Yevamot 57

והא א"ר שמעון שתי אחיות לא חולצות ולא מתייבמות

But did not R. Simeon state that two sisters<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Who are both subject to Ievirate marriage. ');">¹</span> are neither to perform the <i>halizah</i> nor to be taken in levirate marriage!<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Owing to the levirate bond which Pentateuchally binds both sisters to the levir. Why, then, should halizah be performed here where Pentateuchally both sisters are subject to the levirate marriage and each is, consequently, forbidden as the sister of a zekukah? ');">²</span> — This<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' The provision that halizah shall be performed. ');">³</span>

גזירה משום איסור מצוה דעלמא

is a preventive measure against any other case where the prohibition is due to a commandment — 4 This is a satisfactory explanation in respect of herself;<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' The sister forbidden by a commandment. ');">⁵</span> what, however, can be said in respect of her sister?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Why is she not exempt from the halizah as the sister of a zekukah? ');">⁶</span> -The provision was made in the case of her sister as a preventive measure against herself.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' [H] or [H] 'ill-luck [H] 'her ill-luck'. Others render, 'company'. As the sister who is forbidden by a commandment is subject to halizah (as a preventive measure, for the reason previously stated) so must her sister (so that one case be not mistaken for the other) be also subject to the same measure. ');">⁷</span>

הא תינח איהי אחותה מאי איכא למימר גזירה אחותה משום לתא דידה

But, surely. no such preventive measures were made in the case where one was forbidden as incest!<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' V. our Mishnah: HE IS FORBIDDEN TO MARRY HER BUT IS PERMITTED TO MARRY HER SISTER, and no preventive measure against the sister was enacted. ');">⁸</span> — A case of incest is different because people are well acquainted with it<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' And would know that one sister was forbidden because of incest. ');">⁹</span> and it<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' The cause why the second sister is taken in levirate marriage. ');">¹⁰</span>

והא גבי ערוה לא גזרינן שאני ערוה דמגמר גמירי לה אינשי וקלא אית לה:

is well known.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Lit., 'it has a voice'. And no one would in consequence permit elsewhere the marriage of the sister of another zekukah who is not forbidden by the laws of incest. ');">¹¹</span> <b><i>MISHNAH</i></b>. IF TWO OF THREE BROTHERS WERE MARRIED TO TWO SISTERS AND THE THIRD WAS UNMARRIED,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' [H] 'empty'. ');">¹²</span> AND WHEN ONE OF THE SISTERS HUSBANDS DIED, THE UNMARRIED BROTHER ADDRESSED TO HER<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' The widow. ');">¹³</span>

<big><strong>מתני׳</strong></big> שלשה אחין שנים נשואים שתי אחיות ואחד מופנה מת אחד מבעלי אחיות ועשה בה מופנה מאמר ואח"כ מת אחיו השני

A MA'AMAR,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' V. Glos. ');">¹⁴</span> AND THEN HIS SECOND BROTHER DIED, BETH SHAMMAI SAY: HIS WIFE<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' The sister-in-law to whom he addressed the ma'amar though he had not actually married her. A ma'amar, according to Beth Shammai, constitutes legal marriage in this respect. V. infra. ');">¹⁵</span> [REMAINS] WITH HIM WHILE THE OTHER IS EXEMPT<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' From levirate marriage and halizah. ');">¹⁶</span>

בש"א אשתו עמו והלזו תצא משום אחות אשה וב"ה אומרים מוציא את אשתו בגט ובחליצה ואשת אחיו בחליצה זו היא שאמרו אוי לו על אשתו ואוי לו על אשת אחיו:

AS BEING HIS WIFE'S SISTER.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Since her sister is regarded as legally married she is no more the sister of the levir's zekukah but of his wife. ');">¹⁷</span> BETH HILLEL, HOWEVER, MAINTAIN THAT HE MUST DISMISS HIS WIFE<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Cf. supra n. 4. ');">¹⁸</span> BY A LETTER OF DIVORCE<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Since the ma'amar is partially regarded as marriage. ');">¹⁹</span>

<big><strong>גמ׳</strong></big> זו היא למעוטי מאי למעוטי הך דר' יהושע דלא עבדינן כוותיה אלא אי כר"ג אי כר"א

AND BY <i>HALIZAH</i>,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' A ma'amar, according to Beth Hillel, does not constitute a proper marriage, and she is now the sister of a zekukah. V. following note. ');">²⁰</span> AND HIS BROTHER'S WIFE BY <i>HALIZAH</i>.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' v. previous note. As the ma'amar did not constitute a proper marriage with her sister she is the sister of a zekukah who may not contract levirate marriage but must perform halizah. ');">²¹</span> THIS IS THE CASE IN REGARD TO WHICH IT WAS SAID: WOE TO HIM BECAUSE OF HIS WIFE, AND WOE TO HIM BECAUSE OF HIS BROTHER'S WIFE.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' V. infra 109a. The second widow who becomes subject to him through the levirate law is not only herself forbidden to marry him (cf. note 10) but deprives him also of the first widow, his virtual wife. (Cf. note 9)- ');">²²</span>

א"ר אלעזר לא תימא מאמר לב"ש קונה קנין גמור דאי בעי לאפוקי סגי לה בגיטא אלא מאמר לב"ש אינו קונה אלא לדחות בצרה בלבד

<b><i>GEMARA</i></b>. What was THIS IS meant to exclude?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' THIS IS implying this but not other cases. ');">²³</span> — To exclude the statement<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Lit., 'that'. ');">²⁴</span> of R. Joshua,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Infra 109a. ');">²⁵</span>

אמר רבי אבין אף אנן נמי תנינא בש"א יקיימו יקיימו אין לכתחלה לא

[and to indicate] that we do not act In accordance with his view but either in accordance with that of R. Gamaliel or that of R. Eliezer. R. Eleazar said: It must not be assumed that a <i>ma'amar</i> according to Beth Shammai constitutes a perfect <i>kinyan</i>,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' V. Glos., i.e., perfect marriage. ');">²⁶</span> so that, if he<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' The levir. ');">²⁷</span> wishes to dismiss her, a letter of divorce is sufficient; but rather that, according to Beth Shammai, a <i>ma'amar</i> constitutes a <i>kinyan</i> only so far as to keep out the rival.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' I.e., her rival who is her sister does not cause her to be forbidden to the levir as the 'sister of a zekukah'. ');">²⁸</span> Said R. Abin: We also have learned the same thing: Beth Shammai said, 'They may retain them',<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Supra 26a, in the case where the levirs married the sisters-in-law before consulting the Beth din as to the permissibility of their action. ');">²⁹</span> which implies that they may only retain them<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' If they had already married them. ');">³⁰</span> but [that they may] not [marry them] at the outset.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Because each one is the sister of a zekukah. Lit., 'they may retain, yes; for as at the start, not'. ');">³¹</span>