Yevamot 116

שומרת יבם קרית לה אשתו מעליא היא דהא אמר רב קנה לכל כשמואל דאמר לא קנה אלא לדברים האמורים בפרשה

Why then, do you call her 'a woman awaiting the decision of the levir' [when such a woman] is in fact his proper wife, since Rab had stated, 'kinyan is constituted in all respects'?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Supra 56a, and the woman is regarded as his wife even if the cohabitation was not intended to serve as a legal matrimonial kinyan. ');">¹</span> — [The Mishnah is] in accordance with the view of Samuel who stated, 'Kinyan is constituted only in respect of the things specified in the section'.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Cf. loc. cit. and notes. ');">²</span> Is not this<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' The Mishnah cited by R. Shesheth. ');">³</span>

מידי הוא טעמא אלא לרב הא אמר רב קנה לכל הכא במאי עסקינן כגון דעבד בה מאמר וב"ש היא דאמרי מאמר קונה קנין גמור

adduced only as a reason and support for the opinion of Rab?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Who, contrary to the opinion of Samuel, maintains that the bridal chamber does constitute kinyan with ineligible women (supra 57b). ');">⁴</span> And Rab, surely, had said that 'Kinyan is constituted in all respects'!<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' V. supra note 3. ');">⁵</span> — Here we are concerned with a case where for instance he<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' The levir. ');">⁶</span>

אי הכי היינו ארוסה ולטעמיך נשואה וכנוסה לאו חדא מילתא היא אלא נשואה דידיה וכנוסה דחבריה הכא נמי ארוסה דידיה ושומרת יבם דחבריה

addressed to her a ma'amar,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' And then cohabited with her adulterously in her father-in-law's house, with no intention of effecting a legal kinyan. Alternatively: Only a ma'amar was addressed to her but no cohabitation at all took place. The cohabitation of the adulterer which, according to this interpretation, precedes that of the levir does not affect the legality of the water test since in any case the cohabitation of the first husband (the deceased brother) preceded. ');">⁷</span> and it<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' The Mishnah cited by R. Shesheth. ');">³</span> represents the view of Beth Shammai who maintain that a ma'amar constitutes a perfect <i>kinyan</i>.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Supra 29b. The sister-in-law thus loses entirely her former status of 'widow of a deceased brother' and assumes that of a 'betrothed woman'. Subsequent intercourse with her unless accompanied by the entry into the bridal chamber does not, therefore, change her status, as is the case where no ma'amar had been addressed, to that of a married woman. Her description, consequently, can only be that of 'one awaiting the decision of the levir'. ');">⁸</span>

רב פפא אמר האי תנא הוא דתניא אין מקנין לה לארוסה להשקותה כשהיא ארוסה אבל מקנין אותה להשקותה כשהיא נשואה

If so, she would be identical with the 'betrothed woman'!<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Whose case had been specifically mentioned. Why should the same law be mentioned twice? ');">⁹</span> — And according to your view, has not a 'married woman' and 'one taken [by the levir]' the same status?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' And both were nevertheless specified. ');">¹⁰</span> But [the explanation must be that] 'a married woman' refers to one's own wife, and 'one taken [by the levir]' refers to that of another man.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' I.e., his brother's widow whom he married. ');">¹¹</span>

רב נחמן בר יצחק אמר על ידי גלגול

So here also 'betrothed' means his own and 'a woman awaiting the decision of the levir', that of another.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' I.e., his brother's widow whom he married. ');">¹¹</span> R. Papa said: It<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' The Mishnah cited by R. Shesheth. ');">¹²</span> represents the view of the following Tanna.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' It being a case where the warning was given during betrothal, and the seclusion with the man took place after marriage and cohabitation. The water test is applied on the basis of that warning. Alternatively: The warning was given during betrothal and it was followed by the seclusion with the man, the test being applied after marriage. The previously cited deduction, that when the husband is not clear from iniquity the test is not admissible, is not accepted by this authority. ');">¹³</span>

שלח רב חנינא משמיה דרבי יוחנן העושה מאמר ביבמתו [ויש לו אח] אפילו הוא כהן והיא כהנת פסלה מן התרומה

For it was taught: It is not permissible to warn a betrothed woman in order that she may be made to drink<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' The water of bitterness. ');">¹⁴</span> while she is betrothed. She may, however, be warned in order that she may be made to drink when she is already married.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Sotah 25a. The man in such a case is clear from iniquity. No proof may consequently be adduced from the Mishnah cited by R. Shesheth that the bridal chamber constitutes kinyan. Alternatively: This Tanna does not accept the deduction in respect of the husband's clearness from iniquity. (V. supra n. 4, end). ');">¹⁵</span> R. Nahman b. Isaac explained: By implication.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' [H], v. Kid. 27b. The oath the woman is made to take at the drinking of the water of bitterness in respect of the days of her betrothal is not a direct oath but one added to that which she takes in connection with a suspected act after her marriage. ');">¹⁶</span>

למאן אילימא לרבי מאיר אימר דאמר רבי מאיר משתמרת לביאה פסולה לא אכלה מדאורייתא דרבנן מי אמר ואלא לרבי אלעזר ורבי שמעון השתא משתמרת לביאה פסולה דאורייתא אכלה דרבנן מיבעיא

R. Hanina sent [an instruction] in the name of R. Johanan: A levir who addressed a ma'amar to his yebamah, while he has a living brother, causes her disqualification from the eating of <i>terumah</i><span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Until marriage had been consummated. ');">¹⁷</span> even if he is a priest and she the daughter of a priest.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Because (v. infra) his brother might cohabit with her and thus cause her prohibition to marry either of them (v. supra 50b). ');">¹⁸</span> According to whom?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Was R. Johanan's statement made. ');">¹⁹</span>

אלא כי אתא רבין אמר עשה בה מאמר ביבמתו דברי הכל אכלה יש לו אח חלל דברי הכל אינה אוכלת לא נחלקו אלא שנתן לה גט רבי יוחנן אמר אוכלת ריש לקיש אמר אינה אוכלת

If it be suggested, according to R. Meir, it is possible [it might be objected that] R. Meir said that one that is subject to an illegitimate cohabitation<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' As, e.g., in this case, where either brother might marry her, while the cohabitation of one of them is Rabbinically forbidden. ');">²⁰</span> is not permitted to eat <i>terumah</i> [only when the cohabitation is] Pentateuchally forbidden;<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' E.g., a widow to a High Priest. ');">²¹</span> did he, however, say [that the same law holds when the prohibition is only] Rabbinical? [Is it], however, [suggested that it was made] according to R. Eleazar and R. Simeon? [It may be objected]: If the eating of <i>terumah</i> is permitted to one who is subject to a cohabitation which is pentateuchally forbidden, is there any need to speak of one which is only Rabbinically forbidden! When Rabin, however, came<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' From Palestine to Babylon. ');">²²</span>

רבי יוחנן אמר אוכלת אפילו לרבי מאיר דאמר אינה אוכלת הני מילי משתמרת לביאה פסולה דאורייתא אבל דרבנן אכלה

he stated: Where a levir addressed a ma'amar to his yebamah, all<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' R. Johanan as well as Resh Lakish. ');">²³</span> agree that she is permitted to eat <i>terumah</i>. If he has a profaned brother,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Halal (v. Glos.) whose cohabitation would disqualify her. ');">²⁴</span> all<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' R. Johanan as well as Resh Lakish. ');">²³</span>

וריש לקיש אמר אינה אוכלת אפילו לר"א ורבי שמעון דאמרי אוכלת הני מילי דיש לו להאכיל במקום אחר אבל הכא כיון דאין לו להאכיל במקום אחר לא

agree that she is not permitted to eat.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Even though she is the daughter of a priest and even where the ma'amar had been addressed to her by a qualified priest, she is forbidden to eat terumah, owing to her being subject at least to one Pentateuchally forbidden cohabitation. Even R. Eleazar and R. Simeon who allow terumah in the case of a widow to a High priest do not allow it here since, unlike the High Priest who in cases other than that of the widow and the like is entitled to confer the right, the halal can never confer such a privilege upon anyone. ');">²⁵</span> They only differ where he<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' A levir who was a priest. ');">²⁶</span> gave her<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' His yebamah who was the daughter of a priest. ');">²⁷</span>

וכי תימא הכא נמי יש לו להאכילה בחוזרת חוזרת פסקה מיניה וקרובה לבי נשא אבל הא אגידא ביה:

a letter of divorce:<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Which Rabbinically causes her prohibition to the levir, while Pentateuchally she is still awaiting cohabitation with him. She is thus awaiting a cohabitation which is Rabbinically forbidden. ');">²⁸</span> R. Johanan maintains that she may eat, and Resh Lakish maintains that she may not eat. 'R. Johanan maintains that she may eat', for even the statement of R. Meir who holds that she may not eat applies only to one subject of a Pentateuchally forbidden cohabitation; where, however, it is only Rabbinically forbidden she may eat. 'And Resh Lakish maintains that she may not eat' for even the statement of R. Eleazar and R. Simeon, who hold that she may eat, applies only to one who has elsewhere the right<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Through a similar act of betrothal. ');">²⁹</span> to confer the privilege of eating, but not in this case,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Where a letter of divorce was given. ');">³⁰</span>

נתארמלו או נתגרשו וכו': בעא מיניה רבי חייא בר יוסף משמואל כהן גדול שקדש את הקטנה ובגרה תחתיו

since he has no right<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' By means of a similar act of divorce. ');">³¹</span> to confer the privilege elsewhere. And should you suggest that here also he has the right<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' By means of a similar act of divorce. ');">³¹</span> to confer the privilege of eating in the case where she returns,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' To the house of her father, if she was the daughter of a priest. Cf. Lev. XXII, 13. ');">³²</span> [it may be retorted that] one who returns<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' To the house of her father, if she was the daughter of a priest. Cf. Lev. XXII, 13. ');">³²</span> severs her connection with him and resumes her relationship with her father's house;<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Her regaining the privilege of eating terumah is due to her relationship not with him but with her father's family. ');">³³</span> but this woman<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' To whom the letter of divorce was given. ');">³⁴</span> remains bound to him.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Since a letter of divorce does not sever the levirate bond. ');">³⁵</span> IF THEY BECAME WIDOWS OR WERE DIVORCED etc. R. Hiyya b. Joseph enquired of Samuel: If a High priest betrothed a minor, who became adolescent<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' [H] v. infra p. 394 n. 7; perhaps of advanced age, when she is no more in possession of her full virgin powers (cf. Golds. a.l.). Such a woman is forbidden to a High priest by deduction from Lev. XXI, 13 And he shall take a wife in her virginity. ');">³⁶</span> during her betrothal with him,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Lit., 'under him'. ');">³⁷</span>