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

Today's Daf Yomi

November 2, 2014 | 讟壮 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 29

Study Guide Yevamot 29


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

讜讛讗 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

This halakha was also taught in the previous mishna (26a), and it is cited in this mishna according to the opinion of Rabbi Shimon. The Gemara asks: But didn鈥檛 Rabbi Shimon say: Two sisters neither perform 岣litza nor enter into levirate marriage? Because these women are eligible for levirate marriage according to Torah law, they are considered the sisters of a woman with whom he has a levirate bond. In this case, Rabbi Shimon exempts them from both 岣litza and levirate marriage. Why, then, does the mishna require them to perform 岣litza?

讙讝讬专讛 诪砖讜诐 讗讬住讜专 诪爪讜讛 讚注诇诪讗

The Gemara answers: It is a rabbinic decree due to the general case of a prohibition resulting from a mitzva. If they did not perform 岣litza in this case, where they are sisters, there is a concern that people would assume that their exemption from 岣litza stemmed not from their status as sisters but rather due to the prohibition. This would lead to the mistaken conclusion that women who are forbidden due to a mitzva do not require 岣litza. Therefore, the Sages issued a rabbinic decree requiring 岣litza in this case.

讛讗 转讬谞讞 讗讬讛讬 讗讞讜转讛 诪讗讬 讗讬讻讗 诇诪讬诪专 讙讝讬专讛 讗讞讜转讛 诪砖讜诐 诇转讗 讚讬讚讛

The Gemara asks: This works out well for her, as she is forbidden due to the prohibition resulting from a mitzva. It is appropriate to require 岣litza with her, to demonstrate that 岣litza is generally applied in cases where there is a prohibition resulting from a mitzva. But with regard to her sister, what is there to say? Why must she perform 岣litza as well? The Gemara answers: There is a rabbinic decree with regard to her sister due to her.

讜讛讗 讙讘讬 注专讜讛 诇讗 讙讝专讬谞谉 砖讗谞讬 注专讜讛 讚诪讙诪专 讙诪讬专讬 诇讛 讗讬谞砖讬 讜拽诇讗 讗讬转 诇讛

The Gemara asks: If Rabbi Shimon issues a decree in this case requiring 岣litza for the sister, out of concern for confusion, then there is a difficulty: But, with regard to a forbidden relative we do not issue a decree requiring 岣litza due to her sister; why does Rabbi Shimon issue a rabbinic decree requiring 岣litza with a woman forbidden due to a prohibition resulting from a mitzva and not with a woman who is a forbidden relative? The Gemara answers: Forbidden relatives are different, as people learn the halakhot pertaining to them because they are stated explicitly in the Torah and are well known to all, and the ruling has publicity. Therefore, there is no concern lest people mistakenly confuse this case with cases of yevamot who are not sisters. Prohibitions resulting from mitzvot are not, however, explicit in the Torah, nor are they generally known.

诪转谞讬壮 砖诇砖讛 讗讞讬谉 砖谞讬诐 谞砖讜讗讬诐 砖转讬 讗讞讬讜转 讜讗讞讚 诪讜驻谞讛 诪转 讗讞讚 诪讘注诇讬 讗讞讬讜转 讜注砖讛 讘讛 诪讜驻谞讛 诪讗诪专 讜讗讞专 讻讱 诪转 讗讞讬讜 讛砖谞讬

MISHNA: In the case of three brothers, two of whom were married to two sisters, and one who was single, the following occurred: The husband of one of the sisters died childless, leaving behind his wife, and the single brother performed levirate betrothal [ma鈥檃mar] to this wife. The single brother performed an act of betrothal to the yevama but did not yet consummate the marriage by engaging in sexual intercourse. Afterward, the second brother died, and therefore the second brother鈥檚 wife, the sister of the betrothed, happened before the single brother for levirate marriage as well.

讘讬转 砖诪讗讬 讗讜诪专讬诐 讗砖转讜 注诪讜 讜讛诇讝讜 转爪讗 诪砖讜诐 讗讞讜转 讗砖讛 讜讘讬转 讛诇诇 讗讜诪专讬诐 诪讜爪讬讗 讗转 讗砖转讜 讘讙讟 讜讘讞诇讬爪讛 讜讗砖转 讗讞讬讜 讘讞诇讬爪讛 讝讜 讛讬讗 砖讗诪专讜 讗讜讬 诇讜 注诇 讗砖转讜 讜讗讜讬 诇讜 注诇 讗砖转 讗讞讬讜

In this case, Beit Shammai say: His wife remains with him. The woman he betrothed is considered like his wife, and he is not required to divorce her. And this other woman leaves the yavam and is exempt from levirate marriage as the sister of a wife. Beit Hillel say: Being as he had not yet entered into marriage with the first woman, he is required to perform levirate marriage with both women. Therefore, he divorces his wife, i.e., the woman to whom he performed levirate betrothal, with a bill of divorce, which nullifies levirate betrothal, and by 岣litza, which nullifies the levirate bond. And, he sends away the wife of his second brother with 岣litza as well. They comment: This is the case that was referred to when the Sages said: Woe unto him for his wife and woe unto him for the wife of his brother. Due to the combination of circumstances, he loses them both.

讙诪壮 讝讜 讛讬讗 诇诪注讜讟讬 诪讗讬 诇诪注讜讟讬 讛讱 讚专讘讬 讬讛讜砖注 讚诇讗 注讘讚讬谞谉 讻讜讜转讬讛 讗诇讗 讗讬 讻专讘谉 讙诪诇讬讗诇 讗讬 讻专讘讬 讗诇注讝专

GEMARA: The Gemara asks: What does the mishna鈥檚 formulation of the term: This is, which indicates limitation and exactitude, come to exclude? The Gemara answers: It excludes that statement of Rabbi Yehoshua (109a). There, Rabbi Yehoshua holds that if a man is married to a minor when her sister happens before him for levirate marriage, he must send both of the women away. He said there: Woe unto him for his wife and woe unto him for the wife of his brother. From the language in the mishna here, we learn that we do not act in accordance with his opinion. Rather, we act either in accordance with the opinion of Rabban Gamliel or in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Elazar. According to the opinion of both of these tanna鈥檌m in the mishna (109a), despite the conflict between the brother鈥檚 marriage to the minor and the levirate bond with her sister, there is still a way for him to marry one of the women.

讗诪专 专讘讬 讗诇注讝专 诇讗 转讬诪讗 诪讗诪专 诇讘讬转 砖诪讗讬 拽讜谞讛 拽谞讬谉 讙诪讜专 讚讗讬 讘注讬 诇讗驻讜拽讬 住讙讬 诇讛 讘讙讬讟讗 讗诇讗 诪讗诪专 诇讘讬转 砖诪讗讬 讗讬谞讜 拽讜谞讛 讗诇讗 诇讚讞讜转 讘爪专讛 讘诇讘讚

搂 With regard to the main issue of levirate betrothal, it would seem from this mishna that Beit Shammai hold that levirate betrothal has the legal force of levirate marriage. However, Rabbi Elazar said: Do not say that levirate betrothal acquires the woman as a full-fledged acquisition according to the opinion of Beit Shammai, such that the first woman becomes his wife to the extent that if he wants to divorce her a bill of divorce would suffice without an act of 岣litza. Rather, for Beit Shammai, levirate betrothal acquires the woman only insofar as it precludes a rival wife from entering levirate marriage. The legal force of levirate betrothal is limited to preventing the rival wife of the sister from performing levirate marriage; she is exempt from both levirate marriage and 岣litza.

讗诪专 专讘讬 讗讘讬谉 讗祝 讗谞谉 谞诪讬 转谞讬谞讗 讘讬转 砖诪讗讬 讗讜诪专讬诐 讬拽讬讬诪讜 讬拽讬讬诪讜 讗讬谉 诇讻转讞诇讛 诇讗

Rabbi Avin said: We, too, learn in the mishna a proof that levirate betrothal is not a full-fledged act of acquisition, even according to Beit Shammai. The mishna at the beginning of this chapter (26a) teaches that when two sisters who are yevamot happen before two brothers for levirate marriage, if the brothers married their wives before consulting the court, then Beit Shammai say: They may maintain them as their wives. From here it can be deduced: If they already married them, yes, they may maintain them. However, marrying them ab initio, no, this is prohibited due to the prohibition against marrying the sister of a woman with whom one has a levirate bond.

讜讗讬 住诇拽讗 讚注转讱 诪讗诪专 诇讘讬转 砖诪讗讬 拽讜谞讛 拽谞讬谉 讙诪讜专 讝讛 讬注砖讛 诪讗诪专 讜讬拽谞讛 讜讝讛 讬注砖讛 诪讗诪专 讜讬拽谞讛

And if it enters your mind that according to Beit Shammai levirate betrothal acquires the woman as a full-fledged acquisition, then this matter could potentially have been resolved ab initio: This brother should perform levirate betrothal and acquire one sister, and that brother should perform levirate betrothal and acquire the other sister. As there is no prohibition whatsoever involved in performing levirate betrothal, the concern for violating a prohibition by consummating the levirate marriage with a sister of a woman with whom he has a levirate bond is avoided; he only betroths her, but does not engage in sexual intercourse with her. After the betrothal, the levirate bond of her sister is dissolved and he can freely consummate the levirate marriage with her.

讗诇讗 诪讗讬 讚讜讞讛 讚讞讬讬讛 讙诪讜专讛 讝讛 讬注砖讛 诪讗诪专 讜讬讚讞讛 讜讝讛 讬注砖讛 诪讗诪专 讜讬讚讞讛

The Gemara objects: Rather, what then? If levirate betrothal does not serve to fully acquire the woman, what is the alternative? It must be that according to Beit Shammai levirate betrothal precludes the rival wife from entering levirate marriage with a complete preclusion. If so, there is an additional potential scenario: This one should perform levirate betrothal with one sister and preclude the second sister from entering levirate marriage, and that one should perform levirate betrothal with the second sister and preclude the first sister from entering levirate marriage. In this way, the yevamin can consummate the levirate marriage with the sisters ab initio as well. Yet the mishna does not allow for this possibility.

讗诇讗 诪讗讬 讗讬转 诇讱 诇诪讬诪专 诪讗诪专 讚讛转讬专讗 讚讞讬 讚讗讬住讜专讗 诇讗 讚讞讬 讛讻讬 谞诪讬 诪讗诪专 讗驻讬诇讜 诇诪讗谉 讚讗诪专 诪讗诪专 拽讜谞讛 拽谞讬谉 讙诪讜专 诪讗诪专 讚讛转讬专讗 拽谞讬 讚讗讬住讜专讗 诇讗 拽谞讬

Rather, what have you to say? One must assert that levirate betrothal performed in circumstances where it is permitted to perform levirate marriage, i.e. where there is no prohibition with regard to the close relative of a woman with whom the yavam has a levirate bond, completely precludes the rival wife from entering levirate marriage. However, levirate betrothal performed in circumstances where it is forbidden to perform levirate marriage, does not preclude entering levirate marriage. Therefore, in the case of two sisters who happen simultaneously before two brothers for levirate marriage, the sisters cannot be precluded from entering levirate marriage via levirate betrothal. So too here, with regard to levirate betrothal performed by the third brother, the same distinction can be made. Even according to the one who said that levirate betrothal acquires a woman as a full-fledged acquisition, just like marriage, there is the following difference: Levirate betrothal under permitted circumstances acquires the woman, but levirate betrothal under forbidden circumstances does not acquire the woman. Therefore, there is no proof as to the nature of levirate betrothal according to the opinion of Beit Shammai from the first mishna in the chapter.

专讘 讗砖讬 诪转谞讬 讛讻讬 讗诪专 专讘讬 讗诇注讝专 诇讗 转讬诪讗 诪讗诪专 诇讘讬转 砖诪讗讬 讚讞讬 讚讞讬讬讛 讙诪讜专讛 讜爪专转讛 讞诇讬爪讛 谞诪讬 诇讗 讘注讬讗 讗诇讗 讚讜讞讛 讜诪砖讬讬专 讛讜讗

Rav Ashi teaches this discourse in this manner: Rabbi Elazar said: Do not say that according to Beit Shammai levirate betrothal precludes entering levirate marriage as a complete preclusion, so that the rival wife of the woman who received levirate betrothal does not require even 岣litza. Rather, it precludes entering levirate marriage and yet leaves a remnant of the levirate bond in place. Accordingly, levirate betrothal precludes the rival wife鈥檚 entering levirate marriage to the degree that the yavam is not required to divorce the woman he betrothed, but the levirate bond with the rival wife remains to the extent that he must still perform 岣litza with her.

讗诪专 专讘讬 讗讘讬谉 讗祝 讗谞谉 谞诪讬 转谞讬谞讗 讘讬转 砖诪讗讬 讗讜诪专讬诐 讬拽讬讬诪讜 讬拽讬讬诪讜 讗讬谉 诇讻转讞诇讛 诇讗 讜讗讬 住诇拽讗 讚注转讱 诪讗诪专 诇讘讬转 砖诪讗讬 讚讜讞讛 讚讞讬讬讛 讙诪讜专讛 讝讛 讬注砖讛 诪讗诪专 讜讬讚讞讛 讜讝讛 讬注砖讛 诪讗诪专 讜讬讚讞讛 讜讗诇讗 讛讗 拽转谞讬 讘讬转 砖诪讗讬 讗讜诪专讬诐 讗砖转讜 注诪讜 讜讛诇讝讜 转爪讗 诪砖讜诐 讗讞讜转 讗砖讛

Rabbi Avin said: We, too, learn this statement from the mishna, where it states: Beit Shammai say: They may maintain them as their wives. From here it can be deduced: Yes, they may maintain them as their wives after the fact; no, they are not allowed to marry them ab initio. And if it enters your mind to say that, according to Beit Shammai, levirate betrothal precludes entering levirate marriage as a complete preclusion, then this brother should perform levirate betrothal and preclude one sister from levirate marriage, and that brother should perform levirate betrothal and preclude the other sister from levirate marriage. The Gemara challenges this conclusion: But didn鈥檛 the mishna teach that Beit Shammai say: His wife remains with him, and this other is sent away due to her status as a sister of his wife? This indicates that she is exempt from levirate marriage and does not even require 岣litza.

讗诇讗 讬讘诪讛 讚讞讝讬讗 诇讻讜诇讛讜 讞讝讬讗 诇诪拽爪转讛 讬讘诪讛 讚诇讗 讞讝讬讗 诇讻讜诇讛讜 诇讗 讞讝讬讗 诇诪拽爪转讛

Rather, one must resolve this by asserting that a yevama who is suitable for all of the aspects of levirate marriage is also suitable for part of it. If a yevama is eligible for both levirate marriage and 岣litza when she happens before the brothers, as in the case cited in the present mishna where the woman who happened before the third brother was permitted to enter into levirate marriage, she is eligible for part of it. This indicates that if the yavam does not take her in levirate marriage but performs only levirate betrothal, the levirate betrothal has sufficient legal force to preclude the rival wife completely. However, a yevama who is not suitable for all of the aspects of levirate marriage is also not suitable for a part of it. If the yevama is not eligible for levirate marriage, such as in the case referred to in the first mishna of this chapter, where both women happened simultaneously so that the yavam is not permitted to consummate the levirate marriage with either woman, she is not suitable for part of it. In that case, if the yavam performs levirate betrothal, it does not have the legal force to affect a total preclusion.

讘注讬 专讘讛 诪讗诪专 诇讘讬转 砖诪讗讬 谞讬砖讜讗讬谉 注讜砖讛 讗讜 讗讬专讜住讬谉 注讜砖讛 讗诪专 诇讬讛 讗讘讬讬 诇诪讗讬 讛诇讻转讗

搂 With regard to Beit Shammai鈥檚 opinion about levirate betrothal, Rabba asks: Does levirate betrothal, according to the opinion of Beit Shammai, create a full-fledged marriage bond? Or, does it merely create betrothal, similar to all other acts of betrothal? Abaye said to him: With regard to what halakha do you ask this?

讗讬诇讬诪讗 诇讬讜专砖讛 讜诇讬讟诪讗 诇讛 讜诇讛驻专 谞讚专讬讛 讛砖转讗 讗专讜住讛 讘注诇诪讗 转谞讬 专讘讬 讞讬讬讗 讗砖转讜 讗专讜住讛 诇讗 讗讜谞谉 讜诇讗 诪讟诪讗 诇讛 讜讻谉 讛讬讗 诇讗 讗讜谞谞转 讜诇讗 诪讟诪讗转 诇讜 诪转讛 讗讬谞讜 讬讜专砖讛 诪转 讛讜讗 讙讜讘讛 讻转讜讘转讛 注讘讚 讘讛 诪讗诪专 诪讬讘注讬讗

If we say it pertains to inheriting from her when she dies, and to becoming ritually impure for her if he is a priest, and to nullifying her vows, all of which are rights and obligations acquired by marriage, this is difficult. Now, with regard to a betrothed woman in general, i.e., a woman who was betrothed by Torah law, Rabbi 岣yya teaches in a baraita: One does not enter acute mourning on the day of the death of his betrothed wife, nor can he become ritually impure for her if she dies if he is a priest. Similarly, she does not enter acute mourning for him and is not obligated to become ritually impure for him. If she dies, he does not inherit from her; if he dies, she collects the payment of her marriage contract; In a case where he performed only levirate betrothal with her, is it necessary to say that he does not inherit from her, nor does he become ritually impure for her? Therefore, this halakha is obvious and Rabba鈥檚 question seems superfluous.

讜讗诇讗 诇注谞讬谉 诪住讬专讛 诇讞讜驻讛 诪讗讬 谞讬砖讜讗讬谉 注讜砖讛 讜诇讗 讘注讬讗 诪住讬专讛 诇讞讜驻讛 讗讜 讚诇诪讗 讗讬专讜住讬谉 注讜砖讛 讜讘注讬讗 诪住讬专讛 诇讞讜驻讛

Rather, the question must relate to the matter of delivery of the woman to the husband under a wedding canopy. What is the ruling with regard to this? Is the yavam obligated to enter the wedding canopy in the manner that he would with any other betrothed woman, or not? This is the dilemma: Does levirate betrothal create a full-fledged marriage bond, whereby the yevama would not require further delivery to a wedding canopy? Or, does levirate betrothal perhaps create only betrothal, whereby she would require delivery to a wedding canopy?

讗诪专 诇讬讛 讛砖转讗 诇讗 注讘讚 讘讛 诪讗诪专 讻转讬讘 讬讘诪讛 讬讘讗 注诇讬讛 讘注诇 讻专讞讛 注讘讚 讘讛 诪讗诪专 诪讬讘注讬讗

Abaye said to him that this question is not necessary, as well: Now, if he did not perform levirate betrothal with her at all, it is written: 鈥淗er brother-in-law will have intercourse with her鈥 (Deuteronomy 25:5). It is deduced from this verse that he can take her even against her will. Is it necessary to say that if he performed levirate betrothal with her, even without a wedding canopy, that he is allowed to engage in sexual intercourse with her?

讗诪专 诇讬讛 砖讗谞讬 讗讜诪专 讻诇 讛注讜砖讛 诪讗诪专 讘讬讘诪转讜 驻专讞讛 诪诪谞讜 讝讬拽转 讬讘诪讬谉 讜讞诇讛 注诇讬讛 讝讬拽转 讗讬专讜住讬谉 诪讗讬

Rabba said to him: This question is relevant, as I say that anyone who performs levirate betrothal with his yevama causes the levirate bond to be removed from him, and he is no longer considered subject to the halakhot of levirate marriage. Instead, a standard bond of betrothal applies to him. Therefore, it is appropriate to ask if this act of levirate betrothal is similar to a standard betrothal insofar as the wedding canopy is concerned, and consequently the woman would be required to enter the wedding canopy. Alternatively, perhaps the halakhot of levirate marriage still apply somewhat, in which case the woman would not be required to enter a wedding canopy in order to become married, similar to a standard yevama to whom levirate betrothal was not performed. Does the performance of levirate betrothal weaken the capacity of intercourse to establish levirate marriage on its own? What is the halakhic ruling here?

转讗 砖诪注 砖讜诪专转 讬讘诐 讘讬谉 讬讘诐 讗讞讚 讘讬谉 砖谞讬 讬讘诪讬谉 专讘讬 讗诇讬注讝专 讗讜诪专 讬驻专 专讘讬 讬讛讜砖注 讗讜诪专 诇讗讞讚 讜诇讗 诇砖谞讬诐 专讘讬 注拽讬讘讗 讗讜诪专 诇讗 诇讗讞讚 讜诇讗 诇砖谞讬诐

The Gemara suggests: Come and hear an answer from what is taught in a mishna (Nedarim 74a): What is the ruling with regard to the nullification of vows for a widow who is waiting for her yavam, whether she is waiting for a single yavam or two yevamin? Rabbi Eliezer says: Let him nullify her vows. The yavam may nullify her vows as though he were her husband. Rabbi Yehoshua says: This holds true only if she is bonded to a single yavam, but not to two. Rabbi Akiva says: It does not hold true, neither to one yavam nor to two yevamin. They may not they nullify her vows.

讜讛讜讬谞谉 讘讛 讘砖诇诪讗 专讘讬 注拽讬讘讗 住讘专 讗讬谉 讝讬拽讛 讗驻讬诇讜 诇讞讚 诇专讘讬 讬讛讜砖注 诇讞讚 讬砖 讝讬拽讛 诇转专讬 讗讬谉 讝讬拽讛 讗诇讗 诇专讘讬 讗诇讬注讝专 谞讛讬 谞诪讬 讚拽住讘专 讬砖 讝讬拽讛 讘砖诇诪讗 诇讞讚 诪讬驻专 讗诇讗 诇转专讬 讗诪讗讬

And we discussed this issue, interpreting the various opinions: Granted, Rabbi Akiva holds that the levirate bond is not substantial, even in the case of one yavam. In his opinion, the levirate obligation does not create a marriage bond at all, even if there is only a single yavam. And according to Rabbi Yehoshua, the levirate bond with one yavam is substantial. The yevama undoubtedly requires this yavam for levirate marriage, and therefore she is considered to be like his wife. But with two yevamin, the levirate bond is not substantial, since it is not clear which brother will consummate the levirate marriage with her. However, Rabbi Eliezer, if he indeed holds that the levirate bond is substantial, his opinion is difficult. Granted, if there is one yavam, he can nullify her vows, but if there are two, why should only one of them suffice to nullify her vows, as it is not yet clear which of them will eventually marry her?

讜讗诪专 专讘讬 讗诪讬 (讘专 讗讛讘讛) 讛讻讗 讘诪讗讬 注住拽讬谞谉 讻讙讜谉 讚注讘讚 讘讛 诪讗诪专 讜讘讬转 砖诪讗讬 讛讬讗 讚讗诪专 诪讗诪专 拽讜谞讛 拽谞讬谉 讙诪讜专

And Rabbi Ami bar Ahava said: With what are we dealing here? This is a case where one of them performed levirate betrothal with her, and this is in accordance with the opinion of Beit Shammai, who say: Levirate betrothal acquires her as a full-fledged acquisition.

讗讬 讗诪专转 讘砖诇诪讗 谞讬砖讜讗讬谉 注讜砖讛 诪砖讜诐 讛讻讬 诪讬驻专 讗诇讗 讗讬 讗诪专转 讗讬专讜住讬谉 注讜砖讛 讛讬讻讬 诪爪讬 诪讬驻专 讜讛转谞谉 谞注专讛 讛诪讗讜专住讛 讗讘讬讛 讜讘注诇讛 诪驻讬专讬诐 谞讚专讬讛 讗诪专 专讘 谞讞诪谉 讘专 讬爪讞拽 诪讗讬 诪讬驻专 诪讬驻专 讘砖讜转驻讜转

This interpretation can resolve Rabba鈥檚 question. Granted, if you say levirate betrothal creates a full-fledged marriage, it is due to that reason that the yavam can nullify her vows just as a full-fledged husband does. However, if you say that levirate betrothal merely creates betrothal, how can he nullify the vows? Even in standard cases of betrothal by Torah law the husband cannot nullify her vows, for didn鈥檛 we learn in a mishna: With regard to a betrothed young woman, only her father and her husband together can nullify her vows? How could a yavam nullify the vows without the father of the yevama, if he is not considered a full-fledged husband? Rav Na岣an bar Yitz岣k said that this proof can be rejected by interpreting the mishna as follows: What is the meaning of the phrase: He nullifies? That he nullifies her vows only in conjunction with her father.

讜诇专讘讬 讗诇注讝专 讚讗诪专 诪讗诪专 诇讘讬转 砖诪讗讬 讗讬谞讜 拽讜谞讛 讗诇讗 诇讚讞讜转 诇爪专讛 讘诇讘讚 讗诪讗讬 诪讬驻专 讘砖讜转驻讜转 讗诪专 诇讱 专讘讬 讗诇注讝专 讗讬诪专 讚讗诪专讬 讗谞讗 讗讬谞讜 拽讜谞讛 讗诇讗 诇讚讞讜转 诇爪专讛 讘诇讘讚 讚诇讗 住讙讬 诇讛 讘讙讬讟讗 讗诇讗 讘注讬 谞诪讬 讞诇讬爪讛 诇讛驻专 谞讚专讬讛 诪讬 讗诪专讬谞谉

The Gemara questions this reading of the mishna: And according to the opinion of Rabbi Elazar, who said that for Beit Shammai levirate betrothal acquires the woman only insofar as it precludes a rival wife from entering levirate marriage, and it is not a full-fledged acquisition, why should the yavam nullify her vows, even if he does so in conjunction with her father? The Gemara answers: Rabbi Eliezer could have said to you: One can say that when I said that levirate betrothal acquires the woman only insofar as it precludes the rival wife from entering levirate marriage, it was to emphasize that a bill of divorce would not suffice for her, but rather she also requires 岣litza. However, with regard to the matter of nullifying her vows, do we say that levirate betrothal is not effective, and that he cannot nullify her vows alone?

讜讗讬讘注讬转 讗讬诪讗 讗诪专 诇讱 专讘讬 讗诇注讝专 讜诇专讘 谞讞诪谉 讘专 讬爪讞拽 诪讬 谞讬讞讗 诪讬 拽转谞讬 讬驻专讜 讬驻专 拽转谞讬 讗诇讗 讛讻讗 讘诪讗讬 注住拽讬谞谉 砖注诪讚讛 讘讚讬谉 讜驻住拽讜 诇讛 诪讝讜谞讜转 诪砖诇讜

And if you wish, say an alternate explanation: Rabbi Elazar could have said to you: And as for Rav Na岣an bar Yitz岣k, does this resolution that the mishna is only referring to a case where the father and the yavam can nullify her vows together work out well? Did the mishna teach that they can nullify her vows? It teaches that he can nullify her vows in the singular, implying that he nullifies the vows alone and not in conjunction with anyone else. Rather, the mishna must be explained differently: With what are we dealing here? It is a case where the yavam, regardless of whether or not he performed levirate betrothal, did not want to consummate the levirate marriage or perform 岣litza. Therefore, the yevama stood in court so as to compel him to consummate the levirate marriage or perform 岣litza, and it ruled that he must supply her sustenance. Because she is bound to him and cannot marry another, the court ruled that he was responsible for her livelihood.

讜讻讚专讘 驻谞讞住 诪砖诪讬讛 讚专讘讗 讚讗诪专 专讘 驻谞讞住 诪砖诪讬讛 讚专讘讗 讻诇 讛谞讜讚专转 注诇 讚注转 讘注诇讛 讛讬讗 谞讜讚专转

And this is in accordance with the statement that Rav Pine岣s said in the name of Rava, as Rav Pine岣s said in the name of Rava: Any woman who makes a vow, makes her vow with the consent of her husband. Because she is dependent upon her husband for her livelihood, she does not act without his consent. In this case, because the yavam is responsible to supply the yevama with sustenance, it is assumed that her vows are also made with his consent. It is for this reason that he can nullify her vows without her father. Consequently, no conclusive proof can be derived from here with regard to the strength of acquisition through levirate betrothal.

  • 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 29: The Strength and Weakness of Maamar

A new mishnah - that facilitates a deeper dive into ma'amar, the Levirate betrothal. Via a case of 3 brothers,...
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 29

The William Davidson Talmud | Powered by Sefaria

Yevamot 29

讜讛讗 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

This halakha was also taught in the previous mishna (26a), and it is cited in this mishna according to the opinion of Rabbi Shimon. The Gemara asks: But didn鈥檛 Rabbi Shimon say: Two sisters neither perform 岣litza nor enter into levirate marriage? Because these women are eligible for levirate marriage according to Torah law, they are considered the sisters of a woman with whom he has a levirate bond. In this case, Rabbi Shimon exempts them from both 岣litza and levirate marriage. Why, then, does the mishna require them to perform 岣litza?

讙讝讬专讛 诪砖讜诐 讗讬住讜专 诪爪讜讛 讚注诇诪讗

The Gemara answers: It is a rabbinic decree due to the general case of a prohibition resulting from a mitzva. If they did not perform 岣litza in this case, where they are sisters, there is a concern that people would assume that their exemption from 岣litza stemmed not from their status as sisters but rather due to the prohibition. This would lead to the mistaken conclusion that women who are forbidden due to a mitzva do not require 岣litza. Therefore, the Sages issued a rabbinic decree requiring 岣litza in this case.

讛讗 转讬谞讞 讗讬讛讬 讗讞讜转讛 诪讗讬 讗讬讻讗 诇诪讬诪专 讙讝讬专讛 讗讞讜转讛 诪砖讜诐 诇转讗 讚讬讚讛

The Gemara asks: This works out well for her, as she is forbidden due to the prohibition resulting from a mitzva. It is appropriate to require 岣litza with her, to demonstrate that 岣litza is generally applied in cases where there is a prohibition resulting from a mitzva. But with regard to her sister, what is there to say? Why must she perform 岣litza as well? The Gemara answers: There is a rabbinic decree with regard to her sister due to her.

讜讛讗 讙讘讬 注专讜讛 诇讗 讙讝专讬谞谉 砖讗谞讬 注专讜讛 讚诪讙诪专 讙诪讬专讬 诇讛 讗讬谞砖讬 讜拽诇讗 讗讬转 诇讛

The Gemara asks: If Rabbi Shimon issues a decree in this case requiring 岣litza for the sister, out of concern for confusion, then there is a difficulty: But, with regard to a forbidden relative we do not issue a decree requiring 岣litza due to her sister; why does Rabbi Shimon issue a rabbinic decree requiring 岣litza with a woman forbidden due to a prohibition resulting from a mitzva and not with a woman who is a forbidden relative? The Gemara answers: Forbidden relatives are different, as people learn the halakhot pertaining to them because they are stated explicitly in the Torah and are well known to all, and the ruling has publicity. Therefore, there is no concern lest people mistakenly confuse this case with cases of yevamot who are not sisters. Prohibitions resulting from mitzvot are not, however, explicit in the Torah, nor are they generally known.

诪转谞讬壮 砖诇砖讛 讗讞讬谉 砖谞讬诐 谞砖讜讗讬诐 砖转讬 讗讞讬讜转 讜讗讞讚 诪讜驻谞讛 诪转 讗讞讚 诪讘注诇讬 讗讞讬讜转 讜注砖讛 讘讛 诪讜驻谞讛 诪讗诪专 讜讗讞专 讻讱 诪转 讗讞讬讜 讛砖谞讬

MISHNA: In the case of three brothers, two of whom were married to two sisters, and one who was single, the following occurred: The husband of one of the sisters died childless, leaving behind his wife, and the single brother performed levirate betrothal [ma鈥檃mar] to this wife. The single brother performed an act of betrothal to the yevama but did not yet consummate the marriage by engaging in sexual intercourse. Afterward, the second brother died, and therefore the second brother鈥檚 wife, the sister of the betrothed, happened before the single brother for levirate marriage as well.

讘讬转 砖诪讗讬 讗讜诪专讬诐 讗砖转讜 注诪讜 讜讛诇讝讜 转爪讗 诪砖讜诐 讗讞讜转 讗砖讛 讜讘讬转 讛诇诇 讗讜诪专讬诐 诪讜爪讬讗 讗转 讗砖转讜 讘讙讟 讜讘讞诇讬爪讛 讜讗砖转 讗讞讬讜 讘讞诇讬爪讛 讝讜 讛讬讗 砖讗诪专讜 讗讜讬 诇讜 注诇 讗砖转讜 讜讗讜讬 诇讜 注诇 讗砖转 讗讞讬讜

In this case, Beit Shammai say: His wife remains with him. The woman he betrothed is considered like his wife, and he is not required to divorce her. And this other woman leaves the yavam and is exempt from levirate marriage as the sister of a wife. Beit Hillel say: Being as he had not yet entered into marriage with the first woman, he is required to perform levirate marriage with both women. Therefore, he divorces his wife, i.e., the woman to whom he performed levirate betrothal, with a bill of divorce, which nullifies levirate betrothal, and by 岣litza, which nullifies the levirate bond. And, he sends away the wife of his second brother with 岣litza as well. They comment: This is the case that was referred to when the Sages said: Woe unto him for his wife and woe unto him for the wife of his brother. Due to the combination of circumstances, he loses them both.

讙诪壮 讝讜 讛讬讗 诇诪注讜讟讬 诪讗讬 诇诪注讜讟讬 讛讱 讚专讘讬 讬讛讜砖注 讚诇讗 注讘讚讬谞谉 讻讜讜转讬讛 讗诇讗 讗讬 讻专讘谉 讙诪诇讬讗诇 讗讬 讻专讘讬 讗诇注讝专

GEMARA: The Gemara asks: What does the mishna鈥檚 formulation of the term: This is, which indicates limitation and exactitude, come to exclude? The Gemara answers: It excludes that statement of Rabbi Yehoshua (109a). There, Rabbi Yehoshua holds that if a man is married to a minor when her sister happens before him for levirate marriage, he must send both of the women away. He said there: Woe unto him for his wife and woe unto him for the wife of his brother. From the language in the mishna here, we learn that we do not act in accordance with his opinion. Rather, we act either in accordance with the opinion of Rabban Gamliel or in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Elazar. According to the opinion of both of these tanna鈥檌m in the mishna (109a), despite the conflict between the brother鈥檚 marriage to the minor and the levirate bond with her sister, there is still a way for him to marry one of the women.

讗诪专 专讘讬 讗诇注讝专 诇讗 转讬诪讗 诪讗诪专 诇讘讬转 砖诪讗讬 拽讜谞讛 拽谞讬谉 讙诪讜专 讚讗讬 讘注讬 诇讗驻讜拽讬 住讙讬 诇讛 讘讙讬讟讗 讗诇讗 诪讗诪专 诇讘讬转 砖诪讗讬 讗讬谞讜 拽讜谞讛 讗诇讗 诇讚讞讜转 讘爪专讛 讘诇讘讚

搂 With regard to the main issue of levirate betrothal, it would seem from this mishna that Beit Shammai hold that levirate betrothal has the legal force of levirate marriage. However, Rabbi Elazar said: Do not say that levirate betrothal acquires the woman as a full-fledged acquisition according to the opinion of Beit Shammai, such that the first woman becomes his wife to the extent that if he wants to divorce her a bill of divorce would suffice without an act of 岣litza. Rather, for Beit Shammai, levirate betrothal acquires the woman only insofar as it precludes a rival wife from entering levirate marriage. The legal force of levirate betrothal is limited to preventing the rival wife of the sister from performing levirate marriage; she is exempt from both levirate marriage and 岣litza.

讗诪专 专讘讬 讗讘讬谉 讗祝 讗谞谉 谞诪讬 转谞讬谞讗 讘讬转 砖诪讗讬 讗讜诪专讬诐 讬拽讬讬诪讜 讬拽讬讬诪讜 讗讬谉 诇讻转讞诇讛 诇讗

Rabbi Avin said: We, too, learn in the mishna a proof that levirate betrothal is not a full-fledged act of acquisition, even according to Beit Shammai. The mishna at the beginning of this chapter (26a) teaches that when two sisters who are yevamot happen before two brothers for levirate marriage, if the brothers married their wives before consulting the court, then Beit Shammai say: They may maintain them as their wives. From here it can be deduced: If they already married them, yes, they may maintain them. However, marrying them ab initio, no, this is prohibited due to the prohibition against marrying the sister of a woman with whom one has a levirate bond.

讜讗讬 住诇拽讗 讚注转讱 诪讗诪专 诇讘讬转 砖诪讗讬 拽讜谞讛 拽谞讬谉 讙诪讜专 讝讛 讬注砖讛 诪讗诪专 讜讬拽谞讛 讜讝讛 讬注砖讛 诪讗诪专 讜讬拽谞讛

And if it enters your mind that according to Beit Shammai levirate betrothal acquires the woman as a full-fledged acquisition, then this matter could potentially have been resolved ab initio: This brother should perform levirate betrothal and acquire one sister, and that brother should perform levirate betrothal and acquire the other sister. As there is no prohibition whatsoever involved in performing levirate betrothal, the concern for violating a prohibition by consummating the levirate marriage with a sister of a woman with whom he has a levirate bond is avoided; he only betroths her, but does not engage in sexual intercourse with her. After the betrothal, the levirate bond of her sister is dissolved and he can freely consummate the levirate marriage with her.

讗诇讗 诪讗讬 讚讜讞讛 讚讞讬讬讛 讙诪讜专讛 讝讛 讬注砖讛 诪讗诪专 讜讬讚讞讛 讜讝讛 讬注砖讛 诪讗诪专 讜讬讚讞讛

The Gemara objects: Rather, what then? If levirate betrothal does not serve to fully acquire the woman, what is the alternative? It must be that according to Beit Shammai levirate betrothal precludes the rival wife from entering levirate marriage with a complete preclusion. If so, there is an additional potential scenario: This one should perform levirate betrothal with one sister and preclude the second sister from entering levirate marriage, and that one should perform levirate betrothal with the second sister and preclude the first sister from entering levirate marriage. In this way, the yevamin can consummate the levirate marriage with the sisters ab initio as well. Yet the mishna does not allow for this possibility.

讗诇讗 诪讗讬 讗讬转 诇讱 诇诪讬诪专 诪讗诪专 讚讛转讬专讗 讚讞讬 讚讗讬住讜专讗 诇讗 讚讞讬 讛讻讬 谞诪讬 诪讗诪专 讗驻讬诇讜 诇诪讗谉 讚讗诪专 诪讗诪专 拽讜谞讛 拽谞讬谉 讙诪讜专 诪讗诪专 讚讛转讬专讗 拽谞讬 讚讗讬住讜专讗 诇讗 拽谞讬

Rather, what have you to say? One must assert that levirate betrothal performed in circumstances where it is permitted to perform levirate marriage, i.e. where there is no prohibition with regard to the close relative of a woman with whom the yavam has a levirate bond, completely precludes the rival wife from entering levirate marriage. However, levirate betrothal performed in circumstances where it is forbidden to perform levirate marriage, does not preclude entering levirate marriage. Therefore, in the case of two sisters who happen simultaneously before two brothers for levirate marriage, the sisters cannot be precluded from entering levirate marriage via levirate betrothal. So too here, with regard to levirate betrothal performed by the third brother, the same distinction can be made. Even according to the one who said that levirate betrothal acquires a woman as a full-fledged acquisition, just like marriage, there is the following difference: Levirate betrothal under permitted circumstances acquires the woman, but levirate betrothal under forbidden circumstances does not acquire the woman. Therefore, there is no proof as to the nature of levirate betrothal according to the opinion of Beit Shammai from the first mishna in the chapter.

专讘 讗砖讬 诪转谞讬 讛讻讬 讗诪专 专讘讬 讗诇注讝专 诇讗 转讬诪讗 诪讗诪专 诇讘讬转 砖诪讗讬 讚讞讬 讚讞讬讬讛 讙诪讜专讛 讜爪专转讛 讞诇讬爪讛 谞诪讬 诇讗 讘注讬讗 讗诇讗 讚讜讞讛 讜诪砖讬讬专 讛讜讗

Rav Ashi teaches this discourse in this manner: Rabbi Elazar said: Do not say that according to Beit Shammai levirate betrothal precludes entering levirate marriage as a complete preclusion, so that the rival wife of the woman who received levirate betrothal does not require even 岣litza. Rather, it precludes entering levirate marriage and yet leaves a remnant of the levirate bond in place. Accordingly, levirate betrothal precludes the rival wife鈥檚 entering levirate marriage to the degree that the yavam is not required to divorce the woman he betrothed, but the levirate bond with the rival wife remains to the extent that he must still perform 岣litza with her.

讗诪专 专讘讬 讗讘讬谉 讗祝 讗谞谉 谞诪讬 转谞讬谞讗 讘讬转 砖诪讗讬 讗讜诪专讬诐 讬拽讬讬诪讜 讬拽讬讬诪讜 讗讬谉 诇讻转讞诇讛 诇讗 讜讗讬 住诇拽讗 讚注转讱 诪讗诪专 诇讘讬转 砖诪讗讬 讚讜讞讛 讚讞讬讬讛 讙诪讜专讛 讝讛 讬注砖讛 诪讗诪专 讜讬讚讞讛 讜讝讛 讬注砖讛 诪讗诪专 讜讬讚讞讛 讜讗诇讗 讛讗 拽转谞讬 讘讬转 砖诪讗讬 讗讜诪专讬诐 讗砖转讜 注诪讜 讜讛诇讝讜 转爪讗 诪砖讜诐 讗讞讜转 讗砖讛

Rabbi Avin said: We, too, learn this statement from the mishna, where it states: Beit Shammai say: They may maintain them as their wives. From here it can be deduced: Yes, they may maintain them as their wives after the fact; no, they are not allowed to marry them ab initio. And if it enters your mind to say that, according to Beit Shammai, levirate betrothal precludes entering levirate marriage as a complete preclusion, then this brother should perform levirate betrothal and preclude one sister from levirate marriage, and that brother should perform levirate betrothal and preclude the other sister from levirate marriage. The Gemara challenges this conclusion: But didn鈥檛 the mishna teach that Beit Shammai say: His wife remains with him, and this other is sent away due to her status as a sister of his wife? This indicates that she is exempt from levirate marriage and does not even require 岣litza.

讗诇讗 讬讘诪讛 讚讞讝讬讗 诇讻讜诇讛讜 讞讝讬讗 诇诪拽爪转讛 讬讘诪讛 讚诇讗 讞讝讬讗 诇讻讜诇讛讜 诇讗 讞讝讬讗 诇诪拽爪转讛

Rather, one must resolve this by asserting that a yevama who is suitable for all of the aspects of levirate marriage is also suitable for part of it. If a yevama is eligible for both levirate marriage and 岣litza when she happens before the brothers, as in the case cited in the present mishna where the woman who happened before the third brother was permitted to enter into levirate marriage, she is eligible for part of it. This indicates that if the yavam does not take her in levirate marriage but performs only levirate betrothal, the levirate betrothal has sufficient legal force to preclude the rival wife completely. However, a yevama who is not suitable for all of the aspects of levirate marriage is also not suitable for a part of it. If the yevama is not eligible for levirate marriage, such as in the case referred to in the first mishna of this chapter, where both women happened simultaneously so that the yavam is not permitted to consummate the levirate marriage with either woman, she is not suitable for part of it. In that case, if the yavam performs levirate betrothal, it does not have the legal force to affect a total preclusion.

讘注讬 专讘讛 诪讗诪专 诇讘讬转 砖诪讗讬 谞讬砖讜讗讬谉 注讜砖讛 讗讜 讗讬专讜住讬谉 注讜砖讛 讗诪专 诇讬讛 讗讘讬讬 诇诪讗讬 讛诇讻转讗

搂 With regard to Beit Shammai鈥檚 opinion about levirate betrothal, Rabba asks: Does levirate betrothal, according to the opinion of Beit Shammai, create a full-fledged marriage bond? Or, does it merely create betrothal, similar to all other acts of betrothal? Abaye said to him: With regard to what halakha do you ask this?

讗讬诇讬诪讗 诇讬讜专砖讛 讜诇讬讟诪讗 诇讛 讜诇讛驻专 谞讚专讬讛 讛砖转讗 讗专讜住讛 讘注诇诪讗 转谞讬 专讘讬 讞讬讬讗 讗砖转讜 讗专讜住讛 诇讗 讗讜谞谉 讜诇讗 诪讟诪讗 诇讛 讜讻谉 讛讬讗 诇讗 讗讜谞谞转 讜诇讗 诪讟诪讗转 诇讜 诪转讛 讗讬谞讜 讬讜专砖讛 诪转 讛讜讗 讙讜讘讛 讻转讜讘转讛 注讘讚 讘讛 诪讗诪专 诪讬讘注讬讗

If we say it pertains to inheriting from her when she dies, and to becoming ritually impure for her if he is a priest, and to nullifying her vows, all of which are rights and obligations acquired by marriage, this is difficult. Now, with regard to a betrothed woman in general, i.e., a woman who was betrothed by Torah law, Rabbi 岣yya teaches in a baraita: One does not enter acute mourning on the day of the death of his betrothed wife, nor can he become ritually impure for her if she dies if he is a priest. Similarly, she does not enter acute mourning for him and is not obligated to become ritually impure for him. If she dies, he does not inherit from her; if he dies, she collects the payment of her marriage contract; In a case where he performed only levirate betrothal with her, is it necessary to say that he does not inherit from her, nor does he become ritually impure for her? Therefore, this halakha is obvious and Rabba鈥檚 question seems superfluous.

讜讗诇讗 诇注谞讬谉 诪住讬专讛 诇讞讜驻讛 诪讗讬 谞讬砖讜讗讬谉 注讜砖讛 讜诇讗 讘注讬讗 诪住讬专讛 诇讞讜驻讛 讗讜 讚诇诪讗 讗讬专讜住讬谉 注讜砖讛 讜讘注讬讗 诪住讬专讛 诇讞讜驻讛

Rather, the question must relate to the matter of delivery of the woman to the husband under a wedding canopy. What is the ruling with regard to this? Is the yavam obligated to enter the wedding canopy in the manner that he would with any other betrothed woman, or not? This is the dilemma: Does levirate betrothal create a full-fledged marriage bond, whereby the yevama would not require further delivery to a wedding canopy? Or, does levirate betrothal perhaps create only betrothal, whereby she would require delivery to a wedding canopy?

讗诪专 诇讬讛 讛砖转讗 诇讗 注讘讚 讘讛 诪讗诪专 讻转讬讘 讬讘诪讛 讬讘讗 注诇讬讛 讘注诇 讻专讞讛 注讘讚 讘讛 诪讗诪专 诪讬讘注讬讗

Abaye said to him that this question is not necessary, as well: Now, if he did not perform levirate betrothal with her at all, it is written: 鈥淗er brother-in-law will have intercourse with her鈥 (Deuteronomy 25:5). It is deduced from this verse that he can take her even against her will. Is it necessary to say that if he performed levirate betrothal with her, even without a wedding canopy, that he is allowed to engage in sexual intercourse with her?

讗诪专 诇讬讛 砖讗谞讬 讗讜诪专 讻诇 讛注讜砖讛 诪讗诪专 讘讬讘诪转讜 驻专讞讛 诪诪谞讜 讝讬拽转 讬讘诪讬谉 讜讞诇讛 注诇讬讛 讝讬拽转 讗讬专讜住讬谉 诪讗讬

Rabba said to him: This question is relevant, as I say that anyone who performs levirate betrothal with his yevama causes the levirate bond to be removed from him, and he is no longer considered subject to the halakhot of levirate marriage. Instead, a standard bond of betrothal applies to him. Therefore, it is appropriate to ask if this act of levirate betrothal is similar to a standard betrothal insofar as the wedding canopy is concerned, and consequently the woman would be required to enter the wedding canopy. Alternatively, perhaps the halakhot of levirate marriage still apply somewhat, in which case the woman would not be required to enter a wedding canopy in order to become married, similar to a standard yevama to whom levirate betrothal was not performed. Does the performance of levirate betrothal weaken the capacity of intercourse to establish levirate marriage on its own? What is the halakhic ruling here?

转讗 砖诪注 砖讜诪专转 讬讘诐 讘讬谉 讬讘诐 讗讞讚 讘讬谉 砖谞讬 讬讘诪讬谉 专讘讬 讗诇讬注讝专 讗讜诪专 讬驻专 专讘讬 讬讛讜砖注 讗讜诪专 诇讗讞讚 讜诇讗 诇砖谞讬诐 专讘讬 注拽讬讘讗 讗讜诪专 诇讗 诇讗讞讚 讜诇讗 诇砖谞讬诐

The Gemara suggests: Come and hear an answer from what is taught in a mishna (Nedarim 74a): What is the ruling with regard to the nullification of vows for a widow who is waiting for her yavam, whether she is waiting for a single yavam or two yevamin? Rabbi Eliezer says: Let him nullify her vows. The yavam may nullify her vows as though he were her husband. Rabbi Yehoshua says: This holds true only if she is bonded to a single yavam, but not to two. Rabbi Akiva says: It does not hold true, neither to one yavam nor to two yevamin. They may not they nullify her vows.

讜讛讜讬谞谉 讘讛 讘砖诇诪讗 专讘讬 注拽讬讘讗 住讘专 讗讬谉 讝讬拽讛 讗驻讬诇讜 诇讞讚 诇专讘讬 讬讛讜砖注 诇讞讚 讬砖 讝讬拽讛 诇转专讬 讗讬谉 讝讬拽讛 讗诇讗 诇专讘讬 讗诇讬注讝专 谞讛讬 谞诪讬 讚拽住讘专 讬砖 讝讬拽讛 讘砖诇诪讗 诇讞讚 诪讬驻专 讗诇讗 诇转专讬 讗诪讗讬

And we discussed this issue, interpreting the various opinions: Granted, Rabbi Akiva holds that the levirate bond is not substantial, even in the case of one yavam. In his opinion, the levirate obligation does not create a marriage bond at all, even if there is only a single yavam. And according to Rabbi Yehoshua, the levirate bond with one yavam is substantial. The yevama undoubtedly requires this yavam for levirate marriage, and therefore she is considered to be like his wife. But with two yevamin, the levirate bond is not substantial, since it is not clear which brother will consummate the levirate marriage with her. However, Rabbi Eliezer, if he indeed holds that the levirate bond is substantial, his opinion is difficult. Granted, if there is one yavam, he can nullify her vows, but if there are two, why should only one of them suffice to nullify her vows, as it is not yet clear which of them will eventually marry her?

讜讗诪专 专讘讬 讗诪讬 (讘专 讗讛讘讛) 讛讻讗 讘诪讗讬 注住拽讬谞谉 讻讙讜谉 讚注讘讚 讘讛 诪讗诪专 讜讘讬转 砖诪讗讬 讛讬讗 讚讗诪专 诪讗诪专 拽讜谞讛 拽谞讬谉 讙诪讜专

And Rabbi Ami bar Ahava said: With what are we dealing here? This is a case where one of them performed levirate betrothal with her, and this is in accordance with the opinion of Beit Shammai, who say: Levirate betrothal acquires her as a full-fledged acquisition.

讗讬 讗诪专转 讘砖诇诪讗 谞讬砖讜讗讬谉 注讜砖讛 诪砖讜诐 讛讻讬 诪讬驻专 讗诇讗 讗讬 讗诪专转 讗讬专讜住讬谉 注讜砖讛 讛讬讻讬 诪爪讬 诪讬驻专 讜讛转谞谉 谞注专讛 讛诪讗讜专住讛 讗讘讬讛 讜讘注诇讛 诪驻讬专讬诐 谞讚专讬讛 讗诪专 专讘 谞讞诪谉 讘专 讬爪讞拽 诪讗讬 诪讬驻专 诪讬驻专 讘砖讜转驻讜转

This interpretation can resolve Rabba鈥檚 question. Granted, if you say levirate betrothal creates a full-fledged marriage, it is due to that reason that the yavam can nullify her vows just as a full-fledged husband does. However, if you say that levirate betrothal merely creates betrothal, how can he nullify the vows? Even in standard cases of betrothal by Torah law the husband cannot nullify her vows, for didn鈥檛 we learn in a mishna: With regard to a betrothed young woman, only her father and her husband together can nullify her vows? How could a yavam nullify the vows without the father of the yevama, if he is not considered a full-fledged husband? Rav Na岣an bar Yitz岣k said that this proof can be rejected by interpreting the mishna as follows: What is the meaning of the phrase: He nullifies? That he nullifies her vows only in conjunction with her father.

讜诇专讘讬 讗诇注讝专 讚讗诪专 诪讗诪专 诇讘讬转 砖诪讗讬 讗讬谞讜 拽讜谞讛 讗诇讗 诇讚讞讜转 诇爪专讛 讘诇讘讚 讗诪讗讬 诪讬驻专 讘砖讜转驻讜转 讗诪专 诇讱 专讘讬 讗诇注讝专 讗讬诪专 讚讗诪专讬 讗谞讗 讗讬谞讜 拽讜谞讛 讗诇讗 诇讚讞讜转 诇爪专讛 讘诇讘讚 讚诇讗 住讙讬 诇讛 讘讙讬讟讗 讗诇讗 讘注讬 谞诪讬 讞诇讬爪讛 诇讛驻专 谞讚专讬讛 诪讬 讗诪专讬谞谉

The Gemara questions this reading of the mishna: And according to the opinion of Rabbi Elazar, who said that for Beit Shammai levirate betrothal acquires the woman only insofar as it precludes a rival wife from entering levirate marriage, and it is not a full-fledged acquisition, why should the yavam nullify her vows, even if he does so in conjunction with her father? The Gemara answers: Rabbi Eliezer could have said to you: One can say that when I said that levirate betrothal acquires the woman only insofar as it precludes the rival wife from entering levirate marriage, it was to emphasize that a bill of divorce would not suffice for her, but rather she also requires 岣litza. However, with regard to the matter of nullifying her vows, do we say that levirate betrothal is not effective, and that he cannot nullify her vows alone?

讜讗讬讘注讬转 讗讬诪讗 讗诪专 诇讱 专讘讬 讗诇注讝专 讜诇专讘 谞讞诪谉 讘专 讬爪讞拽 诪讬 谞讬讞讗 诪讬 拽转谞讬 讬驻专讜 讬驻专 拽转谞讬 讗诇讗 讛讻讗 讘诪讗讬 注住拽讬谞谉 砖注诪讚讛 讘讚讬谉 讜驻住拽讜 诇讛 诪讝讜谞讜转 诪砖诇讜

And if you wish, say an alternate explanation: Rabbi Elazar could have said to you: And as for Rav Na岣an bar Yitz岣k, does this resolution that the mishna is only referring to a case where the father and the yavam can nullify her vows together work out well? Did the mishna teach that they can nullify her vows? It teaches that he can nullify her vows in the singular, implying that he nullifies the vows alone and not in conjunction with anyone else. Rather, the mishna must be explained differently: With what are we dealing here? It is a case where the yavam, regardless of whether or not he performed levirate betrothal, did not want to consummate the levirate marriage or perform 岣litza. Therefore, the yevama stood in court so as to compel him to consummate the levirate marriage or perform 岣litza, and it ruled that he must supply her sustenance. Because she is bound to him and cannot marry another, the court ruled that he was responsible for her livelihood.

讜讻讚专讘 驻谞讞住 诪砖诪讬讛 讚专讘讗 讚讗诪专 专讘 驻谞讞住 诪砖诪讬讛 讚专讘讗 讻诇 讛谞讜讚专转 注诇 讚注转 讘注诇讛 讛讬讗 谞讜讚专转

And this is in accordance with the statement that Rav Pine岣s said in the name of Rava, as Rav Pine岣s said in the name of Rava: Any woman who makes a vow, makes her vow with the consent of her husband. Because she is dependent upon her husband for her livelihood, she does not act without his consent. In this case, because the yavam is responsible to supply the yevama with sustenance, it is assumed that her vows are also made with his consent. It is for this reason that he can nullify her vows without her father. Consequently, no conclusive proof can be derived from here with regard to the strength of acquisition through levirate betrothal.

Scroll To Top