Yevamot 36

שומרת יבם שקדש אחיו את אחותה משום ר' יהודה בן בתירה אמרו אומרים לו המתן עד שיעשה אחיך מעשה ואמר שמואל הלכה כר' יהודה בן בתירה

If the brother of the levir had betrothed the sister of the widow who was awaiting the levir's decision,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Her sister being forbidden to him as the sister of the woman connected with him by a Ievirate bond. ');">¹</span> he is told, so it has been stated in the name of R. Judah b. Bathyra, 'Wait<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' With the consummation of the marriage. ');">²</span> until your brother has taken action;'<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' I.e., married the widow, when the Ievirate bond between her and the third brother will have been severed, and her sister will consequently be permitted to marry him. ');">³</span> and Samuel said, 'The <i>halachah</i> is in accordance with the ruling of R. Judah b. Bathyra'.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Infra 410. Meg. 18b. This shews that in the opinion of Samuel a levirate bond exists between a widow and the brothers-in-law whose decision she is awaiting. (V. previous note). ');">⁴</span> The other<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' R. Joseph. ');">⁵</span>

א"ל דאי דרב מאי א"ל קשיא דרב אדרב דלמא אמוראי נינהו ואליבא דרב כיון דאיתמר משמיה דשמואל בהדיא ומשמיה דרב כאמוראי לא שבקינן משמיה דשמואל בהדיא ומוקמינן כאמוראי ואליבא דרב

asked him: 'What [objection could there be] if the statement<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Cf. supra p. 101, n. 13. ');">⁶</span> be attributed to Rab?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Cf. p. 101, n. 14. ');">⁷</span> Is it the contradiction between the two statements of Rab?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Lit., 'that of Rab upon Rab', i.e., Rab's presumed statement reported by Rab Judah is contradictory to the statement made in his name by R. Huna, supra 17b. ');">⁸</span> Surely it is possible that these Amoraim<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' R. Huna and Rab Judah, both of whom were disciples of Rab. ');">⁹</span> are in dispute as to what was the opinion of Rab!' — Since this ruling was stated with certainty in the name of Samuel, while as to Rab's view [on the matter] Amoraim differ, we do not ignore<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Lit., 'leave aside'. ');">¹⁰</span>

אמר רב כהנא אמריתה לשמעתא קמיה דרב זביד מנהרדעא אמר אתון הכי מתניתו לה אנן בהדיא מתנינן אמר רב יהודה אמר שמואל שומרת יבם שמתה אסור באמה אלמא קסבר יש זיקה ואזדא שמואל לטעמיה דאמר שמואל הלכה כרבי יהודה בן בתירה

the statement attributing it with certainty to Samuel in favour of the one<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Lit., 'and establish it'. ');">¹¹</span> which involves Amoraim In a dispute as to the opinion of Rab. Said R. Kahana: I reported the statement<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Rab Judah's. ');">¹²</span> in the presence of R. Zebid of Nehardea, when he said: You teach it thus;<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Attributing the ruling to Rab Judah without mentioning the authority from whom it originated. ');">¹³</span> our version is explicit:<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' I.e., specifically indicating the reported authority. ');">¹⁴</span>

וצריכי דאי אשמעינן יש זיקה ה"א ה"מ בחד אבל בתרי לא קמ"ל ואי אשמעינן הלכה כר' יהודה בן בתירה ה"א ה"מ מחיים אבל לאחר מיתה פקעה לה זיקה קמ"ל דזיקה בכדי לא פקעה:

'Rab Judah stated in the name of Samuel, "If a woman awaiting the decision of the levir died, [the levir] is forbidden to marry her mother", from which it naturally follows that he is of the opinion that a levirate bond exists'.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' V. supra p. 99, n. 5. ');">¹⁵</span> Samuel is here consistent; for Samuel said, 'The <i>halachah</i> is in accordance with the view of R. Judah b. Bathyra'. Said [both statements<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Of Samuel. ');">¹⁶</span> are] necessary. For had he only stated, 'A levirate bond exists', it might have been assumed to refer to the case of one levir only<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Cf. supra p. 98, n. 8. ');">¹⁷</span> but not to that of two,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Cf. supra [H] 16. ');">¹⁸</span>

<big><strong>מתני׳</strong></big> שני אחים ומת אחד מהן ויבם השני את אשת אחיו ואח"כ נולד להן אח ומת הראשונה יוצאה משום אשת אחיו שלא היה בעולמו והשניה משום צרתה עשה בה מאמר ומת השניה חולצת ולא מתייבמת

hence we are taught<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' By the statement that the halachah is in accordance with R. Judah b. Bathyra. ');">¹⁹</span> [that the Same law applies also to two]. And if it had only been stated, 'The <i>halachah</i> is in accordance with the opinion of R. Judah b. Bathyra', it might have been assumed [that the levirate bond is in force] while the widow<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' The sister-in-law awaiting the levir's decision. ');">²⁰</span> is alive but that after her death the bond is dissolved, hence we are taught<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' By the statement, 'a levirate bond exists'. ');">²¹</span> that the levirate bond Is not dissolved automatically.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' V. supra p. 98, n. 24. ');">²²</span> <b><i>MISHNAH</i></b>. IF THERE WERE TWO BROTHERS AND ONE OF THEM DIED,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Without issue. ');">²³</span>

ר"ש אומר מייבם לאיזו מהן שירצה או חולץ לאיזו מהן שירצה:

AND THE SECOND PERFORMED THE LEVIRATE MARRIAGE WITH HIS [DECEASED] BROTHER'S WIFE, AND AFTER A [THIRD] BROTHER WAS BORN THE SECOND DIED,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Without issue. ');">²³</span> THE FIRST<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' The widow of the first deceased brother who is now also the widow of the second. ');">²⁴</span> IS EXEMPT<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' From halizah and marriage with the third brother. ');">²⁵</span> ON ACCOUNT OF HER BEING THE WIFE OF HIS BROTHER WHO WAS NOT HIS CONTEMPORARY', WHILE THE SECOND IS EXEMPT AS HER RIVAL.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Both having been the wives of the second brother. ');">²⁶</span> IF HE<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' The second brother. ');">²⁷</span>

<big><strong>גמ׳</strong></big> אמר רב אושעיא חלוק היה ר"ש אף בראשונה ממאי מדקתני משנה יתירה

ADDRESSED TO HER<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' The first brother's widow. ');">²⁸</span> A MA'AMAR AND DIED,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Before marriage took place. ');">²⁹</span> THE SECOND MUST PERFORM THE <i>HALIZAH</i><span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' With the third brother. ');">³⁰</span> BUT SHE MAY NOT BE TAKEN IN LEVIRATE MARRIAGE. R. SIMEON SAID:<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' With reference to the first case of our Mishnah. ');">³¹</span> HE<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' The third brother. ');">³²</span>

בבא דרישא למאן קתני לה אילימא לרבנן השתא יבם ולבסוף נולד דכי אשכחה בהתירא אשכחה אסרי רבנן נולד ואח"כ יבם מיבעיא אלא לאו לר"ש איצטריך

MAY EITHER TAKE IN LEVIRATE MARRIAGE WHICHEVER OF THEM HE DESIRES<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' And thereby exempt the other. ');">³³</span> OR HE MAY PARTICIPATE IN THE <i>HALIZAH</i> WITH WHICHEVER OF THEM HE DESIRES.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' And thereby exempt the other. ');">³³</span> <b><i>GEMARA</i></b>. R. Oshaia said: R. Simeon disputed the first case also<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' That mentioned in the previous Mishnah (supra 17a ad fin.). In his opinion the third brother may marry or submit to halizah from either of the two widows, even if he was born before the second brother had married the first brother's widow. ');">³⁴</span> Whence is this inferred? From the existence of<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Lit., 'that which was taught'. ');">³⁵</span> a superfluous Mishnah. For in accordance with whose view was it necessary to teach the clause of the first [Mishnah]? If it be suggested, [according to that] of the Rabbis, [it may be retorted]: If when the levirate marriage had taken place first and the birth<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Of the third brother. ');">³⁶</span>

ותנא רישא להודיעך כחו דר"ש ותנא סיפא להודיעך כחן דרבנן ובדין הוא דנפלוג ר"ש ברישא אלא נטר להו לרבנן עד דמסיימי למילתייהו והדר פליג עלייהו

occurred afterwards, in which case he,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' The third brother on the date of his birth. ');">³⁷</span> found her<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' The widow of the first brother. ');">³⁸</span> permitted,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' As an ordinary sister-in-law; she being no more the 'wife of his brother who was not his contemporary'. Lit., 'for when he found her he found her in a permitted state'. ');">³⁹</span> the Rabbis nevertheless forbade her,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' To marry the third brother. ');">⁴⁰</span> is there any need [for them to specify prohibition in the case where] the birth<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Of the third brother. ');">³⁶</span>

אלא אשת אחיו שלא היה בעולמו לר"ש היכי משכחת לה בחד אחא ומית ונולד לו אח אי נמי בתרי ולא יבם ולא מית

occurred first and the marriage took place afterwards!<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' In which case the third brother's birth took place during the period when she was forbidden him as the 'wife of his brother who was not his contemporary. ');">⁴¹</span> Consequently<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Lit., 'but not?' ');">⁴²</span> it must have been required [in connection with the view] of R. Simeon; and the first [Mishnah] was taught in order to point out to you how far R. Simeon<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Who permits marriage with the third brother even where his birth occurred prior to the widow's marriage. v. supra note 6. ');">⁴³</span> is prepared to go<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Lit., 'the strength of R. Simeon'. ');">⁴⁴</span> while the last Mishnah was taught in order to show you how far the Rabbis<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Who forbid the marriage even when the birth followed the marriage. Cf 'pro note 4. ');">⁴⁵</span>

בשלמא יבם ואח"כ נולד כי אשכחה בהתירא אשכחה אלא נולד ואח"כ יבם מאי טעמא קסבר יש זיקה וזיקה ככנוסה דמיא

are prepared to go. It would, indeed, have been logical for R. Simeon to express his dissent in the first case, but he waited for the Rabbis to conclude their statement and then he expressed his dissent with their entire statement.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Lit., 'against them'. ');">⁴⁶</span> How, in view of what has been said,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Lit., 'but'; if R. Simeon permits marriage in both cases. ');">⁴⁷</span> is it possible according to R. Simeon to find a case of 'a wife of his brother who was not his contemporary'?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' To be forbidden the levirate marriage in accordance with the statement in the first Mishnah of the Tractate, supra 2b ab init. ');">⁴⁸</span> — In the case of one brother who died and a second brother was subsequently<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Lit., 'to him'. ');">⁴⁹</span> born;<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' The levirate relationship here is entirely due to the deceased brother who was not the surviving brother's contemporary; and marriage is. therefore, rightly forbidden. ');">⁵⁰</span>

מתקיף לה רב יוסף השתא זיקה ומאמר מספקא ליה לר"ש אי ככנוסה דמיא אי לאו ככנוסה דמיא זיקה לחודה מיבעיא

or also in the case of two brothers<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' The first of whom died without issue. ');">⁵¹</span> where the second has neither taken the widow in the levirate marriage nor died.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' The third brother, who was born after the death of the first, is forbidden to marry the widow whose connection with the first brother has never been severed, since the second has neither married her nor submitted to her halizah. ');">⁵²</span> One can well understand [R. Simeon's reason]<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' For permitting the third brother to marry either of the widows. ');">⁵³</span> where the levirate marriage<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' With the second brother. ');">⁵⁴</span> took place first and the birth<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Of the third brother. ');">⁵⁵</span>

מאי היא דתנן שלשה אחין נשואין שלש נשים נכריות ומת אחד מהם ועשה בה שני מאמר ומת הרי אלו חולצות ולא מתייבמות

afterwards, for in this case he found her permitted;<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' V. supra p. 104, on 2-4. ');">⁵⁶</span> where, however, the birth occurred first and the levirate marriage took place afterwards,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' V. supra p. 104, n. 6. ');">⁵⁷</span> what [reason [could be advanced]?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' For R. Simeon's permission of marriage. ');">⁵⁸</span> -He holds the opinion that a levirate bond exists<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Between widow and living levir. ');">⁵⁹</span> and that such a bond is like actual marriage.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' The widow is consequently regarded as the wife of the second brother from the moment the first died. When the third brother is subsequently born the widow has no longer any connection with the deceased brother and cannot any more be regarded in relation to the third, as 'the wife of his brother who was not his contemporary'. ');">⁶⁰</span>

שנאמר (דברים כה, ה) ומת אחד מהם יבמה יבא עליה מי שעליה זיקת יבם אחד ולא שעליה זיקת שני יבמין

R. Joseph demurred: If R. Simeon is in doubt as to whether in the case of a 'levirate bond' and a 'ma amar' combined the widow should or should not be regarded as married, need there be any [doubt in the case of] a 'levirate bond' alone?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Obviously not. How then could it be said that R. Simeon definitely regards the 'levirate bond' alone as actual marriage? ');">⁶¹</span> Whence is this known?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Lit., 'what is it?' where did R. Simeon express such doubt? ');">⁶²</span> — We have learned: In the case where three brothers were married to three women who were strangers [to one another] and, one of the brothers having died, the second brother addressed to her,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' The widow of the deceased brother. ');">⁶³</span> a ma'amar and died, behold these<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' The widows of the two deceased brothers. ');">⁶⁴</span> must perform <i>halizah</i> with, but may not marry the [surviving] levir; for it is said in the Scriptures, And one of then die [etc.], her husband's brother shall go in unto her,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Deut. XXV, 5. ');">⁶⁵</span>

רבי שמעון אומר מייבם לאיזהו מהן שירצה חולץ לשניה יבומי תרוייהו לא דדלמא יש זיקה והוו שני יבמות הבאות

only she<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' May be taken in levirate marriage. ');">⁶⁶</span> who is tied to one levir,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' v. supra p. 98, n. 8. ');">⁶⁷</span> but not she who is tied to two levirs.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' V. supra p' 97' n. 16. ');">⁶⁸</span> R. Simeon said: He<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' The levir. ');">⁶⁹</span> may take in levirate marriage whichever of them he pleases<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' R. Simeon does not recognize a double bond. If the ma'amar addressed by the second brother was binding. the bond with the first brother, he maintains, was thereby severed, and there remains only the bond with the second; and if it was not binding then again only one bond exists, that with the first brother. ');">⁷⁰</span> and submits to the <i>halizah</i> of the other.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Infra 31b. For the reason given anon. ');">⁷¹</span> He must not take both widows in levirate marriage since it is possible that a levirate bond exists<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Between the levir (the second brother) and the first widow. ');">⁷²</span> and thus the two sisters-in-law<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' The second brother's actual wife and the widow of the first to whom he addressed a ma'amar and who is his virtual wife. ');">⁷³</span> would be coming