Yevamot 58

ואי ס"ד מאמר לב"ש קונה קנין גמור זה יעשה מאמר ויקנה וזה יעשה מאמר ויקנה

Now, if it could be assumed that a <i>ma'amar</i>, according to Beth Shammai, constitutes a perfect <i>kinyan</i>, let the one levir address a <i>ma'amar</i><span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' To one of the sisters-in-law; since such an action is not forbidden. ');">¹</span> and constitute thereby a <i>kinyan</i>,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' v. Glos. i.e., perfect marriage. ');">²</span> and let the other also address a ma amar<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' To one of the sisters-in-law; since such an action is not forbidden. ');">¹</span> and thereby constitute a <i>kinyan</i>.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' The prohibition 'as sister of a zekukah' would consequently be removed and both levirs could properly marry the respective sisters-in-law. ');">³</span>

אלא מאי דוחה דחייה גמורה זה יעשה מאמר וידחה וזה יעשה מאמר וידחה

What then! [Is it your inference that] it<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' The ma'amar. ');">⁴</span> keeps the rival completely out?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' V. supra p. 181, n. 17. ');">⁵</span> Let then one levir address a <i>ma'amar</i><span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' To one of the sisters-in-law; since such an action is not forbidden. ');">¹</span> and keep her out<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' v. p. 181, n. 17. ');">⁶</span>

אלא מאי אית לך למימר מאמר דהתירא דחי דאיסורא לא דחי ה"נ מאמר אפילו למ"ד מאמר קונה קנין גמור מאמר דהתירא קני דאיסורא לא קני

and let the other levir also address a <i>ma'amar</i><span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' To one of the sisters-in-law; since such an action is not forbidden. ');">¹</span> and keep her out!<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' V. supra p. 181, n. 17, and supra n. 6. Why, then, was levirate marriage with the two sisters forbidden! ');">⁷</span> What, however, may be said in reply? That a permitted <i>ma'amar</i><span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' One addressed to a sister-in-law in a case where levirate marriage with her was permissible at the time. ');">⁸</span> does keep the rival out, while a forbidden <i>ma'amar</i><span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' When two sisters were subject to the levirate marriage before the ma'amar had been addressed. ');">⁹</span>

רב אשי מתני הכי אמר ר"א לא תימא מאמר לב"ש דחי דחייה גמורה וצרתה חליצה נמי לא בעיא אלא דוחה ומשייר הוא

does not keep her out; so also here, even according to him who maintains that a <i>ma'amar</i> constitutes a perfect <i>kinyan</i>, only a permitted <i>ma'amar</i><span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' V. note 11. ');">¹⁰</span> constitutes a <i>kinyan</i>. but a forbidden one<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' One addressed to a sister-in-law in a case where levirate marriage with her was permissible at the time. ');">⁸</span> does not. R. Ashi taught it<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' The previous statement of R. Eleazar and R. Abin etc. ');">¹¹</span>

א"ר אבין אף אנן נמי תנינא ב"ש אומרים יקיימו יקיימו אין לכתחלה לא ואי ס"ד מאמר לב"ש דוחה דחייה גמורה זה יעשה מאמר וידחה וזה יעשה מאמר וידחה ואלא הא קתני בש"א אשתו עמו והלזו תצא משום אחות אשה

in the following manner: R. Eleazar said: It must not be assumed that a <i>ma'amar</i>, according to Beth Shammai, keeps the rival<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' The sister-in-law who, like her sister (the other sister-in-law), is subject to the levirate bond. ');">¹²</span> completely out, and that she does not require even <i>halizah</i>; but rather it<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' The ma'amar. ');">¹³</span> keeps her out<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' So that she cannot cause the prohibition of the other to whom the ma'amar had been addressed. ');">¹⁴</span> and still leaves [a partial bond].<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Which necessitates her performing the halizah if she wishes to marry a stranger before he levir had properly married her sister. ');">¹⁵</span>

אלא יבמה דחזיא לכולהו חזיא למקצתה יבמה דלא חזיא לכולהו לא חזיא למקצתה

Said R. Abin: We also have learned the same thing: Beth Shammai said, 'they may retain them',<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' V. supra p, 182, n. 1. ');">¹⁶</span> which implies that they may only retain them<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' V. supra p, 182, n. 1. ');">¹⁶</span> but [that they may] not [marry them] at the outset.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' V. supra p. 182, n. 3. ');">¹⁷</span> Now, if it could have been assumed that a ma amar, according to Beth Shammai, keeps a rival out completely. let the one levir address a <i>ma'amar</i>,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' v. supra p. 182, n. 4. ');">¹⁸</span>

בעי רבה מאמר לב"ש נישואין עושה או אירוסין עושה אמר ליה אביי למאי הלכתא

and thus keep her out.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Cf. supra p. 181, n. 17. ');">¹⁹</span> and let the other also address a <i>ma'amar</i><span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' v. supra p. 182, n. 4. ');">¹⁸</span> and so keep her out.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Consequently it must be concluded that a ma'amar still leaves a partial bond, and that before the other sister had performed the halizah the first is forbidden as the sister of one's zekukah. ');">²⁰</span> But. surely. it was taught. BETH SHAMMAI SAY: HIS WIFE [REMAINS] WITH HIM WHILE THE OTHER IS EXEMPT AS HIS WIFE'S SISTER!<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Which shews that no halizah at all is required! ');">²¹</span>

אילימא ליורשה וליטמא לה ולהפר נדריה השתא ארוסה בעלמא תני ר' חייא אשתו ארוסה לא אונן ולא מטמא לה וכן היא לא אוננת ולא מטמאת לו מתה אינו יורשה מת הוא גובה כתובתה עבד בה מאמר מיבעיא

— The fact is, a yebamah who is eligible for all<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' For both levirate marriage and halizah, as in the case of our Mishnah where the ma'amar was addressed to one sister before the death of the husband of the other had subjected that other also to the same levir. ');">²²</span> is also eligible for a part;<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' To the ma'amar which, in such circumstances. completely keeps out the other when she also, through her husband's subsequent death, comes under the obligation. ');">²³</span> a yebamah who is not eligible for all<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' As in the Mishnah, supra 26a, where both widows were equally subject to the levirs at the time the ma'amar had been addressed, and none was eligible for both the levirate marriage and the halizah. ');">²⁴</span> is not eligible for a part.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' I.e., for the ma'amar which, in such a case, does not keep out the sister. ');">²⁵</span>

ואלא לענין מסירה לחופה מאי נישואין עושה ולא בעיא מסירה לחופה או דלמא אירוסין עושה ובעיא מסירה לחופה

Rabbah inquired: Does a <i>ma'amar</i>, according to Beth Shammai, constitute marriage or betrothal? — Said Abaye to him: On what practical issue [does this question bear]? Shall I say on [the issue] of inheriting from her,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' As a husband who is the heir of his wife. ');">²⁶</span> defiling himself to her<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' If he is a priest who may defile himself by attending on the dead bodies of certain relatives of whom a wife is one. ');">²⁷</span> or annulling her vows?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' A husband may annul the vows of his wife. v. Num. XXX. 7ff ');">²⁸</span> Surely, [it could be answered that] seeing that in the case of<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Lit.. 'now'. ');">²⁹</span>

א"ל השתא לא עבד בה מאמר כתיב (דברים כה, ה) יבמה יבא עליה בעל כרחה עבד בה מאמר מיבעיא

ordinary betrothal<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Lit., 'a betrothed in the world', i.e., ordinary betrothal which is pentateuchally valid. ');">³⁰</span> R. Hiyya taught, that where the wife has only been betrothed<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' But not yet married. ');">³¹</span> [the husband] is neither subject to the laws of onan<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' A mourner prior to the burial of certain relatives is called onan (v. Glos.) and is subject to a number of restrictions. If his betrothed died he may, unlike one whose married wife died, partake of holy things. ');">³²</span> nor may he defile himself for her.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' If he is a priest who may defile himself by attending on the dead bodies of certain relatives of whom a wife is one. ');">²⁷</span>

א"ל שאני אומר כל העושה מאמר ביבמתו פרחה ממנו זיקת יבמין וחלה עליה זיקת אירוסין מאי

and she in his case is likewise not subject to the laws of onan<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' She also is allowed to partake of holy things. ');">³³</span> nor may she defile herself for him,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' During a festival when not only priests but also Israelites and women are forbidden to attend on the corpses of those who are not their near relatives. (V. R.H. 16b). Others render. 'nor need she defile etc'. Cf. Tosaf. a.l., s.v. [H]. ');">³⁴</span> and that if she dies he does not inherit from her though if he dies she collects her <i>kethubah</i>;<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' v. Glos., in a case where such a document was given to her at the betrothal, prior to the marriage (v. Keth. 89b). ');">³⁵</span> is there any need [to speak of the case where] a <i>ma'amar</i> had been addressed!<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' A ma'amar is only a Rabbinical enactment. If Pentateuchal betrothal has not the force of a marriage in respect of the laws mentioned, how much less the Rabbinical ma'amar! ');">³⁶</span>

ת"ש שומרת יבם בין יבם אחד בין שני יבמין ר"א אומר יפר ר' יהושע אומר לאחד ולא לשנים ר' עקיבא אומר לא לאחד ולא לשנים

Rather. [the question is] in respect of introduction into the bridal canopy: Does it<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' The ma'amar. ');">³⁷</span> constitute a marriage and, therefore. no introduction into the bridal canopy is required.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' She being regarded as his wife even if connubial intercourse took place against her will, and should he wish to part with her, a Get will suffice without additional halizah. ');">³⁸</span> Or does it perhaps constitute betrothal and, consequently, introduction into the bridal canopy is required? The other replied: If where he did not address to her any <i>ma'amar</i> it is written [in Scripture]. Her husband's brother shall go in unto her,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Deut. XXV, 5- ');">³⁹</span> even against her will, is there any need [to speak of the case where] he has addressed to her a <i>ma'amar</i>!<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Where there is, in addition to his claim as Ievir, the force of the ma'amar. ');">⁴⁰</span>

והוינן בה בשלמא ר"ע סבר אין זיקה אפי' לחד לר' יהושע לחד יש זיקה לתרי אין זיקה אלא לר"א נהי נמי דקסבר יש זיקה בשלמא לחד מיפר אלא לתרי אמאי

The former retorted: Yes;<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' So BaH. a.l. ');">⁴¹</span> since I maintain that whenever a levir has addressed a <i>ma'amar</i> to his sister-in-law, the levirate bond disappears and she comes under the bond of betrothal. What [then is the decision]? — Come and hear: In the case of a widow awaiting the decision of the levir.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' [H] V. Glos. s.v. shomereth yabam. ');">⁴²</span> whether there be one levir or two levirs, R. Eliezer said, he<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Any one of the levirs. ');">⁴³</span> may annul [her vows]. R. Joshua said: [Only where she is waiting] for one and not for two.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' In the latter case neither of the levirs is entitled to annul her vows. ');">⁴⁴</span>

וא"ר אמי (בר אהבה) הכא במאי עסקינן כגון דעבד בה מאמר וב"ש היא דאמר מאמר קונה קנין גמור

R. Akiba said: Neither when she [is waiting] for one nor for two.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Ned. 74a. ');">⁴⁵</span> Now we pondered thereon: One can well understand R. Akiba, since he may hold that no levirate bond exists even in the case of one;<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Hence a levir is never entitled to the privilege of a husband in respect of the annulment of vows. ');">⁴⁶</span> according to R. Joshua, the levirate bond may exist where there is one levir but not where there are two levirs.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Since it is not known to which of them she is really subject, the bond between them and the widow is necessarily a weak one. ');">⁴⁷</span> According to R. Eliezer, however, granted that a levirate bond exists, one can understand why, in the case of one, he may annul, but why also in the case of two?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Only both together. but not one only, should be allowed to annul her vows. ');">⁴⁸</span>

אי אמרת בשלמא נישואין עושה משום הכי מיפר אלא אי אמרת אירוסין עושה היכי מצי מיפר והתנן נערה המאורסה אביה ובעלה מפירים נדריה אמר רב נחמן בר יצחק מאי מיפר מיפר בשותפות

And R. Ammi<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Cur. edd. enclose in parentheses 'b. Ahabah'. ');">⁴⁹</span> replied: Here it is a case where he addressed to her a <i>ma'amar</i>, and the statement represents the opinion of Beth Shammai who maintain that a <i>ma'amar</i> constitutes a perfect <i>kinyan</i>.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Ned. loc. cit. ');">⁵⁰</span> Now, if it be granted that it<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' The ma'amar. ');">⁵¹</span> constitutes a marriage, it is quite intelligible why he may annul her vows. If. however, it be assumed that it constitutes only a betrothal, how could he annul her vows? Surely we learned: The vows of a betrothed girl may be annulled by her father in conjunction with her husband!<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' But not by her husband alone. And, since the levir alone may here annul, a ma'amar must have the force of marriage. ');">⁵²</span>

ולר"א דאמר מאמר לב"ש אינו קונה אלא לדחות לצרה בלבד אמאי מיפר בשותפות אמר לך ר' אלעזר אימר דאמרי אנא אינו קונה אלא לדחות לצרה בלבד דלא סגי לה בגיטא אלא בעי נמי חליצה להפר נדריה מי אמרינן

-Said R. Nahman b. Isaac: What is meant by annulment? Jointly.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' The levir and her father, as in the case of a betrothal. Hence no proof may be adduced from here as to whether a ma'amar has the force of a marriage or of a betrothal. ');">⁵³</span> According to R. Eleazar, however, who holds that a <i>ma'amar</i>, In the opinion of Beth Shammai, constitutes a <i>kinyan</i> only so far as to keep out the rival, how<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Not having the force even of a betrothal. ');">⁵⁴</span> could the annulment be effected even jointly?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Cf. supra note 8. ');">⁵⁵</span> — R. Eleazar can answer you: When I said that it<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' The ma'amar. ');">⁵¹</span>

ואיבעית אימא אמר לך רבי אלעזר ולרב נחמן בר יצחק מי ניחא מי קתני יפרו יפר קתני אלא הכא במאי עסקינן שעמדה בדין ופסקו לה מזונות משלו

constitutes a <i>kinyan</i> so far only as to keep out the rival, [I meant to indicate] that a letter of divorce was not sufficient<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' In the case of a yebamah to whom a ma'amar had been addressed. ');">⁵⁶</span> but that <i>halizah</i> also was required;<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' If he did not wish to marry her. ');">⁵⁷</span> did I say anything. however, as regards the annulment of vows! And if you prefer I might say. R. Eleazar can answer you: Is it satisfactorily explained according to R. Nahman b. Isaac?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Who holds that the father and husband jointly annul the vows of the widow to whom a ma'amar has been addressed. ');">⁵⁸</span> Surely it was not stated 'they may annul' but 'he may annul'!<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' The reading is [H] (sing.). not [H] (plur.). How, then, could he state that two jointly annul her vows! ');">⁵⁹</span>

וכדרב פנחס משמיה דרבא דאמר רב פנחס משמיה דרבא כל הנודרת על דעת בעלה היא נודרת:

Consequently this must be a case where he<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' The levir. So BaH a.l. Cur. edd., 'she'. ');">⁶⁰</span> appeared before a court<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Either before he addressed the ma'amar (according to R. Nahman b. Isaac) or after the ma'amar (according to R. Ammi). ');">⁶¹</span> and<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' As he refused either to marry, or to submit to her halizah. ');">⁶²</span> a specified sum for alimony was decreed for her out of his estate; and [this is to be understood] In accordance with the statement R. Phinehas made in the name of Raba. For R. Phinehas stated in the name of Raba: Any woman that utters a vow does so on condition that her husband will approve of it.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Since she is maintained out of his estate he is regarded by her as husband and her vows are subject to his will. Hence he may also annul them. With the whole passage cf. Ned. 74a. Sonc. ed. pp. 233ff, q.v. notes. ');">⁶³</span>