Yevamot 34

ראשונה לא משתבש מאי ראשונה ראשונה לנפילה ומאן דתני שניה לא משתבש מאי שניה שניה לנשואין מי לא עסקינן דיבם ואח"כ כנס אלא מאי שניה שניה בנשואין

FIRST commits no error', since 'first' may signify<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Lit., 'what is first?' ');">¹</span> 'first to be subject [to the levirate marriage]'; and 'he who uses the expression SECOND also commits no error', since 'second' may signify 'second to marry',<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' The second brother who was already a married man when he contracted the levirate marriage with her. V. supra p 94. n. 4. ');">²</span> Does not our Mishnah, however, include also<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Lit., 'are we not engaged on'. ');">³</span> the case of one who contracted the levirate marriage first and subsequently married his other wife?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' In which case the widow was also the first to marry him. ');">⁴</span>

אשת אחיו שלא היה בעולמו היכא כתיבא אמר רב יהודה אמר רב אמר קרא (דברים כה, ה) כי ישבו אחים יחדו שהיתה להם ישיבה אחת בעולם פרט לאשת אחיו שלא היה בעולמו יחדו מיוחדים בנחלה פרט לאחיו מן האם

What, then, is meant by 'second'? Second in respect of her marriages.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' The first marriage with her husband and the second with the levir. ');">⁵</span> Where [in the Scriptures] is [the prohibition of marrying] 'the wife of his brother who was not his contemporary' written? — Rab Judah replied in the name of Rab: Scripture states, If brethren dwell together,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Deut. xxv, 5. ');">⁶</span> i.e., dwell in the world at the same time; the wife of one's brother who was not his contemporary is consequently excluded; 'together' implies who are together in respect of inheritance,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' I.e., entitled to inherit from one another. ');">⁷</span> a maternal brother is, therefore, excluded.

רבה אמר אחין מן האב יליף אחוה אחוה מבני יעקב מה להלן מן האב ולא מן האם אף כאן מן האב ולא מן האם

Rabbah said: [That legal] brothers [are only those who are descended] from the same father is deduced by a comparison of this 'brotherhood'<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' The expression 'brethren' in Deut. xxv, 5' in relation to the levirate marriage. ');">⁸</span> with the 'brotherhood' of the sons of Jacob;<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' the thy servants are twelve brethren (Gen. XLII, 13). ');">⁹</span> as there [the brotherhood was derived] from the father<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Jacob. ');">¹⁰</span> and not from the mother,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Since they were born from different mothers. ');">¹¹</span>

ולילף אחוה אחוה מעריות דנין אחים מאחים ואין דנין אחים מאחיך

so here also [the brotherhood spoken of is that] from the father and not from the mother.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' B.B. 110b, infra 22a. ');">¹²</span> Let him rather deduce this 'brotherhood'<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' The expression 'brethren' in Deut. xxv, 5' in relation to the levirate marriage. ');">⁸</span> from the 'brotherhood' of forbidden relatives!<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' The nakedness of thy brother's wife (Lev. XVIII, 26) which includes (v. infra 55a) the wife of a maternal brother. ');">¹³</span> — Brethren<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' The expression 'brethren' in Deut. xxv, 5' in relation to the levirate marriage. ');">⁸</span>

מאי נפקא מינה הא תנא דבי רבי ישמעאל (ויקרא יד, לט) ושב הכהן (ויקרא יד, מד) ובא הכהן זו היא שיבה זו היא ביאה ה"מ היכא דליכא מידי דדמי ליה אבל היכא דאיכא מידי דדמי ליה מדדמי ליה ילפינן

may be deduced from brethren,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' the thy servants are twelve brethren (Gen. XLII, 13). ');">⁹</span> but not brethren<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' The expression 'brethren' in Deut. xxv, 5' in relation to the levirate marriage. ');">⁸</span> from thy brother.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' In the case of the levirate marriage (Deut. xxv, 5) as well as that of Jacob's sons (Gen. XLII, 13) the expression is [H] 'brethren'; In that of Lev. XVIII, 16 it is [H] 'thy brother'. ');">¹⁴</span> What practical difference is there [between the two expression]? Surely the School of R. Ishmael taught: And the priest shall return,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Lev. XIV, 39. ');">¹⁵</span>

ולילף אחוה אחוה מלוט דכתיב (בראשית יג, ח) כי אנשים אחים אנחנו מסתברא מבני יעקב הוה ליה למילף משום דמפני מדהוה ליה למכתב שנים עשר עבדיך בני אבינו וכתיב אחים ש"מ לאפנויי

and the priest shall come,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Ibid. v. 44. ');">¹⁶</span> 'returning' and 'coming' are the same thing!<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' And an analogy between them may be drawn. Though in that case the expressions [H] and [H], are derived from different roots they are nevertheless, owing to their similarity in meaning. employed for the purposes of an analogy ('Er. 51a, Yoma 2b, Naz. 5a, Mak. 13b, Hor. 8b et a.l.), how much more so should an analogy be justified between the same nouns which differ only (v. supra p. 95' n. 14) in their suffixes! ');">¹⁷</span> — Such an analogy is drawn only<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Lit., 'these words'. ');">¹⁸</span> where there is no other identical word; when, however, there occurs another word which is identical, the analogy is made only with that which is identical.

ואיצטריך למכתב אחים ואיצטריך למכתב יחדו דאי כתב רחמנא אחים ה"א לילף אחוה אחוה מלוט וכי תימא לא מפני לאיי אפנויי מפני מדהוה ליה למכתב רעים וכתיב אחים שמע מינה לאפנויי כתב רחמנא יחדו המיוחדים בנחלה

Let him, then, deduce this 'brotherhood'<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' The expression 'brethren' in Deut. xxv, 5 in relation to the levirate marriage. ');">¹⁹</span> from the 'brotherhood' in the case of Lot, since it is written in the Scriptures. For we are brethren!<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Gen. Xlii, 8. Lot having been Abraham's nephew the deduction would establish a novel law of marriage with a deceased uncle's or nephew's widow. ');">²⁰</span> -It stands to reason that the deduction should be made from the sons of Jacob. because the [analogous expression] is available for the purpose;<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Lit., 'vacant'. ');">²¹</span> for it could have been written, Thy servants are twelve sons of one man<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Gen. XLII, 23. Cur. edd., read, in. stead of 'one man', 'our father', which occurs in v. 32. If the reference were to the latter verse 'thy servants' which does not occur there would have to be deleted here. Several MSS. support the reading here adopted. ');">²²</span>

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. ');">²³</span> It was necessary for Scripture to write brethren,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Deut. xxv, 5. ');">²⁴</span> and it was also necessary to write together.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Deut. xxv, 5. ');">²⁴</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. ');">²⁵</span>

והא מהיכא תיתי יבום בנחלה תלא רחמנא ונחלה מן האב ולא מן האם היא איצטריך סד"א הואיל וחידוש הוא דקמשתרי ערוה גביה אימא עד דמייחדי באבא ובאמא צריכא

is not available for deduction,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Lit., 'vacant'. ');">²¹</span> your statement would be negatived,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' [H] (cf. Jast.) or [H] (cf. Levy). Contract. of [H] 'not it'. Aruk: derivation is from [H] + [G] 'not so my son'. ');">²⁶</span> [the analogous word] being indeed available; for whereas he could have written 'friends' and yet wrote 'brethren', the inference must be that the object was to render it available for analogous deduction; hence the All Merciful has written 'together', implying only those who are together in respect of inheritance.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' V. supra p. 95, n. 7. ');">²⁷</span> If, [on the other hand,] the All Merciful had only written 'together', it might have been said to refer to such as have the same father and mother; [hence both expressions were] required.

אמר רב הונא אמר רב שומרת יבם שמתה מותר באמה אלמא קסבר אין זיקה ולימא הלכה כדברי האומר אין זיקה

But how could you have arrived at such an opinion?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Lit., 'and this, whence does it come', i.e., how could any one have assumed that the levirate marriage should only apply to brothers from the same father and mother? ');">²⁸</span> The All Merciful has, surely, made<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Lit., 'hung'. ');">²⁹</span> the levirate marriage dependent on inheritance,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' [Infra 24a. ');">³⁰</span> and inheritance<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Of one's brother. ');">³¹</span>

אי הוה אמר הכי ה"א הנ"מ בתרי אבל בחד יש זיקה

is derived from the father and not from the mother!<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' What need then was there for the expression 'brethren'? ');">³²</span> -It<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' The expression 'brethren'. ');">³³</span> was necessary. For it might have been assumed that whereas this<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Levirate marriage. ');">³⁴</span> is an anomaly,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Lit., 'something novel'. ');">³⁵</span>

ולימא הלכה כדברי האומר אין זיקה אפי' בחד אי אמר הכי הוה אמינא אפילו מחיים קמשמע לן לאחר מיתה אין מחיים לא משום דאסור לבטל מצות יבמין

a forbidden relative<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' A brother's wife. ');">³⁶</span> having been permitted, the brotherhood must, therefore, be both paternal and maternal; [hence it was] necessary [to teach us that the law was not so]. R. Huna said in the name of Rab: If a woman awaiting the decision of the levir!<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' [H] a woman during the period between the death of her husband and the levirate marriage or halizah. ');">³⁷</span> died, [the levir] is permitted to marry her mother. This obviously shews that he!<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Rab. ');">³⁸</span>

תנן יבמתו שמתה מותר באחותה באחותה אין באמה לא

is of the opinion that no levirate bond<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Zikah [H] v. Glos. ');">³⁹</span> exists<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Between the widow of the deceased brother and the levir, prior to the levirate marriage. Had such a bond existed, her mother would have been forbidden to the levir as his mother-in. law. ');">⁴⁰</span> let him then say, the <i>halachah</i> is in accordance with the view of him who said no levirate bond exists!<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' V. infra 41a. ');">⁴¹</span> — If he had said so, it might have been suggested that this applied only to the case of two<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Brothers. Since it is not known which of them will actually marry her, the levirate bond is necessarily weak. ');">⁴²</span>

הוא הדין דאפילו באמה ואיידי דתנא רישא אשתו שמתה מותר באחותה באחותה אין אבל באמה לא דהויא לה איסורא דאורייתא תנא נמי סיפא מותר באחותה

but that in the case of one<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Who alone is entitled to marry her, ');">⁴³</span> a levirate bond does exist. Then let him say, 'The <i>halachah</i> is in accordance with him who said no levirate bond exists even in the case of one levir'!<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Infra 29b. ');">⁴⁴</span> — If he had said so it might have been assumed even where she<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' The widow. ');">⁴⁵</span> is alive;<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Her mother is permitted to the levir. Consequently she would be exempted from halizah as 'his wife's daughter'. ');">⁴⁶</span>

ורב יהודה אמר שומרת יבם שמתה אסור באמה אלמא קסבר יש זיקה ולימא הלכה כדברי האומר יש זיקה

hence he taught us that only after death and not when she is still alive, because it is forbidden to abolish the commandment of levirate marriages. We learned, 'If his deceased brother's wife died he may marry her sister',<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Infra 49a. ');">⁴⁷</span> which implies that her sister only may be married but not her mother! — The same law applies even to her mother; only because he taught in the earlier clause 'if his wife died he is permitted to marry her sister' in which case only her sister is meant and not her mother, since the latter is Biblically prohibited, he also taught in the latter clause 'he is permitted to marry her sister'.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Her mother, however, is equally permitted. ');">⁴⁸</span> Rab Judah, however, said: If a woman awaiting the decision of the levir<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' V. supra, p. 97' n. 11. ');">⁴⁹</span>

אי הוה אמר הכי הוה אמינא הנ"מ בחד אבל בתרי אין זיקה והא כי פליגי בתרי פליגי אלא אי אמר הכי

died, the levir is still forbidden to marry her mother. This<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' The prohibition to marry her mother prior to the levirate marriage as if she had already been his actual mother-in-law. ');">⁵⁰</span> obviously implies that he<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Rab Judah. ');">⁵¹</span> is of the opinion that a levirate bond exists,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Between the widow of the deceased brother and the levir, before levirate marriage takes place. ');">⁵²</span> let him then say, the <i>halachah</i> is in accordance with the view of him who said a levirate bond exists!<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Infra 41a. ');">⁵³</span> -If he had said so it might have been suggested that this applied only to the case of one,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Brother, who is the only one entitled to marry the widow, and may consequently be regarded as the actual husband. ');">⁵⁴</span> but in the case of two<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' v. supra p. 97' n. 16. ');">⁵⁵</span> no levirate bond exists. But the dispute,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Between R. Judah and the Rabbis, infra 41a. ');">⁵⁶</span> surely, centered round the question of two!<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Brothers. How then could it possibly have been assumed that the halachah referred to the case of one brother only? ');">⁵⁷</span> — But [this is really the reply]: If he<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Rab Judah. ');">⁵¹</span> had said so<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' That the halachah was in accordance with the view of him who said that a levirate bond exists between the widow and the levir prior to the levirate marriage. ');">⁵⁸</span>