Yevamot 56

איסור מצוה ואיסור קדושה חולצת ולא מתייבמת התם איסור מצוה לחודה הכא איסור מצוה ואחותה

If she is forbidden by virtue of a commandment or by virtue of holiness she must perform <i>halizah</i> and may not be taken in levirate marriage!<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Supra 202, Sanh. 532. ');">¹</span> -There<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Supra 202, Sanh. 532. ');">¹</span>

ס"ד אמינא ליקום איסור מצוה במקום איסור ערוה ותתייבם קמ"ל

it is a question of one forbidden by virtue of a commandment alone,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Only one sister-in-law being concerned. ');">²</span> but here [it is a case of one] forbidden by virtue of a commandment and [by virtue of] her sister.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Since two sisters, the widows of the two brothers, are here involved, and one of them is forbidden not only as the sister of his zekukah but also by virtue of a commandment. ');">³</span>

ותתייבם כיון דמדאורייתא רמיא קמיה קא פגע באחות זקוקתו סד"א משום מצוה עבוד רבנן קמ"ל:

Since it might have been assumed that the prohibition by virtue of a commandment shall take the same rank as the prohibition by the law of incest<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' As the one is not regarded as a zekukah so neither is the other. ');">⁴</span> and [her sister] should, therefore, be taken in levirate marriage, hence we were taught [that the law is not so].

היתה אחת מהן כו': הא תו ל"ל היינו הך מה לי לחד מה לי לתרי

But how could she<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' The sister of one forbidden by virtue of a commandment. ');">⁵</span> possibly be taken in levirate marriage? Since Pentateuchally she<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' The sister-in-law forbidden by virtue of a commandment. ');">⁶</span>

צריכא דאי אשמועינן התם משום דאיכא שני דמוכח אבל הכא דליכא שני דקא מוכח אימא לא

is to submit to him,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' To levirate marriage; her prohibition being only Rabbinical. ');">⁷</span> he would come in contact with the sister of his zekukah<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Which cannot obviously be permitted. What need, then. was there for a law that is so obvious. ');">⁸</span>

ואי אשמועינן הכא אדרבה תרווייהו מוכחי אהדדי אבל אידך לא צריכא:

-It might have been thought that such provision<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' The permission to marry the sister of his zekukah. ');">⁹</span> was made by the Rabbis for the sake of the precept,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Of the levirate marriage. In order that this precept may be fulfilled they may have removed the prohibition of the marital bond, which is only Rabbinical, in cases where the woman is not forbidden by the law of incest but by virtue of a commandment only. ');">¹⁰</span>

זו היא שאמרו וכו': זו היא למעוטי מאי למעוטי איסור מצוה לזה ואיסור מצוה לזה

hence we were taught [that it was not so]. IF ONE OF THE SISTERS etc. What need was there again for this statement? Surely, it is precisely identical [with the one before]!<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Where one sister-in-law is similarly forbidden to one levir, and he is permitted to marry her sister. ');">¹¹</span>

הא תו ל"ל היינו הך מה לי לחד מה לי לתרי

For what difference is there whether [a woman is forbidden] to one or to two? — [Both are] required. For had the former only<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Lit., 'there'. ');">¹²</span> been stated, it might have been assumed [that the law was applicable there only] because there exists a second brother to indicate the cause,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Since one brother is forbidden to marry either sister it will be obvious that the brother was permitted to marry one of the sisters for a special reason. ');">¹³</span>

מהו דתימא כי לא אמרינן אוקי איסור מצוה במקום איסור ערוה היכא דאיכא למיגזר משום שני אבל היכא דליכא למיגזר משום שני אימא להאי אוקימנא איסור מצוה במקום איסור ערוה ולהאי [אוקימנא] איסור מצוה במקום איסור ערוה ולייבמו קמ"ל

but not here where there is no second brother to indicate it.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Since both brothers marry respectively the two sisters, it might be assumed that any levir may marry the sister of his zekukah. ');">¹⁴</span> And if the statement had been made here only it might have been assumed on the contrary that both brothers afford proof in regard to each other,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Since each brother is permitted to marry only one particular sister and not the other, it is obvious that the other is forbidden to him. The law of zekukah could not consequently be mistaken. ');">¹⁵</span>

אמר רב יהודה אמר רב וכן תני ר' חייא בכולן אני קורא בהן האסורה לזה מותרת לזה ואחותה כשהיא יבמתה או חולצת או מתייבמת

but not in the other case;<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Where there is only one brother, and no other brother to indicate that there is a special reason why the sister of his apparent zekukah. should be permitted to be taken in Ievirate marriage. ');">¹⁶</span> [hence both were] required.

ורב יהודה מתרגם מחמותו ואילך אבל שיתא בבי דרישא לא

THIS IS THE CASE CONCERNING WHICH IT HAS BEEN SAID etc. What is the expression, THIS IS intended to exclude?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' THIS IS implies this and no other. ');">¹⁷</span> -To exclude the case [where one sister was forbidden by] Virtue of a commandment to the one [brother]. and [the other sister was forbidden] by virtue of a commandment to the other. But what need was there for this [additional statement]? Surely it is precisely identical [with that mentioned before];<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' In our Mishnah: [IF ONE SISTER] WAS FORBIDDEN BY VIRTUE OF A COMMANDMENT … SHE MUST PERFORM THE HALIZAH AND MAY NOT BE TAKEN IN LEVIRATE MARRIAGE. ');">¹⁸</span>

מ"ט כיון דבתו באונסין הוא דמשכחת לה בנשואין לא משכחת לה

for what difference is there whether it relates to one or to two! — It might have been thought that only where there is the necessity of providing for a preventive measure against a second brother do we not say that the prohibition by a commandment takes the same rank as a prohibition by the law of incest,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' V. supra p. 174. n. 6. ');">¹⁹</span> but that where there is no necessity to provide against a second brother we do say that in the case of the one brother the prohibition by a commandment is to be given the same force as the prohibition by the law of incest, and that also in the case of the other brother the prohibition by a commandment is to be given the same force as the prohibition by the law of incest, and that the sisters may consequently be taken in levirate marriage; hence we were taught [that such an assumption is not to be made].

בנשואין קמיירי באונסין לא קא מיירי

Rab Judah said in the name of Rab and so did R. Hiyya teach: In the case of all these<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' The fifteen forbidden categories enumerated in the Mishnah, supra 2af. ');">²⁰</span> it may happen that she who is forbidden to one brother<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' As a forbidden relative under the law of incest. ');">²¹</span>

ואביי מתרגם אף בתו (באה) מאנוסתו כיון דאשכוחי משכחת לה אי בעיא באונסין תיהוי אי בעיא בנשואין תהוי אבל אשת אחיו שלא היה בעולמו לא כיון דאליבא דר"ש הוא דמשכחת לה אליבא דרבנן לא משכחת לה בפלוגתא לא קמיירי

may be permitted to the other,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' With whom she is not so closely related. ');">²²</span> and that her sister who is her sister-in-law may either perform the <i>halizah</i> or be taken in the levirate marriage;<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' The prohibition of the one under the law of incest removes the marital bond, and her sister who, in consequence, is no longer the 'sister of a zekukah', may, therefore, be married to, or perform the halizah with the levir to whom the former is forbidden. ');">²³</span>

ורב ספרא מתרגם אף אשת אחיו שלא היה בעולמו ומשכחת לה בשיתא אחי ואליבא דר"ש וסימניך מת נולד וייבם מת נולד וייבם

and Rab Judah interpreted it<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Rab's statement. ');">²⁴</span> [as referring to those]<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Of the fifteen relatives enumerated in the Mishnah mentioned. ');">²⁵</span>

ראובן ושמעון נשואין שתי אחיות לוי ויהודה נשואין שתי נכריות מת ראובן נולד יששכר וייבם לוי מת שמעון נולד זבולן וייבם יהודה מתו לוי ויהודה בלא בנים ונפלו להו קמי יששכר וזבולן

from one's mother-in-law onward but not to the first six categories. What is the reason? Because this<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' That two sisters shall be the daughters of two brothers, and that the one forbidden to one brother shall be permitted to the other brother. V. n. 8. ');">²⁶</span> is only possible in the case of a daughter born from a woman who had been outraged.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' If, of four brothers, A, B, C and D, A had a daughter from a woman he had outraged. and B had a daughter from the same woman whom he outraged after A, and these daughters of A and B, who are maternal sisters, married their father's brothers, C and D, who subsequently died without issue, A's daughter is permitted to B (who is her brother-in-law but otherwise a complete stranger) and is forbidden to A her father. For similar reasons A's daughter is permitted to A and forbidden to B. Thus it is possible for two sisters to marry the two levirs respectively because each one of them is a daughter of the other levir to whom she is forbidden by the law of incest. ');">²⁷</span>

האסורה לזה מותרת לזה והאסורה לזה מותרת לזה ואחותה שהיא יבמתה

but not in that of a daughter born from a legal marriage.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Since the mother of such a daughter would be forbidden to marry her husband's brother, even though she had been divorced by her husband after the birth of that daughter. ');">²⁸</span> [and the author of that Mishnah]<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Supra 2a, which is now under discussion. ');">²⁹</span>

ל"ל ייבם יהודה בלא ייבם יהודה נמי משכחת לה

deals only with cases of legal matrimony and not with those of outraged women.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' And since the case of a daughter could not be included (v. supra nn. 8 and 9), the other five cases which also bear on a daughter had equally to be excluded. ');">³⁰</span> Abaye, however, interprets it<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Rab's statement. ');">²⁴</span>

משום צרה הא תינח צרה צרה דצרה מאי איכא למימר

as referring also to a daughter from a woman that had been outraged. because, since [the application of Rab's statement]<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' V. supra p. 176. n. 7. ');">³¹</span> is quite possible in her case, it matters not whether she was born from a woman who was legally married or from one that had been outraged; but not to the 'wife of a brother who was not his contemporary' since this<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' V. supra p. 176. n. 7. ');">³¹</span>

כגון דהדר ויבמינהו נמי גד ואשר:

is possible only according to the view of R. Simeon<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Supra 18b. V. also R. Safra's interpretation and notes, Infra. ');">³²</span> and not according to that of the Rabbis and he<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Rab or R. Hiyya. ');">³³</span>

<big><strong>מתני׳</strong></big> שלשה 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

does not deal with any matter which is a subject of controversy. But R. Safra interprets [it<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Rab's statement. ');">³⁴</span> as referring] also to the 'wife of a brother who was not his contemporary', and this<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Rab's statement. ');">³⁴</span>

היתה אחת מהן אסורה עליו איסור ערוה אסור בה ומותר באחותה איסור מצוה או איסור קדושה חולצות ולא מתייבמות:

is possible in the case of six brothers in accordance with the view of R. Simeon.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Who in certain circumstances permits the marriage of the 'widow of a brother who was not his contemporary'. V. supra 18b. ');">³⁵</span> And your mnemonic is, 'died, born, and performed the levirate marriage; died, born, and performed the levirate marriage'.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' v. infra, when (a) death, (b) birth and (c) marriage occurred in this order in the case of both groups of brothers. ');">³⁶</span>

<big><strong>גמ׳</strong></big> תניא ר"ש פוטר בשתיהן מן החליצה ומן הייבום שנאמר (ויקרא יח, יח) ואשה אל אחותה לא תקח לצרור בשעה שנעשו צרות זו לזו לא יהא לך ליקוחין אפי' באחת מהן:

[Suppose. for instance]. Reuben and Simeon<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Jacob's sons, the sequence of whose births is known (v. Gen. XXIX, 32 - XXX, 20), are taken here as an illustration of the possibility of the application of Rab's statement in certain circumstances of birth, death and marriage. ');">³⁷</span> were married to two sisters, and Levi and Judah were married to two strangers. When Reuben died, Issachar was born and Levi took the widow in levirate marriage. When Simeon died, Zebulun was born and Judah took [the second widow] in levirate marriage. When Levi and Judah subsequently died without issue and their widows fell under the obligation of the levirate marriage before Issachar and Zebulun, she<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' The widow of Levi. ');">³⁸</span>

היתה אחת מהן כו': הא תו למה לי היינו הך

who is forbidden to the one<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' To Issachar, because he was born before the marriage of Levi had removed the levirate bond between Reuben's widow and the other brothers, and thus came under the prohibition of marrying 'the wife of his brother who was not his contemporary'. ');">³⁹</span> is permitted to the other<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' To Zebulun who was born after she had married Levi and the levirate bond between her and the other brothers had been removed. ');">⁴⁰</span>

לר"ש איצטריך סד"א הואיל ואמר ר"ש שתי אחיות לא חולצות ולא מתייבמות לגזור משום ב' אחיות דעלמא קמשמע לן:

while she<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' The wife of Judah. ');">⁴¹</span> who is forbidden to the other<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' To Zebulun, to whom the widow of Simeon stands in the same relation as the widow of Reuben to Issachar. (V. supra note 9). ');">⁴²</span>

איסור מצוה כו':

is permitted to the first.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Issachar who was Simeon's contemporary. ');">⁴³</span> In the example of 'her sister who is her sister-in-law',<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Supra. ');">⁴⁴</span> what need was there<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' In R. Safra's interpretation. ');">⁴⁵</span> for Judah to contract the levirate marriage? Even if Judah did not contract any levirate marriage it is also possible!<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' For one sister to be forbidden to one brother and permitted to the other, and vice versa. Suppose Reuben died, and then Issachar was born, and Levi married the widow; then Simeon died, Zebulun was born, and Levi died; and the widows of Simeon and Levi came under the obligation of the levirate marriage with Issachar and Zebulun. Levi's widow is forbidden to Issachar owing to the levirate bond originating from her first husband, Reuben, (v. supra p. 177, n. 9) and is permitted to Zebulun (v. p. 177, n. 10), while Simeon's widow is forbidden to Zebulun (v. p. 177, n. 12) and permitted to Issachar (v. p. 177. n. 13). Now, since the point may be illustrated by five brothers, why was it necessary to bring in six? ');">⁴⁶</span> — Owing to the rival.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' As the Mishnah under discussion (supra 2af) speaks of the rivals it was desired to give an illustration which may be applicable to rivals as well as to the forbidden relatives, and this could only be done by assuming that Judah married Simeon's widow. Had he not married her, the rival would have had to be not Judah's but Simeon's wife who would thus be forbidden to Zebulun not as 'rival' but as 'the wife of his brother who was not his contemporary'. ');">⁴⁷</span> This<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' The illustration with the six brothers. ');">⁴⁸</span> satisfactorily explains the case of the rival; what can be said, however, in respect of the rival's rival?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' How is it possible that one rival's rival shall be forbidden to one brother and permitted to the other while the other rival's rival should be forbidden to the other brother and permitted to the first? ');">⁴⁹</span> — If, for instance, Gad and Asher also subsequently married them.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' The first wives of Levi and Judah (the rivals of their second wives, the widows of Reuben and Simeon). If Gad who married, say. the widow of Judah, and Asher who married, say. the widow of Levi died subsequently without issue and were survived by their wives who are now subject to the levirate marriage with Issachar and Zebulun the surviving brothers, Gad's first wife, the rival of his second wife (the widow of Judah) who was the rival of Simeon's wife, is forbidden to Zebulun as the rival's rival of the wife of Simeon who was not his contemporary, but is permitted to Issachar. Similarly Asher's first wife is forbidden to Issachar and permitted to Zebulun. ');">⁵⁰</span> <b><i>MISHNAH</i></b>. IF TWO OF THREE BROTHERS WERE MARRIED TO TWO SISTERS, OR TO A WOMAN AND HER DAUGHTER, OR TO A WOMAN AND HER DAUGHTER'S DAUGHTER, OR TO A WOMAN AND HER SON'S DAUGHTER, BEHOLD, THESE<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' The women enumerated. ');">⁵¹</span> MUST<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' If their husbands, the two brothers, died without issue. ');">⁵²</span> PERFORM THE <i>HALIZAH</i><span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' With the third surviving brother. ');">⁵³</span> BUT MAY NOT BE TAKEN IN LEVIRATE MARRIAGE.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' By that brother; since both are related to him by the 'levirate bond' and each is forbidden to him as the consanguineous relative of the woman connected with him by such bond. ');">⁵⁴</span> R. SIMEON, HOWEVER, EXEMPTS THEM.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Even from the halizah. V. Gemara infra. ');">⁵⁵</span> IF ONE OF THEM<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' The sisters. ');">⁵⁶</span> WAS FORBIDDEN TO HIM BY THE LAW OF INCEST, HE IS FORBIDDEN TO MARRY HER BUT IS PERMITTED TO MARRY HER SISTER. IF, HOWEVER, THE PROHIBITION IS DUE TO A COMMANDMENT OR TO HOLINESS, THEY MUST PERFORM THE <i>HALIZAH</i> BUT MAY NOT BE TAKEN IN LEVIRATE MARRIAGE. <b><i>GEMARA</i></b>. It was taught: R. Simeon exempts both from the <i>halizah</i> and the levirate marriage. for it is said in the Scriptures, And thou shalt not take a woman to her sister, to be a rival to her:<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Lev. XVIII, 18. ');">⁵⁷</span> when they become rivals to one another,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' The Ievirate bond which subjects both to the same levir causing them to be rivals. ');">⁵⁸</span> you may not marry even one of them. IF ONE OF THEM WAS etc. What need was there again for this statement? Surely it is the same!<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' As that which had been taught in an earlier Mishnah in the case of four brothers, supra 26a. ');">⁵⁹</span> -It was necessary because of the opinion of R. Simeon: As it might have been assumed that, since R. Simeon had said that two sisters were neither to perform <i>halizah</i> nor to be taken in levirate marriage. A preventive measure should be enacted<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Forbidding levirate marriage even where the prohibition of one is due to the law of incest. ');">⁶⁰</span> against two sisters generally.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Lit., 'of the world'. If permission to marry one of the sisters were given where one is forbidden by the law of incest, it might be mistakenly concluded that levirate marriage is allowed even when none was forbidden by the law of incest. ');">⁶¹</span> hence we were taught<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' By the statement in our Mishnah that one IS PERMITTED TO MARRY HER SISTER. ');">⁶²</span> [that it was not so].<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' The similar statement in the earlier Mishnah (supra 262) does not prove this point as far as R. Simeon is concerned, since it refers to the view of the Rabbis according to whom the marriage of the sister of a zekukah is only Rabbinically forbidden and no preventive measure is obviously required against a possible infringement of such a prohibition. According to R. Simeon, however, who regards the marriage of a sister of a stekukab as incest, a preventive measure might have been expected had not our Mishnah proved the contrary. ');">⁶³</span> IF, HOWEVER, THE PROHIBITION IS DUE TO A COMMANDMENT etc.