Yevamot 99

אלו שני דורות זכה משלימין לו לא זכה פוחתין לו דברי ר' עקיבא וחכמים אומרים זכה מוסיפים לו לא זכה פוחתין לו

refers to the years of the generations.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' The span of life allotted to every human being at his birth. ');">¹</span> If one is worthy one is allowed to complete the full period; if unworthy. the number is reduced; so R. Akiba. But the Sages said: If one is worthy years are added to one's life;<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' The meaning of fulfil is addition to the allotted span of life. ');">²</span> if unworthy, the years of his life are reduced. They said to R. Akiba: Behold, Scripture says,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' II Kings XX, 6. ');">³</span>

אמרו לו לרבי עקיבא הרי הוא אומר והוספתי על ימיך חמש עשרה שנה אמר להם משלו הוסיפו לו תדע שהרי נביא עומד ומתנבא (מלכים א יג, ב) הנה בן נולד לבית דוד יאשיהו שמו ועדיין לא נולד מנשה

And I will add unto your days fifteen years!<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Emphasis on add. ');">⁴</span> He replied: The addition was made of his own,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Years which were originally allotted to him and then curtailed. ');">⁵</span> You may know [that this is so]<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' That the years added were only those allotted to Hezekiah at his birth and reduced at his illness. ');">⁶</span>

ורבנן מי כתיב מחזקיה לבית דוד כתיב אי מחזקיה נולד אי מאינש אחרינא:

since the prophet<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' In the days of Jeroboam, long before the birth of Hezekiah. ');">⁷</span> stood up and prophesied: Behold, a son shall be born to the house of David, Josiah by name,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' I Kings XIII, 2. ');">⁸</span> while Manasseh<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' From whom Josiah descended. ');">⁹</span>

אשתו שמתה וכו' יבמתו שמתה וכו': אמר רב יוסף כאן שנה רבי משנה שאינה צריכה:

had not yet been born.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' At the time of Hezekiah's illness. Manasseh, in fact, was born three years after his father's illness (v. II Kings XXI, 2); and since the birth of his sun Josiah was prophetically announced long before the birth of his father Hezekiah, it is obvious that the years allotted to Hezekiah at his birth extended beyond the year of his illness (to include the year of Manasseh's birth). Consequently, the original number must have been reduced at his illness; and, at his recovery, only that was added which was first reduced. ');">¹⁰</span> And the Rabbis!<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' How could they, in view of the argument advanced, maintain that view years were added to Hezekiah's life? ');">¹¹</span> — Is it written 'from Hezekiah'? It is surely written, 'To the house of David';<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' I Kings XIII, 2. ');">⁸</span>

<br><br><big><strong>הדרן עלך החולץ</strong></big><br><br>

he<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Josiah. ');">¹²</span> might be born either from Hezekiah or from any other person.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Of the house of David. ');">¹³</span> IF A MAN'S WIFE DIED etc. IF A MAN'S SISTER-IN-LAW DIED etc. R. Joseph said: Here Rabbi taught an unnecessary Mishnah.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Since the laws therein enumerated are self-evident. Lev. XVIII, 18, from where the prohibition of marrying the sister of one's wife originates, distinctly limits the prohibition to the wife's life-time: And thou shalt not take a woman to her sister&nbsp;… in her life-time. V. Rashi a.l. According to Tosaf (s.v. [H] a.l. q.v.) the unnecessary Mishnah is only that portion which relates to the sister-in-law whose case could be inferred from that of the wife a minori ad majus. ');">¹⁴</span>

מתני׳ <big><strong>רבן</strong></big> גמליאל אומר אין גט אחר גט ולא מאמר אחר מאמר ולא בעילה אחר בעילה ולא חליצה אחר חליצה וחכמים אומרים יש גט אחר גט ויש מאמר אחר מאמר אבל לא אחר בעילה ולא אחר חליצה כלום

<b><i>MISHNAH</i></b>. R. GAMALIEL SAID: THERE IS NO [VALIDITY IN A] LETTER OF DIVORCE AFTER ANOTHER LETTER OF DIVORCE,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Given in succession by one levir to two sisters-in-law, i.e., the widows of a deceased childless brother, or by two levirs to one sister-in-law. (The term sister-in-law used throughout this chapter is to be understood in the sense defined). The second divorce is invalid and the relatives of the second widow are, therefore, permitted to the levir, and so are the relatives of the one widow to the second levir. Whether the first divorce is valid or not, the second is at all events valueless. For if the first is valid the levirate bond with both the widows is thereby severed and the second widow (in the case of one levir) or the one widow (in the case of two Levirs) when receiving the second letter of divorce, is a complete stranger to the levir. If, on the other hand, the first divorce was invalid, the second also, for the same reason, is invalid. ');">¹⁵</span> NOR IN A MA'AMAR AFTER ANOTHER MA'AMAR<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Addressed in succession (a) by one levir to two sisters-in-law or (b) by two levirs to one sister-in-law. The first ma'amar has satisfied all the requirements of the levirate obligations and, consequently, (a) the second widow, or (b) the one widow to whom the second ma'amar was addressed, requires no letter of divorce from (a) the one levir or (b) the second levir respectively. The second widow, moreover, does nor cause the prohibition to the levir of the first widow, and her relatives also are permitted to the levir as are those of the one widow to the second levir. ');">¹⁶</span> NOR IN AN ACT OF COHABITATION AFTER ANOTHER ACT OF COHABITATION,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' The second act by the one levir with the second widow or by the second levir with the one widow respectively, is deemed to be one of mere adultery and has no matrimonial validity to cause the prohibition of her relatives to the levir. ');">¹⁷</span>

כיצד עשה מאמר ביבמתו ונתן לה גט צריכה הימנו חליצה עשה מאמר וחליצה צריכה הימנו גט עשה מאמר ובעל הרי זו כמצותה

NOR IN A <i>HALIZAH</i> AFTER ANOTHER <i>HALIZAH</i>.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Cf. supra n. 2. The first halizah has finally severed the levirate bond between the levir or the levirs and the widow or the widows. The second halizah is, therefore, valueless. ');">¹⁸</span> THE SAGES, HOWEVER, SAID: A LETTER OF DIVORCE HAS VALIDITY AFTER ANOTHER LETTER OF DIVORCE,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' The relatives of the second widow are, therefore, forbidden to the levir (as relatives of his legal divorcee), and the relatives of the one widow are similarly forbidden to the second levir. The first letter of divorce, the Sages maintain, is only partially valid since halizah also is required. The levirate bond consequently is not thereby completely severed and the second divorce brings the widow under the category of a divorced woman. Cf supra 327 n. 1. ');">¹⁹</span> AND A MA'AMAR AFTER ANOTHER MA'AMAR;<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' The first ma'amar effected only partial matrimony and the levirate obligations were not fully satisfied before the consummation of the marriage took place. The second ma'amar, since it was made before consummation had taken place, is, therefore, valid. ');">²⁰</span>

נתן גט ועשה מאמר צריכה גט וחליצה נתן גט ובעל צריכה גט וחליצה נתן גט וחלץ אין אחר חליצה כלום

BUT THERE IS NO VALIDITY IN ANY ACT AFTER COHABITATION OR <i>HALIZAH</i>.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Either of these acts satisfies fully all the requirements of the levirate obligations. The former effected complete union; the latter final severance. No act in connection with the levirate obligations that follows either of these can, therefore, have any validity. ');">²¹</span> HOW [IS THE RELEASE FROM THE LEVIRATE BOND<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Between one levir and one sister-in-law. This section has no reference to the dispute in the previous section. V. Gemara infra. ');">²²</span> EFFECTED]? — IF A LEVIR ADDRESSED A MA'AMAR TO HIS SISTER-IN-LAW AND SUBSEQUENTLY GAVE HER A LETTER OF DIVORCE, IT IS NECESSARY FOR HER TO PERFORM THE <i>HALIZAH</i> WITH HIM.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' But no levirate marriage may now he contracted. The ma'amar alone has not completely satisfied the requirements of the levirate obligations (cf. supra n. 1), hence the need for halizah. Since, however, a divorce had been given the levir had placed himself under the prohibition of Deut. XXV, 9 'That doth not build': if he once refused to build he must never again build (v. supra 10b), hence the prohibition of the levirate marriage. ');">²³</span>

חלץ ועשה מאמר נתן גט ובעל או בעל ועשה מאמר נתן גט וחלץ אין אחר חליצה כלום

IF HE ADDRESSED TO HER A MA'AMAR AND PARTICIPATED IN THE <i>HALIZAH</i>, IT IS NECESSARY FOR HER TO OBTAIN FROM HIM A LETTER OF DIVORCE.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' To annul the ma'amar which, in some respects, has the force of a betrothal. The halizah alone is not enough since it only severs a levirate bond but does not annul a ma'amar. ');">²⁴</span> IF HE ADDRESSED TO HER A MA'AMAR AND THEN COHABITED WITH HER, BEHOLD THIS IS IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE PRESCRIBED PRECEPT.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' This is discussed in the Gemara infra. ');">²⁵</span> IF THE LEVIR GAVE HER A LETTER OF DIVORCE AND THEN ADDRESSED TO HER A MA'AMAR, IT IS NECESSARY FOR HER TO OBTAIN [A SECOND] LETTER OF DIVORCE<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Even according to R. Gamaliel. The divorce is required to annul the ma'amar since it is possible that the first divorce was invalid and the ma'amar had, therefore, been valid. According to the Sages, who regard the divorce as partially valid, the ma'amar also is partially valid and a divorce is required to annul that part. ');">²⁶</span> AND TO PERFORM THE <i>HALIZAH</i>.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' In order to sever thereby the levirate bond. Levirate marriage, however, must not take place now after the delivery of the first letter of divorce (v. supra p. 325, n. 4 final clause). ');">²⁷</span> IF HE GAVE HER A LETTER OF DIVORCE AND THEN COHABITED WITH HER, IT IS NECESSARY FOR HER TO OBTAIN A LETTER OF DIVORCE AND TO PERFORM THE <i>HALIZAH</i>.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Levirate marriage is forbidden owing to the first divorce (v. supra p. 325, n. 4, final clause), a letter of divorce is required owing to the act of cohabitation, while halizah is necessary to sever the levirate bond. ');">²⁸</span> IF HE GAVE HER A LETTER OF DIVORCE AND THEN SUBMITTED TO <i>HALIZAH</i>, THERE IS NO VALIDITY IN ANY ACT<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Whether it be the addressing of a ma'amar or cohabitation. The levirate bond has completely disappeared. ');">²⁹</span> AFTER <i>HALIZAH</i> HAD BEEN PERFORMED. IF THE LEVIR SUBMITTED TO <i>HALIZAH</i> AND THEN ADDRESSED TO HER A MA'AMAR, GAVE HER A LETTER OF DIVORCE, OR COHABITED WITH HER; OR IF HE COHABITED WITH HER AND THEN ADDRESSED TO HER A MA'AMAR, GAVE HER A LETTER OF DIVORCE, OR SUBMITTED TO HER <i>HALIZAH</i>, NO ACT IS VALID AFTER <i>HALIZAH</i><span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Cf. supra n. 3. This refers to the cases where halizah was performed first. With reference to the last three cases, where cohabitation took place first, the expression should be 'no act is valid after cohabitation'. V. Gemara infra. ');">³⁰</span>