תנן יבמתו שמתה מותר באחותה באחותה אין באמה לא
is of the opinion that no levirate bond<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Zikah [H] v. Glos.
');"><sup>39</sup></span> exists<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Between the widow of the deceased brother and the levir, prior to the levirate marriage. Had such a bond existed, her mother would have been forbidden to the levir as his mother-in. law.
');"><sup>40</sup></span> let him then say, the <i>halachah</i> is in accordance with the view of him who said no levirate bond exists!<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' V. infra 41a.
');"><sup>41</sup></span> — If he had said so, it might have been suggested that this applied only to the case of two<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Brothers. Since it is not known which of them will actually marry her, the levirate bond is necessarily weak.
');"><sup>42</sup></span>
Sefer HaChinukh
From the laws of the commandment is that which they, may their memory blessed, said (Yevamot 17b), "'When brothers dwell together' - to exclude the wife of a brother who was not in his world"; meaning that [then] she does not have an obligation of levirate marriage and not of release - for example, [if] this brother was born after his brother [that was married and had no children] died. And that which they also inferred (Yevamot 17b), "'Brothers together' - that are together in inheritance, to exclude brothers [born only] from the mother," who are not obligated in levirate marriage and release. "'And has no (ein) son' - look into (ayen) him" (Yevamot 22b). [This is] meaning to say that if the brother did have a son or daughter from any place, or the son of a son or the son of a daughter or the daughter of a daughter or any one that came out from his 'thigh' - there is no commandment of levirate marriage or release there, for the reason that we mentioned concerning the commandment of levirate marriage.
Ask RabbiBookmarkShareCopy
