Commentary for Yevamot 56:26

איסור מצוה כו':

is permitted to the first.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Issachar who was Simeon's contemporary. ');">⁴³</span> In the example of 'her sister who is her sister-in-law',<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Supra. ');">⁴⁴</span> what need was there<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' In R. Safra's interpretation. ');">⁴⁵</span> for Judah to contract the levirate marriage? Even if Judah did not contract any levirate marriage it is also possible!<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' For one sister to be forbidden to one brother and permitted to the other, and vice versa. Suppose Reuben died, and then Issachar was born, and Levi married the widow; then Simeon died, Zebulun was born, and Levi died; and the widows of Simeon and Levi came under the obligation of the levirate marriage with Issachar and Zebulun. Levi's widow is forbidden to Issachar owing to the levirate bond originating from her first husband, Reuben, (v. supra p. 177, n. 9) and is permitted to Zebulun (v. p. 177, n. 10), while Simeon's widow is forbidden to Zebulun (v. p. 177, n. 12) and permitted to Issachar (v. p. 177. n. 13). Now, since the point may be illustrated by five brothers, why was it necessary to bring in six? ');">⁴⁶</span> — Owing to the rival.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' As the Mishnah under discussion (supra 2af) speaks of the rivals it was desired to give an illustration which may be applicable to rivals as well as to the forbidden relatives, and this could only be done by assuming that Judah married Simeon's widow. Had he not married her, the rival would have had to be not Judah's but Simeon's wife who would thus be forbidden to Zebulun not as 'rival' but as 'the wife of his brother who was not his contemporary'. ');">⁴⁷</span> This<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' The illustration with the six brothers. ');">⁴⁸</span> satisfactorily explains the case of the rival; what can be said, however, in respect of the rival's rival?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' How is it possible that one rival's rival shall be forbidden to one brother and permitted to the other while the other rival's rival should be forbidden to the other brother and permitted to the first? ');">⁴⁹</span> — If, for instance, Gad and Asher also subsequently married them.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' The first wives of Levi and Judah (the rivals of their second wives, the widows of Reuben and Simeon). If Gad who married, say. the widow of Judah, and Asher who married, say. the widow of Levi died subsequently without issue and were survived by their wives who are now subject to the levirate marriage with Issachar and Zebulun the surviving brothers, Gad's first wife, the rival of his second wife (the widow of Judah) who was the rival of Simeon's wife, is forbidden to Zebulun as the rival's rival of the wife of Simeon who was not his contemporary, but is permitted to Issachar. Similarly Asher's first wife is forbidden to Issachar and permitted to Zebulun. ');">⁵⁰</span> <b><i>MISHNAH</i></b>. IF TWO OF THREE BROTHERS WERE MARRIED TO TWO SISTERS, OR TO A WOMAN AND HER DAUGHTER, OR TO A WOMAN AND HER DAUGHTER'S DAUGHTER, OR TO A WOMAN AND HER SON'S DAUGHTER, BEHOLD, THESE<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' The women enumerated. ');">⁵¹</span> MUST<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' If their husbands, the two brothers, died without issue. ');">⁵²</span> PERFORM THE <i>HALIZAH</i><span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' With the third surviving brother. ');">⁵³</span> BUT MAY NOT BE TAKEN IN LEVIRATE MARRIAGE.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' By that brother; since both are related to him by the 'levirate bond' and each is forbidden to him as the consanguineous relative of the woman connected with him by such bond. ');">⁵⁴</span> R. SIMEON, HOWEVER, EXEMPTS THEM.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Even from the halizah. V. Gemara infra. ');">⁵⁵</span> IF ONE OF THEM<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' The sisters. ');">⁵⁶</span> WAS FORBIDDEN TO HIM BY THE LAW OF INCEST, HE IS FORBIDDEN TO MARRY HER BUT IS PERMITTED TO MARRY HER SISTER. IF, HOWEVER, THE PROHIBITION IS DUE TO A COMMANDMENT OR TO HOLINESS, THEY MUST PERFORM THE <i>HALIZAH</i> BUT MAY NOT BE TAKEN IN LEVIRATE MARRIAGE. <b><i>GEMARA</i></b>. It was taught: R. Simeon exempts both from the <i>halizah</i> and the levirate marriage. for it is said in the Scriptures, And thou shalt not take a woman to her sister, to be a rival to her:<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Lev. XVIII, 18. ');">⁵⁷</span> when they become rivals to one another,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' The Ievirate bond which subjects both to the same levir causing them to be rivals. ');">⁵⁸</span> you may not marry even one of them. IF ONE OF THEM WAS etc. What need was there again for this statement? Surely it is the same!<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' As that which had been taught in an earlier Mishnah in the case of four brothers, supra 26a. ');">⁵⁹</span> -It was necessary because of the opinion of R. Simeon: As it might have been assumed that, since R. Simeon had said that two sisters were neither to perform <i>halizah</i> nor to be taken in levirate marriage. A preventive measure should be enacted<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Forbidding levirate marriage even where the prohibition of one is due to the law of incest. ');">⁶⁰</span> against two sisters generally.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Lit., 'of the world'. If permission to marry one of the sisters were given where one is forbidden by the law of incest, it might be mistakenly concluded that levirate marriage is allowed even when none was forbidden by the law of incest. ');">⁶¹</span> hence we were taught<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' By the statement in our Mishnah that one IS PERMITTED TO MARRY HER SISTER. ');">⁶²</span> [that it was not so].<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' The similar statement in the earlier Mishnah (supra 262) does not prove this point as far as R. Simeon is concerned, since it refers to the view of the Rabbis according to whom the marriage of the sister of a zekukah is only Rabbinically forbidden and no preventive measure is obviously required against a possible infringement of such a prohibition. According to R. Simeon, however, who regards the marriage of a sister of a stekukab as incest, a preventive measure might have been expected had not our Mishnah proved the contrary. ');">⁶³</span> IF, HOWEVER, THE PROHIBITION IS DUE TO A COMMANDMENT etc.

Explore commentary for Yevamot 56:26. In-depth commentary and analysis from classical Jewish sources.