יבמות 26 — Soncino English Talmud

¹that [once a woman was married she] is not taken away because of a mere rumour; and so here also [the woman married] is not to be taken away because of a rumour. MISHNAH. IF ALL THESE HAD WIVES WHO [SUBSEQUENTLY] DIED, [THE OTHER WOMEN] ARE PERMITTED TO MARRY THEM. IF THEY WERE MARRIED TO OTHERS AND WERE [SUBSEQUENTLY] DIVORCED, OR WIDOWED, THEY MAY BE MARRIED TO THESE. THESE ARE ALSO PERMITTED TO THEIR SONS OR BROTHERS. GEMARA. Only if they died but not if they were divorced. Said R. Hillel to R. Ashi: Surely, it was taught: Even if they were divorced! — This is no difficulty: The one refers to the case where they led a quarrelsome life; the other, where they had no quarrels. If you prefer I might say that the one as well as the other [refers to the case] where there were no quarrels, and yet there is no difficulty: The former is a case where the husband had led on [to the divorce]; in the latter, she led on to the divorce. IF THEY WERE MARRIED etc. It was now assumed that death has reference to the case of death, and divorce to that of divorce. Must it then be said that our Mishnah is in disagreement the delivery of the letter of divorce by the messenger, or the evidence of the man who testified to their husbands' deaths. with the view of Rabbi? For had it been in agreement with Rabbi, [a third marriage would not have been allowed], for he said that two occurrences constitute a hazakah. — No; death [has reference] to divorce, and divorce to death. THESE ARE ALSO PERMITTED TO THEIR SONS OR BROTHERS. Wherein is this different from the following where it was taught: A man who is suspected of intercourse with a woman is forbidden to marry her mother, her daughter and her sister. -It is the usual thing for women to pay frequent visits to other women; it is not usual, however, for men to pay frequent visits to other men. Or [this] also: Women who do not cause one another to be forbidden by their cohabitation do not particularly mind one another; men, however, who do cause one another to be forbidden by their cohabitation do mind one another. If so, [the same law should] also [apply to] one's father! -The meaning is, 'There is no need', [thus]: There is no need [to state that the law is applicable to] one's father before whom a son is shy; but [in the case of] one's son before whom a father is not shy it might have been assumed [that this law was] not [to be applied], hence we were informed [that the same law was applicable to a son also]. MISHNAH. [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 [BY THE BROTHERS]. IF THEY HAD ALREADY MARRIED THEM, THEY MUST DISMISS THEM. R. ELIEZER SAID: BETH SHAMMAI HOLD THAT THEY MAY RETAIN THEM, AND BETH HILLEL HOLD THAT THEY MUST DISMISS THEM. IF ONE OF THE SISTERS WAS FORBIDDEN TO ONE [OF THE BROTHERS] UNDER THE PROHIBITION OF INCEST, HE IS FORBIDDEN TO MARRY HER BUT MAY MARRY HER SISTER, WHILE TO THE SECOND BROTHER BOTH ARE FORBIDDEN. [IF ONE SISTER] WAS FORBIDDEN BY VIRTUE OF A COMMANDMENT OR BY VIRTUE OF HOLINESS SHE MUST PERFORM THE HALIZAH BUT MAY NOT BE TAKEN IN LEVIRATE MARRIAGE. IF ONE OF THE SISTERS WAS FORBIDDEN TO ONE BROTHER UNDER THE LAW OF INCEST AND THE OTHER SISTER WAS FORBIDDEN TO THE OTHER UNDER THE LAW OF INCEST, SHE WHO IS FORBIDDEN TO THE ONE IS PERMITTED TO THE OTHER AND SHE WHO IS FORBIDDEN TO THE OTHER IS PERMITTED TO THE FIRST. THIS IS THE CASE CONCERNING WHICH IT HAS BEEN SAID: WHEN HER SISTER IS HER SISTER-IN-LAW SHE MAY EITHER PERFORM HALIZAH OR BE TAKEN IN LEVIRATE MARRIAGE. GEMARA. This then implies that a levirate bond exists; for if no levirate bond exists, observe this point: These widows come from two different houses, let one brother take in levirate marriage the one and the other brother the other! — As a matter of fact it may still be assumed 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 marriage, it being possible that while one of the brothers married [one of the widowed sisters] the other brother would die, and the precept of levirate marriage would be annulled. If so, [the same applies to] three [brothers] also! — This may be regarded as the case of 'There is no need etc.'; thus: There is no need to state three, since the precept of levirate marriage would inevitably have to be annulled; but [in the case of] four [it might have been assumed that] one need not take precautions against [possible] death, hence we were informed [that even in such a case levirate marriage is forbidden]. If so,^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^ᵃᵒ^ᵃᵖ^ᵃᵠ^ᵃʳ^ᵃˢ^ᵃᵗ^ᵃᵘ^ᵃᵛ^ᵃʷ^ᵃˣ^ᵃʸ^ᵃᶻ^ᵇᵃ^ᵇᵇ^ᵇᶜ^ᵇᵈ^ᵇᵉ^ᵇᶠ^ᵇᵍ^ᵇʰ^ᵇⁱ^ᵇʲ^ᵇᵏ^ᵇˡ^ᵇᵐ^ᵇⁿ^ᵇᵒ^ᵇᵖ^ᵇᵠ

^ᵃnote:Lit., 'and all of them'. The Sage, the messenger who brought a letter of divorce and the man who testified to the death of a husband. (V. previous two Mishnahs, supra 250, 25b).
^ᵇnote:At the time of their action which resulted in enabling the women there mentioned to marry.
^ᶜnote:I.e. the women concerned in their respective actions. V. previous note.
^ᵈnote:Having had their own wives at the time they were engaged in the other women's affairs they are not to be suspected of any ulterior motives. Cf. supra p. 153, n. 2 and p. 155. n. 12.
^ᵉnote:After the decision of the Sage,
^ᶠnote:By their second husbands.
^ᵍnote:Cf. supra p. 157, n. 6.
^ʰnote:V. p. 157, n. 8.
^ⁱnote:The prohibition being limited to themselves.
^ʲnote:The wives of the Sage, messenger and witness (cf. supra p. 157, n. 6).
^ᵏnote:Lit., 'they died, yes'; only then is it permissible for the husbands to marry the women whom they had helped to obtain permission to marry.
^ˡnote:It being possible that their action in favour of the women and the subsequent divorces were dictated by the same ulterior motive.
^ᵐnote:The Baraitha quoted by R. Hillel.
^ⁿnote:Before their respective husbands had acted in favour of the other women.
^ᵒnote:With their husbands. It is consequently obvious that the divorces were due to the domestic differences, and that the husband's subsequent actions were not dictated by ulterior motives.
^ᵖnote:That implied in our Mishnah.
^ᵠnote:V. supra note 5.
^ʳnote:As husbands and wives lived in peace until the former had met the other women, there is good reason to suspect that the divorces were due to these meetings.
^ˢnote:Hence there is cause for suspicion.
^ᵗnote:V. supra note 8.
^ᵘnote:Of the second husbands with whom marriage had taken place In the meanwhile.
^ᵛnote:In the second clause of the Previous Mishnah but one (supra 25a), where evidence was given that the woman's first husband had died or was killed.
^ʷnote:Cf. supra n. 16.
^ˣnote:Where a letter of divorce was brought by a messenger, (v. the first clause of the Mishnah supra 25a).
^ʸnote:Which allows a woman to marry a third husband though her first two husbands had died or divorced her.
^ᶻnote:V. Glos. An established characteristic or defect in the woman, physical or moral, which confirms her as the cause of the death of her husbands or as the cause of the divorces. Hence, she should not have been permitted ever to marry again.
^ᵃᵃnote:Our Mishnah does not differ from Rabbi.
^ᵃᵇnote:V. p. 158, n. 16.
^ᵃᶜnote:V. p. 158, n. 19.
^ᵃᵈnote:V. supra p. 158. n. 17. Hence no two husbands died or divorced the same woman, and no hazakah could, therefore, have been constituted.
^ᵃᵉnote:Cur. edd., 'we learned'.
^ᵃᶠnote:Because there is reason to suspect that the marriage was planned by the man as a mere means of bringing him into closer association and intimacy with his paramour. Why, then, is this suspicion disregarded in the case of our Mishnah?
^ᵃᵍnote:Misconduct may, therefore, occur and suspicion (v. previous note) is justified.
^ᵃʰnote:And suspicion that any intimate intercourse might take place would, therefore, be groundless.
^ᵃⁱnote:May be said in reply.
^ᵃʲnote:With one another's husbands. The husband is not forbidden to his wife if cohabitation occurred between him and another woman.
^ᵃᵏnote:V. note 8.
^ᵃˡnote:With one another's wives. The wife of one with whom the other cohabited is forbidden to her husband.
^ᵃᵐnote:That men are watchful of one another, and that consequently there is no ground for suspicion.
^ᵃⁿnote:Permitting the marriage of any of the women in question.
^ᵃᵒnote:Why, then, does our Mishnah mention sons and brothers only?
^ᵃᵖnote:Lit., 'it is not required he said'.
^ᵃᵠnote:And would not venture to be too intimate with his wife.
^ᵃʳnote:Or brother.
^ᵃˢnote:The sisters.
^ᵃᵗnote:The reason is explained in the Gemara, infra.
^ᵃᵘnote:Lit., 'anticipated' (the ruling of the court).
^ᵃᵛnote:In the case mentioned in the first paragraph of our Mishnah.
^ᵃʷnote:E.g., as a mother-in-law.
^ᵃˣnote:Who is not forbidden on account of her rival since the latter is biblically forbidden to the levir and cannot be regarded as his zekukah (v. Glos.).
^ᵃʸnote:The term is used in the Mishnah supra 20a and discussed in the Gemara loc. cit.
^ᵃᶻnote:The wife of her husband's brother.
^ᵇᵃnote:V. supra 20a. Cf. supra p. 162, n. 6.
^ᵇᵇnote:The first clause of our Mishnah.
^ᵇᶜnote:Between the widow of a deceased childless brother and his surviving brothers, in consequence of which each widow being a zekukah (v. Glos.), is forbidden as the sister of a zekukah.
^ᵇᵈnote:They are the widows of two different husbands and neither of them stands in any marital relationship with any of the surviving brothers (v. previous note).
^ᵇᵉnote:A levirate bond then obviously does exist. That being so, why has the question of the existence of a levirate bond remained a matter of dispute in Ned. 742 and supra 17b?
^ᵇᶠnote:The author of our Mishnah.
^ᵇᵍnote:And thus be prevented from marrying the other widow.
^ᵇʰnote:Because the surviving brother would then not be able either to marry, or to participate in the halizah with the second widow who by that time will have become his wife's sister. If, however, halizah only is performed with one brother and the death of the other should occur before the second widow had performed halizah with him, no difficulty would arise, since the first brother may then participate in the halizah of the second also.
^ᵇⁱnote:That the reason for the prohibition of the levirate marriage with the widowed sisters is not the existence of a levirate bond but the endeavour to prevent the annulment of the precept of levirate marriage.
^ᵇʲnote:If two of them died childless and both their widows become subject to the levirate marriage or halizah of the third. In this case too the third brother must only participate in halizah; for, should he marry one of the sisters, the other would be forbidden, as the sister of his wife, either to marry him or to perform halizah with him.
^ᵇᵏnote:Lit., 'it is not required, do we say'.
^ᵇˡnote:That where one of three brothers survived, no levirate marriage must take place.
^ᵇᵐnote:Were he to marry one of the widows. Cf. supra p. 162, n. 8.
^ᵇⁿnote:Brothers, two of whom survived.
^ᵇᵒnote:And that consequently one brother should marry one of the widows and the other brother the other.
^ᵇᵖnote:Because provision must always be made against possible death.
^ᵇᵠnote:v. previous note.

²the same applies to five brothers also! -The possibility that two might die need not be taken into consideration. Rabbah son of R. Huna said in the name of Rab: If three sisters who are sisters-in-law fell to the lot of two brothers who are their brothers-in-law, one of the brothers participates in her halizah with one, and the other brother participates in the halizah with the other, but the third, requires halizah from both. Said Rabbah to him: Since you say that the third widow requires submission to halizah by both brothers, you must be holding the opinion that a Ievirate bond exists and that the halizah is of an impaired character, and that as an impaired halizah it must go the round of all the brothers; but if so, [the same should apply to] the first [two sisters] also! — If they had become subject [to the levirs] at the same time the law would indeed have been so; [the statement of our Mishnah, however,] was required only in the case where they become subject [to the Ievirs] one after another. When the first sister became subject to the obligation of the levirate marriage. Reuben participated in her halizah; when the second came Under the obligation. Simeon participated in her halizah; when the third came under the obligation. if the one brother participated in her halizah he removed his own levirate bond, and when the other participated in the halizah he likewise removed his own levirate bond. But, surely. Rab said that no levirate bond exists! — This statement he made in accordance with the opinion of him who maintains that a levirate bond does exist. Samuel, however, stated that one brother participates in the halizah with all of them. But consider: We have heard Samuel say that a proper halizah is required for Samuel said: ^ᵇʳ^ᵇˢ^ᵇᵗ^ᵇᵘ^ᵇᵛ^ᵇʷ^ᵇˣ^ᵇʸ^ᵇᶻ^ᶜᵃ^ᶜᵇ^ᶜᶜ^ᶜᵈ^ᶜᵉ^ᶜᶠ^ᶜᵍ^ᶜʰ^ᶜⁱ

^ᵇʳnote:Two of whom who were married to two sisters died and three survived. In this case also, if provision is to be made against the possibility of death, no levirate marriage should be allowed to any of the three survivors, since it might happen that two of the survivors would also die and the last and only surviving brother would be precluded from levirate marriage and halizah because the widows would then be his wife's sisters.
^ᵇˢnote:Lit., 'for the death of two'.
^ᵇᵗnote:So Emden. Cur. edd., 'Raba'.
^ᵇᵘnote:Lit., 'the middle one'.
^ᵇᵛnote:V. supra p. 162, n. 3'
^ᵇʷnote:Since each brother may only participate in halizah with the widow but may not, as she is the sister of his haluzah (v. Glos.). marry her. Such a halizah is not of the same validity as one which is the alternative of a permitted levirate marriage.
^ᵇˣnote:The levirate bond between the widow and the other brothers cannot be dissolved by such a halizah with one of them. [Me'iri seems to have had a shorter and smoother text: … that a levirate bond exists and that an impaired halizah must go the round of all the brothers'.]
^ᵇʸnote:Since they, like the third, are subject to the Ievirate bond, and with them also only halizah, but not levirate marriage may take place, and their halizah also is consequently of an impaired character.
^ᵇᶻnote:All the three sisters.
^ᶜᵃnote:Halizah would have had to be performed by every one of them with every brother.
^ᶜᵇnote:I.e., the first brother. Reuben was Jacob's first son (Gen. XXIX, 32).
^ᶜᶜnote:This was a proper halizah since at that time he could have married her if he wished.
^ᶜᵈnote:I.e., the second brother. Simeon was the second son of Jacob. (Cf. Gen. XXIX, 33)'
^ᶜᵉnote:This also was a proper halizah since he could marry her if he wished. She is no longer the sister of his zekukah (v. Glos.) since the first brother had already performed with that zekukah proper halizah and had thereby severed the levirate bond between her and Simeon as well as between her and himself.
^ᶜᶠnote:Levirate marriage is no more possible since, in the case of each brother, she is the sister of his haluzah, while exemption from halizah cannot be granted because the prohibition to marry the sister of one's haluzah is only Rabbinical and cannot supersede the Biblical precept which requires halizah where no levirate marriage takes place.
^ᶜᵍnote:Which otherwise could not have been severed. V. previous note.
^ᶜʰnote:Supra 17b.
^ᶜⁱnote:Reported supra by Rabbah b. R. Huna.