ואי כתב רחמנא יחדו הוה אמינא דמייחדי באבא ובאמא צריכא
and yet 'brethren' also was written. Hence it must be inferred that the word was made available for the deduction.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Lit., 'to make it vacant.
');"><sup>23</sup></span> It was necessary for Scripture to write brethren,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Deut. xxv, 5.
');"><sup>24</sup></span> and it was also necessary to write together.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Deut. xxv, 5.
');"><sup>24</sup></span> For had the All Merciful written 'brethren' only, it might have been suggested that this 'brotherhood' should be deduced from the 'brotherhood' in the case of Lot. And were you to reply that [the analogous word],<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' In the case of Lot.
');"><sup>25</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
