יבמות 27 — parallel

27:1

if he participated in the halizah with the sisters, the rivals are not exempt; how then should Reuben, where the halizah of Simeon has the force of a valid halizah, participate in an impaired halizah? — By saying. 'One brother participates in the halizah with all of them' he also meant 'the third widow'. But surely, 'All of them' was stated! -As the majority is on his side it may be described as 'All of them'. If you prefer I might say: Only in respect of exempting one's rival did Samuel say that proper halizah was required; as regards exempting herself, however, [any halizah] sets her free. [To turn to] the main text, Samuel said: If he participated in the halizah with the sisters, the rivals are not exempt; ff with the rivals. the sisters are exempt. If he participated in the halizah with the one who had been divorced, her rival is not thereby exempt; if with the rival the divorced woman is exempt — If he participated in the halizah with one to whom he addressed a ma'amar, her rival is not thereby exempt; if with the rival, the widow to whom the ma'amar had been addressed is exempt. In what respect are the sisters different that [by their halizah] the rivals should not be exempted? Apparently because [each one of them] is 'his wife's sister' through the levirate bond; [but for this very reason] the sisters also, if he participated in the halizah with their rivals, should not be exempt, since those are the rivals of 'his wife's sister' through the levirate bond! — Samuel holds the opinion that no Ievirate bond exists. But, surely, Samuel said that a levirate bond did exist! -He was here speaking in accordance with the view of him who maintains that a levirate bond does not exist. If so, why are not the rivals exempt when he participated In the halizah with the sisters? One can well understand why Rachel's rival is not exempt; for, as he had already participated in the halizah of Leah and only subsequently participated in the halizah of Rachel, Rachel's halizah is a defective one; but Leah's rival should be exempt! -When he said that 'The rivals are not exempt', he meant indeed the rival of Rachel. But, surely, he used the expression 'rivals'! -Rivals generally. If so, how could the sisters be exempt if he participated in the halizah with their rivals? Is Rachel exempt by the halizah of her rival! Surely we learned: A man is forbidden to marry the rival of the relative of his halizah — Samuel also [is of the same opinion] but draws a distinction according to the manner In which one began or did not begin: If one began with the sisters he must not finish with the rivals, for we learned, 'A man is forbidden to marry the rival of the relative of his haluzah'; but if he began with the rivals he may finish even with the sisters, for we learned, 'A man is permitted to marry the relative of the rival of his haluzah'. R. Ashi said: Your former assumption may still be upheld, and [yet no difficulty arises] because the levirate bond is not strong enough to make the rival equal to the forbidden relative herself. It was taught in agreement with the view of R. Ashi: If the levir participated in the halizah with the sisters, their rivals are not thereby exempt; but if with the rivals, the sisters are thereby exempt. What is the reason? Obviously because he is of the opinion that a levirate bond exists and that that bond is not strong enough to make the rival equal to the forbidden relative herself. R. Abba b. Memel said: Who is the author of this? Beth Shammai; for we learned: Beth Shammai permit the rivals to the [surviving] brothers. If so, let them be taken in levirate marriage also! [This is] in agreement with R. Johanan b. Nuri who said: Come, let us issue an ordinance that the rivals perform the halizah but do not marry the levir. But did not a Master say that they had hardly time to conclude the matter before confusion set in? — R. Nahman b. Isaac replied: After him they re-ordained it. The question was raised:

—

27:2

Between the one who was given a letter of divorce and the other to whom a ma'amar had been addressed who is to be preferred? Is she who was divorced to be preferred. or is, perhaps, she to whom the ma'amar had been addressed to be preferred since she is nearer to him in respect to intercourse? — R. Ashi replied, Come and hear: R. Gamaliel, however, admits that a letter of divorce after a ma'amar, and a ma'amar after a letter of divorce is valid. Now, if a letter of divorce has the preference. the ma'amar after it should have no validity; and if the ma'amar has the preference, the divorce after it should have no validity. Consequently it must be concluded that they have both equal validity. This proves it. R. Huna said in the name of Rab: If two sisters who were sisters-in-law became subject to one levir, the one is permitted when he has participated in her halizah; and the other is permitted when he has participated in her halizah. If the first died he is permitted [to marry] the second, and there is no need to state that if the second died the first is permitted, since, as a sister-in-law who was permitted, then forbidden and then again permitted, she returns to her former state of permissibility. R. Johanan, however, said: If the second died he is permitted to marry the first, but if the first died he is forbidden to marry the second. What is the reason? Because any sister-in-law to whom the injunction. Her husband's brother shall go in unto her cannot be applied at the time of her coming under the obligation of the levirate marriage is, indeed, like the wife of a brother who has children and is, consequently, forbidden. But does not Rab hold the same view? Surely Rab said: Any woman to whom the injunction, Her husband's brother should go in unto her cannot be applied at the time of her coming under the obligation of the levirate marriage is, indeed, like the wife of a brother who has children and is, consequently, forbidden! -That statement applies only to the case where the woman is faced with the prohibition of 'a wife's sister', which is Pentateuchal; here, however, [the prohibition due to] the levirate bond is only Rabbinical. R. Jose b. Hanina raised the following objection against R. Johanan: IN THE CASE OF FOUR BROTHERS, TWO OF WHOM WERE MARRIED TO TWO SISTERS, IF THOSE WHO WERE MARRIED TO THE SISTERS DIED, BEHOLD, THESE MUST PERFORM HALIZAH BUT MAY NOT BE TAKEN IN LEVIRATE MARRIAGE. But why? Let one of the brothers take on the duty of participating in the halizah with the second widow, and thus place the first widow, in relation to the second, in the category of a deceased brother's wife that was permitted- then forbidden, and then again permitted, and thus she would return to her former state of permissibility! — The other replied: I do not know who was the author of the statement concerning the sisters. But let him rather reply that the meaning of the expression of MUST PERFORM THE HALIZAH, which had been used, indeed signifies that only one is to perform the halizah! -The expression used was THEY MUST PERFORM THE HALIZAH. Then let him reply that the expressions THEY MUST PERFORM THE HALIZAH refers to women generally who perform the halizah!-It was stated, BEHOLD THESE. Let him, then, reply that [this is a case] where halizah was already performed by the first! -[The expression] THESE MUST PERFORM HALIZAH

—