬讙讝专 诪砖讜诐 砖谞讬 讗讬诪讗 诇讛讗讬 讗讜拽讬诪谞讗 讗讬住讜专 诪爪讜讛 讘诪拽讜诐 讗讬住讜专 注专讜讛 讜诇讛讗讬 [讗讜拽讬诪谞讗] 讗讬住讜专 诪爪讜讛 讘诪拽讜诐 讗讬住讜专 注专讜讛 讜诇讬讬讘诪讜 拽讗 诪砖诪注 诇谉

The Gemara answers: Lest you say: There is only one instance when we do not say: Let the prohibition resulting from a mitzva stand in the same place, i.e., level of severity, as a prohibition against forbidden relatives. It occurs in a case where it is appropriate to issue a rabbinic decree due to the second brother, who is prohibited from marrying both sisters. But in a case where it is not appropriate to issue a rabbinic decree due to the second brother, as the second sister is permitted to the second brother as well, I might say: For this brother, let us stand the prohibition resulting from a mitzva in the same place as a prohibition against forbidden relatives, and for this brother let us stand the prohibition resulting from a mitzva in the same place as a prohibition against forbidden relatives, and as a result both brothers may consummate the levirate marriage. Therefore, it teaches us that this is not so.

讗诪专 专讘 讬讛讜讚讛 讗诪专 专讘 讜讻谉 转谞讬 专讘讬 讞讬讬讗 讘讻讜诇谉 讗谞讬 拽讜专讗 讘讛谉 讛讗住讜专讛 诇讝讛 诪讜转专转 诇讝讛 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

搂 Incidental to this halakha, the Gemara cites the following statement: Rav Yehuda said that Rav said, and similarly Rabbi 岣yya teaches in a baraita: With regard to all of those women enumerated in the first mishna of the tractate, who are forbidden to the yevamin as forbidden relatives, the following situation could arise: These women could also be two sisters who were married to two brothers who happen before their yevamin for levirate marriage while each one is a forbidden relative to one of the yevamin. In these situations, I could apply the ruling that she who is forbidden to this brother is permitted to that brother, as well as the ruling that when her sister is also her yevama she may either perform 岣litza or enter into levirate marriage.

讜专讘 讬讛讜讚讛 诪转专讙诐 诪讞诪讜转讜 讜讗讬诇讱 讗讘诇 砖讬转讗 讘讘讬 讚专讬砖讗 诇讗

But Rav Yehuda interprets these principles as applying only to those cases found in the list from the mother-in-law of the yavam and onward, but not to the six cases at the beginning, which include his daughter, and his wife鈥檚 daughter, and their descendants.

诪讗讬 讟注诪讗 讻讬讜谉 讚讘转讜 讘讗讜谞住讬谉 讛讜讗 讚诪砖讻讞转 诇讛 讘谞砖讜讗讬谉 诇讗 诪砖讻讞转 诇讛

What is the reason for Rav Yehuda鈥檚 distinction? This is because you find the scenario where two women who are candidates for levirate marriage are both sisters as well as the daughters of the two yevamin only in a case where the women are the daughters of the yevamin through rape, but you cannot find it in a case where they are his daughters through marriage. If one brother married a woman and had a daughter with her, then this woman, the wife of a brother who has children, is forbidden to all of his brothers. Therefore, it would be impossible for another brother to have a daughter with that same woman, and therefore the two daughters could never be sisters. The scenario of daughters who are also sisters is possible only when the first brother raped a woman and gave birth to a daughter, such that the woman is not forbidden to his brothers. If one of the brothers then had a daughter with this woman and both daughters married other brothers who then died, it is possible that these daughters would happen before their fathers for levirate marriage.

讘谞砖讜讗讬谉 拽诪讬讬专讬 讘讗讜谞住讬谉 诇讗 拽讗 诪讬讬专讬

Rav Yehuda maintains that the current mishna deals with cases of marriage but does not deal with cases of rape, and therefore he does not apply the principles governing sisters to those cases.

讜讗讘讬讬 诪转专讙诐 讗祝 讘转讜 (讘讗讛) 诪讗谞讜住转讜 讻讬讜谉 讚讗砖讻讜讞讬 诪砖讻讞转 诇讛 讗讬 讘注讬讗 讘讗讜谞住讬谉 转讬讛讜讬 讗讬 讘注讬讗 讘谞砖讜讗讬谉 转讛讜讬 讗讘诇 讗砖转 讗讞讬讜 砖诇讗 讛讬讛 讘注讜诇诪讜 诇讗 讻讬讜谉 讚讗诇讬讘讗 讚专讘讬 砖诪注讜谉 讛讜讗 讚诪砖讻讞转 诇讛 讗诇讬讘讗 讚专讘谞谉 诇讗 诪砖讻讞转 诇讛 讘驻诇讜讙转讗 诇讗 拽诪讬讬专讬

And Abaye interprets these principles as applying even to his daughter from a woman he raped. Since you can find this scenario, if the statement wants to deal with cases of rape, let it; if it wants to deal with cases of marriage, let it. It is preferable to explain this matter with regard to cases of marriage, but if that is not possible, it can still be explained as dealing with cases of rape. However, it cannot be explained as referring to the wife of a brother with whom he did not coexist. Even according to the opinion of Abaye, this case cannot be included, since you can find a situation where two sisters happen before two brothers for levirate marriage while each woman is the wife of a brother with whom he did not coexist only according to the opinion of Rabbi Shimon, while such a case cannot be found according to the opinion of the Rabbis. And Rabbi 岣yya does not deal with cases that are subject to dispute.

讜专讘 住驻专讗 诪转专讙诐 讗祝 讗砖转 讗讞讬讜 砖诇讗 讛讬讛 讘注讜诇诪讜 讜诪砖讻讞转 诇讛 讘砖讬转讗 讗讞讬 讜讗诇讬讘讗 讚专讘讬 砖诪注讜谉 讜住讬诪谞讬讱 诪转 谞讜诇讚 讜讬讬讘诐 诪转 谞讜诇讚 讜讬讬讘诐

And Rav Safra interprets these principles as applying to the wife of a brother with whom he did not coexist, and you can find this scenario in the case of the six brothers and according to the opinion of Rabbi Shimon. And your mnemonic to remember how this might come about is as follows: Died, born, consummated the levirate marriage; died, born, consummated the levirate marriage.

专讗讜讘谉 讜砖诪注讜谉 谞砖讜讗讬谉 砖转讬 讗讞讬讜转 诇讜讬 讜讬讛讜讚讛 谞砖讜讗讬谉 砖转讬 谞讻专讬讜转 诪转 专讗讜讘谉 谞讜诇讚 讬砖砖讻专 讜讬讬讘诐 诇讜讬 诪转 砖诪注讜谉 谞讜诇讚 讝讘讜诇谉 讜讬讬讘诐 讬讛讜讚讛 诪转讜 诇讜讬 讜讬讛讜讚讛 讘诇讗 讘谞讬诐 讜谞驻诇讜 诇讛讜 拽诪讬 讬砖砖讻专 讜讝讘讜诇谉

How could this come about? There were two brothers, Reuven and Shimon, who were married to two sisters. And there were two other brothers, Levi and Yehuda, who were married to two unrelated women. Reuven died, Yissakhar was born, and Levi consummated the levirate marriage with Reuven鈥檚 wife. Afterward, Shimon died, Zevulun was born, and Yehuda consummated the levirate marriage with Shimon鈥檚 wife. Later, Levi and Yehuda died childless and these two sisters happened before Yissakhar and Zevulun for levirate marriage.

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 讜讗讞讜转讛 砖讛讬讗 讬讘诪转讛

In this scenario, the woman who had been Reuven鈥檚 wife is forbidden to this brother, Yissakhar, as the wife of a brother with whom he did not coexist, because he was not alive at the same time as Reuven, and yet she is nevertheless permitted to this brother, Zevulun, because when Zevulun was born this woman was already the wife of Levi, a brother with whom he did coexist. According to Rabbi Shimon, the fact that she had previously been the wife of Reuven, a brother with whom he did not coexist, is not taken into account. Similarly, with regard to Shimon鈥檚 wife, we find that she who is forbidden to this one is permitted to that one. Shimon鈥檚 wife is forbidden to Zevulun as the wife of a brother with whom he did not coexist, but she is nevertheless permitted to Yissakhar. Accordingly, the situation of her sister who is her yevama, i.e., two sisters who are yevamot and yet are allowed to perform levirate marriage, can be applied to this case as well.

诇诪讛 诇讬 讬讬讘诐 讬讛讜讚讛 讘诇讗 讬讬讘诐 讬讛讜讚讛 谞诪讬 诪砖讻讞转 诇讛

The Gemara asks: Why do I need to assume that this is referring to a scenario where Yehuda consummated the levirate marriage? You can find this possibility in a case where Yehuda did not consummate the levirate marriage as well. This scenario can also take place with only five brothers and without Yehuda: Reuven and Shimon were married to two sisters, Reuven died, Yissakhar was born, and Levi consummated the levirate marriage with Reuven鈥檚 wife. Then Shimon died and Zevulun was born. If Levi then dies, Levi鈥檚 wife is forbidden to Yissakhar as the wife of his brother Reuven, with whom he did not coexist, but she would be permitted to Zevulun because she was already the wife of Levi when Zevulun was born. Shimon鈥檚 wife would be forbidden to Zevulun but permitted to Yissakhar.

诪砖讜诐 爪专讛 讛讗 转讬谞讞 爪专讛 爪专讛 讚爪专讛 诪讗讬 讗讬讻讗 诇诪讬诪专

The Gemara responds: This is due to the rival wife. It was taught in this way in order to make the principle applicable not only to the wives, but also to their rival wives. In this scenario, Levi and Yehuda were previously married to two sisters who then became the rival wives of a wife of a brother with whom one did not coexist. This allows the ruling to apply to the case of rival wives as well. The Gemara notes: This works out well if the mishna comes to include only a rival wife herself, but what can be said about the rival wife of a rival wife? How can this case explained? If one aims to include all of the details of the mishna in Rabbi 岣yya鈥檚 principle, then the mishna must be referring not only to a case involving the brothers鈥 rival wives, but also to the rival wives of those rival wives mentioned in the mishna.

讻讙讜谉 讚讛讚专 讜讬讘诪讬谞讛讜 谞诪讬 讙讚 讜讗砖专

The Gemara answers: Therefore, one must include a case where Gad and Asher subsequently consummated the levirate marriage with these women as well. That is, initially there were two other brothers, Gad and Asher, who consummated the levirate marriage with the previous wives of Levi and Yehuda, each of whom had taken one of the wives of Reuven and Shimon. Later, when Gad and Asher died, their previous wives, who are the rival wives of the rival wives of Reuven and Shimon鈥檚 wives, happen before Yissakhar and Zevulun for levirate marriage.

诪转谞讬壮 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

MISHNA: In the case of three brothers, two of whom were married to close relatives, e.g., two sisters; or a woman and her daughter; or a woman and her daughter鈥檚 daughter; or a woman and her son鈥檚 daughter, if the two brothers who were married to two close relatives died and their wives happened before a third brother for levirate marriage, then these two women must perform 岣litza and may not enter into levirate marriage, as each of them is a relative of a woman with whom he has a levirate bond. And Rabbi Shimon exempts them even from the obligation to perform 岣litza.

讛讬转讛 讗讞转 诪讛谉 讗住讜专讛 注诇讬讜 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 讗讬住讜专 诪爪讜讛 讗讜 讗讬住讜专 拽讚讜砖讛 讞讜诇爪讜转 讜诇讗 诪转讬讬讘诪讜转

If one of them was forbidden to him, the third brother, due to a prohibition against forbidden relatives, then he is prohibited from marrying her but is permitted to marry her sister. Because the woman who is forbidden to him is not considered to be a woman who requires him for levirate marriage, there is only one woman who happens before him for levirate marriage. However, if one of the women was forbidden due to a prohibition resulting from a mitzva or a prohibition stemming from sanctity, then they must perform 岣litza and may not enter into levirate marriage. This is because these prohibitions do not completely cancel the levirate bond.

讙诪壮 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

GEMARA: It is taught in a baraita: Rabbi Shimon exempts both of them from 岣litza and from 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 18:18). This indicates that at the time that a situation arises wherein they are to become rival wives to each other, e.g., two sisters happen before one yavam for levirate marriage, you shall not have the ability to take even one of them in marriage. In his opinion, both women are exempt from both levirate marriage and 岣litza at the moment that they happen before the yavam, just as a forbidden relative is exempt from both levirate marriage and 岣litza.

讛讬转讛 讗讞转 诪讛谉 讻讜壮 讛讗 转讜 诇诪讛 诇讬 讛讬讬谞讜 讛讱

It was taught in the mishna: If one of them was forbidden to him due to a prohibition against forbidden relatives, he is prohibited from marrying her but is permitted to marry her sister. The Gemara asks: Why do I need this statement as well? This is identical to that which was taught in the previous mishna.

诇专讘讬 砖诪注讜谉 讗讬爪讟专讬讱 住诇拽讗 讚注转讱 讗诪讬谞讗 讛讜讗讬诇 讜讗诪专 专讘讬 砖诪注讜谉 砖转讬 讗讞讬讜转 诇讗 讞讜诇爪讜转 讜诇讗 诪转讬讬讘诪讜转 诇讙讝讜专 诪砖讜诐 砖转讬 讗讞讬讜转 讚注诇诪讗 拽诪砖诪注 诇谉

The Gemara answers: It was necessary to state this again here according to the opinion of Rabbi Shimon. It might enter your mind to say: Since Rabbi Shimon said that two sisters may not perform 岣litza and may not enter into levirate marriage, as the very fact that they require levirate marriage from the same man and stand to become rival wives to each other renders them forbidden, we should issue a rabbinic decree in this case as well. Although in this case only one of the sisters is eligible for levirate marriage, as the other is a forbidden relative, perhaps there should be a rabbinic decree prohibiting the yavam from marrying the permitted sister, due to the similarity to the case of two sisters in general who happen before him for levirate marriage. This teaches us that even Rabbi Shimon does not hold that there is a rabbinic decree in this case.

讗讬住讜专 诪爪讜讛 讻讜壮

It was taught in the mishna that if the wives are forbidden to the yavam due to a prohibition resulting from a mitzva or sanctity, they must perform 岣litza and may not enter into levirate marriage.

Scroll To Top