Parallel
יבמות 10
Soncino English Talmud · Berean Standard Bible
And your mnemonic is, 'Died, born, and performed the levirate marriage; died, born, and performed the levirate marriage'! — Rabbi does not accept these rules. R. Adda Karhina stated before R. Kahana in the name of Raba: Rabbi, in fact, does accept these rules, but it was this that he meant to say to [Levi]: [The application of the statement to] a woman outraged by one's father is possible only in one [of its parts]; it is impossible, however, to apply it in [both its parts], for if Jacob outraged his two sisters, it is possible [to apply that part of the statement relating to] 'her sister who is her sister-in-law', but not that of 'she who is forbidden to one brother may be permitted to the other'; and if be outraged two strangers, it is possible [to apply the statement], 'she who is forbidden to one brother may be permitted to the other' but not that of 'her sister who is her sister-in-law'. R. Ashi said: Rabbi, in fact, does not accept these rules and [our Mishnah] does deal with matters in dispute, and as to the meaning of 'It seems to me that this man has no brains in his head' which he addressed to him, what he meant was this: 'Why did you not carefully consider our Mishnah? For our Mishnah represents the view of R. Judah who forbids the marriage of a woman that was outraged by one's father, as it was taught: Six forbidden relatives come under greater restrictions, since they are to be married to strangers only, and their rivals are permitted. [These are:] his mother, his father's wife and his father's sister [etc.]. Now, what is meant by "his mother"? If it be assumed to mean one who was legally married to his father, such a woman surely is "his father's wife". Must it not consequently mean one who was outraged by his father? And yet it was stated, "since they are to be married to strangers only", implying "to strangers only but not to the brothers". Now, who has been heard to hold such an opinion? Surely it was R. Judah who forbids marriage with a woman who was outraged by one's father. Hence it was not included in our Mishnah.' Said Rabina to R. Ashi: [Such a levirate relationship] is possible even according to R. Judah if and when one had married illegally! — The author of the Mishnah is not concerned with an 'if'. Said R. Ashi to R. Kahana: This is also possible without the 'if', where Jacob outraged his daughter-in-law, begat from her a son, and then Reuben died without issue, and she thus came into levirate relationship with her son; and since she is forbidden to him, her rival also is likewise forbidden! — The other replied: [The author of our Mishnah] deals only with lawful brotherhood but not with brotherhood which is due to a forbidden act. Levi nevertheless inserted it in his Mishnah. For Levi taught: One's mother sometimes exempts her rival and sometimes she does not exempt her. If his mother, for instance, was lawfully married to his father, and then she was married to his paternal brother who subsequently died, such a mother does not exempt her rival.
—
If his mother, however, was a woman that had been outraged by his father and was then married to his paternal brother who subsequently died, such a mother does exempt her rival. And though the Sages taught in our Mishnah FIFTEEN we must add a case like this as a sixteenth. Resh Lakish said to R. Johanan: According to Levi who maintains that an 'if' is also included, let our Mishnah also include the case of a levir who gave halizah to his sister-in-law and later betrothed her and died without issue, for since [the widow of such a one] is forbidden, her rival also is forbidden! — The other replied: Because in this case the law of the rival of the rival cannot be applied. But could he not have answered him [that the brothers] are only subject to the penalties of a negative precept, and that those who are subject to the penalties of a negative precept are under the obligations of halizah and the levirate marriage? — He answered him in accordance with the view he holds. 'According to my view,' he argued, [the brothers] are only subject to the penalties of a negative precept, and those who are subject to the penalties of a negative precept are under the obligations of halizah and the levirate marriage, but even according to your view that they are subject to the penalty of kareth [the case could not have been included in our Mishnah] because the law of the rival's rival cannot be applied'. It has been stated: Where [a levir] had performed the ceremonial of halizah with his sister-in-law, and then betrothed her, Resh Lakish holds that he is not subject to the penalty of kareth for the haluzah, but the other brothers are subject to kareth for the haluzah. In the case of the rival, both he and the other brothers are subject to kareth for a rival. R. Johanan, however, holds that neither he nor the other brothers are subject to kareth either for the haluzah or for her rival. What is the reason of Resh Lakish? — Scripture stated, That doth not build, since he has not built he must never again build. He himself is thus placed under the prohibition of building no more, but his brothers remain in the same position in which they were before. Furthermore, the prohibition to build no more applies only to herself, her rival, however, remains under the same prohibition as before. And R. Johanan? — Is it inconceivable that at first halizah should be allowed to be performed by any one of the brothers and with either of the widows of the deceased brother and that now one or other of these persons should be involved in kareth! But [in point of fact] he merely acts as agent for the brothers while she acts as agent for her rival. R. Johanan pointed out to Resh Lakish the following objection: 'If a levir who submitted to halizah from his sister-in-law, later betrothed her and died, [the widow] requires halizah from the surviving brothers'. Now, according to me who maintains that [the surviving brothers] are subject to the penalties of a negative precept only, one can well understand why she requires halizah from the other brothers. According to you, however, why should she require halizah? — Explain, then, on the lines of your reasoning, the final clause, 'If one of the brothers actually betrothed her, she has no claim upon him'! R. Shesheth replied: The final clause represents the opinion of R. Akiba who holds that a betrothal with those who are subject thereby to the penalties of a negative precept is of no validity. Should it not then have been stated, 'according to the view of R. Akiba she has no claim upon him'!
—