Yevamot 71

דכל העולה ליבום עולה לחליצה וכל שאין עולה ליבום אינו עולה לחליצה

that whosoever is subject to the obligation of levirate marriage is also subject to <i>halizah</i>, and whosoever is not subject to the obligation of the levirate marriage is not subject to <i>halizah</i>!<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Supra 3a. ');">¹</span> Rather, said Raba, it is this that was meant:<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' By the Baraitha cited. ');">²</span> Where a levir married his yebamah who was found to be pregnant, her rival may not be married, because it is possible that the child would be viable, and marital contact with a pregnant woman is no proper marriage nor is the <i>halizah</i> of a pregnant woman proper <i>halizah</i>, while the child does not bring exemption until he is actually born.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Lit., 'he went forth into the air of the world'. ');">³</span>

אלא אמר רבא הכי קאמר הכונס יבמתו ונמצאת מעוברת הרי זו לא תנשא צרתה שמא יהא ולד בן קיימא וביאת מעוברת לא שמה ביאה וחליצת מעוברת לא שמה חליצה והולד אינו פוטר עד שיצא לאויר העולם

It was taught in agreement with the view of Raba: Where a levir married his yebamah who was found to be pregnant, her rival may not be married, because it is possible that the child would be viable, and neither marital contact nor <i>halizah</i> but only the child brings exemption; and the child brings exemption only after he is born. The reason, then,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Why the rival is not exempt. ');">⁴</span> is because it is possible that the child might be viable, but where the child is not viable her rival is exempt;<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' On the strength of the marital contact which took place prior to the miscarriage of the child, no repeated contact being necessary. ');">⁵</span>

תניא כוותיה דרבא הכונס יבמתו ונמצאת מעוברת הרי זו לא תנשא צרתה שמא יהא ולד בן קיימא ואין ביאה וחליצה פוטרת אלא ולד פוטר והולד אין פוטרה עד שיצא לאויר העולם

does this imply an objection against Resh Lakish?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Who does not regard the marital contact of a pregnant woman as a valid marriage ');">⁶</span> — Resh Lakish can answer you [that the Baraitha] is thus to be interpreted:<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Lit., 'thus he taught'. ');">⁷</span> Where a levir married his yebamah who was found to be pregnant, her rival may not be married; since it is possible that the child may not be viable, and the <i>halizah</i> of a pregnant woman is no valid <i>halizah</i> nor is the marital contact with a pregnant woman a proper marriage; and were you to suggest that one should be guided by the majority of women, and the majority of women bear healthy children, [it could be retorted that] a child brings no exemption until he is actually born.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Lit., 'he went forth unto the air of the world'. ');">⁸</span>

טעמא דשמא יהא ולד בן קיימא הוא הא לא הוי ולד בן קיימא מיפטר צרתה לימא תיהוי תיובתא דר"ל

Said R. Eleazar: Is it possible that there should exist [such a ruling as] that of Resh Lakish and that we should not have learnt it in a Mishnah? When he went out he carefully considered the matter and found one. For we learned: If people came to a woman whose husband and rival had gone to a country beyond the sea and told her, 'Your husband is dead',<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' And has left no issue. ');">⁹</span> she may neither be married<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' To a stranger. ');">¹⁰</span> nor be taken in levirate marriage<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' By the levir. ');">¹¹</span>

אמר לך ר"ל הכי קתני הכונס יבמתו ונמצאת מעוברת הרי זו לא תנשא צרתה שמא לא יהא הולד בן קיימא וחליצת מעוברת לא שמה חליצה וביאת מעוברת לא שמה ביאה

until she has ascertained whether her rival<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Who went together with her husband. ');">¹²</span> is pregnant.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Infra 119a. Only if she learns that her rival is not pregnant may she contract the levirate marriage. ');">¹³</span> One can well understand why she may not be taken in levirate marriage, since it is possible that the child<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' That might be born from the rival. ');">¹⁴</span>

וא"ת הלך אחר רוב נשים ורוב נשים ולד מעליא ילדן ולד אין פוטר עד שיצא לאויר העולם

may be viable and [the levir] would thus<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' By marrying the widow of his brother who did not die without issue. ');">¹⁵</span> infringe the Pentateuchal prohibition against [marrying] a brother's wife: but why should she not perform the <i>halizah</i>? It is possible to understand the reason why she must not perform the <i>halizah</i> within the nine months<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' After the death of her husband. ');">¹⁶</span> and also contract a marriage within nine months,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' After the death of her husband. ');">¹⁶</span>

א"ר אלעזר אפשר איתא להא דריש לקיש ולא תנן לה במתניתין נפק דק ואשכח דתנן האשה שהלך בעלה וצרתה למדינת הים ובאו ואמרו לה מת בעלך הרי זו לא תנשא ולא תתייבם עד שתדע שמא מעוברת היא צרתה

since such [procedure would naturally be forbidden on account of the] doubt;<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' It being uncertain whether the child would be viable or not. Should he be viable, neither the halizah nor the marriage would be valid, while exemption on his account would not come into force until his actual birth. ');">¹⁷</span> but let her perform the <i>halizah</i> within the nine months<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' After the death of her husband. ');">¹⁶</span> and be married after the nine months!<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' This should be permitted according to the view of R. Johanan at all events: If the rival had been pregnant and miscarried or had not been pregnant at all, the halizah was, surely, valid. ');">¹⁸</span>

בשלמא יבומי לא שמא יהא ולד בן קיימא ויפגע באיסור אשת אח דאורייתא אלא לא תחלוץ אמאי בשלמא תחלוץ בתוך ט' ותנשא בתוך ט' לא היינו ספק

— But even in accordance with your view,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' That halizah is forbidden because of the possibility that the rival was pregnant at the time halizah took place. ');">¹⁹</span> let her perform the <i>halizah</i> and be married after the nine months!<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' When all doubt as to pregnancy would have been removed. Why, then, has it been stated that she may not marry until she had ascertained (even though many years have passed), whether her rival had been pregnant. ');">²⁰</span> The fact, however, is that nothing may be inferred from this;<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Mishnah. Lit., 'but outside of that'. No support to the view of Resh Lakish may be derived from it. ');">²¹</span>

אלא תחלוץ בתוך תשעה ותנשא לאחר תשעה

for both Abaye b. Abin<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Cur. edd., 'Abaye'. ');">²²</span> and R. Hinena b. Abin<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Cur. edd., 'Abaye'. ');">²²</span> stated:<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' The reason why no halizah may take place. ');">²³</span>

ולטעמיך תחלוץ ותנשא לאחר ט'

It is possible that the child<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Of the rival. ');">²⁴</span> might be viable<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' The birth of a viable child renders the halizah invalid and the woman is consequently permitted to marry a priest. ');">²⁵</span> and you would then subject her to the necessity of an announcement<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' That the halizah was unnecessary and therefore invalid. ');">²⁶</span>

אלא בר מינה דההיא דאביי בר אבא ורב חיננא בר אביי דאמרי תרוייהו שמא יהא ולד בן קיימא ונמצא אתה מצריכה כרוז לכהונה

in respect of the priesthood.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' V. supra n. 7. ');">²⁷</span> — Well, let her be subjected!<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Lit., 'required'. ');">²⁸</span> — It may happen that someone would be present at the <i>halizah</i> and not at the announcement,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' That the halizah was unnecessary and therefore invalid. ');">²⁶</span>

ולצרכה דלמא איכא איניש דהוי בחליצה ולא הוי בהכרזה ואתי למימר קשרי חלוצה לכהן

and would form the opinion that a <i>haluzah</i> was permitted to a priest. Said Abaye to him: Was it stated, 'She shall neither perform <i>halizah</i> nor be taken in levirate marriage'? The statement, surely, was, 'She shall neither be married nor be taken in levirate marriage'<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' [Rashi apparently omits this and reads: 'She shall neither be married' without halizah]. ');">²⁹</span> without <i>halizah</i>; if <i>halizah</i>, however, had been performed<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Even within nine months. ');">³⁰</span>

א"ל אביי מידי לא תחלוץ ולא תתייבם קתני לא תנשא ולא תתייבם קתני בלא חליצה אבל אי חליץ לה הכי נמי דשריא

she would indeed have been permitted!<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' To marry at the end of that period; the Baraitha will then afford no support to Resh Lakish. ');">³¹</span> It was taught in agreement with Resh Lakish: Where a levir participated in the <i>halizah</i> with a pregnant woman who subsequently miscarried, she is required to perform <i>halizah</i> with the brothers. Raba said: The law is in accordance with the views of Resh Lakish in the following three rulings.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' B.B. 129b, Hul. 77a. ');">³²</span>

תניא כוותיה דריש לקיש החולץ למעוברת והפילה צריכה חליצה מן האחין

One is the ruling just spoken of. Another is his ruling in connection with the following Mishnah:<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Lit., 'because we learned'. ');">³³</span> If a man<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Lying on his death-bed. ');">³⁴</span> distributed his property verbally<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' I.e., explicitly intimated his desire and did not die intestate (v. Rashi, a.l.). ');">³⁵</span>

אמר רבא הלכתא כוותיה דר"ל בהני תלת חדא הא דאמרן אידך דתנן המחלק נכסיו על פיו ריבה לאחד ומיעט לאחד והשוה להם את הבכור דבריו קיימין

and gave to one [son] more and to another less, or if he assigned to the firstborn a share equal to that of his brothers,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Lit., 'he made the firstborn equal to them', though Biblically he is entitled to a double portion. ');">³⁶</span> his arrangements are valid.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Lit., 'his words stand', because a man is entitled to dispose of his property, as a gift, in any manner that may appeal to him. ');">³⁷</span> If, however, he said, 'As an inheritance',<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' I.e., if he distributed the shares as portions of an inheritance and not as gifts. ');">³⁸</span>

ואם אמר משום ירושה לא אמר כלום כתב בין בתחלה בין בסוף בין באמצע משום מתנה דבריו קיימין

his instructions are disregarded.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Lit., 'he said nothing'. One has no right to give instructions which are contrary to the law of the Torah which entitled every son to a portion and the firstborn to a double portion in the father's estate. ');">³⁹</span> If he wrote<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' In disposing of his property in a written will. ');">⁴⁰</span> either at the beginning or the end or the middle, 'as a gift',<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' I.e., used an expression denoting 'gift', even though it was accompanied by one denoting 'inheritance'. If he wrote, for instance, let a certain field (a) be presented to X that he may inherit it (beginning), or (b) inherited by X and be presented to him that he may inherit it (middle), or (c) be inherited by X and be presented to him (end). ');">⁴¹</span> his instructions are valid.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' B.B. 126b. V. supra note 6. So long as the expression of 'gift' was used, the other expression of 'inheritance' that may have been coupled with it, does not in any way affect the validity of the testator's instructions. ');">⁴²</span>