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

Today's Daf Yomi

November 3, 2014 | 讬壮 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 30

Study Guide Yevamot 30


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

诪转谞讬壮 砖诇砖讛 讗讞讬谉 砖谞讬诐 诪讛诐 谞砖讜讗讬诐 砖转讬 讗讞讬讜转 讜讗讞讚 谞砖讜讬 谞讻专讬转 诪转 讗讞讚 诪讘注诇讬 讗讞讬讜转 讜讻谞住 谞砖讜讬 谞讻专讬转 讗转 讗砖转讜 讜诪转 讛专讗砖讜谞讛 讬讜爪讗讛 诪砖讜诐 讗讞讜转 讗砖讛 讜砖谞讬讛 诪砖讜诐 爪专转讛 注砖讛 讘讛 诪讗诪专 讜诪转 谞讻专讬转 讞讜诇爪转 讜诇讗 诪转讬讬讘诪转

MISHNA: In the case of three brothers, two of whom were married to two sisters and one who was married to an unrelated woman, the following occurred: The husband of one of the sisters died childless, and the brother who was married to the unrelated woman married, i.e., performed lev irate marriage with, the deceased brother鈥檚 wife and later died himself, childless. In this situation, both women happen for levirate marriage before the other, remaining, brother. The first woman is dismissed due to the prohibition proscribing the sister of one鈥檚 wife, as she is the sister of this brother鈥檚 wife, and the second woman is dismissed due to her status as the first woman鈥檚 rival wife. Following the first levirate marriage, this second woman became the rival wife of the sister, and is therefore exempt from levirate marriage as well. If, however, the brother married to the unrelated woman performed only levirate betrothal, but had not yet consummated the levirate marriage with the sister, and he died, the unrelated woman, whose halakhic status with regard to yibbum is similar to that of a sister鈥檚 rival wife, must perform 岣litza and may not enter into levirate marriage.

讙诪壮 讟注诪讗 讚注讘讚 讘讛 诪讗诪专 讛讗 诇讗 注讘讚 讘讛 诪讗诪专 谞讻专讬转 讬讘讜诪讬 谞诪讬 诪讬讬讘诪讛 讗诪专 专讘 谞讞诪谉 讝讗转 讗讜诪专转 讗讬谉 讝讬拽讛 讜讗驻讬诇讜 讘讞讚 讗讞讗

GEMARA: The Gemara deduces the following halakha from the second clause of the mishna: The reason that the mishna requires 岣litza is specifically because he, the brother who was married to the unrelated woman, performed levirate betrothal with the sister. Consequently, had he not performed levirate betrothal with her, the unrelated woman would be permitted to enter into levirate marriage as well. This is true despite the fact that the levirate bond could potentially render her the rival wife of his wife鈥檚 sister. Rav Na岣an said: That is to say, the levirate bond is not substantial; the woman requiring levirate marriage is not considered married to the yavam. And this is true even if the levirate bond was with a single brother, as this widowed sister happened for levirate marriage only before the brother who was married to the unrelated woman; her levirate bond was with him alone.

诪转谞讬壮 砖诇砖讛 讗讞讬诐 砖谞讬诐 诪讛诐 谞砖讜讗讬诐 砖转讬 讗讞讬讜转 讜讗讞讚 谞砖讜讬 谞讻专讬转 诪转 讛谞砖讜讬 谞讻专讬转 讜讻谞住 讗讞讚 诪讘注诇讬 讗讞讬讜转 讗转 讗砖转讜 讜诪转 讛专讗砖讜谞讛 讬讜爪讗转 诪砖讜诐 讗讞讜转 讗砖讛 讜砖谞讬讛 诪砖讜诐 爪专转讛 注砖讛 讘讛 诪讗诪专 讜诪转 谞讻专讬转 讞讜诇爪转 讜诇讗 诪转讬讬讘诪转

mishna In the case of three brothers, two of whom were married to two sisters and one who was married to an unrelated woman, the following occurred: He who was married to the unrelated woman died, and one of the husbands of the sisters married his wife, and then died childless as well. The first woman, i.e., the sister who was originally married to the brother who performed levirate marriage, is dismissed and is exempt from levirate marriage due to her status as the sister of his wife. And the second woman, i.e., the unrelated woman who had entered into levirate marriage, is dismissed as her rival wife. If, however, he performed levirate betrothal with the unrelated woman, and then died, then this unrelated woman must perform 岣litza and may not enter into levirate marriage, as levirate betrothal rendered her status with regard to yibbum as similar to the rival wife of his wife鈥檚 sister.

讙诪壮 讛讗 转讜 诇诪讛 诇讬 讛讬讬谞讜 讛讱 讛砖转讗 讜诪讛 讛转诐 讚讗讞讜转 讗砖讛 讛讜讬讗 爪专讛 诇谞讻专讬转 讗诪专转 谞讻专讬转 讗住讜专讛 讛讻讗 讚谞讻专讬转 讛讜讬讗 爪专讛 诇讗讞讜转 讗砖讛 诇讗 讻诇 砖讻谉

gemara The Gemara asks: Why do I need this mishna as well? This principle is identical to the principle behind the ruling in the previous mishna, and therefore this ruling can easily be deduced from the previous ruling. Now, just as there, when his wife鈥檚 sister became rival wife of the unrelated woman who was already the brother鈥檚 wife, you say that the unrelated woman is forbidden despite the fact that the forbidden relative joined later, here, where the unrelated woman became the rival wife of his wife鈥檚 sister afterward, is it not all the more so clear that she is exempt as a rival wife?

转谞讗 讛讱 转谞讗 讘专讬砖讗 讜讛讱 讞讝讬讗 诇讛转讬专讗 讜砖专讬讗 讜讛讚专 讞讝讬讗 诇讗讬住讜专讗

The Gemara answers: This mishna was unnecessary, and this is how the duplication occurred: The tanna taught this mishna at first, and with regard to that previous case saw it fitting to render her permitted, and he permitted her to the brother, for he held that if the forbidden relative joined the man鈥檚 household later, then she would not render the first wife prohibited as the rival wife of a forbidden relative. And then the tanna subsequently retracted and saw it fitting to render the woman forbidden. He decided that this woman should be considered the rival wife of a forbidden relative as well, and therefore rendered her forbidden to the brother.

讜讗讬讬讚讬 讚讞讘讬讘讛 诇讬讛 讗拽讚诪讛 讜诪砖谞讛 诇讗 讝讝讛 诪诪拽讜诪讛

And since that case was novel, it was beloved to him and he taught it earlier. In truth, it would have now been possible to eliminate the present mishna, for there was no longer any novelty in it; its ruling could be derived by an a fortiori argument from the previous ruling. However, a mishna does not move from its place. Since this version of the mishna had already been fixed, it was deemed inappropriate to remove it completely, and it remained in place despite the fact that it was no longer necessary.

诪转谞讬壮 砖诇砖讛 讗讞讬谉 砖谞讬诐 诪讛诐 谞砖讜讗讬诐 砖转讬 讗讞讬讜转 讜讗讞讚 谞砖讜讬 谞讻专讬转 诪转 讗讞讚 诪讘注诇讬 讗讞讬讜转 讜讻谞住 谞砖讜讬 谞讻专讬转 讗转 讗砖转讜 讜诪转讛 讗砖转讜 砖诇 砖谞讬 讜讗讞专 讻讱 诪转 谞砖讜讬 谞讻专讬转 讛专讬 讝讜 讗住讜专讛 注诇讬讜 注讜诇诪讬转 讛讜讗讬诇 讜谞讗住专讛 注诇讬讜 砖注讛 讗讞转

MISHNA: In the case of three brothers, two of whom were married to two sisters and one who was married to an unrelated woman, the following occurred: One of the husbands of the sisters died, and he who was married to the unrelated woman married the deceased husband鈥檚 wife, and then the wife of the second brother, the other one of the sisters, died. Afterward, the brother who was married to the unrelated woman died, leaving two women for levirate marriage before the remaining brother: The unrelated woman and the woman who was previously prohibited as the sister of his deceased wife. In this case, the sister is forbidden to him forever. She is not forbidden due to her status as his wife鈥檚 sister, as his wife already died and one鈥檚 wife鈥檚 sister is permitted after the wife鈥檚 death. However, since she was already forbidden to him at one time, she is forbidden to him forever. When she first happened before the brothers for levirate marriage, before the third brother married her, she was forbidden to the second brother as his wife鈥檚 sister. Therefore, she is forbidden to him forever. In addition, she exempts her rival wife, the unrelated woman, from levirate marriage.

讙诪壮 讗诪专 专讘 讬讛讜讚讛 讗诪专 专讘 讻诇 讬讘诪讛 砖讗讬谉 讗谞讬 拽讜专讗 讘讛 讘砖注转 谞驻讬诇讛 讬讘诪讛 讬讘讗 注诇讬讛 讛专讬 讛讬讗 讻讗砖转 讗讞 砖讬砖 诇讛 讘谞讬诐 讜讗住讜专讛 诪讗讬 拽讗 诪砖诪注 诇谉 转谞讬谞讗 讛专讬 讝讜 讗住讜专讛 注诇讬讜 注讜诇诪讬转 讛讜讗讬诇 讜谞讗住专讛 注诇讬讜 砖注讛 讗讞转

GEMARA: Rav Yehuda said that Rav said a principle on this matter: Any yevama to whom the verse 鈥淗er brother-in-law will have intercourse with her鈥 (Deuteronomy 25:5) cannot be applied at the time that she happens before him for levirate marriage because she was forbidden to him at that moment, is then forever considered to be like the wife of a brother with whom she has children, and she is forbidden to him. The Gemara asks: What is Rav teaching us with this statement? We already learned this in the mishna: She is forbidden to him forever, since she was forbidden to him at one time.

诪讛讜 讚转讬诪讗 讛谞讬 诪讬诇讬 讛讬讻讗 讚诇讗 讗讬讞讝讬讗 诇讛 讘谞驻讬诇讛 专讗砖讜谞讛 讗讘诇 讛讬讻讗 讚讗讬讞讝讬讗 诇讛 讘谞驻讬诇讛 专讗砖讜谞讛 讗讬诪讗 转讬砖转专讬 拽讗 诪砖诪注 诇谉

The Gemara answers: This was necessary lest you say that this ruling applies only in cases where she was not eligible at all during the first time that she happened before the brothers for levirate marriage. Such is the case in the mishna, when she was forbidden to the yavam as his wife鈥檚 sister the entire time that she was eligible for levirate marriage. Even though his wife died after the other yavam married this woman, because she was forbidden to him that entire time, she is forbidden to him forever. But in cases where she was eligible at some point during the first time she happened before the brothers for levirate marriage, such as in the scenario where the brother鈥檚 wife died prior to the time when his other brother married her, one could say that she would be permitted. In that case, since the prohibition had in the meantime been canceled and she was indeed rendered eligible for levirate marriage with him during the period of the first time she happened before him, one might think that she would now be permitted. It is for this reason that Rav teaches us that even in this scenario she would be forbidden to him forever.

讛讗 谞诪讬 转谞讬谞讗 砖谞讬 讗讞讬谉 谞砖讜讗讬谉 砖转讬 讗讞讬讜转 诪转 讗讞讚 诪讛诐 讜讗讞专 讻讱 诪转讛 讗砖转讜 砖诇 砖谞讬 讛专讬 讝讜 讗住讜专讛 注诇讬讜 注讜诇诪讬转 讛讜讗讬诇 讜谞讗住专讛 注诇讬讜 砖注讛 讗讞转

The Gemara raises an objection: We learned this as well, as a later mishna (32a) states: In the case of two brothers who were married to two sisters, if one of them, i.e., one of the brothers, died and afterward the wife of the second brother died, then she, the surviving wife, is forbidden to him, the surviving brother, forever, since she was forbidden to him during the period she happened before him at one time.

诪讛讜 讚转讬诪讗 讛转诐 讛讜讗 讚讗讬讚讞讬 诇讛 诪讛讗讬 讘讬转讗 诇讙诪专讬 讗讘诇 讛讻讗 讚诇讗 讗讬讚讞讬 诇讛 诪讛讗讬 讘讬转讗 诇讙诪专讬 讗讬诪讗 诪讬讙讜 讚讞讝讬讗 诇讛讗讬 谞砖讜讬 谞讻专讬转 讞讝讬讗 谞诪讬 诇讛讗讬 拽讗 诪砖诪注 诇谉

The Gemara answers: One cannot learn the halakhic principle from that case. Lest you say that there she is forbidden forever because of the following argument: When she was forbidden to the brother, she was precluded from entering this household completely, i.e., from the entire obligation of levirate marriage. She received total exemption from the mitzva of levirate marriage because this obligation applied only to the one remaining brother, and she was forbidden to him at the time that she happened before him for levirate marriage. But here, however, in the case Rav is referring to, where she was not completely precluded from entering this household because she still required levirate marriage with another brother, one could say: Since she is eligible and permitted to this brother, who was married to the unrelated woman, she is eligible for this second brother following the death of his wife as well, in other words, she was not rendered completely exempt from the obligation of levirate marriage. Lest one make this argument, Rav teaches us that under any circumstances she who was forbidden at one time is forbidden forever.

诪转谞讬壮 砖诇砖讛 讗讞讬诐 砖谞讬诐 诪讛诐 谞砖讜讗讬谉 砖转讬 讗讞讬讜转 讜讗讞讚 谞砖讜讬 谞讻专讬转 讙讬专砖 讗讞讚 诪讘注诇讬 讗讞讬讜转 讗转 讗砖转讜 讜诪转 谞砖讜讬 谞讻专讬转 讜讻谞住讛 讛诪讙专砖 讜诪转 讝讜 讛讬讗 砖讗诪专讜 讜讻讜诇谉 砖诪转讜 讗讜 谞转讙专砖讜 爪专讜转讬讛谉 诪讜转专讜转

MISHNA: In the case of three brothers, two of whom were married to two sisters and one who was married to an unrelated woman, the following occurred: Shimon, the husband of one of the sisters, divorced his wife, and then Levi, who was married to the unrelated woman, died, and Shimon, the man who divorced his wife, married, i.e., performed levirate marriage with, her, i.e., this unrelated woman. And then Shimon himself later died, so that the unrelated woman happened for levirate marriage before Reuven, the third brother, who is married to the second sister. In this scenario, Reuven is allowed to consummate the levirate marriage with the unrelated woman. This is the case that was referred to when they said: And with regard to all those fifteen forbidden relatives who died or were divorced, their rival wives are permitted to enter into levirate marriage. This is because at the time that they happened before the yavam for levirate marriage they were no longer the rival wives of a forbidden relative.

讙诪壮 讟注诪讗 讚讙讬专砖 讜讗讞专 讻讱 诪转 讗讘诇 诪转 讜讗讞专 讻讱 讙讬专砖 讗住讜专讛 讗诪专 专讘 讗砖讬 讝讗转 讗讜诪专转 讬砖 讝讬拽讛 讗驻讬诇讜 讘转专讬 讗讞讬

GEMARA: The Gemara deduces from here that the reason for this halakha is specifically that Shimon divorced his wife and after that Levi died and Shimon married the unrelated woman. But if Levi had died first, and later Shimon divorced his wife, then the unrelated woman would be forbidden to Reuven due to the levirate bond that existed between her and Shimon prior to the latter鈥檚 divorce. She would be considered the rival wife of the divorced woman who is the sister of Reuven鈥檚 wife. Rav Ashi said: That is to say, the levirate bond is substantial, even with two brothers. Although the unrelated woman required levirate marriage with two brothers, the levirate bond is substantial enough to create a relationship between the unrelated woman and Shimon such that the unrelated woman is considered the rival wife of the divorced woman, i.e., the sister of Reuven鈥檚 wife.

讜诇专讘 讗砖讬 拽砖讬讗 讚专讘 谞讞诪谉 讗诪专 诇讱 专讘 讗砖讬 讛讜讗 讛讚讬谉 讚讗祝 注诇 讙讘 讚诇讗 注讘讚 讘讛 诪讗诪专 谞讻专讬转 诪讬讞诇抓 讞诇爪讛 讬讘讜诪讬 诇讗 诪讬讬讘诪讛 讜讛讗 讚拽转谞讬 诪讗诪专 诇讗驻讜拽讬 讘讬转 砖诪讗讬 讚讗诪专讬 诪讗诪专 拽讜谞讛

The Gemara asks: And according to Rav Ashi, that which Rav Na岣an said is difficult, as Rav Na岣an deduced from the earlier mishna that the levirate bond is not substantial even in the case of a single brother. The Gemara answers: Rav Ashi could have said to you: Rav Na岣an鈥檚 deduction in the first mishna was not logically necessary. With regard to that mishna, one could have said that when the mishna requires 岣litza in the case of levirate betrothal, the same is true even in the case where he who was married to the unrelated woman did not perform levirate betrothal with her. In that case as well, the unrelated woman must perform 岣litza and may not enter into levirate marriage since she was the rival wife of his wife鈥檚 sister by levirate bond. And the reason that it teaches the ruling in the case of levirate betrothal was not in order to inform us that she was forbidden due to levirate betrothal, but rather to exclude the statement of Beit Shammai, who say that through the act of levirate betrothal one acquires the yevama

拽谞讬谉 讙诪讜专 拽讗 诪砖诪注 诇谉 讚诇讗 讻讘讬转 砖诪讗讬

as a full-fledged acquisition. According to that opinion, the unrelated woman does not even require 岣litza, since she is considered to be a rival wife of a forbidden relative. This mishna teaches us that the halakha is not in accordance with the opinion of Beit Shammai.

讜诇专讘 谞讞诪谉 拽砖讬讗 讚专讘 讗砖讬 讜讻讬 转讬诪讗 讛讜讗 讛讚讬谉 讚讗驻讬诇讜 诪转 讜讗讞专 讻讱 讙讬专砖 爪专转讛 诪讜转专转 讗诇讗 讝讜 讛讬讗 诇诪注讜讟讬 诪讗讬 诇诪注讜讟讬 讻谞住 讜讗讞专 讻讱 讙讬专砖

The Gemara raises a question from the opposite perspective: And according to Rav Na岣an, who deduced from the earlier mishna that the levirate bond is not substantial, the deduction of Rav Ashi that the levirate bond is substantial is difficult. And if you would try to resolve this in a similar manner and say: With regard to the ruling in the present mishna, which states that the sister鈥檚 rival wife, i.e., the unrelated woman, is permitted, the same is true even if Levi had died and then afterward the brother married to the other sister divorced his wife, there is a difficulty. If that is the case, then what does the phrase this is, cited at the end of the mishna, come to exclude? If we follow this explanation then the same ruling would hold true in all cases. The Gemara responds: It excludes the case where Shimon first married the unrelated woman and only afterward divorced the sister, as in such circumstances the unrelated woman is most certainly a rival wife of Reuven鈥檚 wife鈥檚 sister and is therefore not permitted.

讛谞讬讞讗 讗讬 住讘专 诇讛 讻专讘讬 讬专诪讬讛 讚讗诪专 转讘专讗 诪讬 砖砖谞讛 讝讜 诇讗 砖谞讛 讝讜

The Gemara states: This works out well if he holds in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yirmeya, who said with regard to a seeming contradiction between this mishna and an earlier mishna (13a): The mishnayot are disjointed; he who taught this mishna did not teach that mishna. The earlier mishna established the principle that if a man was married to two women, one of whom was a forbidden relative, and he divorced the forbidden relative before he died, then the rival wife is no longer prohibited to the brothers.

讜讛讗讬 转谞讗 住讘专 诪讬转讛 诪驻诇转 讜讛讗讬 转谞讗 住讘专 谞讬砖讜讗讬谉 讛专讗砖讜谞讬诐 诪驻讬诇讬诐

This dispute is based upon the following: This tanna from the earlier mishna holds that death determines her status when she happens before the brothers, i.e., the crucial moment for determining whether the prohibition relating to rival wives applies is the moment at which the brother dies. In other words, whether the yevama is permitted to the yavam is determined by the status of the yevama at that given moment. Therefore, in the case where he had married a forbidden relative and later divorced her, the rival wife would be permitted. And this tanna of our present mishna holds that the original marriage determines her status when she happens before the brothers. If, at the time the woman was married to the deceased brother she was forbidden as a close relative, and her rival wife was likewise forbidden as the rival wife of a forbidden relative, then even though the status of the relative had changed at the time of the death of the brother, both she and her rival wife remain forbidden.

讝讜 讛讬讗 诇诪注讜讟讬 讻谞住 讜诇讘住讜祝 讙讬专砖 讗诇讗 讗讬 住讘专 诇讛 讻专讘讗 讚讗诪专 诇注讜诇诐 讞讚 转谞讗 讛讜讗 讜讝讜 讜讗讬谉 爪专讬讱 诇讜诪专 讝讜 拽转谞讬 讝讜 讛讬讗 诇诪注讜讟讬 诪讗讬 注诇 讻专讞讱 讻专讘讬 讬专诪讬讛 住讘讬专讗 诇讬讛

According to this opinion, it is indeed possible to state that the phrase this is comes to exclude the case where he married one woman and ultimately divorced the other. According to this mishna, in that case, the rival wives would be prohibited. However, if he holds in accordance with the opinion of Rava, who said: Actually, understand this to be the opinion of a single tanna, and he teaches the mishna employing the style: This, and it is unnecessary to say that, a difficulty remains. According to Rava, both mishnayot maintain the position that in the case where the yavam married one woman and ultimately divorced the other, the rival wife would be permitted. If that is the case, what does the phrase this is come to exclude? In what case would the rival wife be prohibited to the yavam? The Gemara responds: Perforce Rav Na岣an holds in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yirmeya with regard to his interpretation of the mishnayot.

讜诇专讘讗 讛谞讬讞讗 讗讬 住讘专 诇讛 讻专讘 讗砖讬 讝讜 讛讬讗 诇诪注讜讟讬 诪转 讘诇讗 讙讬专砖 讗诇讗 讗讬 住讘专 诇讛 讻专讘 谞讞诪谉 讝讜 讛讬讗 诇诪注讜讟讬 诪讗讬 注诇 讻专讞讱 讻专讘 讗砖讬 住讘讬专讗 诇讬讛

The Gemara raises a question from a different perspective: And according to Rava, who maintains that in both cases the rival wife is permitted, this works out well if he holds in accordance with the opinion of Rav Ashi that the levirate bond is substantial. In that case the phrase this is comes to exclude the case where he died without divorcing his wife. In this case the rival wife is forbidden because the entire time she was the rival wife of a forbidden relative by levirate bond. If, however, he holds in accordance with the opinion of Rav Na岣an in this matter, what does the phrase this is come to exclude? The Gemara answers: Perforce Rava holds in accordance with the opinion of Rav Ashi. Accordingly, with regard to this halakha there is a connection between the various opinions as to how to interpret the mishnayot and the dispute.

诪转谞讬壮 讜讻讜诇谉 砖讛讬讜 讘讛谉 拽讚讜砖讬谉 讗讜 讙专讜砖讬谉 讘住驻拽 讛专讬 讗诇讜 讛爪专讜转 讞讜诇爪讜转 讜诇讗 诪转讬讬讘诪讜转 讻讬爪讚 住驻拽 拽讚讜砖讬谉 讝专拽 诇讛 拽讚讜砖讬谉 住驻拽 拽专讜讘 诇讜 住驻拽 拽专讜讘 诇讛 讝讛讜 住驻拽 拽讚讜砖讬谉

MISHNA: And if any of these fifteen women who are prohibited as forbidden relatives had undergone a betrothal or divorce whose status is uncertain with the deceased brother, then those women who were their rival wives must perform 岣litza and may not enter into levirate marriage since they are possibly the rival wives of forbidden relatives. The mishna elaborates: How could there be a situation of uncertainty with regard to betrothal? If in the public domain he threw her an item for the purpose of betrothal and there were eight cubits between them, and the item was possibly closer to him and did not enter into her domain, and possibly closer to her, i.e., within four cubits of her, whereby she could acquire the object, this is a case of uncertainty with regard to betrothal.

住驻拽 讙专讜砖讬谉 讻转讘 讘讻转讘 讬讚讜 讜讗讬谉 注诇讬讜 注讚讬诐 讬砖 注诇讬讜 注讚讬诐 讜讗讬谉 讘讜 讝诪谉 讬砖 讘讜 讝诪谉 讜讗讬谉 讘讜 讗诇讗 注讚 讗讞讚 讝讛讜 住驻拽 讙专讜砖讬谉

Uncertainty with regard to divorce occurs when, for instance, he wrote a bill of divorce in his handwriting but there are no signatures of witnesses on the document, or there are the signatures of witnesses on the document but there is no date written in it, or the date is written in it but there is only the signature of a single witness. Since there is doubt as to whether these three kinds of bills of divorce are valid, a woman who was divorced through them is only possibly divorced, and so this case is called uncertainty with regard to divorce.

讙诪壮 讜讗讬诇讜 讘讙专讜砖讬谉 住驻拽 拽专讜讘 诇讜 住驻拽 拽专讜讘 诇讛 诇讗 拽转谞讬

GEMARA: The Gemara remarks: But yet when discussing divorce, it does not teach the case where it is uncertain if the bill of divorce is closer to him, and uncertain if it is closer to her. It would have been appropriate to describe this case, as it parallels the case involving the object of betrothal. He could have tossed it in such a way that it was not clear to whom the bill was closer.

诪讗讬 讟注诪讗 讗诪专 专讘讛 讗砖讛 讝讜 讘讞讝拽转 讛讬转专 诇砖讜拽 注讜诪讚转 讜诪住驻拽 讗转讛 讘讗 诇讗讜住专讛 讗诇 转讗住专谞讛 诪住驻拽

The Gemara asks: What is the reason the mishna did not present this situation as well? Rabba said: When this type of uncertainty exists, the performance of 岣litza is not mandatory, as this woman, the rival wife, has the presumptive status of being permitted to marry a man from the general public. At the time of her marriage she was rendered a rival wife of a forbidden relative. And due to an uncertainty alone would you render her forbidden to the general public until she performs 岣litza, simply because it is unclear to us whether or not the forbidden relative had indeed been divorced? Do not render her forbidden due to an uncertainty. This is not, however, the case with the various bills of divorce mentioned in the mishna, for they are all certainly considered effective bills of divorce, even if the circumstances involved raise some questions or doubts.

讗诪专 诇讬讛 讗讘讬讬 讗讬 讛讻讬 讘拽讚讜砖讬谉 谞诪讬 谞讬诪讗 讗砖讛 讝讜 讘讞讝拽转 讛讬转专 诇讬讘诐 注讜诪讚转 讜诪住驻拽 讗转讛 讘讗 诇讗讜住专讛 讗诇 转讗住专谞讛 诪住驻拽

Abaye said to him: If that is so, let us say in the case of betrothal as well that this woman, the rival wife, has the presumptive status of being permitted to the yavam before he betrothed the forbidden relative, and due to the uncertainty whether she is the rival wife of a forbidden relative would you come and render her forbidden? Do not render her forbidden due to an uncertainty. Consequently, you should permit her to enter into levirate marriage.

讛转诐 诇讞讜诪专讗

The Gemara explains: There, with regard to betrothal, the halakha follows the stringent ruling, because the rival wife is certainly his wife and requires levirate marriage. As there is uncertainty with regard to the betrothal with the forbidden relative, the ruling is stringent; she may not enter into levirate marriage and must only perform 岣litza.

讛讗讬 讞讜诪专讗 讚讗转讬 诇讬讚讬 拽讜诇讗 讛讜讗 讝讬诪谞讬谉 讚讗讝讬诇 讛讜讗 讜诪拽讚砖 诇讛 诇讗讞讜转讛 拽讚讜砖讬 讜讚讗讬

The Gemara objects: Yet this is a stringency that might bring about a leniency in another scenario. How so? Sometimes that same man who betrothed the forbidden relative might go and betroth her sister with a betrothal whose status is certain. If one says that due to a stringency the rival wife may not enter into levirate marriage due to her possible status as the rival wife of a forbidden relative, people might come to assume that the betrothal with the forbidden relative was a valid betrothal, and that the subsequent betrothal with her sister was not valid, since she is his wife鈥檚 sister. This would be assumed because they would not know that the status of the first betrothal was itself uncertain and that only due to a stringent ruling is the rival wife not allowed to enter into levirate marriage. In fact, the status of the betrothal with the sister of the forbidden relative is also uncertain. As a result of this ruling, however, people might be led to think that a man鈥檚 wife, i.e., the sister of the forbidden relative, is in fact permitted.

讜讗讬 谞诪讬 讝讬诪谞讬谉 讚讗转讗 讗讞专 讜诪拽讚砖 诇讛 诇讚讬讚讛 拽讚讜砖讬 讜讚讗讬 讜讻讬讜谉 讚讗住专 诇讛 诪专 诇爪专讛 诇讬讬讘讜诪讬 讗诪专讬 讚拽诪讗 拽讚讜砖讬谉 讜讚讘转专讗 诇讗讜 拽讚讜砖讬谉

Alternatively, sometimes another man might come and betroth the forbidden relative herself with a betrothal whose status is certain, and since the Master rendered it prohibited for the rival wife to enter into levirate marriage, people would say that the betrothal of the first man, i.e., the deceased brother, was a fully effective betrothal, and that the betrothal of the latter man was not a valid betrothal. If she was married to the first man, then she is forbidden to the second as the man鈥檚 wife, and betrothal cannot take effect with her. However, since the status of her betrothal to the first man was uncertain, then she is also considered possibly betrothed to the second man and would require a divorce from him as well. As a result, one can find a situation that would lead people to think that a man鈥檚 wife is in fact permitted.

  • 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: 30-36 – Daf Yomi One Week at a Time

This week we will learn various scenarios that begin with three brothers, two of which marry two sisters. We will...
talking talmud_square

Yevamot 30:Adding a Non Sister to the Mix

5 mishnayot, with templates of 3 brothers, two of whom marry two sisters, and the third brother marries an unrelated...
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 30

The William Davidson Talmud | Powered by Sefaria

Yevamot 30

诪转谞讬壮 砖诇砖讛 讗讞讬谉 砖谞讬诐 诪讛诐 谞砖讜讗讬诐 砖转讬 讗讞讬讜转 讜讗讞讚 谞砖讜讬 谞讻专讬转 诪转 讗讞讚 诪讘注诇讬 讗讞讬讜转 讜讻谞住 谞砖讜讬 谞讻专讬转 讗转 讗砖转讜 讜诪转 讛专讗砖讜谞讛 讬讜爪讗讛 诪砖讜诐 讗讞讜转 讗砖讛 讜砖谞讬讛 诪砖讜诐 爪专转讛 注砖讛 讘讛 诪讗诪专 讜诪转 谞讻专讬转 讞讜诇爪转 讜诇讗 诪转讬讬讘诪转

MISHNA: In the case of three brothers, two of whom were married to two sisters and one who was married to an unrelated woman, the following occurred: The husband of one of the sisters died childless, and the brother who was married to the unrelated woman married, i.e., performed lev irate marriage with, the deceased brother鈥檚 wife and later died himself, childless. In this situation, both women happen for levirate marriage before the other, remaining, brother. The first woman is dismissed due to the prohibition proscribing the sister of one鈥檚 wife, as she is the sister of this brother鈥檚 wife, and the second woman is dismissed due to her status as the first woman鈥檚 rival wife. Following the first levirate marriage, this second woman became the rival wife of the sister, and is therefore exempt from levirate marriage as well. If, however, the brother married to the unrelated woman performed only levirate betrothal, but had not yet consummated the levirate marriage with the sister, and he died, the unrelated woman, whose halakhic status with regard to yibbum is similar to that of a sister鈥檚 rival wife, must perform 岣litza and may not enter into levirate marriage.

讙诪壮 讟注诪讗 讚注讘讚 讘讛 诪讗诪专 讛讗 诇讗 注讘讚 讘讛 诪讗诪专 谞讻专讬转 讬讘讜诪讬 谞诪讬 诪讬讬讘诪讛 讗诪专 专讘 谞讞诪谉 讝讗转 讗讜诪专转 讗讬谉 讝讬拽讛 讜讗驻讬诇讜 讘讞讚 讗讞讗

GEMARA: The Gemara deduces the following halakha from the second clause of the mishna: The reason that the mishna requires 岣litza is specifically because he, the brother who was married to the unrelated woman, performed levirate betrothal with the sister. Consequently, had he not performed levirate betrothal with her, the unrelated woman would be permitted to enter into levirate marriage as well. This is true despite the fact that the levirate bond could potentially render her the rival wife of his wife鈥檚 sister. Rav Na岣an said: That is to say, the levirate bond is not substantial; the woman requiring levirate marriage is not considered married to the yavam. And this is true even if the levirate bond was with a single brother, as this widowed sister happened for levirate marriage only before the brother who was married to the unrelated woman; her levirate bond was with him alone.

诪转谞讬壮 砖诇砖讛 讗讞讬诐 砖谞讬诐 诪讛诐 谞砖讜讗讬诐 砖转讬 讗讞讬讜转 讜讗讞讚 谞砖讜讬 谞讻专讬转 诪转 讛谞砖讜讬 谞讻专讬转 讜讻谞住 讗讞讚 诪讘注诇讬 讗讞讬讜转 讗转 讗砖转讜 讜诪转 讛专讗砖讜谞讛 讬讜爪讗转 诪砖讜诐 讗讞讜转 讗砖讛 讜砖谞讬讛 诪砖讜诐 爪专转讛 注砖讛 讘讛 诪讗诪专 讜诪转 谞讻专讬转 讞讜诇爪转 讜诇讗 诪转讬讬讘诪转

mishna In the case of three brothers, two of whom were married to two sisters and one who was married to an unrelated woman, the following occurred: He who was married to the unrelated woman died, and one of the husbands of the sisters married his wife, and then died childless as well. The first woman, i.e., the sister who was originally married to the brother who performed levirate marriage, is dismissed and is exempt from levirate marriage due to her status as the sister of his wife. And the second woman, i.e., the unrelated woman who had entered into levirate marriage, is dismissed as her rival wife. If, however, he performed levirate betrothal with the unrelated woman, and then died, then this unrelated woman must perform 岣litza and may not enter into levirate marriage, as levirate betrothal rendered her status with regard to yibbum as similar to the rival wife of his wife鈥檚 sister.

讙诪壮 讛讗 转讜 诇诪讛 诇讬 讛讬讬谞讜 讛讱 讛砖转讗 讜诪讛 讛转诐 讚讗讞讜转 讗砖讛 讛讜讬讗 爪专讛 诇谞讻专讬转 讗诪专转 谞讻专讬转 讗住讜专讛 讛讻讗 讚谞讻专讬转 讛讜讬讗 爪专讛 诇讗讞讜转 讗砖讛 诇讗 讻诇 砖讻谉

gemara The Gemara asks: Why do I need this mishna as well? This principle is identical to the principle behind the ruling in the previous mishna, and therefore this ruling can easily be deduced from the previous ruling. Now, just as there, when his wife鈥檚 sister became rival wife of the unrelated woman who was already the brother鈥檚 wife, you say that the unrelated woman is forbidden despite the fact that the forbidden relative joined later, here, where the unrelated woman became the rival wife of his wife鈥檚 sister afterward, is it not all the more so clear that she is exempt as a rival wife?

转谞讗 讛讱 转谞讗 讘专讬砖讗 讜讛讱 讞讝讬讗 诇讛转讬专讗 讜砖专讬讗 讜讛讚专 讞讝讬讗 诇讗讬住讜专讗

The Gemara answers: This mishna was unnecessary, and this is how the duplication occurred: The tanna taught this mishna at first, and with regard to that previous case saw it fitting to render her permitted, and he permitted her to the brother, for he held that if the forbidden relative joined the man鈥檚 household later, then she would not render the first wife prohibited as the rival wife of a forbidden relative. And then the tanna subsequently retracted and saw it fitting to render the woman forbidden. He decided that this woman should be considered the rival wife of a forbidden relative as well, and therefore rendered her forbidden to the brother.

讜讗讬讬讚讬 讚讞讘讬讘讛 诇讬讛 讗拽讚诪讛 讜诪砖谞讛 诇讗 讝讝讛 诪诪拽讜诪讛

And since that case was novel, it was beloved to him and he taught it earlier. In truth, it would have now been possible to eliminate the present mishna, for there was no longer any novelty in it; its ruling could be derived by an a fortiori argument from the previous ruling. However, a mishna does not move from its place. Since this version of the mishna had already been fixed, it was deemed inappropriate to remove it completely, and it remained in place despite the fact that it was no longer necessary.

诪转谞讬壮 砖诇砖讛 讗讞讬谉 砖谞讬诐 诪讛诐 谞砖讜讗讬诐 砖转讬 讗讞讬讜转 讜讗讞讚 谞砖讜讬 谞讻专讬转 诪转 讗讞讚 诪讘注诇讬 讗讞讬讜转 讜讻谞住 谞砖讜讬 谞讻专讬转 讗转 讗砖转讜 讜诪转讛 讗砖转讜 砖诇 砖谞讬 讜讗讞专 讻讱 诪转 谞砖讜讬 谞讻专讬转 讛专讬 讝讜 讗住讜专讛 注诇讬讜 注讜诇诪讬转 讛讜讗讬诇 讜谞讗住专讛 注诇讬讜 砖注讛 讗讞转

MISHNA: In the case of three brothers, two of whom were married to two sisters and one who was married to an unrelated woman, the following occurred: One of the husbands of the sisters died, and he who was married to the unrelated woman married the deceased husband鈥檚 wife, and then the wife of the second brother, the other one of the sisters, died. Afterward, the brother who was married to the unrelated woman died, leaving two women for levirate marriage before the remaining brother: The unrelated woman and the woman who was previously prohibited as the sister of his deceased wife. In this case, the sister is forbidden to him forever. She is not forbidden due to her status as his wife鈥檚 sister, as his wife already died and one鈥檚 wife鈥檚 sister is permitted after the wife鈥檚 death. However, since she was already forbidden to him at one time, she is forbidden to him forever. When she first happened before the brothers for levirate marriage, before the third brother married her, she was forbidden to the second brother as his wife鈥檚 sister. Therefore, she is forbidden to him forever. In addition, she exempts her rival wife, the unrelated woman, from levirate marriage.

讙诪壮 讗诪专 专讘 讬讛讜讚讛 讗诪专 专讘 讻诇 讬讘诪讛 砖讗讬谉 讗谞讬 拽讜专讗 讘讛 讘砖注转 谞驻讬诇讛 讬讘诪讛 讬讘讗 注诇讬讛 讛专讬 讛讬讗 讻讗砖转 讗讞 砖讬砖 诇讛 讘谞讬诐 讜讗住讜专讛 诪讗讬 拽讗 诪砖诪注 诇谉 转谞讬谞讗 讛专讬 讝讜 讗住讜专讛 注诇讬讜 注讜诇诪讬转 讛讜讗讬诇 讜谞讗住专讛 注诇讬讜 砖注讛 讗讞转

GEMARA: Rav Yehuda said that Rav said a principle on this matter: Any yevama to whom the verse 鈥淗er brother-in-law will have intercourse with her鈥 (Deuteronomy 25:5) cannot be applied at the time that she happens before him for levirate marriage because she was forbidden to him at that moment, is then forever considered to be like the wife of a brother with whom she has children, and she is forbidden to him. The Gemara asks: What is Rav teaching us with this statement? We already learned this in the mishna: She is forbidden to him forever, since she was forbidden to him at one time.

诪讛讜 讚转讬诪讗 讛谞讬 诪讬诇讬 讛讬讻讗 讚诇讗 讗讬讞讝讬讗 诇讛 讘谞驻讬诇讛 专讗砖讜谞讛 讗讘诇 讛讬讻讗 讚讗讬讞讝讬讗 诇讛 讘谞驻讬诇讛 专讗砖讜谞讛 讗讬诪讗 转讬砖转专讬 拽讗 诪砖诪注 诇谉

The Gemara answers: This was necessary lest you say that this ruling applies only in cases where she was not eligible at all during the first time that she happened before the brothers for levirate marriage. Such is the case in the mishna, when she was forbidden to the yavam as his wife鈥檚 sister the entire time that she was eligible for levirate marriage. Even though his wife died after the other yavam married this woman, because she was forbidden to him that entire time, she is forbidden to him forever. But in cases where she was eligible at some point during the first time she happened before the brothers for levirate marriage, such as in the scenario where the brother鈥檚 wife died prior to the time when his other brother married her, one could say that she would be permitted. In that case, since the prohibition had in the meantime been canceled and she was indeed rendered eligible for levirate marriage with him during the period of the first time she happened before him, one might think that she would now be permitted. It is for this reason that Rav teaches us that even in this scenario she would be forbidden to him forever.

讛讗 谞诪讬 转谞讬谞讗 砖谞讬 讗讞讬谉 谞砖讜讗讬谉 砖转讬 讗讞讬讜转 诪转 讗讞讚 诪讛诐 讜讗讞专 讻讱 诪转讛 讗砖转讜 砖诇 砖谞讬 讛专讬 讝讜 讗住讜专讛 注诇讬讜 注讜诇诪讬转 讛讜讗讬诇 讜谞讗住专讛 注诇讬讜 砖注讛 讗讞转

The Gemara raises an objection: We learned this as well, as a later mishna (32a) states: In the case of two brothers who were married to two sisters, if one of them, i.e., one of the brothers, died and afterward the wife of the second brother died, then she, the surviving wife, is forbidden to him, the surviving brother, forever, since she was forbidden to him during the period she happened before him at one time.

诪讛讜 讚转讬诪讗 讛转诐 讛讜讗 讚讗讬讚讞讬 诇讛 诪讛讗讬 讘讬转讗 诇讙诪专讬 讗讘诇 讛讻讗 讚诇讗 讗讬讚讞讬 诇讛 诪讛讗讬 讘讬转讗 诇讙诪专讬 讗讬诪讗 诪讬讙讜 讚讞讝讬讗 诇讛讗讬 谞砖讜讬 谞讻专讬转 讞讝讬讗 谞诪讬 诇讛讗讬 拽讗 诪砖诪注 诇谉

The Gemara answers: One cannot learn the halakhic principle from that case. Lest you say that there she is forbidden forever because of the following argument: When she was forbidden to the brother, she was precluded from entering this household completely, i.e., from the entire obligation of levirate marriage. She received total exemption from the mitzva of levirate marriage because this obligation applied only to the one remaining brother, and she was forbidden to him at the time that she happened before him for levirate marriage. But here, however, in the case Rav is referring to, where she was not completely precluded from entering this household because she still required levirate marriage with another brother, one could say: Since she is eligible and permitted to this brother, who was married to the unrelated woman, she is eligible for this second brother following the death of his wife as well, in other words, she was not rendered completely exempt from the obligation of levirate marriage. Lest one make this argument, Rav teaches us that under any circumstances she who was forbidden at one time is forbidden forever.

诪转谞讬壮 砖诇砖讛 讗讞讬诐 砖谞讬诐 诪讛诐 谞砖讜讗讬谉 砖转讬 讗讞讬讜转 讜讗讞讚 谞砖讜讬 谞讻专讬转 讙讬专砖 讗讞讚 诪讘注诇讬 讗讞讬讜转 讗转 讗砖转讜 讜诪转 谞砖讜讬 谞讻专讬转 讜讻谞住讛 讛诪讙专砖 讜诪转 讝讜 讛讬讗 砖讗诪专讜 讜讻讜诇谉 砖诪转讜 讗讜 谞转讙专砖讜 爪专讜转讬讛谉 诪讜转专讜转

MISHNA: In the case of three brothers, two of whom were married to two sisters and one who was married to an unrelated woman, the following occurred: Shimon, the husband of one of the sisters, divorced his wife, and then Levi, who was married to the unrelated woman, died, and Shimon, the man who divorced his wife, married, i.e., performed levirate marriage with, her, i.e., this unrelated woman. And then Shimon himself later died, so that the unrelated woman happened for levirate marriage before Reuven, the third brother, who is married to the second sister. In this scenario, Reuven is allowed to consummate the levirate marriage with the unrelated woman. This is the case that was referred to when they said: And with regard to all those fifteen forbidden relatives who died or were divorced, their rival wives are permitted to enter into levirate marriage. This is because at the time that they happened before the yavam for levirate marriage they were no longer the rival wives of a forbidden relative.

讙诪壮 讟注诪讗 讚讙讬专砖 讜讗讞专 讻讱 诪转 讗讘诇 诪转 讜讗讞专 讻讱 讙讬专砖 讗住讜专讛 讗诪专 专讘 讗砖讬 讝讗转 讗讜诪专转 讬砖 讝讬拽讛 讗驻讬诇讜 讘转专讬 讗讞讬

GEMARA: The Gemara deduces from here that the reason for this halakha is specifically that Shimon divorced his wife and after that Levi died and Shimon married the unrelated woman. But if Levi had died first, and later Shimon divorced his wife, then the unrelated woman would be forbidden to Reuven due to the levirate bond that existed between her and Shimon prior to the latter鈥檚 divorce. She would be considered the rival wife of the divorced woman who is the sister of Reuven鈥檚 wife. Rav Ashi said: That is to say, the levirate bond is substantial, even with two brothers. Although the unrelated woman required levirate marriage with two brothers, the levirate bond is substantial enough to create a relationship between the unrelated woman and Shimon such that the unrelated woman is considered the rival wife of the divorced woman, i.e., the sister of Reuven鈥檚 wife.

讜诇专讘 讗砖讬 拽砖讬讗 讚专讘 谞讞诪谉 讗诪专 诇讱 专讘 讗砖讬 讛讜讗 讛讚讬谉 讚讗祝 注诇 讙讘 讚诇讗 注讘讚 讘讛 诪讗诪专 谞讻专讬转 诪讬讞诇抓 讞诇爪讛 讬讘讜诪讬 诇讗 诪讬讬讘诪讛 讜讛讗 讚拽转谞讬 诪讗诪专 诇讗驻讜拽讬 讘讬转 砖诪讗讬 讚讗诪专讬 诪讗诪专 拽讜谞讛

The Gemara asks: And according to Rav Ashi, that which Rav Na岣an said is difficult, as Rav Na岣an deduced from the earlier mishna that the levirate bond is not substantial even in the case of a single brother. The Gemara answers: Rav Ashi could have said to you: Rav Na岣an鈥檚 deduction in the first mishna was not logically necessary. With regard to that mishna, one could have said that when the mishna requires 岣litza in the case of levirate betrothal, the same is true even in the case where he who was married to the unrelated woman did not perform levirate betrothal with her. In that case as well, the unrelated woman must perform 岣litza and may not enter into levirate marriage since she was the rival wife of his wife鈥檚 sister by levirate bond. And the reason that it teaches the ruling in the case of levirate betrothal was not in order to inform us that she was forbidden due to levirate betrothal, but rather to exclude the statement of Beit Shammai, who say that through the act of levirate betrothal one acquires the yevama

拽谞讬谉 讙诪讜专 拽讗 诪砖诪注 诇谉 讚诇讗 讻讘讬转 砖诪讗讬

as a full-fledged acquisition. According to that opinion, the unrelated woman does not even require 岣litza, since she is considered to be a rival wife of a forbidden relative. This mishna teaches us that the halakha is not in accordance with the opinion of Beit Shammai.

讜诇专讘 谞讞诪谉 拽砖讬讗 讚专讘 讗砖讬 讜讻讬 转讬诪讗 讛讜讗 讛讚讬谉 讚讗驻讬诇讜 诪转 讜讗讞专 讻讱 讙讬专砖 爪专转讛 诪讜转专转 讗诇讗 讝讜 讛讬讗 诇诪注讜讟讬 诪讗讬 诇诪注讜讟讬 讻谞住 讜讗讞专 讻讱 讙讬专砖

The Gemara raises a question from the opposite perspective: And according to Rav Na岣an, who deduced from the earlier mishna that the levirate bond is not substantial, the deduction of Rav Ashi that the levirate bond is substantial is difficult. And if you would try to resolve this in a similar manner and say: With regard to the ruling in the present mishna, which states that the sister鈥檚 rival wife, i.e., the unrelated woman, is permitted, the same is true even if Levi had died and then afterward the brother married to the other sister divorced his wife, there is a difficulty. If that is the case, then what does the phrase this is, cited at the end of the mishna, come to exclude? If we follow this explanation then the same ruling would hold true in all cases. The Gemara responds: It excludes the case where Shimon first married the unrelated woman and only afterward divorced the sister, as in such circumstances the unrelated woman is most certainly a rival wife of Reuven鈥檚 wife鈥檚 sister and is therefore not permitted.

讛谞讬讞讗 讗讬 住讘专 诇讛 讻专讘讬 讬专诪讬讛 讚讗诪专 转讘专讗 诪讬 砖砖谞讛 讝讜 诇讗 砖谞讛 讝讜

The Gemara states: This works out well if he holds in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yirmeya, who said with regard to a seeming contradiction between this mishna and an earlier mishna (13a): The mishnayot are disjointed; he who taught this mishna did not teach that mishna. The earlier mishna established the principle that if a man was married to two women, one of whom was a forbidden relative, and he divorced the forbidden relative before he died, then the rival wife is no longer prohibited to the brothers.

讜讛讗讬 转谞讗 住讘专 诪讬转讛 诪驻诇转 讜讛讗讬 转谞讗 住讘专 谞讬砖讜讗讬谉 讛专讗砖讜谞讬诐 诪驻讬诇讬诐

This dispute is based upon the following: This tanna from the earlier mishna holds that death determines her status when she happens before the brothers, i.e., the crucial moment for determining whether the prohibition relating to rival wives applies is the moment at which the brother dies. In other words, whether the yevama is permitted to the yavam is determined by the status of the yevama at that given moment. Therefore, in the case where he had married a forbidden relative and later divorced her, the rival wife would be permitted. And this tanna of our present mishna holds that the original marriage determines her status when she happens before the brothers. If, at the time the woman was married to the deceased brother she was forbidden as a close relative, and her rival wife was likewise forbidden as the rival wife of a forbidden relative, then even though the status of the relative had changed at the time of the death of the brother, both she and her rival wife remain forbidden.

讝讜 讛讬讗 诇诪注讜讟讬 讻谞住 讜诇讘住讜祝 讙讬专砖 讗诇讗 讗讬 住讘专 诇讛 讻专讘讗 讚讗诪专 诇注讜诇诐 讞讚 转谞讗 讛讜讗 讜讝讜 讜讗讬谉 爪专讬讱 诇讜诪专 讝讜 拽转谞讬 讝讜 讛讬讗 诇诪注讜讟讬 诪讗讬 注诇 讻专讞讱 讻专讘讬 讬专诪讬讛 住讘讬专讗 诇讬讛

According to this opinion, it is indeed possible to state that the phrase this is comes to exclude the case where he married one woman and ultimately divorced the other. According to this mishna, in that case, the rival wives would be prohibited. However, if he holds in accordance with the opinion of Rava, who said: Actually, understand this to be the opinion of a single tanna, and he teaches the mishna employing the style: This, and it is unnecessary to say that, a difficulty remains. According to Rava, both mishnayot maintain the position that in the case where the yavam married one woman and ultimately divorced the other, the rival wife would be permitted. If that is the case, what does the phrase this is come to exclude? In what case would the rival wife be prohibited to the yavam? The Gemara responds: Perforce Rav Na岣an holds in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yirmeya with regard to his interpretation of the mishnayot.

讜诇专讘讗 讛谞讬讞讗 讗讬 住讘专 诇讛 讻专讘 讗砖讬 讝讜 讛讬讗 诇诪注讜讟讬 诪转 讘诇讗 讙讬专砖 讗诇讗 讗讬 住讘专 诇讛 讻专讘 谞讞诪谉 讝讜 讛讬讗 诇诪注讜讟讬 诪讗讬 注诇 讻专讞讱 讻专讘 讗砖讬 住讘讬专讗 诇讬讛

The Gemara raises a question from a different perspective: And according to Rava, who maintains that in both cases the rival wife is permitted, this works out well if he holds in accordance with the opinion of Rav Ashi that the levirate bond is substantial. In that case the phrase this is comes to exclude the case where he died without divorcing his wife. In this case the rival wife is forbidden because the entire time she was the rival wife of a forbidden relative by levirate bond. If, however, he holds in accordance with the opinion of Rav Na岣an in this matter, what does the phrase this is come to exclude? The Gemara answers: Perforce Rava holds in accordance with the opinion of Rav Ashi. Accordingly, with regard to this halakha there is a connection between the various opinions as to how to interpret the mishnayot and the dispute.

诪转谞讬壮 讜讻讜诇谉 砖讛讬讜 讘讛谉 拽讚讜砖讬谉 讗讜 讙专讜砖讬谉 讘住驻拽 讛专讬 讗诇讜 讛爪专讜转 讞讜诇爪讜转 讜诇讗 诪转讬讬讘诪讜转 讻讬爪讚 住驻拽 拽讚讜砖讬谉 讝专拽 诇讛 拽讚讜砖讬谉 住驻拽 拽专讜讘 诇讜 住驻拽 拽专讜讘 诇讛 讝讛讜 住驻拽 拽讚讜砖讬谉

MISHNA: And if any of these fifteen women who are prohibited as forbidden relatives had undergone a betrothal or divorce whose status is uncertain with the deceased brother, then those women who were their rival wives must perform 岣litza and may not enter into levirate marriage since they are possibly the rival wives of forbidden relatives. The mishna elaborates: How could there be a situation of uncertainty with regard to betrothal? If in the public domain he threw her an item for the purpose of betrothal and there were eight cubits between them, and the item was possibly closer to him and did not enter into her domain, and possibly closer to her, i.e., within four cubits of her, whereby she could acquire the object, this is a case of uncertainty with regard to betrothal.

住驻拽 讙专讜砖讬谉 讻转讘 讘讻转讘 讬讚讜 讜讗讬谉 注诇讬讜 注讚讬诐 讬砖 注诇讬讜 注讚讬诐 讜讗讬谉 讘讜 讝诪谉 讬砖 讘讜 讝诪谉 讜讗讬谉 讘讜 讗诇讗 注讚 讗讞讚 讝讛讜 住驻拽 讙专讜砖讬谉

Uncertainty with regard to divorce occurs when, for instance, he wrote a bill of divorce in his handwriting but there are no signatures of witnesses on the document, or there are the signatures of witnesses on the document but there is no date written in it, or the date is written in it but there is only the signature of a single witness. Since there is doubt as to whether these three kinds of bills of divorce are valid, a woman who was divorced through them is only possibly divorced, and so this case is called uncertainty with regard to divorce.

讙诪壮 讜讗讬诇讜 讘讙专讜砖讬谉 住驻拽 拽专讜讘 诇讜 住驻拽 拽专讜讘 诇讛 诇讗 拽转谞讬

GEMARA: The Gemara remarks: But yet when discussing divorce, it does not teach the case where it is uncertain if the bill of divorce is closer to him, and uncertain if it is closer to her. It would have been appropriate to describe this case, as it parallels the case involving the object of betrothal. He could have tossed it in such a way that it was not clear to whom the bill was closer.

诪讗讬 讟注诪讗 讗诪专 专讘讛 讗砖讛 讝讜 讘讞讝拽转 讛讬转专 诇砖讜拽 注讜诪讚转 讜诪住驻拽 讗转讛 讘讗 诇讗讜住专讛 讗诇 转讗住专谞讛 诪住驻拽

The Gemara asks: What is the reason the mishna did not present this situation as well? Rabba said: When this type of uncertainty exists, the performance of 岣litza is not mandatory, as this woman, the rival wife, has the presumptive status of being permitted to marry a man from the general public. At the time of her marriage she was rendered a rival wife of a forbidden relative. And due to an uncertainty alone would you render her forbidden to the general public until she performs 岣litza, simply because it is unclear to us whether or not the forbidden relative had indeed been divorced? Do not render her forbidden due to an uncertainty. This is not, however, the case with the various bills of divorce mentioned in the mishna, for they are all certainly considered effective bills of divorce, even if the circumstances involved raise some questions or doubts.

讗诪专 诇讬讛 讗讘讬讬 讗讬 讛讻讬 讘拽讚讜砖讬谉 谞诪讬 谞讬诪讗 讗砖讛 讝讜 讘讞讝拽转 讛讬转专 诇讬讘诐 注讜诪讚转 讜诪住驻拽 讗转讛 讘讗 诇讗讜住专讛 讗诇 转讗住专谞讛 诪住驻拽

Abaye said to him: If that is so, let us say in the case of betrothal as well that this woman, the rival wife, has the presumptive status of being permitted to the yavam before he betrothed the forbidden relative, and due to the uncertainty whether she is the rival wife of a forbidden relative would you come and render her forbidden? Do not render her forbidden due to an uncertainty. Consequently, you should permit her to enter into levirate marriage.

讛转诐 诇讞讜诪专讗

The Gemara explains: There, with regard to betrothal, the halakha follows the stringent ruling, because the rival wife is certainly his wife and requires levirate marriage. As there is uncertainty with regard to the betrothal with the forbidden relative, the ruling is stringent; she may not enter into levirate marriage and must only perform 岣litza.

讛讗讬 讞讜诪专讗 讚讗转讬 诇讬讚讬 拽讜诇讗 讛讜讗 讝讬诪谞讬谉 讚讗讝讬诇 讛讜讗 讜诪拽讚砖 诇讛 诇讗讞讜转讛 拽讚讜砖讬 讜讚讗讬

The Gemara objects: Yet this is a stringency that might bring about a leniency in another scenario. How so? Sometimes that same man who betrothed the forbidden relative might go and betroth her sister with a betrothal whose status is certain. If one says that due to a stringency the rival wife may not enter into levirate marriage due to her possible status as the rival wife of a forbidden relative, people might come to assume that the betrothal with the forbidden relative was a valid betrothal, and that the subsequent betrothal with her sister was not valid, since she is his wife鈥檚 sister. This would be assumed because they would not know that the status of the first betrothal was itself uncertain and that only due to a stringent ruling is the rival wife not allowed to enter into levirate marriage. In fact, the status of the betrothal with the sister of the forbidden relative is also uncertain. As a result of this ruling, however, people might be led to think that a man鈥檚 wife, i.e., the sister of the forbidden relative, is in fact permitted.

讜讗讬 谞诪讬 讝讬诪谞讬谉 讚讗转讗 讗讞专 讜诪拽讚砖 诇讛 诇讚讬讚讛 拽讚讜砖讬 讜讚讗讬 讜讻讬讜谉 讚讗住专 诇讛 诪专 诇爪专讛 诇讬讬讘讜诪讬 讗诪专讬 讚拽诪讗 拽讚讜砖讬谉 讜讚讘转专讗 诇讗讜 拽讚讜砖讬谉

Alternatively, sometimes another man might come and betroth the forbidden relative herself with a betrothal whose status is certain, and since the Master rendered it prohibited for the rival wife to enter into levirate marriage, people would say that the betrothal of the first man, i.e., the deceased brother, was a fully effective betrothal, and that the betrothal of the latter man was not a valid betrothal. If she was married to the first man, then she is forbidden to the second as the man鈥檚 wife, and betrothal cannot take effect with her. However, since the status of her betrothal to the first man was uncertain, then she is also considered possibly betrothed to the second man and would require a divorce from him as well. As a result, one can find a situation that would lead people to think that a man鈥檚 wife is in fact permitted.

Scroll To Top