הוא הדין דאפילו באמה ואיידי דתנא רישא אשתו שמתה מותר באחותה באחותה אין אבל באמה לא דהויא לה איסורא דאורייתא תנא נמי סיפא מותר באחותה
but that in the case of one<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Who alone is entitled to marry her,
');"><sup>43</sup></span> a levirate bond does exist. Then let him say, 'The <i>halachah</i> is in accordance with him who said no levirate bond exists even in the case of one levir'!<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Infra 29b.
');"><sup>44</sup></span> — If he had said so it might have been assumed even where she<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' The widow.
');"><sup>45</sup></span> is alive;<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Her mother is permitted to the levir. Consequently she would be exempted from halizah as 'his wife's daughter'.
');"><sup>46</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
