יבמות 30 — Soncino English Talmud

¹MISHNAH.IF TWO OF THREE BROTHERS WERE MARRIED TO TWO SISTERS AND THE THIRD WAS MARRIED TO A STRANGER, AND ONE OF THE SISTERS' HUSBANDS DIED AND THE BROTHER WHO WAS MARRIED TO THE STRANGER MARRIED HIS WIFE AND THEN DIED HIMSELF, THE FIRST IS EXEMPT AS BEING A WIFE'S SISTER, AND THE SECOND IS EXEMPT AS BEING HER RIVAL. IF, HOWEVER, HE HAD ONLY ADDRESSED TO HER A MA'AMAR AND DIED, THE STRANGER IS TO PERFORM THE HALIZAH BUT MAY NOT CONTRACT THE LEVIRATE MARRIAGE. GEMARA. The reason is because he had addressed to her a ma'amar; had he, however, not addressed a ma'amar to her, the stranger also would have had to be taken in levirate marriage. This proves, said R. Nahman, that no levirate bond exists even in the case of one brother. MISHNAH. IF TWO OF THREE BROTHERS WERE MARRIED TO TWO SISTERS AND THE THIRD WAS MARRIED TO A STRANGER, AND WHEN THE BROTHER WHO WAS MARRIED TO THE STRANGER DIED, ONE OF THE SISTERS' HUSBANDS MARRIED HIS WIFE AND THEN DIED HIMSELF, THE FIRST IS EXEMPT IN THAT SHE IS HIS WIFE'S SISTER, AND THE OTHER IS EXEMPT AS HER RIVAL. IF, HOWEVER, HE HAD ONLY ADDRESSED TO HER A MA'AMAR AND DIED, THE STRANGER MUST PERFORM HALIZAH BUT MAY NOT BE TAKEN IN LEVIRATE MARRIAGE. GEMARA. What need was there again [for the law in this Mishnah]? Surely it is the same: If there, where the wife's sister is only a rival to the stranger it has been said that the stranger is forbidden, how much more so here where the stranger is the rival to a wife's sister! -The Tanna had taught first this, while the other was regarded by him as a permissible case, and so he permitted her. Later, however, he came to regard it as a case that was to be forbidden; and, as it was dear to him, he placed it first; while the other Mishnah was allowed to stand in its original form. MISHNAH. IF TWO OF THREE BROTHERS WERE MARRIED TO TWO SISTERS AND THE THIRD WAS MARRIED TO A STRANGER, AND WHEN ONE OF THE SISTERS' HUSBANDS DIED THE BROTHER WHO WAS MARRIED TO THE STRANGER MARRIED HIS WIFE, AND THEN THE WIFE OF THE SECOND BROTHER DIED, AND AFTERWARDS THE BROTHER WHO WAS MARRIED TO THE STRANGER DIED ALSO, BEHOLD, SHE IS FORBIDDEN TO HIM FOR ALL TIME, SINCE SHE WAS FORBIDDEN TO HIM FOR ONE MOMENT. GEMARA. Rab Judah said in the name of Rab: Any yebamah to whom the instruction Her husband's brother shall go in unto her cannot be applied at the time she becomes subject to the levirate marriage, is indeed like the wife of a brother who has children, and is consequently forbidden. What new thing does he teach us? Surely we have learned, SHE IS FORBIDDEN TO HIM FOR ALL TIME SINCE SHE WAS FORBIDDEN TO HIM FOR ONE MOMENT! — It might have been assumed that this applies only to the case where she was not suitable for him at all during the period of her first subjection; but that where she was at all suitable for him during her first subjection it might have been assumed that she should be permitted, hence, he taught us [that It was not so]. But we have learned this also: If two brothers were married to two sisters, and one of the brothers died and afterwards the wife of the second brother died, behold, she is forbidden to him for all time, since she was forbidden to him for one moment! — It might have been assumed [that this law is applicable] only there because she was completely forced out of that house; but here, where she was not entirely forced out of that house, it might have been said that as she is suitable for the brother who married the stranger she is also suitable for the other brother, hence he taught us [that she was not]. MISHNAH. IF TWO OF THREE BROTHERS WERE MARRIED TO TWO SISTERS AND THE THIRD WAS MARRIED TO A STRANGER, AND ONE OF THE SISTERS' HUSBANDS DIVORCED HIS WIFE, AND WHEN THE BROTHER WHO WAS MARRIED TO THE STRANGER DIED HE WHO HAD DIVORCED HIS WIFE MARRIED HER AND THEN DIED HIMSELF- THIS IS A CASE CONCERNING WHICH IT WAS SAID: AND IF ANY OF-THESE DIED OR WERE DIVORCED. THEIR RIVALS ARE PERMITTED. GEMARA. The reason is because he had divorced [his wife first] and [his brother] died afterwards, but [if the other] had died [first] and he divorced [his wife] afterwards, she is forbidden. Said R. Ashi: This proves that a levirate bond exists, even where two brothers are involved. But as to R. Ashi's [inference] does not that of R. Nahman present a difficulty? — R. Ashi can answer you: The same law, that the stranger is to perform the halizah and that she is not to be taken in levirate marriage.is applicable even to the case where no ma' amar had been addressed; and the only reason why ma'amar was at all mentioned was in order to exclude the ruling of Beth Shammai. Since they maintain that a ma'amar constitutes^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

^ᵃnote:Widow, who is now also the widow of the second deceased brother.
^ᵇnote:From levirate marriage and halizah with the surviving brother.
^ᶜnote:The first widow.
^ᵈnote:With the surviving brother.
^ᵉnote:Why the stranger is not to be taken in levirate marriage.
^ᶠnote:Since our Mishnah makes the stranger's exemption dependent on the ma'amar, whereby she became the first widow's rival.
^ᵍnote:Despite the fact that the first widow is also subjected to the levir for the levirate marriage.
^ʰnote:Between the widow of the deceased brother and the levirs.
^ⁱnote:As here, where only one brother could possibly marry her, she being forbidden to the other as his wife's sister. Even in such a case the mere subjection of the widow to the levir (to be taken in levirate marriage or to perform the halizah) does not constitute a levirate bond to attach her to him as if she had been his actual wife.
^ʲnote:Wife of the second deceased brother.
^ᵏnote:From marriage and halizah with the surviving brother.
^ˡnote:The stranger. whom the second deceased brother had taken in levirate marriage.
^ᵐnote:To the stranger.
^ⁿnote:With the surviving brother.
^ᵒnote:As the law implied in the previous Mishnah.
^ᵖnote:In the previous Mishnah.
^ᵠnote:Who was the first and proper wife.
^ʳnote:To be taken in levirate marriage.
^ˢnote:Should the stranger be forbidden to be taken in levirate marriage.
^ᵗnote:Who was the first and proper wife.
^ᵘnote:The second Mishnah.
^ᵛnote:Mishnah, which is now the first.
^ʷnote:l.e., allowed the stranger to be taken in levirate marriage by the surviving brother, because the prohibition that arose from her husband's 'wife's sister' was imposed upon her later, after she had been lawfully married to her husband and after a period during which, had he died without issue, she would have been permitted to be taken in levirate marriage by his brother. It was not the Tanna's Intention, therefore, to include this case in a Mishnah at all.
^ˣnote:Since her rival was, after all, the surviving brother's wife's sister.
^ʸnote:Owing to its novelty.
^ᶻnote:The second Mishnah.
^ᵃᵃnote:Lit., 'did not move from its place'. though in the light of the newly added Mishnah it had obviously become superfluous.
^ᵃᵇnote:The wife of the first brother.
^ᵃᶜnote:The surviving brother.
^ᵃᵈnote:Lit., 'hour'. When her husband died she was forbidden to his brother who was married to her sister as his 'wife's sister'. This prohibition remains permanently in force and is not removed even when her sister subsequently dies and she is no longer the levir's 'wife's sister'.
^ᵃᵉnote:Deut. XXV, 5'
^ᵃᶠnote:Even later when the cause of the prohibition is removed. Cf. our Mishnah.
^ᵃᵍnote:Rab.
^ᵃʰnote:The law in our Mishnah.
^ᵃⁱnote:The widow of the first brother.
^ᵃʲnote:The brother who was married to the second sister.
^ᵃᵏnote:I.e., if her sister, the wife of the second brother, did not die until after she had married the brother whose wife was the stranger.
^ᵃˡnote:The widow of the first brother.
^ᵃᵐnote:The brother who was married to the second sister.
^ᵃⁿnote:If her sister died before she (the first widow) had married the other brother.
^ᵃᵒnote:Rah.
^ᵃᵖnote:The widow of the first brother.
^ᵃᵠnote:Infra 32a.
^ᵃʳnote:When her husband died and she was not permitted to marry his only surviving brother whose wife's sister she was, her connection with her husband's family had been completely severed, she remaining free to marry any stranger.
^ᵃˢnote:Since she was still under the obligation of marrying the third brother who was married to the stranger.
^ᵃᵗnote:Thanks to the levirate bond with a member of her deceased husband's family.
^ᵃᵘnote:Who was the husband of her sister, now that the latter is dead.
^ᵃᵛnote:The stranger who was taken in levirate marriage was never the rival of the sister of the wife of the surviving brother, since the sister had been divorced before the levirate marriage with the stranger had taken place.
^ᵃʷnote:Why the stranger who was taken in levirate marriage by one of the husbands of the sisters is permitted to the last surviving brother.
^ᵃˣnote:The brother who divorced his wife.
^ᵃʸnote:The first husband of the stranger.
^ᵃᶻnote:So that the stranger was not even for one moment the rival of one of the sisters, either through marriage or through the levirate bond of subjection.
^ᵇᵃnote:In which case the stranger came for a certain period under the levirate bond in respect of the husbands of the two sisters.
^ᵇᵇnote:The stranger.
^ᵇᶜnote:To marry the last surviving brother. Since she was, for a period at least, the rival of one of the sisters, through the levirate bond, she may never be married to the husband of that sister's sister (being forbidden to him as the rival of his wife's sister) even if the sister whose rival she was had been subsequently divorced and ceased to be her rival.
^ᵇᵈnote:Between the widow of a deceased childless brother and the levirs.
^ᵇᵉnote:Since, in the case under discussion, the widow whose husband died before one of the sisters had been divorced was subject to two levirs and is, nevertheless, regarded as the rival of the divorced sister, in consequence of which she is forbidden to the last surviving brother.
^ᵇᶠnote:From a Mishnah supra, that no levirate bond exists even in the case of one brother.
^ᵇᵍnote:Contrary to R. Nahman's inference.
^ᵇʰnote:In that Mishnah.

²a perfect kinyan, he taught us that [the halachah is] not in accordance with Beth Shammai. But then as to R. Nahman's [inference] does not that of R. Ashi present a difficulty? And should you reply that the same law, that her rival is permitted, is also applicable to the case where he died first and the other brother divorced his wife afterwards, what [it could be objected] would THIS IS exclude? It might exclude the case where he married her first and then divorced his wife. This might be a satisfactory explanation if he holds the view of R. Jeremiah who said, 'Break it up: He who taught the one did not teach the other,' [for, if this is so]. one Tanna may hold the opinion that it is death that causes the subjection while the other might be of the opinion that it is the original marriage that causes the subjection, and THIS IS would thus exclude the case where he first married and then divorced; if, however, he is of the same opinion as Raba who said, 'Both statements may in fact represent the views of one Tanna, it being a case of "this and there is no need to state that"', what does THIS IS exclude? — He has no alternative but to adopt the view of R. Jeremiah. And according to Raba, the explanation would be satisfactory if he held the View of R. Ashi, for then, THIS IS would exclude the case of one who died without first divorcing his wife; if, however, he holds the same view as R. Nahman, what would THIS IS exclude? -He has no alternative but to accept the view of R. Ashi. MISHNAH. [IF IN THE CASE OF ANY ONE OF] ALL THESE THE BETROTHAL OR DIVORCE WAS IN DOUBT, BEHOLD, THESE RIVALS MUST PERFORM THE HALIZAH BUT MAY NOT BE TAKEN IN LEVIRATE MARRIAGE. WHAT IS MEANT BY DOUBTFUL BETROTHAL? IF WHEN HE THREW TO HER A TOKEN OF BETROTHAL IT WAS UNCERTAIN WHETHER IT FELL NEARER TO HIM OR NEARER TO HER, THIS IS A CASE OF DOUBTFUL BETROTHAL. DOUBTFUL DIVORCE? IF HE WROTE A LETTER OF DIVORCE IN HIS OWN HANDWRITING AND IT BORE NO SIGNATURES OF WITNESSES, OR IF IT BORE SIGNATURES BUT NO DATE, OR IF IT BORE A DATE BUT THE SIGNATURE OF ONLY ONE WITNESS, THIS IS A CASE OF DOUBTFUL DIVORCE. GEMARA. In the case of divorce, however, It is not stated IT WAS UNCERTAIN WHETHER IT FELL NEARER TO HIM OR NEARER TO HER; what is the reason? -Rabbah replied: This woman is in a state of permissibility to all men; would you forbid her [marriage] because of a doubt? You must not forbid her because of a doubt! Said Abaye to him: If so, let us also in the matter of betrothal say: This woman is in a state of permissibility to the levir; would you forbid her because of a doubt? You must not forbid her because of a doubt! — There [it leads] to a restriction. But it is a restriction which may lead to a relaxation! For, sometimes, he would betroth her sister by betrothal that was not uncertain, or it might occur that another man would betroth her also by a betrothal that was not uncertain and, as the Master has forbidden her rival to be taken in levirate marriage. it would be assumed that the betrothal of the first was valid and that that of the latter was not! ^ᵇⁱ^ᵇʲ^ᵇᵏ^ᵇˡ^ᵇᵐ^ᵇⁿ^ᵇᵒ^ᵇᵖ^ᵇᵠ^ᵇʳ^ᵇˢ^ᵇᵗ^ᵇᵘ^ᵇᵛ^ᵇʷ^ᵇˣ^ᵇʸ^ᵇᶻ^ᶜᵃ^ᶜᵇ^ᶜᶜ^ᶜᵈ^ᶜᵉ^ᶜᶠ^ᶜᵍ^ᶜʰ^ᶜⁱ^ᶜʲ^ᶜᵏ^ᶜˡ^ᶜᵐ^ᶜⁿ^ᶜᵒ^ᶜᵖ^ᶜᵠ^ᶜʳ^ᶜˢ^ᶜᵗ^ᶜᵘ^ᶜᵛ^ᶜʷ^ᶜˣ^ᶜʸ^ᶜᶻ

^ᵇⁱnote:And not even halizah is required.
^ᵇʲnote:By stating that halizah must be performed.
^ᵇᵏnote:To the third surviving brother.
^ᵇˡnote:The first husband of the stranger.
^ᵇᵐnote:The brother who divorced his wife.
^ᵇⁿnote:The levirate bond with the stranger, prior to the divorce of his wife, not constituting the one woman a rival of the other.
^ᵇᵒnote:The stranger.
^ᵇᵖnote:In such a case, since she was actually married, the stranger is regarded as the rival of the third brother's wife's sister, though at the time she becomes subject to him she and his wife's sister have ceased to be rivals.
^ᵇᵠnote:R. Nahman.
^ᵇʳnote:Supra 13a.
^ᵇˢnote:Of the childless brother.
^ᵇᵗnote:Of the widow to the levir.
^ᵇᵘnote:v. previous note and supra p. 65, n. 7.
^ᵇᵛnote:His wife.
^ᵇʷnote:V. supra p. 65, n. 14 and cf. p. 65, n. 12, so that even if marriage of the stranger took place prior to the divorce of the other, the former, after divorce had taken place, is permitted, even according to the Tanna of our Mishnah.
^ᵇˣnote:When the levirate marriage is permitted in both these cases.
^ᵇʸnote:Who holds that the subjection to the levirate marriage is caused by the death of the childless brother, and that the rival is permitted to the surviving levir even if the deceased had married her prior to his divorcing his wife, who is the sister of the surviving levir's wife.
^ᵇᶻnote:That a levirate bond exists.
^ᶜᵃnote:And without marrying the stranger who would, nevertheless, be forbidden to the surviving third brother on account of the levirate bond.
^ᶜᵇnote:That no levirate bond exists.
^ᶜᶜnote:In view of the fact that levirate marriage is permitted in all cases except one, where the second brother took the stranger in levirate marriage and did not divorce his wife, a case which was explicitly stated and required no expression like THIS IS to exclude it.
^ᶜᵈnote:Raba.
^ᶜᵉnote:Fifteen relatives enumerated in the first Mishnah of the Tractate, supra 2af.
^ᶜᶠnote:On the part of the deceased childless brother.
^ᶜᵍnote:Since it is possible that the betrothal was, or that the divorce was not valid, and they are consequently the rivals of a forbidden relative.
^ᶜʰnote:It being possible that the betrothal was not, or that the divorce was valid and they are, therefore, not rivals of a forbidden relative.
^ᶜⁱnote:While they were both standing in a public domain and a distance of exactly eight cubits intervened between them.
^ᶜʲnote:I.e., within the four cubits nearest to him.
^ᶜᵏnote:Within her four cubits. The person within whose four cubits the object rested is deemed to be the legal possessor.
^ᶜˡnote:A document in one's own handwriting. even though it is not signed by witnesses, is within certain conditions and limitations deemed to be valid. V. B.B. 175b.
^ᶜᵐnote:Where it is not in his own handwriting.
^ᶜⁿnote:Why should not even halizah on the part of the rival, be required in such a case?
^ᶜᵒnote:The rival.
^ᶜᵖnote:Lit., 'to the market', i.e., the public. The rival of a forbidden relative, not being subject to levirate marriage or halizah. is permitted to marry any one she desires.
^ᶜᵠnote:The possibility that the forbidden relative's divorce was valid.
^ᶜʳnote:The doubt here being whether the forbidden relative was divorced at all. In the three cases of divorce mentioned in our Mishnah, however, the prohibition Is not due to doubtful divorce but to a defect or an irregularity in the document itself.
^ᶜˢnote:The rival.
^ᶜᵗnote:Had her husband died childless before he married the forbidden relative.
^ᶜᵘnote:To be taken in levirate marriage.
^ᶜᵛnote:The case of doubtful betrothal.
^ᶜʷnote:The prohibition to marry the levir.
^ᶜˣnote:The sister of the one whose betrothal was doubtful.
^ᶜʸnote:Since her rival is forbidden.
^ᶜᶻnote:Because, in the first case, he betrothed his wife's sister; and, in the second, he betrothed a married woman. In the latter case, the betrothal being regarded as invalid, the woman might illegally marry another man. In the former case, should he die without issue, his maternal brother might illegally marry her, believing her never to have been the wife of his brother.