Parallel
יבמות 29
Soncino English Talmud · Berean Standard Bible
But did not R. Simeon state that two sisters are neither to perform the halizah nor to be taken in levirate marriage! — This is a preventive measure against any other case where the prohibition is due to a commandment — This is a satisfactory explanation in respect of herself; what, however, can be said in respect of her sister? -The provision was made in the case of her sister as a preventive measure against herself. But, surely. no such preventive measures were made in the case where one was forbidden as incest! — A case of incest is different because people are well acquainted with it and it is well known. MISHNAH. IF TWO OF THREE BROTHERS WERE MARRIED TO TWO SISTERS AND THE THIRD WAS UNMARRIED, AND WHEN ONE OF THE SISTERS HUSBANDS DIED, THE UNMARRIED BROTHER ADDRESSED TO HER A MA'AMAR, AND THEN HIS SECOND BROTHER DIED, BETH SHAMMAI SAY: HIS WIFE [REMAINS] WITH HIM WHILE THE OTHER IS EXEMPT AS BEING HIS WIFE'S SISTER. BETH HILLEL, HOWEVER, MAINTAIN THAT HE MUST DISMISS HIS WIFE BY A LETTER OF DIVORCE AND BY HALIZAH, AND HIS BROTHER'S WIFE BY HALIZAH. THIS IS THE CASE IN REGARD TO WHICH IT WAS SAID: WOE TO HIM BECAUSE OF HIS WIFE, AND WOE TO HIM BECAUSE OF HIS BROTHER'S WIFE. GEMARA. What was THIS IS meant to exclude? — To exclude the statement of R. Joshua, [and to indicate] that we do not act In accordance with his view but either in accordance with that of R. Gamaliel or that of R. Eliezer. R. Eleazar said: It must not be assumed that a ma'amar according to Beth Shammai constitutes a perfect kinyan, so that, if he wishes to dismiss her, a letter of divorce is sufficient; but rather that, according to Beth Shammai, a ma'amar constitutes a kinyan only so far as to keep out the rival. Said R. Abin: We also have learned the same thing: Beth Shammai said, 'They may retain them', which implies that they may only retain them but [that they may] not [marry them] at the outset.
—
Now, if it could be assumed that a ma'amar, according to Beth Shammai, constitutes a perfect kinyan, let the one levir address a ma'amar and constitute thereby a kinyan, and let the other also address a ma amar and thereby constitute a kinyan. What then! [Is it your inference that] it keeps the rival completely out? Let then one levir address a ma'amar and keep her out and let the other levir also address a ma'amar and keep her out! What, however, may be said in reply? That a permitted ma'amar does keep the rival out, while a forbidden ma'amar does not keep her out; so also here, even according to him who maintains that a ma'amar constitutes a perfect kinyan, only a permitted ma'amar constitutes a kinyan. but a forbidden one does not. R. Ashi taught it in the following manner: R. Eleazar said: It must not be assumed that a ma'amar, according to Beth Shammai, keeps the rival completely out, and that she does not require even halizah; but rather it keeps her out and still leaves [a partial bond]. Said R. Abin: We also have learned the same thing: Beth Shammai said, 'they may retain them', which implies that they may only retain them but [that they may] not [marry them] at the outset. Now, if it could have been assumed that a ma amar, according to Beth Shammai, keeps a rival out completely. let the one levir address a ma'amar, and thus keep her out. and let the other also address a ma'amar and so keep her out. But. surely. it was taught. BETH SHAMMAI SAY: HIS WIFE [REMAINS] WITH HIM WHILE THE OTHER IS EXEMPT AS HIS WIFE'S SISTER! — The fact is, a yebamah who is eligible for all is also eligible for a part; a yebamah who is not eligible for all is not eligible for a part. Rabbah inquired: Does a ma'amar, according to Beth Shammai, constitute marriage or betrothal? — Said Abaye to him: On what practical issue [does this question bear]? Shall I say on [the issue] of inheriting from her, defiling himself to her or annulling her vows? Surely, [it could be answered that] seeing that in the case of ordinary betrothal R. Hiyya taught, that where the wife has only been betrothed [the husband] is neither subject to the laws of onan nor may he defile himself for her. and she in his case is likewise not subject to the laws of onan nor may she defile herself for him, and that if she dies he does not inherit from her though if he dies she collects her kethubah; is there any need [to speak of the case where] a ma'amar had been addressed! Rather. [the question is] in respect of introduction into the bridal canopy: Does it constitute a marriage and, therefore. no introduction into the bridal canopy is required. Or does it perhaps constitute betrothal and, consequently, introduction into the bridal canopy is required? The other replied: If where he did not address to her any ma'amar it is written [in Scripture]. Her husband's brother shall go in unto her, even against her will, is there any need [to speak of the case where] he has addressed to her a ma'amar! The former retorted: Yes; since I maintain that whenever a levir has addressed a ma'amar to his sister-in-law, the levirate bond disappears and she comes under the bond of betrothal. What [then is the decision]? — Come and hear: In the case of a widow awaiting the decision of the levir. whether there be one levir or two levirs, R. Eliezer said, he may annul [her vows]. R. Joshua said: [Only where she is waiting] for one and not for two. R. Akiba said: Neither when she [is waiting] for one nor for two. Now we pondered thereon: One can well understand R. Akiba, since he may hold that no levirate bond exists even in the case of one; according to R. Joshua, the levirate bond may exist where there is one levir but not where there are two levirs. According to R. Eliezer, however, granted that a levirate bond exists, one can understand why, in the case of one, he may annul, but why also in the case of two? And R. Ammi replied: Here it is a case where he addressed to her a ma'amar, and the statement represents the opinion of Beth Shammai who maintain that a ma'amar constitutes a perfect kinyan. Now, if it be granted that it constitutes a marriage, it is quite intelligible why he may annul her vows. If. however, it be assumed that it constitutes only a betrothal, how could he annul her vows? Surely we learned: The vows of a betrothed girl may be annulled by her father in conjunction with her husband! -Said R. Nahman b. Isaac: What is meant by annulment? Jointly. According to R. Eleazar, however, who holds that a ma'amar, In the opinion of Beth Shammai, constitutes a kinyan only so far as to keep out the rival, how could the annulment be effected even jointly? — R. Eleazar can answer you: When I said that it constitutes a kinyan so far only as to keep out the rival, [I meant to indicate] that a letter of divorce was not sufficient but that halizah also was required; did I say anything. however, as regards the annulment of vows! And if you prefer I might say. R. Eleazar can answer you: Is it satisfactorily explained according to R. Nahman b. Isaac? Surely it was not stated 'they may annul' but 'he may annul'! Consequently this must be a case where he appeared before a court and a specified sum for alimony was decreed for her out of his estate; and [this is to be understood] In accordance with the statement R. Phinehas made in the name of Raba. For R. Phinehas stated in the name of Raba: Any woman that utters a vow does so on condition that her husband will approve of it.
—