יט א"ל רב אחא בר ביבי מר לרבינא ה"ק משמיה דרבא צרה נמי לא איצטריך קרא כי איצטריך קרא
19 in order to prohibit<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' By the use of 'her' and 'unto her' which implies 'but no other'. ');"><sup>32</sup></span> [the levirate marriage of] forbidden relatives and their rivals!<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Which shews that a Scriptural text is required, even in the case of forbidden relatives themselves, to prove that levirate marriage is prohibited. ');"><sup>33</sup></span> — Read, 'To forbid [the levirate marriage of] the rivals of the forbidden relatives'. But two texts, surely, were mentioned;<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Lit., 'he took.' ');"><sup>34</sup></span> was not one for the forbidden relative and the other for her rival? — No; both were for the rival, but one indicates prohibition<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Of the levirate marriage. ');"><sup>35</sup></span> of a rival where the precept<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Of the levirate marriage. ');"><sup>35</sup></span> is applicable, and the other indicates permission to marry the rival where the precept<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Of the levirate marriage. ');"><sup>35</sup></span> is not applicable.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' As, for instance, in the case of a rival of a forbidden relative who married a stranger, v. infra 13a. ');"><sup>36</sup></span> What is the reason? — [Because instead of] 'And perform the duty of a husband's brother' [Scripture stated] And perform the duty of a husband's brother UNTO HER, [which indicates that] only where levirate marriage is applicable is a rival forbidden<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' To be married by the man to whom the relative herself is forbidden. ');"><sup>37</sup></span> but where levirate marriage is not applicable<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' As, for instance, in the case of a rival of a forbidden relative who married a stranger, v. infra 13a. ');"><sup>36</sup></span> a rival is permitted.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' To be married by the man to whom the relative herself is forbidden. ');"><sup>37</sup></span> R. Ashi said: [This<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Raba's statement that the prohibition to contract levirate marriage with a forbidden relative is so obvious that no Scriptural text is required to prove it. ');"><sup>38</sup></span> may] also be inferred from our Mishnah where it was stated, FIFTEEN [CATEGORIES OF] WOMEN EXEMPT THEIR RIVALS, but it was not stated, 'are exempt<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Which shews that the exemption of the forbidden relatives themselves from the levirate marriage (i.e., the prohibition ever to marry them) was taken in our Mishnah for granted. ');"><sup>39</sup></span> and exempt [their rivals]'. This proves it. In what respect does the case of a forbidden relative differ<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' From the case of her rival. ');"><sup>40</sup></span> that it should require no text?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' To prove its prohibition even in the case of the levirate marriage. ');"><sup>41</sup></span> Obviously because no positive precept may supersede a prohibition which involves <i>kareth</i>. But then the case of a rival also should require no text,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' To prove its prohibition even in the case of the levirate marriage. ');"><sup>41</sup></span> since no positive precept may supersede a prohibition which involves <i>kareth</i>!<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Kareth being the penalty in both cases. ');"><sup>42</sup></span> — Said R. Aha b. Bebai Mar to Rabina, Thus it has been stated in the name of Raba: In the case of a rival also no Scriptural text<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' To prove its prohibition even in the case of the levirate marriage. ');"><sup>41</sup></span> was needed; if a text was needed at all