יבמות 18:1 — Soncino English Talmud

it might have been assumed [that this holds good only] while she is alive but that after death the bond is broken, hence it was taught that the levirate bond is not automatically dissolved. May it be suggested that the following supports his view: 'If his deceased brother's wife died, the Ievir is permitted to marry her sister', which implies her sister Only but not her mother? — The same law may apply even to her mother; but because he taught in the earlier clause, 'if his wife died he is permitted to marry her sister', in which case her sister only is permitted and not her mother, the latter being forbidden Biblically, he also taught in the latter clause, 'he is permitted to marry her sister'. R. Huna b. Hiyya raised an objection: IF HE ADDRESSED THE MA'AMAR TO HER AND DIED, THE SECOND MUST PERFORM HALIZAH BUT MAY NOT ENTER INTO THE LEVIRATE MARRIAGE. The reason then is because he addressed to her the ma' amar, but had he not addressed a ma'amar to her, the second also would have been permitted to enter into the levirate marriage with him. Now, if it be maintained that the levirate bond does exist, the second, owing to this bond, would be the rival of the 'wife of his brother who was not his contemporary'! — Rabbah replied: The same law, that the second must perform the halizah with, but may not be married to the levir, applies even to the case where no ma'amar was addressed to her; and the ma'amar was mentioned only in order to exclude the view of Beth Shammai. Since they maintain that the ma'amar effects a perfect contract, he teaches us [that it was not so]. Abaye pointed out the following objection to him: In the case of two [contemporary] brothers one of whom died without Issue, and the second determined to address a ma'amar to his deceased brother's wife but before he managed to address a ma amar to her a third brother was born and he himself died, the first is exempt as 'the wife of his brother who was not his contemporary' while the second either performs the halizah or enters into the levirate marriage. Now, if it be maintained that a levirate bond does exist, the second, owing to this bond, would be the rival of 'the wife of his brother who was not his contemporary'! Whose view is this? It is that of R. Meir, who holds that no levirate bond exists. Does R. Meir, however, maintain that no Ievirate bond exists? Surely we have learned: In the case of four brothers two of whom were married to two sisters, if those who were married to the sisters died, behold their widows perform the halizah but may not be taken in levirate marriage [by either of the levirs]. Now, if R. Meir is of the opinion that no levirate bond exists, these would come from two different houses, and one brother could marry the one while the other could marry the other! — The fact is that [R. Meir maintains that] no levirate bond exists; [but the levirate marriage is nevertheless forbidden] because he is of the opinion that it is forbidden to annul the precept of levirate marriages, it being possible that while one of the brothers married [one of the widowed sisters] the other brother would die, and thus the precept of levirate marriages would be annulled. If, however, no Ievirate bond exists, let [also the precept of the levirate marriage] be annulled! For R. Gamaliel who holds that no levirate bond exists also [maintains that] the precept of the levirate marriage may be annulled; as we learned; R. Gamaliel said, 'If she made a declaration of refusal well and good; if she did not make a declaration of refusal let [the elder sister] wait until [the minor] grows up and this one is then exempt as his wife's sister'! -The other said to him: Are you pointing out a contradiction between the opinion of R. Meir and that of R. Gamaliel? No [replied Abaye]; we mean to say this: Does R. Meir provide even against a doubtful annulment and R. Gamaliel does not provide even against a certainty! — It is quite possible that he who does not provide makes no provision even against a certain annulment, while he who does provide makes provision even against a doubtful annulment. Said Abaye to R. Joseph: Rab Judah's statement is Samuel's; for we learnt:^ᵃ^ᵇ^ᶜ^ᵈ^ᵉ^ᶠ^ᵍ^ʰ^ⁱ^ʲ^ᵏ^ˡ^ᵐ^ⁿ^ᵒ^ᵖ^ᵠ^ʳ^ˢ^ᵗ^ᵘ^ᵛ^ʷ^ˣ^ʸ^ᶻ^ᵃᵃ^ᵃᵇ^ᵃᶜ^ᵃᵈ^ᵃᵉ^ᵃᶠ^ᵃᵍ^ᵃʰ^ᵃⁱ^ᵃʲ^ᵃᵏ^ᵃˡ^ᵃᵐ^ᵃⁿ

^ᵃnote:Lit., 'burst', 'split'.
^ᵇnote:Lit., 'by nothing', 'without formality', i.e., without the due performance of the halizah.
^ᶜnote:Because she is presumably regarded as his mother-in-law.
^ᵈnote:Supra 17a, q.v. for notes.
^ᵉnote:Why the levirate marriage is forbidden to the second
^ᶠnote:The first, the widow of the first deceased brother.
^ᵍnote:Between the widow and the levir, from the moment her husband, the first brother, died.
^ʰnote:With whom levirate marriage is forbidden.
^ⁱnote:Lit., 'acquires perfect possession', i.e., the widow is regarded as the legal wife of the second brother, and his own wife thus becomes her rival and is consequently exempt even from the halizah.
^ʲnote:To Rabbah.
^ᵏnote:Lit., 'stood'.
^ˡnote:The widow of the first deceased brother.
^ᵐnote:Lit., 'to him'.
^ⁿnote:The widow of the first deceased brother.
^ᵒnote:From the halizah and levirate marriage of the third brother.
^ᵖnote:Her rival, the widow of the second deceased brother.
^ᵠnote:With the third brother. Infra 19a.
^ʳnote:v. supra p. 99' n. 5.
^ˢnote:The bond being regarded to be just as binding as actual marriage.
^ᵗnote:And she should be exempt.
^ᵘnote:'Ed. V, 5' infra 23b, 26a, 7b; because, obviously, both are bound by a levirate bond to both surviving brothers and each is the sister of a woman who is connected with either of the brothers by such a levirate bond.
^ᵛnote:V. supra p. 99' n. 5.
^ʷnote:None of them standing in any marital relationship with either of the surviving brothers.
^ˣnote:And be prevented from marrying the other widow.
^ʸnote:Since the surviving brother would not be able to marry (or to participate in the halizah of) the second widow who is now his wife's sister.
^ᶻnote:Infra 51a.
^ᵃᵃnote:A minor who was married to one brother while her sister had been married to another brother who died without issue.
^ᵃᵇnote:A minor may refuse to live with her husband and no divorce is needed in her case. V. Glos. s.v. mi'un.
^ᵃᶜnote:Lit., 'she refused'. By her declaration of refusal her marriage becomes null and void retrospectively. As she has thus never been the legal wife of the Ievir, her sister (being no more his 'wife's sister') may contract the levirate marriage with him.
^ᵃᵈnote:And becomes the legal wife of the surviving brother.
^ᵃᵉnote:l.e., the elder sister.
^ᵃᶠnote:Infra 79b, 109a; which shews that R. Gamaliel permits the annulment of the law of the levirate marriage. Similarly, if R. Meir maintains, like R. Gamaliel, that no levirate bond exists, he should also permit the annulment of the precept of the levirate marriage.
^ᵃᵍnote:Rabbah.
^ᵃʰnote:Though they may agree on the question of the levirate bond, it does not necessarily follow that they agree also on the question of permission to annul the precept of the levirate marriage.
^ᵃⁱnote:Supra; the possibility that one of the brothers might die.
^ᵃʲnote:It is a certainty that when the minor becomes of age the elder sister will be precluded from both marriage and halizah. This wide divergence of opinion is unlikely. Hence the fear of annulling the levirate marriage cannot be the reason for R. Meir's ruling in the above cited Mishnah; and consequently R. Meir cannot be of the opinion that no levirate bond exists.
^ᵃᵏnote:Against the annulment of the precept of the levirate marriage.
^ᵃˡnote:So that R. Meir need not necessarily agree with R. Gamaliel on this point though he will agree with him on the question of the levirate bond.
^ᵃᵐnote:That if a woman awaiting the decision of the levir died, the levir is still forbidden to marry her mother (supra 17b end).
^ᵃⁿnote:Not Rab's who also was his teacher.