Yevamot 20

If his mother, however, was a woman that had been outraged by his father and was then married to his paternal brother who subsequently died, such a mother does exempt her rival.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Since her marriage with the deceased brother was not unlawful, her rival (any other wife of her husband) is subject to the same laws as any other rival in the case of the fifteen relatives of our Mishnah. ');">¹</span> And though the Sages taught in our Mishnah FIFTEEN we must add a case like this as a sixteenth. Resh Lakish said to R. Johanan: According to Levi who maintains that an 'if'<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Cf. p. 47, n. 4, supra. ');">²</span>

is also included,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' By R. Judah who, as has been shewn supra, is the author of our Mishnah. Though he prohibits the marriage of a woman that was outraged by one's father, he nevertheless, according to Levi's recital, included the case in our Mishnah. ');">³</span> let our Mishnah also include<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Lit., 'teach'. ');">⁴</span> the case of a levir who gave <i>halizah</i> to his sister-in-law<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Whom he is in consequence forbidden to marry. ');">⁵</span>

and later betrothed<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Since the marriage in such a case is forbidden under a negative precept the transgression of which does not involve the penalty of kareth, the betrothal is legally valid. ');">⁶</span> her and died without issue, for since [the widow of such a one] is forbidden,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' To the brothers of the levir who gave the halizah: this prohibition, according to Resh Lakish infra involving the penalty of kareth. ');">⁷</span> her rival also is forbidden!<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' To the brothers. Why then was not this case also added to the fifteen? ');">⁸</span>

— The other replied: Because in this case the law of the rival of the rival<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' V. our Mishnah. ');">⁹</span> cannot be applied.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Her rival (as well as herself), being forbidden to all the other brothers (as brother's wife or as the haluzah of one of the brothers), can never have any of the wives of the brothers as her rival. In the case of the forbidden relatives in our Mishnah, they are forbidden to one of the brothers only, hence they or their rivals are not otherwise precluded from marrying one of the other brothers. ');">¹⁰</span> But could he<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' R. Johanan. ');">¹¹</span>

not have answered<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Lit., 'and he should say'. ');">¹²</span> him<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Resh Lakish. ');">¹³</span> [that the brothers] are only subject to the penalties of a negative precept,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' If they married the haluzah, their deceased brother's widow, with whom halizah had been performed by one of them. According to R. Johanan, infra, contrary to the view of Resh Lakish, no penalty of kareth is involved in such a marriage, whether the transgressor be the brother who performed the halizah or any of the other brothers. ');">¹⁴</span>

and that those who are subject to the penalties of a negative precept are<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Unlike those subject to the penalty of kareth who are exempt from halizah and from the levirate marriage. ');">¹⁵</span> under the obligations of <i>halizah</i> and the levirate marriage?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' I.e., though the marriage with them is forbidden by a negative precept, they remain nevertheless under the obligations of the levirate relationship and must, therefore, undergo the ceremonial of halizah. Why, then, did not R. Johanan give Resh Lakish this reply which would well account for the omission from our Mishnah of the case he mentioned? ');">¹⁶</span> — He<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' R. Johanan. ');">¹⁷</span>

answered him<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Resh Lakish. ');">¹⁸</span> in accordance with the view he<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Resh Lakish. ');">¹⁸</span> holds. 'According to my view,' he<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' R. Johanan. ');">¹⁹</span>

argued, [the brothers] are only subject to the penalties of a negative precept,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' V. p. 48, n. 13. ');">²⁰</span> and those who are subject to the penalties of a negative precept are<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' V. p. 48, n. 14. ');">²¹</span> under the obligations of <i>halizah</i> and the levirate marriage,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Cf. previous note. ');">²²</span>

but even according to your view that they are subject to the penalty of <i>kareth</i> [the case could not have been included in our Mishnah] because the law of the rival's rival cannot be applied'.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Cf. supra p. 48, n. 9. ');">²³</span> It has been stated: Where [a levir] had performed the ceremonial of <i>halizah</i> with his sister-in-law, and then betrothed her, Resh Lakish holds that he is not subject to the penalty of <i>kareth</i> for the <i>haluzah</i>,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' V. Glos. I.e., for having intercourse with her. Consequently the betrothal is valid. ');">²⁴</span> but the other brothers are subject to <i>kareth</i> for the <i>haluzah</i>.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Consequently should any of the other brothers betroth the haluzah, the betrothal is invalid. ');">²⁵</span>

In the case of the rival,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Of a haluzah (v. previous note). A rival is exempt from halizah and the levirate marriage by the action of the haluzah. ');">²⁶</span> both he<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' The levir who participated in the halizah. ');">²⁷</span> and the other brothers are subject to <i>kareth</i> for a rival.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' V. infra 53a. ');">²⁸</span>

R. Johanan, however, holds that neither he<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' The levir who participated in the halizah. ');">²⁷</span> nor the other brothers are subject to <i>kareth</i> either for the <i>haluzah</i> or for her rival.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Infra 40b and l.c. ');">²⁹</span> What is the reason of Resh Lakish? — Scripture stated, That doth not build,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Deut. XXV, 9. ');">³⁰</span>

since he has not built he must never again build.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' The imperfect [H] may be rendered as a present as well as a future. ');">³¹</span> He himself is thus placed under the prohibition of building no more,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' I.e., under a negative precept only which involves no kareth. ');">³²</span> but his brothers remain in the same position in which they were before.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' I.e., under the prohibition to marry a brother's wife, which involves the penalty of kareth. ');">³³</span>

Furthermore, the prohibition to build no more applies only to herself,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' The haluzah. ');">³⁴</span> her rival, however, remains under the same prohibition as before.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' I.e., under the prohibition to marry a brother's wife, which involves the penalty of kareth. ');">³³</span> And R. Johanan?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' What reason does he advance for his opinions? ');">³⁵</span>

— Is it inconceivable<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Lit., 'is there (such) a thing'? ');">³⁶</span> that at first <i>halizah</i> should be allowed to be performed by any one of the brothers<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Lit., 'if he prefers, this one participates in the halizah and if he prefers etc.' ');">³⁷</span> and with either of the widows of the deceased brother<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Lit., 'and if he prefers he performs the halizah with that one and if he prefers etc'. ');">³⁸</span>

and that now one or other of these persons should<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' In case of a betrothal. ');">³⁹</span> be involved in <i>kareth</i>!<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Though the others are not. ');">⁴⁰</span> But [in point of fact] he<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' The brother who participated in the halizah. ');">⁴¹</span>

merely acts as agent for the brothers while she<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' The widow who performed the halizah ceremonial. ');">⁴²</span> acts as agent for her rival.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Hence all the brothers as well as all the rivals are in this respect in exactly the same position. As the brother and the widow who between them carried out the halizah ceremonial are in a case of subsequent marriage exempt from kareth and are subject only to the penalties of a negative precept, so also are all the others on whose behalf they acted. ');">⁴³</span> R. Johanan pointed out to Resh Lakish the following objection: 'If a levir who submitted to <i>halizah</i> from his sister-in-law, later betrothed her and died,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Without issue. ');">⁴⁴</span> [the widow] requires <i>halizah</i> from the surviving brothers'. Now, according to me who maintains that [the surviving brothers]<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' In subsequently marrying the haluzah. ');">⁴⁵</span> are subject to the penalties of a negative precept only, one can well understand why she requires <i>halizah</i> from the other brothers.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Since the negative precept which bars them from the levirate marriage does not supersede halizah. ');">⁴⁶</span> According to you, however, why should she require <i>halizah</i>?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Marriage with them would involve the penalty of kareth, and whenever such a penalty is involved the parties are not subject to the laws of halizah! ');">⁴⁷</span> — Explain, then, on the lines of your reasoning, the final clause, 'If one of the brothers<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Other than the one who participated in the halizah. ');">⁴⁸</span> actually<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Lit., 'stood'. ');">⁴⁹</span> betrothed her, she has no claim upon him'!<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' I.e., the betrothal is invalid, she receives no kethubah, and no divorce is needed. This obviously proves that the penalty for such an ensuing marriage is kareth, as Resh Lakish maintains; for had it been, as R. Johanan asserts, that of a negative precept only, the betrothal should have been valid. ');">⁵⁰</span> R. Shesheth replied: The final clause represents the opinion of R. Akiba who holds that a betrothal with those who are subject thereby to the penalties of a negative precept is of no validity.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Keth. 29b, Kid. 64a, 68a, Sot. 18b, infra 52b, 69a. ');">⁵¹</span> Should it not then have been stated, 'according to the view of R. Akiba she<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' So BaH, a.l. Cur. edd., 'he'. ');">⁵²</span> has no claim upon him'!<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Since it is the general opinion that such a betrothal is valid. ');">⁵³</span>