Yevamot 47

התם אי למ"ד יש זיקה יש זיקה ואי למ"ד אסור לבטל מצות יבמין אסור לבטל מצות יבמין הכא כל חד וחד אימור דידיה קא מתרמיא ליה:

There,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Where both sisters are bound by the levirate tie. ');">¹</span> if one is to follow the view of him who said that a levirate bond does exist,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Between the levir and his deceased brother's widow from the moment death took place. ');">²</span> a levirate bond exists;<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Consequently both widows are forbidden in levirate marriage, each being in relation to the other a sister of one's zekukah. But such prohibition is never removed even when one of them subsequently performed the halizah with one of the brothers and has thus severed her levirate bond, for once a yebamah is prohibited to her deceased husband's brother for a single moment, she is in the same category as a widow of a brother who died with issue. ');">³</span>

קדמו וכנסו אין מוציאין כו': תני שילא ואפי' שניהם כהנים מ"ט חלוצה דרבנן היא וספק חלוצה לא גזרו בהו רבנן

and if one is to follow him who said<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' The reason why none of the surviving brothers may marry one of the two widows. ');">⁴</span> that it is forbidden to annul the precept of levirate marriage,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Were one brother to be allowed to marry one of the widows he would not be able either to contract levirate marriage or to participate in halizah with the other widow (she being forbidden to him as 'his wife's sister'), should the other brother happen to die before he married that widow; and thus the entire precept of levirate marriage would in such a case be annulled. ');">⁵</span> well, it is forbidden to annul the precept of levirate marriage. Here, however, it is possible to assume that every one will happen to get his own.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Now, if the widow whom one of them bad married was really his yebamah. the other must be a total stranger to him and to the other brother; and since this might be said in the case of each pair of brothers where the marriage had already taken place. They are not, in the face of such a possibility. to be parted (Rashi). [According to the alternative interpretation (supra p. 142, n. 4.) in face of such a possibility the Rabbis saw no reason for enacting the preventive measure forbidding levirate marriage after halizah had been performed.] ');">⁶</span>

וחלוצה דרבנן היא והתניא (ויקרא כא, ז) גרושה אין לי אלא גרושה חלוצה מנין ת"ל ואשה מדרבנן הוא וקרא אסמכתא בעלמא הוא:

IF BOTH ANTICIPATED [THE <i>BETH DIN</i>] AND MARRIED THEY ARE NOT TO BE PARTED FROM THEM etc. Shila recited: Even if both were priests.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Who are forbidden to marry a haluzah. ');">⁷</span> What is the reason?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' One of them, surely, must inevitably have married a haluzah since, In case she is not his yebamah, she is the betrothed of the stranger with whose brother (v. our Mishnah) she had performed halizah' ');">⁸</span> — Because a <i>haluzah</i> is only Rabbinically forbidden,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' To marry a Priest. ');">⁹</span>

<big><strong>מתני׳</strong></big> מצוה בגדול לייבם ואם קדם הקטן זכה:

and in the case of a doubtful <i>haluzah</i><span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' As here where each brother can claim that the one he married was his yebamah. ');">¹⁰</span> the Rabbis enacted no preventive measures.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' The prohibition consequently does not apply. Hence they may continue to live with the widows they had married. ');">¹¹</span> But is a <i>haluzah</i> only Rabbinically forbidden? Surely it was taught: From Put away<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Lev. XXI, 7, speaking of priests. ');">¹²</span>

<big><strong>גמ׳</strong></big> ת"ר (דברים כה, ו) והיה הבכור מיכן שמצוה בגדול לייבם (דברים כה, ו) אשר תלד פרט לאילונית שאין יולדת יקום על שם אחיו לנחלה

one might only infer the prohibition concerning a divorced woman; whence that of a <i>haluzah</i>? Hence it was explicitly stated, And a woman!<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Ibid.. which proves that the prohibition is Pentateuchal. ');">¹³</span> The prohibition is really Rabbinical, and the Scriptural text is a mere prop.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Asmakta, v. Glos. ');">¹⁴</span> <b><i>MISHNAH</i></b>. THE COMMANDMENT OF THE LEVIRATE MARRIAGE DEVOLVES UPON THE [SURVIVING ELDER BROTHER]. IF A YOUNGER BROTHER, HOWEVER, FORESTALLED HIM, HE IS ENTITLED TO ENJOY THE PRIVILEGE.

אתה אומר לנחלה או אינו אלא לשם יוסף קורין אותו יוסף יוחנן קורין אותו יוחנן נאמר כאן יקום על שם אחיו ונאמר להלן (בראשית מח, ו) על שם אחיהם יקראו בנחלתם מה שם האמור להלן נחלה אף שם האמור כאן לנחלה

<b><i>GEMARA</i></b>. Our Rabbis learned: And it shall be, that the firstborn<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Deut. XXV, 6. ');">¹⁵</span> implies<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Lit., 'from here (it is deduced)'. ');">¹⁶</span> that the commandment of the levirate marriage devolves upon the [surviving elder brother];<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' The text of Deut. XXV, 6. being connected with v. 5 preceding it, thus: Her husband's brother shall … take her to him to wife (v. 5) and he shall be the firstborn (ibid. v. 6). [H] in [H] may be rendered either, and it shall be (as E.V.) or and he (i.e., the levir) shall be as the Talmud here renders it. ');">¹⁷</span>

ולא ימחה שמו פרט לסריס ששמו מחוי

that she beareth<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Deut. XXV, 6. ');">¹⁵</span> excludes a woman who is incapable of procreation, since she cannot bear children: shall succeed in the name of his brother,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Deut. XXV, 6. ');">¹⁵</span> in respect of inheritance.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Only the brother who marries the widow, and no other brother, is entitled to the inheritance of the deceased. ');">¹⁸</span>

אמר רבא אע"ג דבכל התורה כולה אין מקרא יוצא מידי פשוטו הכא אתאי גזרה שוה אפיקתיה מפשטיה לגמרי

You say, 'in respect of inheritance';<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Taking the 'brother' who marries the widow as the subject of 'shall succeed'. (Cf. supra n. 3)' ');">¹⁹</span> perhaps it does not [mean that]. but, 'in respect of the name':<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' The subject of 'shall succeed' being 'the child' that will be born from the levirate union. ');">²⁰</span> [If the deceased, for Instance, was called] Joseph [the child] shall be called Joseph; If Johanan he shall be called Johanan! — Here it is stated, shall succeed in the name of his brother<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Deut. XXV, 6. ');">¹⁵</span>

ואי לאו גזרה שוה הוה אמינא שם שם ממש למאן קמזהר רחמנא ליבם יקום על שם אחיך מיבעי ליה אי לבי דינא יקום על שם אחי אביו מיבעי ליה

and elsewhere it is stated, They shall be called after the name of their brethren in their inheritance,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Gen. XLVIII, 6. ');">²¹</span> as the 'name' that was mentioned there [has reference to] inheritance, so the 'name' which was mentioned here [has also reference] to inheritance. That his name be not blotted out<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Deut. XXV, 6. ');">¹⁵</span> excludes a eunuch<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Since he 15 Incapable of procreation. his wife is exempt alike from yibbum and halizah. ');">²²</span>

ודלמא הכי קאמר להו רחמנא לבית דין אמרו ליה ליבם יקום על שם אחיו אלא אתאי גזרה שוה אפיקתיה לגמרי

whose name is blotted out. Said Raba: Although throughout the Torah no text<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Though it had been given a Midrashic interpretation. ');">²³</span> loses its ordinary meaning, here the <i>gezerah shawah</i><span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' V. Glos. [H] the word analogy between the expression 'name' in the two cited texts. ');">²⁴</span>

השתא דאמרת קרא בגדול כתיב אימא בכור לייבם פשוט לא לייבם

has come and entirely deprived the text of its ordinary meaning.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' So that despite the ordinary meaning of the text, the child born from the levirate union need not be named after the deceased. ');">²⁵</span> But apart from the <i>gezerah shawah</i>, would it have been thought that 'name' actually signifies 'a name'? To whom, then, does the All Merciful address the instruction!<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' About the name. ');">²⁶</span> If to the levir, the wording should have been. 'shall succeed in the name of thy brother'; if to the <i>Beth din</i>, the wording should have been, 'shall succeed in the name of his father's brother'!<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Consequently. name in this text could not possibly have borne its ordinary meaning, but must have that given to it in the exposition supra. viz., that Beth din are instructed to hand over the inheritance Of the deceased to the levir who married his widow. An objection against Raba! ');">²⁷</span>

א"כ אשת אחיו שלא היה בעולמו דמיעט רחמנא למה לי

— It is possible that the All Merciful thus addressed the <i>Beth din</i>: Tell the levir, 'He<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' The child that will be born. ');">²⁸</span> shall succeed to the name of his<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' The levir's. ');">²⁹</span> brother'; but the <i>gezerah shawah</i> has come and deprived the text entirely [of its ordinary meaning].

פריך רב אחא ואימא למעוטי בוכרא דאמא ההוא לא מצית אמרת דיבום בנחלה תלה רחמנא ונחלה מן האב ולא מן האם

Now that it has been stated that Scripture speaks of the elder brother only, why not assume that the firstborn must perform the duty of the levirate marriage and that any ordinary brother may not contract a levirate marriage at all!<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Neither when there is, nor when there is not, a firstborn. ');">³⁰</span> — If so, what need<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Lit., 'why to me'. ');">³¹</span> was there for the All Merciful to have excluded the 'wife of his brother who was not his contemporary'?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' He would in any case have been excluded since he was not the firstborn. ');">³²</span>

ואימא כי איכא בכור תתקיים מצות יבום כי ליכא בכור לא תתקיים מצות יבום אמר קרא ומת אחד מהם מי לא עסקינן דמית בכור ואמר רחמנא לייבם קטן

R. Aha objected: Might it not be suggested that the exclusion<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Of the 'wife of a brother who was not his contemporary'. ');">³³</span> had reference to a mother's firstborn son!<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Who was the paternal brother of the deceased. ');">³⁴</span> -You could not possibly have assumed that,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' That a mother's firstborn should be regarded as the legal firstborn in respect of the levirate marriage. ');">³⁵</span>

ואימא דמית קטן ואמר רחמנא לייבם בכור הא מיעט רחמנא אשת אחיו שלא היה בעולמו

since the All Merciful has made levirate marriage dependent on inheritance, and the right of inheritance derives from the father and not from the mother.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Hence there was no need to exclude him. The exclusion consequently indicates that by firstborn, in this context, any elder brother was meant. ');">³⁶</span> But might It not be suggested that where there is a firstborn the commandment of the levirate marriage shall be observed;<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Either by the firstborn or by any other of the brothers, and that for this reason the exclusion of 'a brother who was not his contemporary' was necessary. ');">³⁷</span> where, however, there is no firstborn the commandment of the levirate marriage shall not be observed?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' At all; by any brother. ');">³⁸</span>

ואימא כי ליכא בכור קדם קטן זכה ואי איכא בכור קדם קטן לא זכה אמר קרא (דברים כה, ה) כי ישבו אחים יחדו הוקשה ישיבת אחים זה לזה

Scripture stated, And one of them died;<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Deut. XXV, 5, which refers to all cases, even to that where there were Only two brothers. ');">³⁹</span> does not this include also the case where the firstborn died,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Since the text does not specify any particular case. ');">⁴⁰</span> and so the All Merciful has said that the younger shall perform the duty of the levirate marriage?

ואימא כי איכא בכור ליהדר אגדול כי ליכא בכור אין חוזרין אצל גדול אלמה תני אביי קשישא מצוה בגדול לייבם לא רצה הולכים אצל אחיו הקטן לא רצה חוזרין אצל גדול

But perhaps<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Lit., 'and say'. ');">⁴¹</span> [the text speaks of a case] where the younger died, and the All Merciful says that the firstborn shall perform the duty of the levirate marriage? — Surely, the All Merciful has excluded the wife of his brother who was not his contemporary!<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Were it as suggested this exclusion would be unnecessary. Cf. supra p. 145, nn. 6 and 13. ');">⁴²</span> May it be suggested that where there is no firstborn the younger brother, if he forestalled [the <i>Beth din</i>],<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Married before the Beth din could prevent him. ');">⁴³</span>

כבכור מה בכור בכורתו גרמה לו אף גדול גדולתו גרמה לו

is entitled to the privilege,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Of the levirate marriage. ');">⁴⁴</span> but that where there is a firstborn the younger brother, even if he forestalled him, is not entitled to the privilege? — Scrip. stated, If brethren dwell together,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Deut. XXV. 5. ');">⁴⁵</span> the dwelling of one brother was compared to that of the other.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' All brothers must be equal in respect of the levirate marriage. ');">⁴⁶</span>

ואימא כי מייבם בכור לישקול נחלה כי מייבם פשוט לא לישקול נחלה אמר קרא יקום על שם אחיו והרי קם

May it be suggested that where there is a firstborn one turns to the eldest<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' If the other brothers refused to marry the widow it should be his duty to marry her. ');">⁴⁷</span> but where there is no firstborn one does not turn to the eldest?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Not being the firstborn it is no more his duty to marry the widow than it is that of his brothers. ');">⁴⁸</span> Why, then, did Abaye the Elder teach that the commandment to perform the duty of the levirate marriage is incumbent Upon the elder brother; if he refuses, the younger brother is approached;<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' I.e., all the brothers are approached in the order of seniority. V. Tosaf. s.v. [H], a.l., and cf. Rashi a.l. ');">⁴⁹</span>

ואלא בכור דקרייה רחמנא

if he also refuses,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' I.e., when the youngest of all has also refused to marry the widow. ');">⁵⁰</span> the elder is approached again!<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Now, since the brothers are approached. in the order of seniority. it is obvious that it is always the eldest, not necessarily the firstborn, upon whom the duty of the levirate marriage devolves! ');">⁵¹</span> — [Scripture has designated him] as the firstborn;<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' V. supra p. 144, n. 3. ');">⁵²</span> as with the firstborn the cause is his birthright, so with the elder brother the cause is his Seniority. Might it be said that when the firstborn performs the duty of the levirate marriage he also takes the inheritance<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Of his deceased brother. ');">⁵³</span> but when an ordinary brother performs the duty of the levirate marriage, he<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' The ordinary brother. ');">⁵⁴</span> does not take the inheritance?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Of his deceased brother. ');">⁵³</span> Scripture stated, Shall succeed in the name of his brother<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Deut. XXV, 6. ');">⁵⁵</span> and behold he has succeeded!<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Hence any brother who marries the widow is entitled to the inheritance of the deceased. ');">⁵⁶</span> But since the All Merciful called him the firstborn;<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' And not merely 'the elder' or 'the eldest'. ');">⁵⁷</span>