Commentary for Yevamot 38:10

ר"ש אהייא קאי אילימא אנולד לו אח ואח"כ עשה בה מאמר הא אמרת בנולד ולבסוף ייבם לא פליג ר"ש אלא אעשה בה מאמר ואח"כ נולד לו אח

addressed the ma'amar subsequently's surely it has been stated, that where birth preceded marriage R. Simeon does not differ from the Rabbis!<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' But agrees that the first widow in relation to the third brother is to be regarded as 'the wife of his brother who was not his contemporary'. Now, since it is possible that the ma'amar is as valid as actual marriage, how could R. Simeon have permitted the rival of a forbidden relative? Furthermore, the expression 'she exempts her rival' would be unsuitable, since her rival has all the time been exempt as the 'wife of the brother who was not his contemporary'. ');">²⁹</span> — But [the reference is] to the case where the ma'amar was addressed first and the third brother was born subsequently. Hence, 'if he participated in <i>halizah</i> with her to whom [the second brother had] addressed the ma amar, her rival is not exempt', because<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Lit., 'what is the reason'. ');">³⁰</span> the [subjection of the] rival<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' To the third brother. ');">³¹</span> is a certainty<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' If the ma'amar was valid both widows are subject to the third brother, since it is a case of marriage before birth; if the ma'amar is invalid, the second is still subjected to the levir since, no marriage having taken place, she is not the rival of a forbidden relative. ');">³²</span>

Explore commentary for Yevamot 38:10. In-depth commentary and analysis from classical Jewish sources.