Yevamot 51

ברננה לא מפקינן ה"נ ברננה לא מפקינן:

that [once a woman was married she] is not taken away because of a mere rumour; and so here also [the woman married] is not to be taken away because of a rumour. <b><i>MISHNAH</i></b>. IF ALL THESE<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Lit., 'and all of them'. The Sage, the messenger who brought a letter of divorce and the man who testified to the death of a husband. (V. previous two Mishnahs, supra 250, 25b). ');">¹</span> HAD WIVES<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' At the time of their action which resulted in enabling the women there mentioned to marry. ');">²</span>

<big><strong>מתני׳</strong></big> וכולם שהיו להם נשים ומתו מותרות לינשא להם

WHO [SUBSEQUENTLY] DIED, [THE OTHER WOMEN]<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' I.e. the women concerned in their respective actions. V. previous note. ');">³</span> ARE PERMITTED TO MARRY THEM.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Having had their own wives at the time they were engaged in the other women's affairs they are not to be suspected of any ulterior motives. Cf. supra p. 153, n. 2 and p. 155. n. 12. ');">⁴</span> IF THEY<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' I.e. the women concerned in their respective actions. V. previous note. ');">³</span>

וכולן שנישאו לאחרים ונתגרשו או שנתאלמנו מותרות לינשא להם וכולן מותרות לבניהם או לאחיהם:

WERE MARRIED TO OTHERS<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' After the decision of the Sage, ');">⁵</span> AND WERE [SUBSEQUENTLY] DIVORCED,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' By their second husbands. ');">⁶</span> OR WIDOWED, THEY MAY BE MARRIED TO THESE.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Cf. supra p. 157, n. 6. ');">⁷</span>

<big><strong>גמ׳</strong></big> מתו אין נתגרשו לא

THESE<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' V. p. 157, n. 8. ');">⁸</span> ARE ALSO PERMITTED TO THEIR<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' By their second husbands. ');">⁶</span> SONS OR BROTHERS.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' The prohibition being limited to themselves. ');">⁹</span>

אמר ליה רב הלל לרב אשי והתניא אפי' נתגרשו לא קשיא הא דהואי קטטה הא דלא הואי קטטה

<b><i>GEMARA</i></b>. Only if they<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' The wives of the Sage, messenger and witness (cf. supra p. 157, n. 6). ');">¹⁰</span> died<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Lit., 'they died, yes'; only then is it permissible for the husbands to marry the women whom they had helped to obtain permission to marry. ');">¹¹</span> but not if they were divorced.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' It being possible that their action in favour of the women and the subsequent divorces were dictated by the same ulterior motive. ');">¹²</span>

ואיבעית אימא הא והא דלא הואי קטטה ולא קשיא הא דארגיל הוא הא דארגילה היא:

Said R. Hillel to R. Ashi: Surely, it was taught: Even if they were divorced! — This is no difficulty: The one<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' The Baraitha quoted by R. Hillel. ');">¹³</span> refers to the case where they led<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Before their respective husbands had acted in favour of the other women. ');">¹⁴</span> a quarrelsome life;<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' With their husbands. It is consequently obvious that the divorces were due to the domestic differences, and that the husband's subsequent actions were not dictated by ulterior motives. ');">¹⁵</span>

וכולן שנישאו וכו': קס"ד מיתה אמיתה וגירושין אגירושין

the other,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' That implied in our Mishnah. ');">¹⁶</span> where they<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' V. supra note 5. ');">¹⁷</span> had no quarrels.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' As husbands and wives lived in peace until the former had met the other women, there is good reason to suspect that the divorces were due to these meetings. ');">¹⁸</span>

נימא מתניתין דלא כרבי דאי כרבי האמר בתרי זימני הויא חזקה

If you prefer I might say that the one as well as the other [refers to the case] where there were no quarrels, and yet there is no difficulty: The former<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' That implied in our Mishnah. ');">¹⁶</span> is a case where the husband had led on [to the divorce];<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Hence there is cause for suspicion. ');">¹⁹</span> in the latter,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' V. supra note 8. ');">²⁰</span>

לא מיתה אגירושין וגירושין אמיתה:

she led on to the divorce. IF THEY WERE MARRIED etc. It was now assumed that death<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Of the second husbands with whom marriage had taken place In the meanwhile. ');">²¹</span> has reference to the case of death,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' In the second clause of the Previous Mishnah but one (supra 25a), where evidence was given that the woman's first husband had died or was killed. ');">²²</span>

וכולן מותרות לבניהם או לאחיהם: מאי שנא מהא דתנן הנטען מן האשה אסור באמה ובבתה ובאחותה

and divorce<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Cf. supra n. 16. ');">²³</span> to that of divorce.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Where a letter of divorce was brought by a messenger, (v. the first clause of the Mishnah supra 25a). ');">²⁴</span> Must it then be said that our Mishnah<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Which allows a woman to marry a third husband though her first two husbands had died or divorced her. ');">²⁵</span>

נשי לגבי נשי שכיחן דאזלן גברי לגבי גברי לא שכיחן

is in disagreement the delivery of the letter of divorce by the messenger, or the evidence of the man who testified to their husbands' deaths. with the view of Rabbi? For had it been in agreement with Rabbi, [a third marriage would not have been allowed], for he said that two occurrences constitute a <i>hazakah</i>.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' V. Glos. An established characteristic or defect in the woman, physical or moral, which confirms her as the cause of the death of her husbands or as the cause of the divorces. Hence, she should not have been permitted ever to marry again. ');">²⁶</span> — No;<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Our Mishnah does not differ from Rabbi. ');">²⁷</span> death<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' V. p. 158, n. 16. ');">²⁸</span>

אי נמי נשי דלא אסרן שכיבתן אהדדי לא קפדי אהדדי גברי דאסרן שכיבתן אהדדי קפדי אהדדי

[has reference] to divorce,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' V. p. 158, n. 19. ');">²⁹</span> and divorce<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' V. p. 158, n. 16. ');">²⁸</span> to death.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' V. supra p. 158. n. 17. Hence no two husbands died or divorced the same woman, and no hazakah could, therefore, have been constituted. ');">³⁰</span>

אי הכי אביו נמי לא מיבעיא קאמר לא מיבעי' אביו דבזיז בניה מיניה אבל בנו דלא בזיז אביו מיניה אימא לא קמ"ל:

THESE ARE ALSO PERMITTED TO THEIR SONS OR BROTHERS. Wherein is this different from the following where it was taught:<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Cur. edd., 'we learned'. ');">³¹</span> A man who is suspected of intercourse with a woman is forbidden to marry her mother, her daughter and her sister.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Because there is reason to suspect that the marriage was planned by the man as a mere means of bringing him into closer association and intimacy with his paramour. Why, then, is this suspicion disregarded in the case of our Mishnah? ');">³²</span> -It is the usual thing for women to pay frequent visits to other women;<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Misconduct may, therefore, occur and suspicion (v. previous note) is justified. ');">³³</span>

<br><br><big><strong>הדרן עלך כיצד אשת אחיו</strong></big><br><br>

it is not usual, however, for men to pay frequent visits to other men.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' And suspicion that any intimate intercourse might take place would, therefore, be groundless. ');">³⁴</span> Or [this] also:<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' May be said in reply. ');">³⁵</span> Women who do not cause one another to be forbidden by their cohabitation<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' With one another's husbands. The husband is not forbidden to his wife if cohabitation occurred between him and another woman. ');">³⁶</span>

מתני׳ <big><strong>ארבעה</strong></big> אחין שנים מהם נשואים שתי אחיות ומתו הנשואים את האחיות הרי אלו חולצות ולא מתייבמות ואם קדמו וכנסו יוציאו רבי אליעזר אומר ב"ש אומרים יקיים וב"ה אומרי' יוציאו

do not particularly mind one another;<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' V. note 8. ');">³⁷</span> men, however, who do cause one another to be forbidden by their cohabitation<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' With one another's wives. The wife of one with whom the other cohabited is forbidden to her husband. ');">³⁸</span> do mind one another.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' And suspicion that any intimate intercourse might take place would, therefore, be groundless. ');">³⁴</span>

היתה אחת מהן אסור' על האחד איסור ערוה אסור בה ומותר באחות' והשני אסור בשתיהן

If so,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' That men are watchful of one another, and that consequently there is no ground for suspicion. ');">³⁹</span> [the same law<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Permitting the marriage of any of the women in question. ');">⁴⁰</span> should] also [apply to] one's father!<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Why, then, does our Mishnah mention sons and brothers only? ');">⁴¹</span>

איסור מצוה ואיסור קדושה חולצת ולא מתייבמת

-The meaning is, 'There is no need',<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Lit., 'it is not required he said'. ');">⁴²</span> [thus]: There is no need [to state that the law<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Permitting the marriage of any of the women in question. ');">⁴⁰</span> is applicable to] one's father before whom a son is shy;<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' And would not venture to be too intimate with his wife. ');">⁴³</span>

היתה אחת מהן אסורה על זה איסור ערוה והשניה אסורה על זה איסור ערוה האסורה לזה מותרת לזה והאסורה לזה מותרת לזה

but [in the case of] one's son<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Or brother. ');">⁴⁴</span> before whom a father<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Or brother. ');">⁴⁴</span> is not shy it might have been assumed [that this law was] not [to be applied], hence we were informed [that the same law was applicable to a son also].

וזו היא שאמרו אחותה כשהיא יבמתה או חולצת או מתייבמת:

<b><i>MISHNAH</i></b>. [IN THE CASE OF] FOUR BROTHERS, TWO OF WHOM WERE MARRIED TO TWO SISTERS, IF THOSE WHO WERE MARRIED TO THE SISTERS DIED, BEHOLD. THESE<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' The sisters. ');">⁴⁵</span> MUST PERFORM <i>HALIZAH</i> BUT MAY NOT BE TAKEN IN LEVIRATE MARRIAGE [BY THE BROTHERS].<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' The reason is explained in the Gemara, infra. ');">⁴⁶</span> IF THEY HAD ALREADY<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Lit., 'anticipated' (the ruling of the court). ');">⁴⁷</span>

<big><strong>גמ׳</strong></big> ש"מ יש זיקה דאי אין זיקה מכדי הני מתרי בתי קאתיין האי לייבם חדא והאי לייבם חדא

MARRIED THEM, THEY MUST DISMISS THEM. R. ELIEZER SAID: BETH SHAMMAI HOLD THAT THEY MAY RETAIN THEM, AND BETH HILLEL HOLD THAT THEY MUST DISMISS THEM. IF ONE OF THE SISTERS<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' In the case mentioned in the first paragraph of our Mishnah. ');">⁴⁸</span> WAS FORBIDDEN TO ONE [OF THE BROTHERS] UNDER THE PROHIBITION OF INCEST,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' E.g., as a mother-in-law. ');">⁴⁹</span>

לעולם אימא לך אין זיקה ומשום דקסבר אסור לבטל מצות יבמין דלמא אדמייבם חד מיית אידך וקמבטל מצות יבמין

HE IS FORBIDDEN TO MARRY HER BUT MAY MARRY HER SISTER,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Who is not forbidden on account of her rival since the latter is biblically forbidden to the levir and cannot be regarded as his zekukah (v. Glos.). ');">⁵⁰</span> WHILE TO THE SECOND BROTHER BOTH ARE FORBIDDEN. [IF ONE SISTER]<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' In the case mentioned in the first paragraph of our Mishnah. ');">⁴⁸</span>

אי הכי תלתא נמי

WAS FORBIDDEN BY VIRTUE OF A COMMANDMENT<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' The term is used in the Mishnah supra 20a and discussed in the Gemara loc. cit. ');">⁵¹</span> OR BY VIRTUE OF HOLINESS<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' The term is used in the Mishnah supra 20a and discussed in the Gemara loc. cit. ');">⁵¹</span> SHE MUST PERFORM THE <i>HALIZAH</i> BUT MAY NOT BE TAKEN IN LEVIRATE MARRIAGE.

לא מיבעיא קאמרינן לא מיבעיא תלתא דודאי בטלה מצות יבמין אבל ד' למיתה לא חיישינן קמ"ל

IF ONE OF THE SISTERS<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' In the case mentioned in the first paragraph of our Mishnah. ');">⁴⁸</span> WAS FORBIDDEN TO ONE BROTHER UNDER THE LAW OF INCEST AND THE OTHER SISTER WAS FORBIDDEN TO THE OTHER UNDER THE LAW OF INCEST, SHE WHO IS FORBIDDEN TO THE ONE IS PERMITTED TO THE OTHER AND SHE WHO IS FORBIDDEN TO THE OTHER IS PERMITTED TO THE FIRST. THIS IS THE CASE CONCERNING WHICH IT HAS BEEN SAID: WHEN HER SISTER IS HER SISTER-IN-LAW<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' The wife of her husband's brother. ');">⁵²</span> SHE MAY EITHER PERFORM <i>HALIZAH</i> OR BE TAKEN IN LEVIRATE MARRIAGE.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' V. supra 20a. Cf. supra p. 162, n. 6. ');">⁵³</span>

אי הכי

<b><i>GEMARA</i></b>. This then<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' The first clause of our Mishnah. ');">⁵⁴</span> implies that a levirate bond exists;<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Between the widow of a deceased childless brother and his surviving brothers, in consequence of which each widow being a zekukah (v. Glos.), is forbidden as the sister of a zekukah. ');">⁵⁵</span> for if no levirate bond exists, observe this point: These widows come from two different houses,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' They are the widows of two different husbands and neither of them stands in any marital relationship with any of the surviving brothers (v. previous note). ');">⁵⁶</span> let one brother take in levirate marriage the one and the other brother the other!<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' A levirate bond then obviously does exist. That being so, why has the question of the existence of a levirate bond remained a matter of dispute in Ned. 742 and supra 17b? ');">⁵⁷</span> — As a matter of fact it may still be assumed that no levirate bond exists<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Between the widow of a deceased childless brother and his surviving brothers, in consequence of which each widow being a zekukah (v. Glos.), is forbidden as the sister of a zekukah. ');">⁵⁵</span> [but the levirate marriage is nevertheless forbidden] because he<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' The author of our Mishnah. ');">⁵⁸</span> is of the opinion that it is forbidden to annul the precept of levirate marriage, 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 thus be prevented from marrying the other widow. ');">⁵⁹</span> and the precept of levirate marriage would be annulled.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Because the surviving brother would then not be able either to marry, or to participate in the halizah with the second widow who by that time will have become his wife's sister. If, however, halizah only is performed with one brother and the death of the other should occur before the second widow had performed halizah with him, no difficulty would arise, since the first brother may then participate in the halizah of the second also. ');">⁶⁰</span> If so,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' That the reason for the prohibition of the levirate marriage with the widowed sisters is not the existence of a levirate bond but the endeavour to prevent the annulment of the precept of levirate marriage. ');">⁶¹</span> [the same applies to] three [brothers] also!<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' If two of them died childless and both their widows become subject to the levirate marriage or halizah of the third. In this case too the third brother must only participate in halizah; for, should he marry one of the sisters, the other would be forbidden, as the sister of his wife, either to marry him or to perform halizah with him. ');">⁶²</span> — This may be regarded as the case of 'There is no need etc.';<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Lit., 'it is not required, do we say'. ');">⁶³</span> thus: There is no need to state three,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' That where one of three brothers survived, no levirate marriage must take place. ');">⁶⁴</span> since the precept of levirate marriage would inevitably have to be annulled;<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Were he to marry one of the widows. Cf. supra p. 162, n. 8. ');">⁶⁵</span> but [in the case of] four<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Brothers, two of whom survived. ');">⁶⁶</span> [it might have been assumed that] one need not take precautions against [possible] death,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' And that consequently one brother should marry one of the widows and the other brother the other. ');">⁶⁷</span> hence we were informed [that even in such a case levirate marriage is forbidden].<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Because provision must always be made against possible death. ');">⁶⁸</span> If so,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' v. previous note. ');">⁶⁹</span>