Yevamot 77

Chapter 77

א וקסבר אביי ידו כידה
1 And Abaye<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Since he explains the latter clause to be dealing with property that came into the wife's possession while her husband was still alive. ');"><sup>1</sup></span> maintains that a husband's rights<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' To his wife's melog property. ');"><sup>2</sup></span>
ב א"ל רבא אי דנפלי לה כשהיא תחתיו דבעל דכ"ע לא פליגי דידו עדיפא מידה
2 have the same force as his wife's.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Lit., 'his hand is like her hand'. The husband's rights, according to Beth Hillel, he maintains, are in no way superior to those of his wife. Hence, when he dies and the widow comes only under the levirate bond, the levir's rights, which cannot have the same force as those of a husband, are inevitably inferior to those of the widow. The property, therefore, must remain in the possession of herself or her heirs. Beth Shammai, on the other hand, maintain that a husband's rights have more force than those of his wife. When he dies and the levir steps in by virtue of the levirate bond, the latter's rights, though inferior to those of the husband, are of equal force with those of the widow whose rights also are inferior to those of her husband. ');"><sup>3</sup></span> Said Raba to him:<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Abaye. ');"><sup>4</sup></span>
ג אלא אידי ואידי דנפלו לה כשהיא שומרת יבם רישא דלא עבד בה מאמר סיפא דעבד בה מאמר
3 If she came into possession of property while she was still With her husband, no one<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Lit., all the world', even Beth Hillel. ');"><sup>5</sup></span> would dispute the view that his rights are superior to hers.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Lit., 'his hand is better than her hand', and the husband's heirs would consequently have been entitled to the property. ');"><sup>6</sup></span>
ד וקסבר רבא מאמר לב"ש עושה ודאי ארוסה וספק נשואה ודאי ארוסה לדחות בצרה וספק נשואה לחלוק בנכסים
4 Both [clauses of our Mishnah], however, [deal with property] which came into her possession while she was awaiting [the decision of] the levir; the first clause speaking of one to whom a ma'amar had not been addressed,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' By the levir, before the property came into her possession. The levirate bond alone is not sufficient to effect a transfer of the property to the levir. ');"><sup>7</sup></span> and the final clause, of one to whom a ma'amar had been addressed.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' And after that the property came into her possession. As the ma'amar, according to Beth Shammai, is regarded as virtual marriage (v. supra 29a), the levir also is entitled to the property. Hence it must be divided. Beth Hillel, on the other hand, not regarding a ma'amar as marriage, deny the levir all rights upon the property which is, therefore, to remain with the heirs of the woman. ');"><sup>8</sup></span>
ה איתמר משמיה דר' אלעזר כוותיה דרבא ואיתמר משמיה דרבי יוסי ברבי חנינא כוותיה דאביי
5 And Raba is of the opinion that a ma'amar, according to Beth Shammai, renders [the widow] definitely betrothed and doubtfully married. She is deemed to be definitely betrothed in respect of excluding her rival;<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Her sister who does not cause her to be forbidden to the levir as 'his zekukah's sister'. V. supra 29a. ');"><sup>9</sup></span> and she is deemed to be doubtfully married in respect of taking a share in the property.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' The levir is not entitled to all the property as if he had actually married the widow, but only to a share of it. ');"><sup>10</sup></span>
ו ומי אמר רבי אלעזר הכי והא אמר רבי אלעזר מאמר לב"ש אינה קונה אלא לדחות בצרה בלבד
6 A statement was made in the name of R. Eleazar in agreement with Raba and a statement was made in the name of R. Jose son of R. Hanina in agreement with Abaye. Could R. Eleazar, however, have made such a statement? Surely R. Eleazar said: A ma'amar, according to Beth Shammai, constitutes a <i>kinyan</i> in so far only as to keep out the rival!<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Supra 29a, Ned. 74a. ');"><sup>11</sup></span> — Reverse [the statements]. If you prefer I might say: There is really no need to reverse [them, for] R. Eleazar can tell you, 'What I said [amounted to this]: that a letter of divorce alone is not enough<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' When a ma'amar had been addressed to the widow. ');"><sup>12</sup></span>
ז איפוך ואי בעית אימא לעולם לא תיפוך אמר לך רבי אלעזר כי אמרי אנא דלא סגי לה בגט אלא דבעי נמי חליצה לחלוק בנכסים דלא קני מי אמרי
7 but that she requires also <i>halizah</i>; did I state, however, that the ma'amar constitutes no <i>kinyan</i> even in respect of taking a share in her property'!<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Certainly not. Consequently his statement in agreement with the view of Raba may be perfectly authentic. ');"><sup>13</sup></span> Said R. Papa: The inference from our Mishnah is in agreement with the opinion of Abaye,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' That the final clause deals with property that came into the woman's possession while she was still living with her husband. ');"><sup>14</sup></span>
ח אמר רב פפא דיוקא דמתניתין כוותיה דאביי ואע"ג דקשיא מתה
8 although 'IF SHE DIED' presents a difficulty.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' This is explained infra. ');"><sup>15</sup></span> Seeing that it was stated PROPERTY THAT COMES IN AND GOES OUT WITH HER, what is meant by COMES IN and what by GOES OUT? Obviously,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Lit., 'not?' ');"><sup>16</sup></span>
ט דקתני נכסים הנכנסים ויוצאים עמה מאי נכנסין ומאי יוצאין לאו נכנסין לרשות הבעל ויוצאים מרשות הבעל לרשות האב
9 'COMES INTO the possession of her husband'<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' At the time they came into her possession. ');"><sup>17</sup></span> and 'GOES OUT from the possession of her husband into the possession of her father'.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' When she dies. The property must consequently have come into her possession when she was still living with her husband, as Abaye maintains. ');"><sup>18</sup></span>
י ואע"ג דקשיא מתה אדמפלגי בגופה ולאחר מיתה לפלגו בחייה ולפירות
10 'Although IF SHE DIED presents a difficulty': Why should they<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Beth Shammai and Beth Hillel. ');"><sup>19</sup></span> dispute [on the question of the property] itself, which can arise only in the event of the woman's death,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Lit., 'and after death'. ');"><sup>20</sup></span>
יא ותו לא מידי:
11 let them rather dispute on the question of the usufruct which arises even when the woman is still alive!<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Lit., 'in her life and concerning the fruit'. ');"><sup>21</sup></span> The fact is that no further objection [can be raised].<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Lit., 'and ');"><sup>22</sup></span>
יב כנסה הרי היא כו': למאי הלכתא א"ר יוסי בר חנינא לומר שמגרשה בגט ומחזירה
12 WHERE HE MARRIED HER, SHE IS DEEMED etc. For what practical law [was this statement needed]? — R. Jose b. Hanina replied: To indicate that he may divorce her by means of a letter of divorce<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' And no halizah is required. ');"><sup>23</sup></span> and that he may remarry her.
יג מגרשה בגט פשיטא סד"א הואיל וכתיב (דברים כה, ה) ולקחה לו לאשה ויבמה אמר רחמנא ועדיין יבומי הראשון עליה בחליצה אין בגט לא קמ"ל
13 'He may divorce her by means of a letter of divorce'; Is not this obvious?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Since with the levirate marriage she assumes the status of a married woman. ');"><sup>24</sup></span> — It might have been assumed that, since the All Merciful said<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' So MS.M. Cur. edd., add, 'It is written, And take her to wife'. ');"><sup>25</sup></span>
יד מחזירה פשיטא סד"א מצוה דרמיא רחמנא עליה עבדה השתא תיקום עליה באיסור אשת אח קמ"ל
14 And perform the duty of a husband's brother unto her,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Deut. XXV, 5; although it was already stated in the same verse, and take her to wife. ');"><sup>26</sup></span> she retains the obligation of the first levirate relationship<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' So MS.M., cur. edd., 'the levirate relationship of the first'. ');"><sup>27</sup></span>
טו ואימא הכי נמי אמר קרא ולקחה לו לאשה כיון שלקחה הרי היא כאשתו לכל דבר:
15 and so may be set free<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Lit., 'yes'. ');"><sup>28</sup></span> only through <i>halizah</i> but not through a letter of divorce, hence it was necessary to teach us [that the law is not so].
טז ובלבד שתהא כתובתה כו': מ"ט אשה הקנו לו מן השמים
16 'He may remarry her'; Is not this obvious?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Cf. supra n. 2. ');"><sup>29</sup></span> — It might have been assumed that since he<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' The levir. ');"><sup>30</sup></span>
יז ואי לית לה מן הראשון תקינו לה משני כדי שלא תהא קלה בעיניו להוציאה:
17 has already performed<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' By his first marriage. ');"><sup>31</sup></span> the commandment which the All Merciful has imposed upon him, she shall now be forbidden to him as the wife of his brother, hence it was necessary to teach us [that he may nevertheless remarry her]. Might it not be suggested that the law is so indeed?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' That a brother's widow with whom levirate marriage was performed still requires halizah and may not be remarried by the levir after he had divorced her. ');"><sup>32</sup></span>
יח <big><strong>מתני׳</strong></big> מצוה בגדול לייבם לא רצה מהלכין על כל האחין לא רצו חוזרין אצל גדול ואומרים לו עליך מצוה או חלוץ או ייבם
18 — Scripture stated, And take her to him to wife;<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Deut. XXV, 5; where only the latter part of the verse, And perform the duty of a husband's brother unto her would have been sufficient. V. supra 8a. ');"><sup>33</sup></span> as soon as he has taken her she is deemed to be his wife in every respect.
יט תלה בקטן עד שיגדיל או בגדול עד שיבא ממדינת הים או חרש או שוטה אין שומעין לו אלא אומרים לו עליך מצוה או חלוץ או ייבם:
19 SAVE THAT HER <i>KETHUBAH</i> etc. What is the reason? — A wife has been given<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Lit., 'they caused him to acquire'. ');"><sup>34</sup></span> to him<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' The levir. ');"><sup>35</sup></span>
כ <big><strong>גמ׳</strong></big> איתמר ביאת קטן וחליצת גדול פליגי בה ר' יוחנן ור' יהושע בן לוי חד אמר ביאת קטן עדיפא וחד אמר חליצת גדול עדיפא
20 from heaven.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' He has neither chosen her nor has he undertaken any obligations towards her. She was imposed upon him by the divine law of the levirate marriage. The claim of her kethubah must, therefore, be a charge upon the estate of her first husband whose choice she had been. ');"><sup>36</sup></span> If, however, she is unable nothing more'. The inference from our Mishnah is undoubtedly in agreement with the view of Abaye, the only difficulty being the one mentioned. to obtain her <i>kethubah</i> from her first [husband], provision was made that she [is to receive it] from the second<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' The levir. ');"><sup>37</sup></span>
כא מאן דאמר ביאת קטן עדיפא דהא מצוה בייבום ומאן דאמר חליצת גדול עדיפא במקום גדול ביאת קטן לאו כלום היא
21 in order that it may not be easy for him to divorce her.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Lit., 'that she may not be easy in his eyes to cause her to go out'. ');"><sup>38</sup></span> <b><i>MISHNAH</i></b>. THE DUTY OF THE LEVIRATE MARRIAGE IS INCUMBENT UPON THE ELDEST [OF THE SURVIVING BROTHERS].<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' V. supra 24a. ');"><sup>39</sup></span>
כב תנן לא רצה מחזירין על כל האחין מאי לאו לא רצה לייבם אלא לחלוץ וקתני מהלכין אצל האחין שמע מינה ביאת קטן עדיפא
22 IF HE DECLINES, ALL THE OTHER BROTHERS ARE APPROACHED IN TURN.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' In the descending order of age. ');"><sup>40</sup></span> IF THEY ALL DECLINE, THE ELDEST IS AGAIN APPROACHED AND HE IS TOLD, 'THE DUTY IS INCUMBENT UPON YOU; EITHER SUBMIT TO <i>HALIZAH</i> OR PERFORM THE LEVIRATE MARRIAGE.
כג לא לא רצה לחלוץ ולא לייבם דכוותה גבי האחין לא רצו לא לחלוץ ולא לייבם אמאי חוזרים אצל הגדול למיכפייה לכפייה לדידהו כיון דמצוה עליה דידיה רמיא לדידיה כייפינן
23 IF HE<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' The eldest brother present on the spot. (Rashi). ');"><sup>41</sup></span> WISHED TO SUSPEND ACTION<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Lit., 'he hung' or 'suspended'. [Aliter. He referred (the action) to; v. n. 9]. ');"><sup>42</sup></span>
כד תנן תלה בקטן עד שיגדיל אין שומעין לו ואי ביאת קטן עדיפא אמאי אין שומעין לו נינטר דלמא גדיל ומייבם
24 UNTIL A MINOR<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Brother. ');"><sup>43</sup></span> BECOMES OF AGE, OR UNTIL THE ELDEST<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Brother. ');"><sup>43</sup></span>
כה וליטעמיך ובגדול עד שיבא ממדינת הים אין שומעין לו אמאי נינטר דלמא אתי וחליץ אלא כל שהויי מצוה לא משהינן
25 RETURNS FROM A COUNTRY BEYOND THE SEA OR [UNTIL A BROTHER WHO WAS] DEAF<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' [H] in Rabbinic literature usually signifies one who is deaf from birth. Hence 'a deaf-mute'. ');"><sup>44</sup></span> OR AN IMBECILE [SHOULD RECOVER],<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' [Tosaf.: He referred her to a deaf brother etc.]. ');"><sup>45</sup></span> HE IS NOT TO BE LISTENED TO, BUT IS TOLD, 'THE DUTY IS INCUMBENT UPON YOU; EITHER SUBMIT TO <i>HALIZAH</i> OR PERFORM THE LEVIRATE MARRIAGE. <b><i>GEMARA</i></b>. It was stated: [On the relative importance of] the intercourse of a younger, and the <i>halizah</i> of an elder brother there is a difference of opinion between R. Johanan and R. Joshua b. Levi. One holds that the intercourse of the younger is preferable and the other holds that the <i>halizah</i> of the elder is preferable. 'One<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Lit., 'he who'. ');"><sup>46</sup></span> holds that the intercourse of the younger is preferable,' because the commandment, surely, is to perform the levirate marriage;<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Halizah being merely a substitute for it. ');"><sup>47</sup></span> and 'the other<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Lit., 'he who'. ');"><sup>46</sup></span> holds that the <i>halizah</i> of the elder is preferable', because in the presence of an elder brother the intercourse of the younger is valueless.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Since the duty is, in the first instance, incumbent upon the elder. ');"><sup>48</sup></span> We learned, IF HE DECLINED, ALL THE OTHER BROTHERS ARE APPROACHED IN TURN. Does not this mean that he declined to contract the levirate marriage but [was willing] to submit to the <i>halizah</i>? And yet it was stated, ALL THE OTHER BROTHERS ARE APPROACHED IN TURN, which proves<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Since the younger brothers are asked to contract the levirate marriage when the elder expressed his willingness to submit to halizah. ');"><sup>49</sup></span> that the intercourse of a younger brother is preferred! — No; he wished neither to submit to <i>halizah</i> nor to perform the levirate marriage. Similarly, then, in the case of the other brothers, [the meaning is that] they declined both <i>halizah</i> and levirate marriage;<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Since the same expression of unwillingness is used. ');"><sup>50</sup></span> why, then, is THE ELDEST AGAIN APPROACHED with the object of bringing pressure upon him? Let pressure be brought to bear upon them!<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' If the eldest had only refused marriage but was willing to submit to halizah, as has first been assumed, one could explain our Mishnah to mean that 'THE ELDEST IS AGAIN APPROACHED with a view to halizah'; he being the eldest, halizah also is first offered to him. If, however, he refused both halizah and marriage, as has now been explained, and the object of approaching him is coercion, why should the Beth din be troubled to summon him again in order to coerce him when any of the brothers who happens to be near at hand might just as well be coerced? ');"><sup>51</sup></span> — As the duty<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Of the levirate marriage. V. our Mishnah. ');"><sup>52</sup></span> is incumbent upon him, pressure also must be used against him. We learned, IF HE WISHED TO SUSPEND ACTION UNTIL A MINOR BECOMES OF AGE … HE IS NOT TO BE LISTENED TO. But if the intercourse of a minor is to be preferred, why IS HE NOT TO BE LISTENED TO? Let us rather wait, since on becoming of age he might contract the levirate marriage! — Following your view [it might similarly be objected], why [if he wished to wait] UNTIL THE ELDEST RETURNS FROM A COUNTRY BEYOND THE SEA&nbsp;… HE IS NOT TO BE LISTENED TO? Let us rather wait, since on his return he might contract the levirate marriage!<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' So marginal gloss. Cur. edd., 'and submits to halizah'. ');"><sup>53</sup></span> The fact is that the performance of a commandment must not be delayed.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' And this is the only reason why his request is not granted. ');"><sup>54</sup></span>
Previous ChapterNext Chapter