Yevamot

FIRST commits no error', since 'first' may signify  'first to be subject [to the levirate marriage]'; and 'he who uses the expression SECOND also commits no error', since 'second' may signify 'second to marry',  Does not our Mishnah, however, include also  the case of one who contracted the levirate marriage first and subsequently married his other wife?  What, then, is meant by 'second'? Second in respect of her marriages. Where [in the Scriptures] is [the prohibition of marrying] 'the wife of his brother who was not his contemporary' written? — Rab Judah replied in the name of Rab: Scripture states, If brethren dwell together,  i.e., dwell in the world at the same time; the wife of one's brother who was not his contemporary is consequently excluded; 'together' implies who are together in respect of inheritance,  a maternal brother is, therefore, excluded. Rabbah said: [That legal] brothers [are only those who are descended] from the same father is deduced by a comparison of this 'brotherhood'  with the 'brotherhood' of the sons of Jacob;  as there [the brotherhood was derived] from the father  and not from the mother,  so here also [the brotherhood spoken of is that] from the father and not from the mother. Let him rather deduce this 'brotherhood'  from the 'brotherhood' of forbidden relatives!  — Brethren  may be deduced from brethren,  but not brethren  from thy brother.  What practical difference is there [between the two expression]? Surely the School of R. Ishmael taught: And the priest shall return,  and the priest shall come,  'returning' and 'coming' are the same thing!  — Such an analogy is drawn only  where there is no other identical word; when, however, there occurs another word which is identical, the analogy is made only with that which is identical. Let him, then, deduce this 'brotherhood'  from the 'brotherhood' in the case of Lot, since it is written in the Scriptures. For we are brethren!  -It stands to reason that the deduction should be made from the sons of Jacob. because the [analogous expression] is available for the purpose;  for it could have been written, Thy servants are twelve sons of one man  and yet 'brethren' also was written. Hence it must be inferred that the word was made available for the deduction. It was necessary for Scripture to write brethren,  and it was also necessary to write together.  For had the All Merciful written 'brethren' only, it might have been suggested that this 'brotherhood' should be deduced from the 'brotherhood' in the case of Lot. And were you to reply that [the analogous word],  is not available for deduction,  your statement would be negatived,  [the analogous word] being indeed available; for whereas he could have written 'friends' and yet wrote 'brethren', the inference must be that the object was to render it available for analogous deduction; hence the All Merciful has written 'together', implying only those who are together in respect of inheritance.  If, [on the other hand,] the All Merciful had only written 'together', it might have been said to refer to such as have the same father and mother; [hence both expressions were] required. But how could you have arrived at such an opinion?  The All Merciful has, surely, made  the levirate marriage dependent on inheritance,  and inheritance  is derived from the father and not from the mother!  -It  was necessary. For it might have been assumed that whereas this  is an anomaly,  a forbidden relative  having been permitted, the brotherhood must, therefore, be both paternal and maternal; [hence it was] necessary [to teach us that the law was not so]. R. Huna said in the name of Rab: If a woman awaiting the decision of the levir!  died, [the levir] is permitted to marry her mother. This obviously shews that he!  is of the opinion that no levirate bond  exists  let him then say, the halachah is in accordance with the view of him who said no levirate bond exists!  — If he had said so, it might have been suggested that this applied only to the case of two  but that in the case of one  a levirate bond does exist. Then let him say, 'The halachah is in accordance with him who said no levirate bond exists even in the case of one levir'!  — If he had said so it might have been assumed even where she  is alive;  hence he taught us that only after death and not when she is still alive, because it is forbidden to abolish the commandment of levirate marriages. We learned, 'If his deceased brother's wife died he may marry her sister',  which implies that her sister only may be married but not her mother! — The same law applies even to her mother; only because he taught in the earlier clause 'if his wife died he is permitted to marry her sister' in which case only her sister is meant and not her mother, since the latter is Biblically prohibited, he also taught in the latter clause 'he is permitted to marry her sister'. Rab Judah, however, said: If a woman awaiting the decision of the levir  died, the levir is still forbidden to marry her mother. This  obviously implies that he  is of the opinion that a levirate bond exists,  let him then say, the halachah is in accordance with the view of him who said a levirate bond exists!  -If he had said so it might have been suggested that this applied only to the case of one,  but in the case of two  no levirate bond exists. But the dispute,  surely, centered round the question of two!  — But [this is really the reply]: If he  had said so