Commentary for Yevamot 79:27

<big><strong>מתני׳</strong></big> החולץ ליבמתו הוא אסור בקרובותיה והיא אסורה בקרוביו

<b><i>GEMARA</i></b>. Is not this<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' That participation in the halizah does not deprive the levir of his share in his brother's estate. ');">⁴¹</span> obvious? — It might have been presumed that <i>halizah</i> takes the place of the levirate marriage and he receives, therefore, all the estate, hence it was taught [that he does not].<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' The object of our Mishnah is not to state that the levir is entitled to a share but that he is not entitled to all the estate. ');">⁴²</span> If so,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' That the object of our Mishnah is to indicate his disadvantage. V. supra n. 7. ');">⁴³</span> why was it stated that HE IS REGARDED AS ONE OF THE OTHER BROTHERS when it should have been stated, he is to be regarded only as one of the brothers! — In truth [this is the purpose of our Mishnah]: It might have been assumed that because he deprived her [of levirate marriage]<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Halizah with him has placed the widow under the prohibition of marrying any of the brothers. ');">⁴⁴</span> he shall be penalized,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' And shall receive no share at all. ');">⁴⁵</span> hence we were taught [that he does receive a share]. IF, HOWEVER, THE FATHER WAS LIVING, [THE ESTATE BELONGS TO HIM], for a Master said that a father takes precedence over all his lineal descendants.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' B.B. 115a. V. supra note 4. ');">⁴⁶</span> HE WHO MARRIES HIS DECEASED BROTHER'S WIFE etc. What is the reason? — The All Merciful said, <i>Shall succeed in the name of his brother</i>,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Deut. XXV, 6. ');">⁴⁷</span> and behold he<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' The levir who, according to Rabbinic interpretation (v. supra 24a), is the subject of shall succeed. ');">⁴⁸</span> has succeeded. R. JUDAH SAID etc. Said 'Ulla: The <i>halachah</i> is in agreement with R. Judah, and R. Isaac Nappaha likewise said: The <i>halachah</i> is in agreement with R. Judah. 'Ulla, furthermore, (others say, R. Isaac Nappaha) said: What is R. Judah's reason? — Because it is written in Scripture, And it shall be, that the firstborn that he beareth,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Deut. XXV, 6. ');">⁴⁹</span> [he is] like the firstborn; as the firstborn has nothing while his father is alive, so has this one<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' The levir. ');">⁵⁰</span> also nothing while his father is alive. If [one were to suggest that] as the firstborn receives a double portion after his father's death so shall this one also receive a double portion<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' His own and his brother's. ');">⁵¹</span> after his father's death, [it might be retorted]: Is it written, 'Shall succeed in the name of his father'? It is written, surely, Shall succeed in the name of his brother,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Ibid. ');">⁵²</span> not 'in the name of his father'.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' And since he is not entitled to a double portion at the time he steps into the place of his brother he cannot subsequently claim such a portion when he ultimately becomes entitled to a share in the same estate only by virtue of his succession to his father. ');">⁵³</span> Might it be suggested that, where the father is not alive to receive the inheritance,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Which consequently passes over into the possession of the levir. ');">⁵⁴</span> the law of the levirate marriage should be carried out, but where the father is alive [and the levir] does not receive the inheritance the law of the levirate marriage shall not be carried out? — Has the All Merciful in any way made the levirate marriage dependent on the inheritance? The levir must contract the levirate marriage in any case, and if any inheritance is available he receives it; if not, he does not receive it. The Bible teacher, R. Hanina, once sat before R. Jannai, and as he sat there he stated: The <i>halachah</i> is in agreement with R. Judah. The other called out to him: Go out, read Biblical verses outside;<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' V. Keth., Sonc. ed. p. 328, n, 7. ');">⁵⁵</span> the <i>halachah</i> is not in agreement with R. Judah. A tanna recited in the presence of R. Nahman: The <i>halachah</i> is not in agreement with R. Judah. The other said to him: In agreement with whom, then? In agreement with the Rabbis? This is surely obvious, [since in a dispute between] one individual and a majority the <i>halachah</i> is in agreement with the majority! — 'Shall I', the first asked him, 'reject it'?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' As a superfluous addition. ');">⁵⁶</span> 'No', the other replied, 'you were taught [that] the <i>halachah</i> is [in agreement with R. Judah] which, presenting to you a difficulty,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' How could the halachah be in agreement with an individual against the rule of a majority? ');">⁵⁷</span> you reversed;<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Stating, 'the halachah is not in agreement with R. Judah. ');">⁵⁸</span> and in so far as you reversed it your wording is well justified.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Lit., 'you reversed well'. [He, however, forgot that he had reversed it; cf, supra 33b, v. Strashun]. ');">⁵⁹</span> <b><i>MISHNAH</i></b>. IF A LEVIR PARTICIPATED IN <i>HALIZAH</i> WITH HIS DECEASED BROTHER'S WIFE HE IS FORBIDDEN TO MARRY HER RELATIVES AND SHE IS FORBIDDEN TO MARRY HIS RELATIVES:<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' All relatives that are Biblically forbidden to husband and wife respectively are Rabbinically forbidden to levir and haluzah respectively. ');">⁶⁰</span>

Explore commentary for Yevamot 79:27. In-depth commentary and analysis from classical Jewish sources.