Commentary for Yevamot 55:16

איסור מצוה כו': הא נמי תנינא

first.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' So that his mother-in-law who came under the obligation next was never for one moment permitted even to the other levir. ');">⁴³</span> R. ELIEZER SAID: BETH SHAMMAI HOLD etc. The following was taught: R. Eliezer said: Beth Shammai hold that they may retain them, and Beth Hillel hold that they must dismiss them. R. Simeon said: They may retain them. Abba Saul said: Beth Hillel uphold in this matter the milder rule, for it was Beth Shammai who said that the women must be dismissed while Beth Hillel said they may be retained.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Tosef. v. ');">⁴⁴</span> Whose view does R. Simeon represent?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Lit., 'R. Simeon like whom'. He could not possibly advance a view of his own, since he is not sufficiently great to disagree either with Beth Shammai or with Beth Hillel. ');">⁴⁵</span> If that of Beth Shammai,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' I.e., if he maintains that what he said was their view. ');">⁴⁶</span> he is merely repeating R. Eliezer; if that of Beth Hillel,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' I.e., if he maintains that what he said was their view. ');">⁴⁶</span> he is repeating Abba Saul! It was this that he meant: In this matter there is no dispute at all between Beth Shammai and Beth Hillel. IF ONE OF THE SISTERS etc. But we have learned this already: When her sister is her sister-in-law she may either perform <i>halizah</i> or be taken in levirate marriage!<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Supra 20a, which Implies the law here stated, viz, that he is forbidden to marry the forbidden relative but may marry her sister. ');">⁴⁷</span> — [Both are] necessary. For had the law been stated there<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' And not here. ');">⁴⁸</span> it might have been assumed [to apply to that case alone],<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Where one brother only is involved. ');">⁴⁹</span> because there is no need to enact a preventive measure against a second brother,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Who might marry a sister of his zekukah by mistaking the reason for the levirate marriage of his brother. ');">⁵⁰</span> but not [to the case] here where it might be advisable to issue a preventive measure against a second brother.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Who might marry a sister of his zekukah by mistaking the reason for the levirate marriage of his brother. ');">⁵⁰</span> And had the law been stated here,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' And not there. ');">⁵¹</span> it might have been assumed [to apply to this case alone] because there is a second brother who proves it<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' That there is a special reason why his brother may marry one of the sisters. The fact that he himself does not marry either of the sisters is sufficient proof that the sister of a zekukah is forbidden. ');">⁵²</span> but not [to that case] where no second brother exists.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' And people might erroneously infer that the sister of a zekukah is always permitted. ');">⁵³</span> [Hence were both] required. BY VIRTUE OF A COMMANDMENT etc. But we have [already] learned this also:

Explore commentary for Yevamot 55:16. In-depth commentary and analysis from classical Jewish sources.