Commentary for Yevamot 20:16

אמר רב ששת סיפא אתאן לר"ע דאמר אין קידושין תופסין בחייבי לאוין וליתני לדברי ר"ע אין לו עליו כלום

merely acts as agent for the brothers while she<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' The widow who performed the halizah ceremonial. ');">⁴²</span> acts as agent for her rival.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Hence all the brothers as well as all the rivals are in this respect in exactly the same position. As the brother and the widow who between them carried out the halizah ceremonial are in a case of subsequent marriage exempt from kareth and are subject only to the penalties of a negative precept, so also are all the others on whose behalf they acted. ');">⁴³</span> R. Johanan pointed out to Resh Lakish the following objection: 'If a levir who submitted to <i>halizah</i> from his sister-in-law, later betrothed her and died,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Without issue. ');">⁴⁴</span> [the widow] requires <i>halizah</i> from the surviving brothers'. Now, according to me who maintains that [the surviving brothers]<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' In subsequently marrying the haluzah. ');">⁴⁵</span> are subject to the penalties of a negative precept only, one can well understand why she requires <i>halizah</i> from the other brothers.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Since the negative precept which bars them from the levirate marriage does not supersede halizah. ');">⁴⁶</span> According to you, however, why should she require <i>halizah</i>?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Marriage with them would involve the penalty of kareth, and whenever such a penalty is involved the parties are not subject to the laws of halizah! ');">⁴⁷</span> — Explain, then, on the lines of your reasoning, the final clause, 'If one of the brothers<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Other than the one who participated in the halizah. ');">⁴⁸</span> actually<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Lit., 'stood'. ');">⁴⁹</span> betrothed her, she has no claim upon him'!<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' I.e., the betrothal is invalid, she receives no kethubah, and no divorce is needed. This obviously proves that the penalty for such an ensuing marriage is kareth, as Resh Lakish maintains; for had it been, as R. Johanan asserts, that of a negative precept only, the betrothal should have been valid. ');">⁵⁰</span> R. Shesheth replied: The final clause represents the opinion of R. Akiba who holds that a betrothal with those who are subject thereby to the penalties of a negative precept is of no validity.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Keth. 29b, Kid. 64a, 68a, Sot. 18b, infra 52b, 69a. ');">⁵¹</span> Should it not then have been stated, 'according to the view of R. Akiba she<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' So BaH, a.l. Cur. edd., 'he'. ');">⁵²</span> has no claim upon him'!<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Since it is the general opinion that such a betrothal is valid. ');">⁵³</span>

Explore commentary for Yevamot 20:16. In-depth commentary and analysis from classical Jewish sources.