Yevamot 55

לכתחלה קתני ולימא ליה גזירה דלמא קדים וחליץ לראשונה ברישא ולא מתייבמות קתני דליכא דין יבום הכא כלל

is an instruction as to what it is the proper thing to do.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' And not as to what is to be done in certain eventualities. Lit., 'for as at the beginning, it was taught'. ');">¹</span> Let him reply that it<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' The provision that both widows are to perform halizah and that none may be taken in levirate marriage. ');">²</span> was a preventive measure against the possibility of the levir's participating first in the <i>halizah</i> of the first!<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' And then he would marry the second, in his erroneous assumption that, as he may participate in the halizah of the second and marry the first, so he may participate in the halizah of the first and marry the second. This, however, does not imply that if he already did participate in the halizah of the second he may not, after her death, marry the first. In this latter case the reason for the marriage with the first would be obvious and would leave no room for erroneous conclusions. ');">³</span>

ולימא ליה גזירה שמא ימות ואסור לבטל מצות יבמין ר' יוחנן למיתה לא חייש

— It was stated, BUT MAY NOT BE TAKEN IN LEVIRATE MARRIAGE, i.e., the law of the levirate marriage is not applicable here at all.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Even if halizah was first performed by the second. ');">⁴</span> Let him, then, reply that it<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' The provision in our Mishnah that both widows must perform halizah and none of them may be taken in levirate marriage. ');">⁵</span> was a preventive measure in case he<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' One of the surviving brothers who intended to marry one of the widowed sisters. ');">⁶</span>

ולימא ליה רבי אלעזר היא דאמר כיון שעמדה עליו שעה אחת באיסור נאסרה עליו עולמית מדסיפא ר' אלעזר רישא לאו רבי אלעזר

might die,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' After the second brother had married the second widow and had thus become disqualified from marrying or participating in the halizah of the other — who is now forbidden to him as the sister of his wife. ');">⁷</span> it being forbidden to annul the precept of levirate marriage!<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' And this only is the reason for the prohibition of the levirate marriage with either of the sisters. Had this prohibition been due to the levirate bond, as suggested, the first would certainly have been permitted to marry the levir after halizah with the second, which had severed the levirate bond, had taken place. Consequently, in the case discussed by R. Johanan, where the second died, and the preventive measure is not applicable. the first may indeed be taken in levirate marriage! ');">⁸</span> — R. Johanan makes no provision against possible death.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' The ruling in our Mishnah could not, therefore, be due to a preventive measure. ');">⁹</span>

ונימא להו דנפול בבת אחת ורבי יוסי הגלילי היא דאמר אפשר לצמצם לא סתם לן תנא כר' יוסי הגלילי

Then let him reply that it<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' The provision in our Mishnah that both widows must perform halizah and none of them may be taken in levirate marriage. ');">⁵</span> is the ruling of R. Eleazar<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' BaH a.l. reads, 'Eliezer' throughout the context. ');">¹⁰</span> who said that so long as she remained forbidden to him for one moment she is forbidden to him for ever!<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Infra 1092; while R. Johanan, agreeing with the Rabbis, may disregard this individual opinion. ');">¹¹</span>

ולימא ליה דלא ידעינן הי נפול ברישא

— Since the latter clause [represents the view of] R. Eleazar,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' His authorship being specifically stated there. ');">¹²</span> the first clause cannot represent his view. Then let him reply that it<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' V. note 2, supra ');">¹³</span> is a case where they<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Both sisters. ');">¹⁴</span>

אי הכי היינו דקתני קדמו וכנסו יוציאו בשלמא ראשונה אמרינן ליה מאן שריא לך אלא שניה אמר חבראי שניה ייבם אנא ראשונה מייבם

fell under the obligation<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Of the levirate marriage. ');">¹⁵</span> at the same time, and that it represents the opinion of R. Jose the Galilean who maintains that it is possible to ascertain simultaneity!<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' supra 19a, Bek. 92a ');">¹⁶</span> — The Tanna would not have recorded an anonymous Mishnah in agreement with the view of R. Jose the Galilean. Let him reply [that it<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' V. note 2, supra ');">¹³</span>

היינו דקאמר ליה אחיות איני יודע מי שנאן:

is a case] where it is not known which<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Of the two widowed sisters. ');">¹⁷</span> came under the obligation<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Of the levirate marriage. ');">¹⁵</span> first!<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' So that there is no known 'second' widow with whom to participate in the halizah ');">¹⁸</span>

תנן היתה אחת מהן אסורה על האחד איסור ערוה אסור בה ומותר באחותה והשני אסור בשתיהן ס"ד דנפלה חמותו תחלה

— If that were the case<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' That the prohibition in our Mishnah to marry the two widowed sisters is entirely due to the fact that it is not known which of them was the first to become a widow and which was second; and that, had the fact been known, the first would have been permitted to be taken in the levirate marriage. ');">¹⁹</span> how could it have been stated,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Lit., '(is it) that why it was stated'! ');">²⁰</span> EVEN IF THEY HAD ALREADY MARRIED THEM THEY MUST DISMISS THEM! In the case of the first,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' I.e., the levir who married first, Cf. BaH a.l. Cur. edd. read, [H] for [H] ');">²¹</span>

ואמאי ליקו חתן לייבם הך דאינה חמותו ברישא ותהוי חמותו לגבי אידך כיבמה שהותרה ונאסרה וחזרה והותרה תחזור להיתרה הראשון

at least, one can understand [the reason].<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Why the woman must be dismissed. ');">²²</span> since he can be told, 'Who permitted her to you'?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Before the marital bond between him and her sister was severed she was forbidden to him as the sister of his zekukah. Hence he must rightly dismiss her. ');">²³</span> In the case, however, of the second,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Levir (v. BaH) who married after his brother had married one of the widows. Cur. edd. [H] for [H]. ');">²⁴</span>

א"ר פפא כגון דנפלה הך דאינה חמותו ברישא:

the levir<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' When he is ordered to divorce the woman. ');">²⁵</span> could surely claim, 'My friend<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' The levir who married first. ');">²⁶</span> has taken the second in levirate marriage<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' I.e., the sister who became widow second; and naturally no one could disprove his contention. ');">²⁷</span>

ר"א אומר בש"א וכו': תניא ר"א אומר ב"ש אומרים יקיימו ובה"א יוציאו רש"א יקיימו אבא שאול אומר קל היה להם לב"ה בדבר זה שבית שמאי אומרים יוציאו ובה"א יקיימו

and I take the first '<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Who became permitted to him owing to the previous marriage of her sister who, he claims, was the second widow. The marriage of the second severs the marital bond between the sister and the levirs, and thus liberates the first from the prohibition of 'the sister of one's zekukah' and brings her under the category of 'permitted, forbidden and permitted again'. ');">²⁸</span> This, then,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Since this last suggested answer is also untenable. ');">²⁹</span> is the reason why he<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' R. Johanan, supra 27b. ');">³⁰</span>

ר"ש כמאן אי כב"ש היינו ר"א אי כב"ה היינו אבא שאול ה"ק לא נחלקו ב"ש וב"ה בדבר זה:

said to him,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' R. Jose. ');">³¹</span> 'I do not know who was the author of the statement concerning the sisters'.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Cf. supra p. 170. n. 3' ');">³²</span> We learned: IF ONE OF THE SISTERS WAS FORBIDDEN TO ONE [OF THE BROTHERS] UNDER THE PROHIBITION OF INCEST,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' If she was, for instance, his mother-in-law. ');">³³</span>

היתה אחת מהם כו': הא תנינא חדא זימנא אחותה כשהיא יבמתה או חולצת או מתייבמת

HE IS FORBIDDEN TO MARRY HER BUT MAY MARRY HER SISTER, WHILE TO THE SECOND BROTHER BOTH ARE FORBIDDEN. It was now assumed that his mother-in-law<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' V. previous note. 'Mother-in-law' is taken as an instance of any forbidden relative. ');">³⁴</span> came under the obligation<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Of the levirate marriage. ');">³⁵</span> first.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' I.e., her husband died before the other brother. ');">³⁶</span>

צריכא דאי אשמועינן התם משום דליכא למיגזר משום שני אבל הכא דאיכא למיגזר משום שני אימא לא

Now, why [should both sisters be forbidden]?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' To marry the other levir. ');">³⁷</span> Let the son-in-law undertake the duty of marrying first that sister who is not his mother-in-law,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' That widow is permitted to him, because she is neither his forbidden relative nor the sister of his zekukah, since a forbidden relative is not a zekukah. ');">³⁸</span> and his mother-in-law, in relation to the other levir, would thereby come into the same category as a sister-in-law that was permitted,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Since at the time she became subject to the levirate marriage she was not the sister of a zekukah. ');">³⁹</span>

ואי אשמועינן הכא משום דאיכא שני דקא מוכח אבל התם דליכא שני אימא לא צריכא:

then forbidden,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' When her sister became the zekukah of the surviving levirs by the death of her husband. ');">⁴⁰</span> and then permitted again,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' 'When his brother had contracted with her the levirate marriage. ');">⁴¹</span> who returns to her former state of permissibility! R. Papa replied: [They are forbidden] in a case where she who was not his mother-in-law came under the obligation<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Of the Ievirate marriage. ');">⁴²</span>

איסור מצוה כו': הא נמי תנינא

first.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' So that his mother-in-law who came under the obligation next was never for one moment permitted even to the other levir. ');">⁴³</span> R. ELIEZER SAID: BETH SHAMMAI HOLD etc. The following was taught: R. Eliezer said: Beth Shammai hold that they may retain them, and Beth Hillel hold that they must dismiss them. R. Simeon said: They may retain them. Abba Saul said: Beth Hillel uphold in this matter the milder rule, for it was Beth Shammai who said that the women must be dismissed while Beth Hillel said they may be retained.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Tosef. v. ');">⁴⁴</span> Whose view does R. Simeon represent?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Lit., 'R. Simeon like whom'. He could not possibly advance a view of his own, since he is not sufficiently great to disagree either with Beth Shammai or with Beth Hillel. ');">⁴⁵</span> If that of Beth Shammai,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' I.e., if he maintains that what he said was their view. ');">⁴⁶</span> he is merely repeating R. Eliezer; if that of Beth Hillel,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' I.e., if he maintains that what he said was their view. ');">⁴⁶</span> he is repeating Abba Saul! It was this that he meant: In this matter there is no dispute at all between Beth Shammai and Beth Hillel. IF ONE OF THE SISTERS etc. But we have learned this already: When her sister is her sister-in-law she may either perform <i>halizah</i> or be taken in levirate marriage!<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Supra 20a, which Implies the law here stated, viz, that he is forbidden to marry the forbidden relative but may marry her sister. ');">⁴⁷</span> — [Both are] necessary. For had the law been stated there<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' And not here. ');">⁴⁸</span> it might have been assumed [to apply to that case alone],<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Where one brother only is involved. ');">⁴⁹</span> because there is no need to enact a preventive measure against a second brother,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Who might marry a sister of his zekukah by mistaking the reason for the levirate marriage of his brother. ');">⁵⁰</span> but not [to the case] here where it might be advisable to issue a preventive measure against a second brother.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Who might marry a sister of his zekukah by mistaking the reason for the levirate marriage of his brother. ');">⁵⁰</span> And had the law been stated here,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' And not there. ');">⁵¹</span> it might have been assumed [to apply to this case alone] because there is a second brother who proves it<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' That there is a special reason why his brother may marry one of the sisters. The fact that he himself does not marry either of the sisters is sufficient proof that the sister of a zekukah is forbidden. ');">⁵²</span> but not [to that case] where no second brother exists.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' And people might erroneously infer that the sister of a zekukah is always permitted. ');">⁵³</span> [Hence were both] required. BY VIRTUE OF A COMMANDMENT etc. But we have [already] learned this also: