Yevamot 37

מבית אחד יבומי חדא ואיפטור אידך לא דדלמא אין זיקה ככנוסה והוו להו שתי יבמות הבאות משני בתים אלמא מספקא ליה

from one house.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' One as actual, the other as virtual wife of the same husband, the second brother. The Torah required the levir 'to build up his brother's house' (Deut. XXV, 9) from which it is inferred that it is his duty to build up only a house but not houses, i.e., to marry his brother's one wife but not his two wives. ');">¹</span> Nor must he take one In levirate marriage and thereby exempt the other, for it is possible that the levirate bond is not as binding as actual marriage, and the two sisters-in-law would thus be coming from two houses.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Both of whom are subject to the levirate marriage. and one of whom cannot exempt the other. ');">²</span> From this it clearly follows that he<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' R. Simeon. ');">³</span>

וכי תימא מדאורייתא ה"נ דמייבמא חדא ומפטרא חדא ומדרבנן הוא דאסור גזירה משום שמא יאמרו ב' יבמות הבאות משני בתים חדא מייבמא ואידך מיפטרא בולא כלום

is in doubt.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' As to whether a levirate bond exists. Cf. supra p. 105, n. 9. ');">⁴</span> And should you reply that Biblically one of the widows may indeed be taken in levirate marriage and the other is thereby exempt, but that this procedure had Rabbinically been forbidden as a preventive measure against the possibility of the assumption that where two sisters-in-law came from two houses<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Where two brothers died simultaneously; when the one widow is as much tied to him as the other. ');">⁵</span> one may be taken in levirate marriage and the other is thereby exempt without any further ceremonial;<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Lit., 'with nothing'. ');">⁶</span>

והא טעמא דר"ש משום מאמר ולאו מאמר הוא דתניא אמר להם רבי שמעון לחכמים אם מאמרו של שני מאמר אשת שני הוא בועל

surely [it may be pointed out] R. Simeon's reason is because of his doubt as to the validity of the levir's ma'amar!<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Lit., 'saying and not saying' or 'ma'amar and not ma'amar'. ');">⁷</span> For it was taught: R. Simeon said to the Sages, 'If the ma'amar of the second brother is valid he<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' The third brother. ');">⁸</span> is marrying the wife of the second; and if the ma'amar of the second is invalid he is marrying the wife of the first'! — Said Abaye to him:<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' R. Joseph. ');">⁹</span>

ואם מאמרו של שני אינו מאמר אשת ראשון הוא בועל

Do you not make any distinction between the levirate bond with one levir and the levirate bond with two levirs? It is quite possible that R. Simeon said the levirate bond is like actual marriage in the case of one levir only<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' As in our Mishnah where the first brother was survived by one brother only. The subsequent birth of a third brother does not affect the levirate any more than it can affect an actual marriage. ');">¹⁰</span> but not in that of two levirs.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Of which the cited Baraitha speaks. There, when the first brother died he was survived by two brothers. ');">¹¹</span> Does R. Simeon, however, recognize such a distinction?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Between one levir and two. ');">¹²</span>

אמר ליה אביי ולא שני לך בין זיקת יבם אחד לזיקת שני יבמים דלמא כי אר"ש זיקה ככנוסה דמיא ביבם אחד אבל בשני יבמין לא

Surely it was taught: R. Simeon has laid down a general rule that wherever the birth<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Of a third brother. ');">¹³</span> preceded the marriage<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Of the second brother with the widow of the first. ');">¹⁴</span> the widow is neither to perform <i>halizah</i> nor to be taken in levirate marriage. If the marriage<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Of the second brother with the widow of the first. ');">¹⁴</span>

ומי שני ליה לר"ש והתניא כלל אר"ש כל שהלידה קודמת לנשואין לא חולצת ולא מתייבמת נשואין קודם ללידה או חולצת או מתייבמת

preceded the birth<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Of a third brother. ');">¹³</span> she may either perform the <i>halizah</i> or be taken In levirate marriage. Does not this apply to one levir?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Who survived the first deceased brother after whose death the third brother was born. ');">¹⁵</span> And yet It is stated 'she is neither to perform <i>halizah</i> nor to be taken in levirate marriage'!<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Which proves that even in the case of one levir R. Simeon does not recognize the existence of a levirate bond. ');">¹⁶</span>

מאי לאו ביבם אחד וקתני לא חולצת ולא מתייבמת לא בשני יבמים

— No; it applies to two levirs.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Cf. supra note 4. ');">¹⁷</span> But in the case of one levir,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Cf. supra note 4. ');">¹⁷</span> may she in such circumstances also<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Where the birth of the third preceded the marriage of the second. ');">¹⁸</span>

אבל ביבם אחד מאי הכי נמי או חולצת או מתייבמת אי הכי אדתני נשואין קודמין ללידה או חולצת או מתייבמת ליפלוג וליתני בדידה בד"א בשני יבמים אבל ביבם אחד או חולצת או מתייבמת

either perform <i>halizah</i> or contract levirate marriage? If so, instead of stating, 'If the marriage preceded the birth she may either perform <i>halizah</i> or be taken in levirate marriage' the distinction should have been drawn in this very case itself,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Where birth preceded marriage. ');">¹⁹</span> thus: 'This applies only to the case of two brothers.in.law but with one brother-in-law she may either perform <i>halizah</i> or be taken in levirate marriage'! — The entire passage dealt with two brothers-in-law.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' The Tanna preferred to draw a distinction between two sets of circumstances both of which relate to the brothers-in-law rather than to draw a distinction between one brother-in-law and two brothers-in-law in the same set of circumstances. ');">²⁰</span> What, then, is meant by the general rule?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' According to which neither halizah nor levirate marriage is allowed whenever the birth preceded the marriage. Both, according to what has just been said, are permissible in the case of one levir. ');">²¹</span>

כולה בשני יבמין קמיירי ואלא מאי כללא

And a further objection<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Against the statement that R. Simeon regards the levirate bond as actual marriage. ');">²²</span> was raised by R. Oshaia: If there were three brothers and two of them were married to two sisters, or to a woman and her daughter, or to a woman and her daughter's daughters or to a woman and her son's daughter, behold these<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' The women enumerated. ');">²³</span> must<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' If their husbands, the two brothers, died without issue. ');">²⁴</span>

ועוד מתיב רב אושעיא ג' אחין שנים מהן נשואין שתי אחיות או אשה ובתה או אשה ובת בתה או אשה ובת בנה הרי אלו חולצות ולא מתייבמות ור"ש פוטר

perform the <i>halizah</i><span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' With the third surviving brother. ');">²⁵</span> but may not be taken in levirate marriage.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' By that brother; since both are equally related to him by the same 'levirate bond' and each is forbidden to him as the consanguineous relative of the woman connected with him by such bond. ');">²⁶</span> R. Simeon, however, exempts them.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Infra 28b; even from the halizah. ');">²⁷</span>

ואי ס"ד קסבר ר"ש זיקה ככנוסה דמיא לייבם לקמייתא ותיפטר אידך

Now, if it be assumed that R. Simeon is of the opinion that the 'levirate bond' has the same force as actual marriage, let [the third brother] take the first widow<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' I.e., the widow whose husband bad died first, and who, through the 'levirate bond', is regarded as the levir's virtual wife even before he married her. ');">²⁸</span> In levirate marriage and let the other<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Her consanguineous relative, the widow of the second deceased brother. ');">²⁹</span> be thereby exempt.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' As a forbidden relative; being consanguineous with his virtual wife. ');">³⁰</span>

אמר רב עמרם מאי פוטר נמי פוטר בשניה והתניא ר"ש פוטר בשתיהן

R. Amram replied: The meaning of 'exempt'<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' In R. Simeon's statement. ');">³¹</span> is that he exempts the second widow,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Whose husband died last. The first, however, is to be taken in levirate marriage. ');">³²</span> But has it not been taught: R. Simeon exempts them both'?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Infra 28b, Rid. 50b. ');">³³</span>

אמר רבא שניה שבזוג זה והשניה שבזוג זה

-Raba replied: The second of the one pair and the second of the other pair.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' 'Both' used by R. Simeon refers to the second of each pair. Raba assumed that the two brothers had married two sisters and also a mother and her daughter. One of the first is taken in levirate marriage and the others are thereby exempt either as 'forbidden relatives' or 'rivals'. ');">³⁴</span> Raba, however, was mistaken [in the interpretation] of the four pairs.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Enumerated in the cited Mishnah, assuming as he did that it meant marriage by the. two brothers of more than one pair (v. previous note). ');">³⁵</span> For, in the first instance, we have twice the word 'or',<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' 'Or' occurs after the enumeration of each pair. ');">³⁶</span>

קא טעי רבא בארבעה זוגי חדא דאו או קתני ועוד ר' שמעון פוטר בארבעתן מיבעי ליה

and, furthermore, [if Raba's interpretation were the correct one]<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Viz., that R. Simeon's exemption refers to the second of each pair. ');">³⁷</span> it should [have read], 'R. Simeon exempts the four'.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Since four pairs were enumerated. ');">³⁸</span> Furthermore, it was taught: R. Simeon exempts both<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Widows of the first brother. ');">³⁹</span>

ועוד תניא ר"ש פוטר בשתיהן מן החליצה ומן הייבום שנא' (ויקרא יח, יח) ואשה אל אחותה לא תקח לצרור בשעה שנעשו צרות זו לזו לא יהא לך ליקוחין אפי' באחת מהן

from the <i>halizah</i> and from the levirate marriage, for it is said in the Scriptures, And thou shalt not take a woman to her sister, to he a rival to her,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Lev. XVIII, 18. ');">⁴⁰</span> when they become rivals to one another<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' As in the case cited, where each of the two brothers was married to one of each pair, and when the first brother died all his widows became subject to levirate marriage with the second brother and thus become rivals. ');">⁴¹</span> you may not marry even one of them!<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Even the first widow. Consequently R. Simeon's exemption applies to all, which shews that he recognizes no distinction on the question of the levirate bond between one levir and two levirs! ');">⁴²</span>

אלא אמר רב אשי אי דנפול בזה אחר זה הכי נמי הכא במאי עסקינן דנפול בבת אחת ורבי שמעון סבר לה כרבי יוסי הגלילי דאמר אפשר לצמצם

But, said R. Ashi: If they<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' The widows. ');">⁴³</span> had become subject [to the levir] one after the other, the law would indeed have been so.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' That the 'levirate bond' in the case of one levir being recognized even by R. Simeon as being as forcible as actual marriage. the levir (the third brother) marries the first while the other is exempt, though her husband (the second brother) died before he actually married the first. ');">⁴⁴</span> Here,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' In the Mishnah cited by R. Oshaia in objection against the view attributing to R. Simeon a distinction between one levir and two levirs. ');">⁴⁵</span>

רב פפא אמר בייבם ואח"כ נולד פליג ר"ש בנולד ואח"כ ייבם לא פליג

however, we are dealing with the case where both become subject to him at the same time; and R. Simeon shares the view of R. Jose the Galilean who stated, 'It is possible to ascertain simultaneous occurrence'.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' I.e., to ascertain that two things occur exactly at one and the same moment, Bek. 17a. Hence it may happen that both brothers die simultaneously and both widows simultaneously become subject to the third brother and consequently, on the view of R. Simeon, both exempt from halizah and levirate marriage. ');">⁴⁶</span> R. Papa<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Disagreeing with R. Oshaia, supra 18b. ');">⁴⁷</span> said: R. Simeon differs<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' From the Rabbis of our Mishnah. ');">⁴⁸</span>

ותרווייהו לרבנן איצטריך ולא זו אף זו קתני

only where the levirate marriage<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' With the second brother. ');">⁴⁹</span> took place first, and the birth<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Of the third brother. ');">⁵⁰</span> afterwards; he does not differ, however, when the birth<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Of the third brother. ');">⁵⁰</span>

תניא כוותיה דרב פפא ותיובתא דר' אושעיא שני אחים בעולם אחד ומת אחד מהם 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

occurred first, and the marriage<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' With the second brother. ');">⁴⁹</span> took place afterwards; and both these cases<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' 'Marriage before birth' in our Mishnah and 'birth before marriage' in the previous one. ');">⁵¹</span> are required on account of the Rabbis,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' To shew that they exempt not only in the one case but also in the other. Cf. infra notes 11-12 ');">⁵²</span>

עשה בה מאמר ואח"כ נולד אח או שנולד לו אח ואח"כ עשה בה מאמר ומת הראשונה יוצאה משום אשת אחיו שלא היה בעולמו ושניה חולצת ולא מתייבמת

and<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' As to the objection raised (supra 18b): Since they exempt in the second case, what need was there to mention the first which could have been inferred from it a minori ad majus? ');">⁵³</span> [a stronger case is given after a weaker] 'not only this<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' The case in the first Mishnah, the birth of the third brother before the marriage of the second, where the birth occurred while the widow was still under a prohibition to marry him. ');">⁵⁴</span> but also that'.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' The case in the second Mishnah, where the birth of the third brother occurred when the widow was already permitted to him. ');">⁵⁵</span> It was taught in agreement with R. papa<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' That when the birth of the third brother occurred prior to the marriage of the second with the widow of the first, R. Simeon agrees with the Rabbis. ');">⁵⁶</span> and in contradiction to R. Oshaia: If one of two contemporary brothers died without Issue, and the second intended to address a ma 'amar to his deceased brother's wife but before he was able to do so a third brother was born and he himself died, the first widow is exempt<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' From marriage and halizah with the third brother. ');">⁵⁷</span> as 'the wife of the brother who was not his contemporary', and the second<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' The widow of the second brother. ');">⁵⁸</span> may either perform the <i>halizah</i> or be taken in levirate marriage. If, however, he<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' The second brother. ');">⁵⁹</span> addressed a ma'amar to the widow and subsequently a third brother was born, or if a third brother was born first and he<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' The second brother. ');">⁵⁹</span> addressed the ma'amar to the widow subsequently, and died, the first widow is exempt<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' From marriage and halizah with the third brother. ');">⁵⁷</span> as 'the wife of his brother who was not his contemporary' while the second<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' The widow of the second brother. ');">⁵⁸</span> must perform the <i>halizah</i>,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' The ma'amar addressed to the first widow not having 'the same force as actual marriage to render the second brother's wife her rival to be exempt from halizah as well as from the levirate marriage with the third brother. ');">⁶⁰</span> though she may not be taken in levirate marriage.