Commentary for Yevamot 40:18

איתמר ביאת כהן גדול באלמנה רבי יוחנן ור' אלעזר חד אמר אינה פוטרת צרתה וחד אמר פוטרת צרתה

A bastard and a nethinah also are unusual!<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' And yet they were forbidden as a preventive measure. ');">³²</span> — But, said Raba, [this is the reason]: The first act of Intercourse<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' In the levirate marriage, Pentateuchally permissible even in the case of one forbidden by a negative precept, the positive precept overriding the negative. ');">³³</span> is forbidden<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' In the case of an erusin widow. ');">³⁴</span> as a preventive measure against a second act of intercourse.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' When only the prohibition under the negative precept remains, the positive precept of the levirate marriage having been fulfilled with the first act of intercourse. ');">³⁵</span> It has been taught likewise: If they<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Those who are forbidden marriage by a negative precept. ');">³⁶</span> had intercourse [with any of the forbidden women] they acquire [her as wife] by the first act of intercourse, but may not keep her for a second act of intercourse.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Sanh. 19a. ');">³⁷</span> Subsequently Raba, others say R. Ashi, said: The statement I made<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' That the first act of intercourse is Pentateuchally permitted. ');">³⁸</span> is valueless,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Lit., 'it is nothing'. ');">³⁹</span> for Resh Lakish said, 'Wherever you come upon a combination of a positive and a negative precept and<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Lit., 'if'. ');">⁴⁰</span> you are able to act in conformity with both, well and good; but if not, the positive precept must override the negative'.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Shab. 133a, Naz. 41a, Men. 56a. ');">⁴¹</span> Similarly here<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' The case of the erusin widow of a brother of a High Priest who died after betrothal and before marriage. ');">⁴²</span> it is possible to perform <i>halizah</i>, whereby one is enabled to keep the positive as well as the negative precept. An objection was raised: If they<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Those who are forbidden marriage by a negative precept. ');">³⁶</span> had intercourse [with any of the forbidden women] they acquire [her as wife]!<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Which shews that Pentateuchally the positive precept of levirate marriage does supersede the prohibition of marrying a widow. Had that not been the case, the levir's Pentateuchal illegitimate intercourse could not have constituted a legal bond of marriage. ');">⁴³</span> — This is indeed a refutation. It was stated: Concerning an act of intercourse between a High Priest and a widow<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Whose deceased husband, the High Priest's brother, died without issue. ');">⁴⁴</span> [there is a difference of opinion between] R. Johanan and R. Eleazar. One maintains that it does not exempt her rival,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' From the levirate marriage or halizah. ');">⁴⁵</span> and the other maintains that it does exempt her rival.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' As well as herself, who would, as a result, require a divorce but no halizah. ');">⁴⁶</span> )

Explore commentary for Yevamot 40:18. In-depth commentary and analysis from classical Jewish sources.