יבמות ב׳Yevamot 2

Mishnah

משנה: כֵּיצַד אֵשֶׁת אָחִיו שֶׁלֹּא הָיָה בְעוֹלָמוֹ. שְׁנֵי אַחִים וּמֵת אֶחָד מֵהֶם וְנוֹלַד לָהֶן אָח וְאַחַר כָּךְ יִבֵּם הַשֵּׁנִי אֶת אֵשֶׁת אָחִיו וָמֵת. הָרִאשׁוֹנָה יוֹצֵאת מִשּׁוּם אֵשֶׁת אָחִיו שֶׁלֹּא הָיָה בְעוֹלָמוֹ וְהַשְּׁנִיָיה מִשּׁוּם צָרָתָהּ. עָשָׂה בָהּ מַאֲמָר וָמֵת שְׁנִיָיה חוֹלֶצֶת וְלֹא מִתְיַיבֶּמֶת.

MISHNAH: In which way “the wife of his brother who did not live in his world”? There were two brothers, one of them died, then a brother was born to them, and after that the second brother took his brother’s wife in levirate, and died. The first woman leaves as widow of his brother who did not live in his world and the second one because she is her co-wife. If he had “bespoken” her, the second performs ḥalîṣah but not levirate.

Halakhah

הלכה: כֵּיצַד אֵשֶׁת אָחִיו שֶׁלֹּא הָיָה בְעוֹלָמוֹ כול׳. יַחדָּיו. פְּרָט לְאֵשֶׁת אָחִיו שֶׁלֹּא הָיָה בְעוֹלָמוֹ. דִּלֹא כֵן מַה אֲנָן אָמְרִין. מֵת בְּלֹא בָנִים תְּהֵא אִשְׁתּוֹ אֲסוּרָה לְהִינָּשֵׂא. שֶׁמָּא יוֹלִיד אָבִיו בֵּן וּתְהֵא אִשְׁתּוֹ זְקוּקָה לְיִיבּוּם. מֵעַתָּה אֲפִילוּ מֵתָה אִמּוֹ תְּהֵא אִשְׁתּוֹ אֲסוּרָה לְהִינָּשֵׂא. שֶׁמָּא יֵלֵךְ אָבִיו וְיִשָּׂא לוֹ אִשָּׁה אֲחֶרֶת וְיוֹלִיד בֵּן וּתְהֵא אִשְׁתּוֹ זְקוּקָה לְיִיבּוּם. וְיֹאמֶר קִרְיָיה וּבֵן וְאַב אֵין לוֹ. אֶלָּא כֵן אֲנָן קַיָימִין כְּשֶׁמֵּת וְהִנִּיחַ אֶת אִשְׁתּוֹ מְעוּבֶּרֶת. שֶׁלֹּא תֹאמַר. אִילּוּ מֵת וְהִנִּיחַ אֶת אִשְׁתּוֹ מְעוּבֶּרֶת שֶׁמָּא אֵינָה צְרִיכָה לְהַמְתִּין וְלֵידַע אִם בֶּן קַיָימָא הוּא וְאִם אֵינוֹ בֶּן קַיָימָא. אַף הָכָא תְהֵא צְרִיכָה לְהַמְתִּין וְלֵידַע אִם בֶּן קַיָימָא הוּא וְאִם אֵינוֹ בֶּן קַיָימָא. לְפוּם כֵּן צָרַךְ מֵימַר יַחדָּיו. פְּרָט לְאֵשֶׁת אָחִיו שֶׁלֹּא הָיָה בְעוֹלָמוֹ.

HALAKHAH: Why “the wife of his brother who did not live in his world”? “Together”, this excludes the wife of his brother who did not live in his world. Because if it were not so, what would we say? If he died childless, his widow would be forbidden to remarry, for maybe his father would have another son and his widow would then be a candidate for the levirate! Even if [the deceased’s] mother had died, his widow would be forbidden to remarry, [because] maybe the father would go and marry a new wife who could have a son and the widow would then be a candidate for the levirate! Then the verse would have to read: “He has neither father nor son”! One would compare this to the case that he left his widow pregnant; does she not have to wait to know whether the child is viable or not? Here also, should she not have to wait to know whether the child is viable or not? Therefore it was necessary to say “together”; this excludes the wife of his brother who did not live in his world.

יְבָמָהּ יָבֹא עָלֶיהָ. זֶה הַבִּיאָה. וּלְקָחָהּ לוֹ לְאִשָּׁה. זֶה הַמַּאֲמָר. יָכוֹל יְהֵא כְשֵׁם שֶׁהַבִּיאָה גוֹמֶרֶת בָּהּ כָּךְ יְהֵא מַאֲמָר גּוֹמֵר בָּהּ. תַּלמוּד לוֹמַר וְיִבְּמָהּ. עוּרָה אֶת כָּל הַפָּרָשָׁה כּוּלָּהּ לְיִיבּוּם. הַבִּיאָה גוֹמֶרֶת בָּהּ וְאֵין הַמַּאֲמָר גּוֹמֵר בָּהּ. אִם כֵּן מַה הוֹעִיל בָּהּ מַאֲמָר. לְאוֹסְרָהּ לָאַחִין.

“Her levir shall come upon her”, that is cohabitation. “And take her as wife for himself”, that is “bespeaking”. I might think that just as cohabitation is final so “bespeaking” is final; the verse says “and act as levir towards her.” This directs the entire paragraph towards levirate. Cohabitation is final, “bespeaking” is not final. Then what is “bespeaking” good for? To forbid her to the brothers.

רִבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן אוֹמֵר. הַמַּאֲמָר אוֹ קוֹנֶה אוֹ לֹא קוֹנֶה. מַה טַעֲמָא דְרִבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן. יְבָמָהּ יָבֹא עָלֶיהָ. זוֹ הַבִּיאָה. וּלְקָחָהּ לוֹ לְאִשָּׁה. זֶה הַמַּאֲמָר. וּכְשֵׁם שֶׁהַבִּיאָה גוֹמֶרֶת בָּהּ כָּךְ הַמַּאֲמָר גּוֹמֵר בָּהּ. אוֹ יְבָמָהּ יָבֹא עָלֶיהָ וַהֲרֵי הִיא לְקוּחָה לוֹ וְהַמַּאֲמָר לֹא הוֹעִיל בָּהּ. כְּלוּם.

Rebbi Simeon says, “bespeaking” either acquires or does not acquire. What is the argument of Rebbi Simeon? “Her levir shall come upon her”, that is cohabitation. “And take her as wife for himself”, that is “bespeaking”. Just as cohabitation is final so “bespeaking” is final. Or “her levir shall come upon her”, then she has been acquired by him and “bespeaking” was of no use to her.

רִבִּי לָעְזָר בֶּן עֲרָךְ אוֹמֵר. הַמַּאֲמָר קוֹנֶה קִנְיָין גָּמוּר בִּיבָמָה. מַה טַעֲמָא דְּרִבִּי לָעְזָר בֶּן עֲרָךְ. וּלְקָחָהּ לוֹ לְאִשָּׁה. הֲרֵי הִיא כְקִידּוּשֵׁי אִשָּׁה. מַה קִידּוּשֵׁי אִשָּׁה קוֹנִין קִנְיָין גָּמוּר. אַף הַמַּאֲמָר קוֹנֶה קִנְיָין גָּמוּר בִּיבָמָה. אֵי זוֹ הִיא מַּאֲמָר בִּיבָמָה. הֲרֵי אַתְּ מְקוּדֶּשֶׁת לִי בְּכֶסֶף וּבְשָׁוֶה כֶסֶף.

Rebbi Eleazar ben Arakh says, “bespeaking” acquires a sister-in-law completely. What is the argument of Rebbi Eleazar ben Arakh? “And take her as wife for himself”, the same expression is used as for qiddushin of a woman. Just as qiddushin acquire completely, so “bespeaking” acquires a sister-in-law completely. What is the formula for “bespeaking” a sister-in-law? “You are betrothed to me by money or money’s worth.”

בֵּין רַבָּנִין בֵּין רִבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן מוֹדֵיי בָהּ. כְּרַבָּנִין. צַד שֶׁקָּנָה בָהּ מַאֲמָר כְּנֶגְדּוֹ אָסוּר בְּצָרָה. וְצַד שֶׁלּא קָנָה בָהּ מַאֲמָר כְּנֶגְדּוֹ הֵיתֵר בְּצָרָה. לְפִיכָךְ חוֹלֶצֶת וְלֹא מִתְיַיבֶּמֶת. כְּרִבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן. קָנָה מַאֲמָר שְׁתֵּיהֶן מוּתָּרוֹת. לא קָנָה מַאֲמָר הָרִאשׁוֹנָה אֲסוּרָה וְהַשְּׁנִיָיה מוּתֶּרֶת. מִסָּפֵק חוֹלֶצֶת וְלֹא מִתְיַיבֶּמֶת. מַה נְפִיק מִן בֵּינֵיהוֹן. בָּא עַל הַשְּׁנִיָיה. עַל דַּעְתִּין דְּרַבָּנִין בִּיאוֹת עֶרְוָה. מִפְּנֵי שֶׁעָשָׂה בָּהּ מַאֲמָר. הָא אִם לֹא עָשָׂה בָהּ מַאֲמָר מִתְיַיבֶּמֶת וְאֵין לוֹ זִיקָה בָהּ. אָמַר רִבִּי חַגַיי. קִיַימְתָּהּ בְּהַהוּא דָמַר רִבִּי יַעֲקֹב בַּר אָחָא בְשֵׁם רִבִּי לָעְזָר. שׁוֹמֶרֶת יָבָם שֶׁמֵּתָה מוּתָּר בְּאִמָּהּ. זִיקָה הְָיְתָה לוֹ בָהּ. כֵּיוָן שֶׁמֵּתָה בָטְלָה זִיקָתָהּ. וְהָכָא כֵּיוָן שֶׁמֵּת בָּטְלָה זִיקָתוֹ.

Both the rabbis and Rebbi Simeon agree to the following. According to the rabbis, the aspect which “bespeaking” acquires is forbidden in the co-wife, the aspect which “bespeaking” does not acquire is permitted in the co-wife; therefore, the latter has to have ḥalîṣah but not levirate. According to Rebbi Simeon, if “bespeaking” acquires, both are permitted. If “bespeaking” does not acquire, the first one is forbidden but the second one permitted. Out of doubt, she has to have ḥalîṣah but not levirate. What is the difference between them? If he slept with the second one. In the opinion of the rabbis, an incestuous intercourse because he had “bespoken”. Therefore, if he had not “bespoken” she may have levirate and there is no candidacy at all. Rebbi Ḥaggai said, I explained that following what Rebbi Jacob bar Aḥa said in the name of Rebbi Eleazar: If a woman waiting for her levir died, her mother is permitted to him. He had in her an interest of candidacy. When she died, the candidacy was eliminated. And here, when he died, the candidacy was eliminated.

Mishnah

משנה: שְׁנֵי אַחִים וּמֵת אֶחָד מֵהֶן וְיִיבֵּם הַשֵּׁנִי אֶת אֵשֶׁת אָחִיו וְאַחַר כָּךְ נוֹלַד לָהֶן אָח וָמֵת. הָרִאשׁוֹנָה יוֹצֵאת מִשּׁוּם אֵשֶׁת אָחִיו שֶׁלֹּא הָיָה בְעוֹלָמוֹ וְהַשְּׁנִיָיה מִשּׁוּם צָרָתָהּ. עָשָׂה בָהּ מַאֲמָר וָמֵת שְׁנִיָיה חוֹלֶצֶת וְלֹא מִתְיַבֶּמֶת. רִבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן אוֹמֵר מְיַיבֶּם לְאֵיזוֹ שֶׁיִּרְצֶה אוֹ חוֹלֵץ לְאֵיזוֹ שֶׁיִּרְצֶה.

MISHNAH: There were two brothers, one of them died and the second took his brother’s widow in levirate; afterwards a brother was born to them, and he died. The first woman leaves as wife of his brother who did not live in his world and the second one as her co-wife. If [the second brother] had bespoken [the widow of the first] when he died, the second performs ḥalîṣah but cannot have levirate. Rebbi Simeon says, he may take in levirate any one he wants or performs ḥalîṣah with any one he wants.

Halakhah

הלכה: שְׁנֵי אַחִים וּמֵת אֶחָד מֵהֶן כול׳. רִבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן אוֹמֵר. הַמַּאֲמָר אוֹ קוֹנֶה אוֹ לֹא קוֹנֶה וְאַתְּ אָמַר אָכֵין. וּמְיַיבְּמִין לְבַעֲלַת מַאֲמָר. וְחָשׁ לוֹמַר שֶׁמָּא לֹא קָנָה מַאֲמָר וְנִמְצָא מִתְחַיֵיב עָלֶיהָ מִשֵּׁם אֵשֶׁת אָחִיו שֶׁלֹּא הָיָה בְעוֹלָמוֹ. וְחוֹלְצִין לְבַעֲלַת מַאֲמָר. וְחָשׁ לוֹמַר שֶׁמָּא קָנָה מַאֲמָר וְנִמְצֵאת הַשְּׁנִיָיה זְקוּקָה לוֹ. הֲוֵויי מַה דְאָמַר רִבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן עַל רֵישֵׁיהּ.

HALAKHAH: “If there were two brothers, one of them died”, etc. Rebbi Simeon says, “bespeaking” either acquires or does not acquire, and you say so? May one permit levirate with the “bespoken” woman? One should suspect that “bespeaking” does not acquire; then he would be guilty because of “wife of his brother who did not live in his world.” Can the “bespoken” one perform ḥalîṣah? Should one not suspect that “bespeaking” does acquire; then the second {widow] is a candidate for [the third brother]. It must be that Rebbi Simeon refers to the first case.

אָמַר רִבִּי יוֹחָנָן. מוֹדֶה רִבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן בָּרִאשׁוֹנָה. אַשְׁכָּח תַּנֵּי. עוֹד הִיא בְּמַחֲלוֹקֶת. מַה בֵּין רִאשׁוֹנָה וּמַה בֵּין שְׁנִיָיה. רִאשׁוֹנָה בָּא וּמְצָאָהּ בְּאִיסּוּר. וְהַּשְּׁנִיָיה בָא וּמְצָאָהּ בְּהֵיתֵר. רִבִּי יוֹחָנָן בָּעֵי. אֵשֶׁת אָבִיו שֶׁמְּצָאָהּ לִפְנֵי אֶחָד מִן הַשּׁוּק מַה אָמַר בָּהּ רִבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן. מִפְּנֵי שֶׁמְּצָאָהּ בְּהֵיתֵר מוּתֶּרֶת. לֹא אָמַר רִבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן אֶלָּא עַל יְדֵי אַחִין מִן הָאַב. רִבִּי יַעֲקֹב בַּר אָחָא אָמַר רִבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן בֵּן לָקִישׁ בָּעֵי. אֵשֶׁת אָחִיו מֵאִמּוֹ שֶׁמְּצָאָהּ לִפְנֵי אֶחָד מִן הַשּׁוּק מַה אָמַר בָּהּ רִבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן. מִפְּנֵי שֶׁמְּצָאָהּ בְּהֵיתֵר מוּתֶּרֶת. לֹא אָמַר רִבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן אֶלָּא עַל יְדֵי אַחִים מֵאָב. רִבִּי יוּדָן בָּעֵי. צָרַת אֲחוֹת אִמּוֹ שֶׁמְּצָאָהּ לִפְנֵי אֶחָד מִן הַשּׁוּק. מִפְּנֵי שֶׁמְּצָאָת בְּהֵיתֵר מוּתֶּרֶת. רִבִּי אָבִין בָּעִין. גְּרוּשָׁה שֶׁנַּעֲשֵׂית אַלְמָנָה. אַתְּ אָמַר מַה דְאָמַר רִבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן עַל רֹאשָׁהּ.

Rebbi Joḥanan said, Rebbi Simeon agrees in the first case. It was found stated, that also is in disagreement. What is the difference between the first and second cases? In the first case he came and found her forbidden, in the second he came and found her permitted. Rebbi Joḥanan asked, if he found his father’s wife married to an outsider, what does Rebbi Simeon say about her? Because he came and found her permitted, is she permitted? Rebbi Simeon said that only relative to paternal brothers. Rebbi Jacob bar Aḥa said, Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish asked: His maternal halfbrother’s wife which he found married to an outsider, what does Rebbi Simeon say about her? Because he came and found her permitted, is she permitted? Rebbi Simeon said that only relative to paternal brothers. Rebbi Yudan asked, a co-wife of his maternal aunt which he found married to an outsider? Because he came and found her permitted, is she permitted? Rebbi Abin asked, if a divorcee became a widow? You have to say that Rebbi Simeon referred to the first case.

מַה אָמַר רִבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן בְּבַעֲלַת מַאֲמָר. נִישְׁמְעִינָהּ מִן הָדָא. רִבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן אוֹמֵר. בִּיאָתָהּ וַחֲלִיצָה שֶׁלְּאַחַת מֵהֶן פּוֹטֶרֶת צָרָתָהּ. וְאִם חָלַץ לְבַעֲלַת מַאֲמָר אַף הַשְּׁנִיָיה צְרִיכָה חֲלִיצָה. אַתְּ אָמַר. בִּיאָתָהּ אוֹ חֲלִיצָתָהּ שֶׁלְּאַחַת מֵהֶן פּוֹטֶרֶת צָרָתָהּ. מַה נַפְשֵׁךְ. קָנָה מַאֲמָר שְׁתֵּיהֶן נָשָׁיו. נִפְטְרָה בַּחֲלִיצַת חֲבֵירָתָהּ. לֹא קָנָה מַאֲמָר אֵין הָרִאשׁוֹנָה צְרִיכָה חֲלִיצָה. וְאִם חָלַץ לְבַעֲלַת מַאֲמָר אַף הַשְּׁנִיָיה צְרִיכָה חֲלִיצָה. שֶׁמָּא לא קָנָה מַאֲמָר וְלֹא נָגְעָה בָהּ חֲלִיצָה וְיִיבּוּם שֶׁמָּא קָנָה מַאֲמָר וְנִפְטְרָה בַּחֲלִיצַת חֲבֵירָתָהּ. מַה נְפִיק מִן בֵּינֵיהוֹן. חָלַץ לָרִאשׁוֹנָה וּבָא עַל הַשְּׁנִיָיה. עַל דַּעְתִּין דְּרַבָּנִין בִּיאַת עֶרְוָה. עַל דַּעְתֵּיהּ דְּרִבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן אֵינָהּ בִּיאַת עֶרְוָה. בָּא עַל הָרִאשׁוֹנָה וּבָא עַל הַשְּׁנִיָיה. עַל דַּעְתִּין דְּרַבָּנִן הָרִאשׁוֹנָה בִּיאַת עֶרְוָה וְהַשְּׁנִיָיה צְרִיכָה גֵט וַחֲלִיצָה. עַל דַּעְתֵּיהּ דְּרִבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן שְׁתֵּיהֶן צְרִיכוֹת גֵּט. הָרִאשׁוֹנָה צְרִיכָה גֵט שֶׁמָּא קָנָה מַאֲמָר. וְהַשְּׁנִיָיה צְרִיכָה גֵט שֶׁמָּא קָנָה יִיבּוּם שֶׁמָּא קָנָה מַאֲמָר נִפְטֶרֶת מֵחֲלִיצַת חֲבֵירָתָהּ.

What does Rebbi Simeon say about the “bespoken” woman? Let us hear from the following: “Rebbi Simeon says, the cohabitation or the ḥalîṣah of one of them frees her co-wife but if he performed ḥalîṣah with the “bespoken” woman, her colleague also needs ḥalîṣah. You say, the cohabitation or the ḥalîṣah of one of them frees her co-wife. However one argues, if “bespeaking” acquires, both are his wives and any one of them becomes free by her colleague’s ḥalîṣah. If “bespeaking” does not acquire, the first one does not need ḥalîṣah, but if he performed ḥalîṣah with the “bespoken” one, the second one also needs ḥalîṣah. Maybe “bespeaking” does not acquire, then ḥalîṣah or levirate do not apply to her. Maybe “bespeaking” does acquire; then she is freed by her colleague’s ḥalîṣah. What is the difference between them? If he performed ḥalîṣah with the first and cohabited with the second. In the opinion of the rabbis it was an incestuous cohabitation. In the opinion of Rebbi Simeon it was not an incestuous cohabitation. If he cohabited both with the first and the second widow, in the opinion of the rabbis with the first it was incest and the second needs a bill of divorce and ḥalîṣah. In the opinion of Rebbi Simeon, both need a bill of divorce. The first one needs a bill of divorce; perhaps the “bespeaking” did acquire. The second one needs a bill of divorce; perhaps levirate did acquire; if “bespeaking” did acquire, she was freed by her colleague’s ḥalîṣah.

רִבִּי זְעוּרָא בְשֵׁם רַב שֵׁשֶׁת. תַּנֵּי תַּמָּן. דִּבְרֵי רִבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן שְׁתֵּיהֶן אֲסוּרוֹת. וְקַשְׁיָא. קָנָה מַאֲמָר שְׁתֵּיהֶן מוּתָּרוֹת. לֹא קָנָה מַאֲמָר אֶלָּא זִיקָה. וְקַשְׁיָא. קָנָה זִיקָה שְׁתֵּיהֶן מוּתָּרוֹת. לֹא קָנָה זִיקָה הָרִאשׁוֹנָה אֲסוּרָה וְהַשְּׁנִיָיה מוּתֶּרֶת. שֶׁמָּא זִיקַת רִבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן כְּמַאֲמָר דְּרַבְּנָן. כְּמַה דְרַבָּנָן אָמְרֵי. הַמַּאֲמָר קָנָה וּמְשַׁיֵיר. כֵּן אָמַר. זִיקָה קוֹנָה וּמְשַׁיֶירֶת. וְקַשְׁיָא. צַד שֶׁקּוֹנָה זִיקָה כְּנֶגְדּוֹ אָסוּר בַּצָּרָה. צַד שֶׁלֹּא קָוֹנָה זִיקָה כְּנֶגְדּוֹ הֵיתֵר בַּצָּרָה. אָמַר שַׁמַּי. וְכִי וּמַה נַפְשֵׁךְ בָּעֲרָיוֹת. מַהִיא בְּהוֹן. כְּהִיא דְאָמַר רִבִּי אָחָא בְשֵׁם רִבִּי בּוּן בַּר חִיָיה. כָּל יְבָמָה שֶׁאֵין כּוּלָּהּ לִפְנִים צַד הַקָּנוּי שֶׁבָּהּ נִידוֹן לְשֵׁם עֶרְוָה. וְעֶרְוָה פוֹטֶרֶת צָרָתָהּ.

Rebbi Ze‘ira in the name of Rav Sheshet: There, one stated: The words of Rebbi Simeon are that both are forbidden. This is difficult. If “bespeaking” acquires, are not both permitted? This is a question of acquiring not by “bespeaking” but by candidacy. This is difficult. If candidacy acquires, both are permitted. If candidacy does not acquire, the first one is forbidden but the second permitted. Maybe candidacy for Rebbi Simeon is like “bespeaking” for the rabbis. Just as the rabbis say, “bespeaking” acquires but leaves a remainder, so Rebbi Simeon says, candidacy acquires but leaves a remainder. This is difficult. That aspect which is acquired by candidacy implies a prohibition of an equal part of the co-wife, that part which is not acquired by candidacy implies permission of an equal aspect of the co-wife! Shammai said, is this kind of argument applicable to incest prohibitions? What does he mean? As Rebbi Aḥa said in the name of Rebbi Abun bar Ḥiyya, the aspect acquired in any sister-in-law which is not totally inside [the family] is considered to be under the incest prohibition and an incest prohibition frees her co-wife.