Yevamot 18

Chapter 18

א דפליגי ר"ש ורבנן וקתני בנולד
1 concerning which R. Simeon and the Rabbis are in dispute,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Infra 18b. ');"><sup>1</sup></span>
ב ולבסוף ייבם לא פליג ר"ש
2 and which is nevertheless mentioned? — R. Simeon does not dispute the case where the birth<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Of a third brother. (V. infra n. 4). ');"><sup>2</sup></span>
ג והאמר ר' אושעיא חלוק היה ר"ש אף בראשונה
3 was first, and the levirate marriage<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Between the second brother and the widow of the first brother who died without issue (V. following note). ');"><sup>3</sup></span>
ד הא איתותב ר' אושעיא
4 later.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' In such a case, R. Simeon agrees that the third brother must not marry the widow, because at the time when he was born the widow was forbidden to him as 'the wife of his brother who was not his contemporary'. R. Simeon's disagreement with the Rabbis is limited to the case where the first brother, A, died childless and his widow was married to the second brother, B, prior to the birth of the third brother, C. If subsequently B died also childless, R. Simeon, contrary to the opinion of the Rabbis, allows the levirate marriage between the widow and C, because when C was born the widow was already the wife of B, and C's levirate marriage now is not due to A whose widow was a married woman when he was born, but to B whose contemporary he is. ');"><sup>4</sup></span>
ה והאמר רב יהודה אמר רב וכן תני ר' חייא בכולן אני קורא בהן האסורה לזה מותרת לזה והאסורה לזה מותרת לזה ואחותה שהיא יבמתה חולצת או מתייבמת
5 Did not R. Oshaia, however, say<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Infra 18b. ');"><sup>1</sup></span>
ו ורב יהודה מתרגם מחמותו ואילך אבל שיתא בבי דרישא לא מ"ט
6 that R. Simeon disputed the first case also?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' I.e., where C (v. note 4) was born before the levirate marriage between A's widow and B took place. ');"><sup>5</sup></span>
ז כיון דבתו
7 — Surely. R. Oshaia's view was refuted.
ח באונסין משכחת בנשואין לא משכחת לה בנשואין קמיירי באונסין לא קא מיירי
8 Did not, however, Rab Judah state in the name of Rab, and R. Hiyya also taught: In the case of all these<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' The fifteen forbidden categories enumerated in our Mishnah, supra 2af. ');"><sup>6</sup></span>
ט ואביי מתרגם אף בתו מאנוסתו כיון דאשכוחי משכחת לה אי בעיא מן האונסין תהוי [אי בעיא מן הנשואין תהוי] אבל אשת אחיו שלא היה בעולמו לא מאי טעמא
9 it may happen that she who is forbidden to one brother may be permitted to the other<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Infra 18b. ');"><sup>1</sup></span>
י כיון דלר"ש הוא דמשכחת לה לרבנן לא משכחת לה בפלוגתא לא קא מיירי
10 while she who is forbidden to the other brother may be permitted to the one, and that her sister who is her sister-in-law may be subject either to <i>halizah</i> or to the levirate marriage.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' For full explanation of this statement V. infra 26a and 28b. ');"><sup>7</sup></span>
יא ורב ספרא מתרגם אף אשת אחיו שלא היה בעולמו ומשכחת לה בשיתא אחים ואליבא דר' שמעון
11 And Rab Judah interpreted [it<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Rab's statement. ');"><sup>8</sup></span> as referring to those]<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Forbidden categories. ');"><sup>9</sup></span> from one's MOTHER-IN-LAW onwards but not to the first six categories. What is the reason? Because in the case of a daughter this<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' The full application of Rab's statement. ');"><sup>10</sup></span> is possible only [with one born] from a woman who had been outraged but not [with one born] from a legal marriage,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Who would be forbidden to all the brothers. ');"><sup>11</sup></span> [and the author of our Mishnah] deals only with cases of legal matrimony and not with those of outraged women.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' And since the case of a daughter could not be included, the other five cases also, bearing on a daughter, were excluded. ');"><sup>12</sup></span> And Abaye interpreted it<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Rab's statement. ');"><sup>8</sup></span> [as referring] also to a daughter from a woman who had been out raged, because, since [the application of Rab's statement] is quite possible in her case, it matters not whether she was born from a woman who was legally married or from one that had been outraged; but not to the wife of a brother who was not his contemporary. What is the reason? Because [the application of Rab's statement in this case] is possible only according to the view of R. Simeon and not according to that of the Rabbis, [the author of our Mishnah] does not deal with any matter which is in dispute. And R. Safra interprets it<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Rab's statement. ');"><sup>13</sup></span> as referring also to the wife of a brother who was not his contemporary, and [in his opinion] it<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Rab's statement. ');"><sup>13</sup></span> is possible in the case of six brothers in accordance with the view of R. Simeon.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' V. infra 28b for explanation. ');"><sup>14</sup></span>
Previous ChapterNext Chapter