Yevamot 35

הוה אמינא מחיים אבל לאחר מיתה פקעה לה זיקה קמ"ל דזיקה בכדי לא פקעה לימא מסייע ליה יבמתו שמתה מותר באחותה באחותה אין באמה לא

it might have been assumed [that this holds good only] while she is alive but that after death the bond is broken,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Lit., 'burst', 'split'. ');">¹</span> hence it was taught that the levirate bond is not automatically<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Lit., 'by nothing', 'without formality', i.e., without the due performance of the halizah. ');">²</span> dissolved.

ה"ה דאפי' באמה ואיידי דתנא רישא אשתו שמתה מותר באחותה דוקא באחותה אבל באמה לא דהויא לה איסורא דאורייתא תנא נמי סיפא מותר באחותה

May it be suggested that the following supports his view: 'If his deceased brother's wife died, the Ievir is permitted to marry her sister', which implies her sister Only but not her mother?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Because she is presumably regarded as his mother-in-law. ');">³</span> — The same law may apply even to her mother; but because he taught in the earlier clause, 'if his wife died he is permitted to marry her sister', in which case her sister only is permitted and not her mother, the latter being forbidden Biblically, he also taught in the latter clause, 'he is permitted to marry her sister'. R. Huna b. Hiyya raised an objection: IF HE ADDRESSED THE MA'AMAR TO HER AND DIED, THE SECOND MUST PERFORM <i>HALIZAH</i> BUT MAY NOT ENTER INTO THE LEVIRATE MARRIAGE.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Supra 17a, q.v. for notes. ');">⁴</span>

מתיב רב הונא בר חייא עשה בה מאמר ומת שניה חולצת ולא מתייבמת טעמא דעבד בה מאמר הא לא עבד בה מאמר שניה נמי יבומי מייבמה ואי אמרת יש זיקה הויא לה צרת אשת אחיו שלא היה בעולמו בזיקה

The reason then<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Why the levirate marriage is forbidden to the second ');">⁵</span> is because he addressed to her<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' The first, the widow of the first deceased brother. ');">⁶</span> the ma' amar, but had he not addressed a ma'amar to her,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Why the levirate marriage is forbidden to the second ');">⁵</span>

אמר רבה הוא הדין דאע"ג דלא עבד בה מאמר שניה מחלץ חלצה יבומי לא מייבמה

the second also would have been permitted to enter into the levirate marriage with him. Now, if it be maintained that the levirate bond does exist,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Between the widow and the levir, from the moment her husband, the first brother, died. ');">⁷</span> the second, owing to this bond, would be the rival of the 'wife of his brother who was not his contemporary'!<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' With whom levirate marriage is forbidden. ');">⁸</span> — Rabbah replied: The same law, that the second must perform the <i>halizah</i> with, but may not be married to the levir, applies even to the case where no ma'amar was addressed to her;<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' The first, the widow of the first deceased brother. ');">⁶</span>

והא דקתני מאמר לאפוקי מב"ש דאמרי מאמר קונה קנין גמור קמ"ל

and the ma'amar was mentioned only in order to exclude the view of Beth Shammai. Since they maintain that the ma'amar effects a perfect contract,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Lit., 'acquires perfect possession', i.e., the widow is regarded as the legal wife of the second brother, and his own wife thus becomes her rival and is consequently exempt even from the halizah. ');">⁹</span> he teaches us [that it was not so]. Abaye pointed out the following objection to him:<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' To Rabbah. ');">¹⁰</span>

איתיביה אביי שני אחין בעולם אחד ומת אחד מהן בלא ולד ועמד השני הזה לעשות מאמר ביבמתו ולא הספיק לעשות בה מאמר עד שנולד לו אח ומת הראשונה יוצאה משום אשת אחיו שלא היה בעולמו ושניה או חולצת או מתייבמת ואי אמרת יש זיקה הויא לה צרת אשת אחיו שלא היה בעולמו בזיקה

In the case of two [contemporary] brothers one of whom died without Issue, and the second determined<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Lit., 'stood'. ');">¹¹</span> to address a ma'amar to his deceased brother's wife<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' The widow of the first deceased brother. ');">¹²</span> but before he managed to address a ma amar to her a third<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Lit., 'to him'. ');">¹³</span>

הא מני ר"מ היא דאמר אין זיקה ומי סבירא ליה לרבי מאיר אין זיקה והתנן ארבעה אחים שנים מהן נשואים שתי אחיות ומתו הנשואין האחיות הרי אלו חולצות ולא מתייבמות

brother was born and he himself died, the first<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' The widow of the first deceased brother. ');">¹⁴</span> is exempt<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' From the halizah and levirate marriage of the third brother. ');">¹⁵</span> as 'the wife of his brother who was not his contemporary' while the second<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Her rival, the widow of the second deceased brother. ');">¹⁶</span>

ואי ס"ד סבר ר"מ אין זיקה הני מתרי בתי קאתיין האי לייבם חדא והאי לייבם חדא

either performs the <i>halizah</i> or enters into the levirate marriage.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' With the third brother. Infra 19a. ');">¹⁷</span> Now, if it be maintained that a levirate bond does exist,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' v. supra p. 99' n. 5. ');">¹⁸</span> the second, owing to this bond, would be the rival of 'the wife<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' The bond being regarded to be just as binding as actual marriage. ');">¹⁹</span>

לעולם אין זיקה משום דקסבר אסור לבטל מצות יבמין דדלמא אדמייבם חד מיית אידך וקא בטלת מצות יבמין

of his brother who was not his contemporary'!<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' And she should be exempt. ');">²⁰</span> Whose view is this? It is that of R. Meir, who holds that no levirate bond exists. Does R. Meir, however, maintain that no Ievirate bond exists?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' v. supra p. 99' n. 5. ');">¹⁸</span>

ואי אין זיקה תיבטל דהא ר"ג אמר אין זיקה ומותר לבטל מצות יבמין

Surely we have learned: In the case of four brothers two of whom were married to two sisters, if those who were married to the sisters died, behold their widows perform the <i>halizah</i> but may not be taken in levirate marriage [by either of the levirs].<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' 'Ed. V, 5' infra 23b, 26a, 7b; because, obviously, both are bound by a levirate bond to both surviving brothers and each is the sister of a woman who is connected with either of the brothers by such a levirate bond. ');">²¹</span> Now, if R. Meir is of the opinion that no levirate bond exists,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' V. supra p. 99' n. 5. ');">²²</span> these would come from two different houses,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' None of them standing in any marital relationship with either of the surviving brothers. ');">²³</span>

דתנן ר"ג אומר אם מאנה מאנה ואם לא מאנה תמתין עד שתגדיל ותצא הלזו משום אחות אשה

and one brother could marry the one while the other could marry the other! — The fact is that [R. Meir maintains that] no levirate bond exists; [but the levirate marriage is nevertheless forbidden] because he is of the opinion that it is forbidden to annul the precept of levirate marriages, it being possible that while one of the brothers married [one of the widowed sisters] the other brother would die,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' And be prevented from marrying the other widow. ');">²⁴</span> and thus the precept of levirate marriages would be annulled.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Since the surviving brother would not be able to marry (or to participate in the halizah of) the second widow who is now his wife's sister. ');">²⁵</span> If, however, no Ievirate bond exists, let [also the precept of the levirate marriage] be annulled! For R. Gamaliel who holds that no levirate bond exists<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Infra 51a. ');">²⁶</span>

אמר ליה דרבן גמליאל אדרבי מאיר קרמית לא הכי קאמרינן ר"מ חייש אפי' לספיקא ר"ג אפילו לודאי לא חייש דלמא מאן דלא חייש אפי' לודאי לא חייש ומאן דחייש אפי' לספיקא חייש

also [maintains that] the precept of the levirate marriage may be annulled; as we learned; R. Gamaliel said, 'If she<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' A minor who was married to one brother while her sister had been married to another brother who died without issue. ');">²⁷</span> made a declaration of refusal<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' A minor may refuse to live with her husband and no divorce is needed in her case. V. Glos. s.v. mi'un. ');">²⁸</span> well and good;<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Lit., 'she refused'. By her declaration of refusal her marriage becomes null and void retrospectively. As she has thus never been the legal wife of the Ievir, her sister (being no more his 'wife's sister') may contract the levirate marriage with him. ');">²⁹</span>

א"ל אביי לרב יוסף הא דרב יהודה דשמואל היא דתנן

if she did not make a declaration of refusal let [the elder sister] wait until [the minor] grows up<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' And becomes the legal wife of the surviving brother. ');">³⁰</span> and this one<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' l.e., the elder sister. ');">³¹</span> is then exempt as his wife's sister'!<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Infra 79b, 109a; which shews that R. Gamaliel permits the annulment of the law of the levirate marriage. Similarly, if R. Meir maintains, like R. Gamaliel, that no levirate bond exists, he should also permit the annulment of the precept of the levirate marriage. ');">³²</span> -The other<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Rabbah. ');">³³</span> said to him: Are you pointing out a contradiction between the opinion of R. Meir and that of R. Gamaliel?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Though they may agree on the question of the levirate bond, it does not necessarily follow that they agree also on the question of permission to annul the precept of the levirate marriage. ');">³⁴</span> No [replied Abaye]; we mean to say this: Does R. Meir provide even against a doubtful annulment<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Supra; the possibility that one of the brothers might die. ');">³⁵</span> and R. Gamaliel does not provide even against a certainty!<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' It is a certainty that when the minor becomes of age the elder sister will be precluded from both marriage and halizah. This wide divergence of opinion is unlikely. Hence the fear of annulling the levirate marriage cannot be the reason for R. Meir's ruling in the above cited Mishnah; and consequently R. Meir cannot be of the opinion that no levirate bond exists. ');">³⁶</span> — It is quite possible that he who does not provide<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Against the annulment of the precept of the levirate marriage. ');">³⁷</span> makes no provision even against a certain annulment, while he who does provide<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Against the annulment of the precept of the levirate marriage. ');">³⁷</span> makes provision even against a doubtful annulment.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' So that R. Meir need not necessarily agree with R. Gamaliel on this point though he will agree with him on the question of the levirate bond. ');">³⁸</span> Said Abaye to R. Joseph: Rab Judah's statement<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' That if a woman awaiting the decision of the levir died, the levir is still forbidden to marry her mother (supra 17b end). ');">³⁹</span> is Samuel's;<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Not Rab's who also was his teacher. ');">⁴⁰</span> for we learnt: