יבמות 8:2 — Soncino English Talmud

it was for the purpose of permitting a rival where the precept is not applicable. What is the reason? — Scripture stated, ''aleha', to indicate that only in the case of 'unto her' is she forbidden, where the other, however, may not, she is permitted. Said Rami b. Hama to Raba: Might it not be suggested that the forbidden relative herself is permitted where the precept is not applicable? — Is not [such an argument contrary to the principle of inference] a minori ad majus? Being forbidden where the precept is applicable, would she be permitted where the precept is not applicable? — ['The case of a] rival', the first replied, 'could prove it, since she is forbidden where the precept is applicable, and is permitted where the precept is not applicable'. 'It is for your sake,' the other replied, 'that Scripture states, In her life-time, so long as she lives'. But is not the expression, In her life-time, required for the exclusion [of the prohibition of marriage] after her death? — This is deduced from the text, And a woman to her sister. If [the deduction were only] from the text. 'And a woman to her sister', it might have been said that if she was divorced the sister would be permitted, hence it was expressly stated, 'In her life-time.' So long as she is alive, even though she has been divorced, [her sister must] not [be married]! — But, said R. Huna b. Tahlifa in the name of Raba, two Scriptural texts are available; it is written, Thou shalt not take a woman to her sister, to be a rival to her [implying two], and it is also written, To uncover her nakedness, which implies that only one is forbidden; how then [are the two texts to be reconciled]? Where the precept is applicable both are forbidden; where the precept is not applicable she is forbidden but her rival is permitted. Might not the deduction be reversed: Where the precept is applicable she is forbidden but her rival is permitted, but where the precept is not applicable both are forbidden! — If so, ''aleha' should not have been stated. Said R. Ashi to R. Kahana: Whence is it derived that the expression ''aleha' indicates prohibition? Is it not possible that it implies permission, and that it is this that the All Merciful meant to imply: Thou shalt not take a woman to her sister, to be a rival to her, neither herself nor her rival where 'unto her' is not applicable, but where 'unto her' is applicable both are permitted! — If so, how could the 'uncovering of the nakedness' of one be possible? If in the case where the precept is applicable, both are permitted; and if where the precept is not applicable both are forbidden! [Reverting to] the [above] text, Rabbi said: Instead of And take, Scripture stated, 'And take her' and instead of 'And perform the duty of a husband's brother', Scripture stated, 'And perform the duty of a husband's brother unto her', in order to prohibit [the levirate marriage of] forbidden relatives and their rivals. Are, then, rivals mentioned here at all? And, furthermore, the law of rivals has been derived from the expression To be her rival! — The expression To be her rival is employed by Rabbi for R. Simeon's deduction. Where, however, is the rival mentioned? — What he meant is this: If so, Scripture should have stated, And take; why then did it state, 'And he shall take her'? To indicate that wherever there are two to be taken, he having the choice of marrying whichever he prefers both are permitted, but if not, both are forbidden; And perform the duty of a husband's brother unto her, indicates that where levirate marriage is applicable there is the rival forbidden, where, however, levirate marriage is not applicable the rival is permitted. As to the Rabbis, to what do they apply the verse 'And he shall take her'? — They require it for the deduction of R. Jose b. Hanina. For R. Jose b. Hanina said: 'And he shall take her' teaches that he may divorce her with a letter of divorce and that he may remarry her; And he shall perform the duty of a husband's brother unto her, even against her will. And Rabbi? — The law of R. Jose b. Hanina is deduced from To a wife, and that the marriage may take place against her will is deduced from Her husband's brother shall go in unto her. What does Rabbi do with [the expression], ''aleha'? — He requires it [for another deduction], as we learnt: The Beth din are under no obligation unless [they ruled] concerning a prohibition the punishment for which is kareth, if the transgression was wilful, and a sin-offering if the transgression was unwitting; and so it is with the anointed High priest. ^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

^ᵃnote:Of the levirate marriage.
^ᵇnote:I.e., how is the permissibility deduced?
^ᶜnote:Lev. XVIII, 18.
^ᵈnote:Lit., 'in the place of [H] with reference to the verse 'Her husband's brother shall go in unto her' (v. supra p. 8, n. 9) i.e., where the command of levirate marriage would otherwise apply.
^ᵉnote:The rival.
^ᶠnote:To be married, cf. supra p. 35, n. 12.
^ᵍnote:On the lines of the argument just advanced.
^ʰnote:I.e., the wife's sister.
^ⁱnote:To be married.
^ʲnote:Of the levirate marriage.
^ᵏnote:Lev. XVIII, 18.
^ˡnote:One's wife.
^ᵐnote:Her sister must not be married. (Other forbidden relatives, as has been shewn supra, are deduced from one's wife's sister).
^ⁿnote:Lit., 'that'.
^ᵒnote:I.e., that the prohibition of a wife's sister which on the present assumption is limited to cases where the precept of levirate marriage is applicable, applies only during the lifetime of one's wife.
^ᵖnote:The wife.
^ᵠnote:But it can still be maintained that where no levirate marriage is applicable, there is no prohibition of marrying the wife's sister.
^ʳnote:Lev. XVIII, 18.
^ˢnote:I.e., that both the wife's sister and her rival are forbidden to be married. (This, as will be shewn infra, is deduced from the expression li-zeror.)
^ᵗnote:Lev. XVIII, 18, emphasis on her (sing.).
^ᵘnote:Of the levirate marriage.
^ᵛnote:To be married.
^ʷnote:The forbidden relative herself.
^ˣnote:Since even without this additional phrase the two contradictory texts would have been naturally reconciled by applying the former (prohibition of both) to a case where the precept of the levirate marriage is inapplicable, and the latter (permission of the rival) to a case where it is applicable. The addition of the phrase must consequently have been intended to impart a new law, viz. that a rival is forbidden, like the forbidden relative herself, where the precept of the levirate marriage is applicable.
^ʸnote:Lev. XVIII, 18.
^ᶻnote:V. supra p. 8, n. 9.
^ᵃᵃnote:I.e., where the law of the levirate marriage does not apply.
^ᵃᵇnote:Where levirate marriage does apply.
^ᵃᶜnote:The concluding part of the verse [H] meaning where he has to go 'unto her', the sister of his wife who is the widow of his brother, he may do so even in her (his wife's) life-time.
^ᵃᵈnote:V. Lev. XVIII, 18, implying, as explained supra, the prohibition of one only.
^ᵃᵉnote:Of the levirate marriage.
^ᵃᶠnote:So that there are two, not only one.
^ᵃᵍnote:And there is none.
^ᵃʰnote:Heb. li-zeror (Lev. XVIII, 18), supra 3b. How then could it be said to be derived from a different text?
^ᵃⁱnote:V. infra 28b.
^ᵃʲnote:V. Emden a.l. Cur. edd. read 'here'.
^ᵃᵏnote:In Deut. XXV, 5, the text cited by Rabbi. Clearly, it was not mentioned at all; how then could Rabbi derive from the text a law concerning a subject of which no mention was made?
^ᵃˡnote:That the text refers to the forbidden relative only and not to a rival.
^ᵃᵐnote:Deut. XXV, 5.
^ᵃⁿnote:Lit., 'takings', i.e., when the deceased childless brother is survived by two widows, and the levir has to decide which of them to marry.
^ᵃᵒnote:The levir.
^ᵃᵖnote:I.e., when neither of the two is a forbidden relative.
^ᵃᵠnote:The emphasis on 'her' in And take her implies that there is a choice between two, and the phrase 'and take her' is taken to imply that the levir is in a position to choose whichever he pleases, since either of them must be capable of having the phrase 'and take her applied to her.
^ᵃʳnote:If one cannot be married by him on account of her being his forbidden relative.
^ᵃˢnote:Deut. XXV, 5.
^ᵃᵗnote:Who made the deduction from li-zeror.
^ᵃᵘnote:The levir.
^ᵃᵛnote:After he married her; and she requires no halizah.
^ᵃʷnote:Though the precept of the levirate marriage has been fulfilled and she might have been assumed to be forbidden to him as a brother's wife. The text is interpreted as follows: And he takes her to him to wife, as soon as he has taken her, she is regarded henceforth in all respects as his wife, i.e., as if she had never been forbidden to him as a brother's wife.
^ᵃˣnote:Emphasis on 'unto her' (v. Tosaf).
^ᵃʸnote:Whence does he derive the law deduced by R. Jose b. Hanina?
^ᵃᶻnote:Who are guilty of an erroneous ruling.
^ᵇᵃnote:To bring the sacrifice prescribed in Lev. IV, 13ff.