Nedarim 74a — the Talmud in English

Mishna:

A shomeret yavam

a woman whose husband died, and who is awaiting yibbum through her husband’s brothers,

whether

she is awaiting

one yavam

her husband having one brother,

or

she is awaiting

two yevamin

her husband having several brothers.

Rabbi Eliezer says: He may annul

the yavam may annul her vows.

The Gemara establishes his statement as referring to a case where he performed maamar with her [betrothal with money or a document], and her status is that of a betrothed woman, and the yavam annuls together with the father.

Rabbi Yehoshua says:

The yavam annuls only when she is awaiting

a

yavam

one, but not two

as will be explained in the Gemara.

Rabbi Akiva says:

The yavam does not annul at all,

not

when she is awaiting

one, nor

when she is awaiting

two.

For she is not considered a betrothed woman, and the yavam cannot annul even together with the father.

And the Mishna brings the reasons for the dispute between the three of them:

Rabbi Eliezer said:

One can learn by a kal va-chomer, as follows:

If, with regard to a woman whom he acquired for himself

through betrothal,

he annuls her vows,

with regard to a woman whom Heaven assigned to him,

through the death of her husband [his deceased brother], and who now awaits him for yibbum [and is forbidden to marry outside], without his having performed any acquisition with her—

is it not logical that he should annul her vows?

Rabbi Akiva said to him: No,

Do not judge this kal va-chomer. For it can be refuted—

If you say this with regard to a woman whom he acquired for himself,

that he can annul her vows, this is because she is entirely acquired by him, since

others have no authority over her.

But can you

say

this law

with regard to a woman whom Heaven assigned to him, over whom

also

others have authority!

For each of the brothers has the right to perform yibbum with her.

Rabbi Yehoshua said to him: Akiva, your words

this argument of yours

apply to

a case where the yevama fell before

two yevamin.

But

what do you reply concerning

a case where the yevama fell before

one yavam?

He said to him: The yevama is not entirely

completely belonging

to the yavam, as the betrothed woman is entirely

completely belonging

to the husband.

Gemara:

And the Gemara discusses the dispute of the tannaim in the Mishna:

Granted, Rabbi Akiva holds: There is no zikah.

The zikah of yibbum between the yevama and the yavam is not considered a marital acquisition like betrothal, and therefore the yavam cannot annul the vows of his yevama.

And

granted,

Rabbi Yehoshua holds: There is zikah.

The zikah of yibbum is a marital status, and it is even stronger than the marital status of betrothal; rather, because of her zikah to the yavam, the yevama is considered as though she has already entered his household, and therefore the yavam can annul by himself.

When does this apply? When she falls before one yavam. But if she is awaiting two yevamin, it is not established to whom of them she is considered to have entered the household [and the matter depends on which one will ultimately bring her into his household, and we hold that in matters of Torah law, “there is no retroactive determination”], and therefore neither of them can annul.

Rather, Rabbi Eliezer,

who holds that even if she fell before two yevamin, each one of them separately can annul her vow—

what is his reason?

If

we say that even if

there is zikah,

that the zikah between the yavam and his yevama is considered a marital acquisition, nevertheless

“there is no retroactive determination,”

and it is impossible to say that if the yavam who annulled her vow while she was a shomeret yavam ultimately brings her into his household, it will retroactively become clear that she had been awaiting him and not his brother.

If so, how can the yavam annul her vow by himself when she is awaiting two yevamin ?

And we answer:

Rabbi Ami said: For example, where one of the yevamin performed

one of the yevamin

a maamar

betrothal with money or a document.

And Rabbi Eliezer follows the view of Beit Shammai, who say: “Maamar acquires”

the yevama

with a complete acquisition,

and she is literally like his wife [so that he can release her with a bill of divorce, without the need for chalitza], and therefore he can annul her vows by himself.

And Rabbi Yehoshua would say to you:

These words apply with one yavam,

then he can annul, both by virtue of the zikah of yibbum and by virtue of the maamar.

But with two yevamin—

no.

And the reason is:

Is there such a thing,

is such a matter possible,

that when

if

his brother comes, he renders her forbidden to him through intercourse or through a bill of divorce, and

he

annuls?

For even according to Beit Shammai, who hold that maamar acquires with a complete acquisition, her status is not that of a completely married woman, since if, after one of the yevamin performed maamar with her, another brother has intercourse with her or gives her a bill of divorce, she becomes forbidden to the other brothers, and even to the brother who performed maamar with her.

If so, how is it possible to say that he can annul for her because she is considered completely betrothed or completely married, when his second brother can still render her forbidden to him?

Therefore Rabbi Yehoshua holds that with two yevamin, when each of the brothers can render her forbidden to his other brother even after the maamar, neither the zikah of yibbum nor the maamar is effective in granting him the right of annulment.

And Rabbi Akiva holds: There is no zikah—

for the zikah of yibbum does not at all make her considered his wife, and even where there is one yavam, he cannot annul the vows of his yevama.

And we challenge Rabbi Ami’s resolution:

And according to Rabbi Elazar

the amora!

who said

in tractate Yevamot:

“Maamar

even

according

to

Beit Shammai—

does not acquire

with a complete acquisition, to make her entirely considered his wife.

Rather,

the maamar is effective only with regard to

“repelling through a declaration.”

Two sisters who fell for yibbum before one yavam, and both were awaiting him for yibbum, are rabbinically forbidden to him for yibbum, because of the prohibition of “the sister of one’s yevama.” For each of them is biblically awaiting him, and each one is the “sister of one’s yevama.”

But if the yavam performed maamar with one of the sisters, and only afterward the second brother who had been married to her sister died, and the second sister now fell before him for yibbum, the first one with whom he performed maamar does not become forbidden to him under the law of “the sister of one’s yevama.” This is like the case where he first performed yibbum with one of the sisters and afterward his brother, the husband of the second sister, died: the first is not forbidden to him because of the sister of one’s yevama, since the second is not at all awaiting him, because she is the sister of his wife, who does not fall for yibbum.

And since he has already performed maamar with her, with regard to this matter she is as though she had entered his household.

But according to Rabbi Elazar [the amora], only with regard to this matter is the “woman of the maamar” considered his wife, and the second becomes forbidden to him under the law of the sister of his wife; and if so—

What is there to say?

For according to him, it cannot be said that Rabbi Eliezer’s reason is that he performed maamar with her, since the maamar does not acquire with a complete acquisition sufficient for him to annul her vows, and the question returns: What is Rabbi Eliezer’s reason that the yavam can annul both with one yavam and with two yevamin?

And we answer:

Here, with what are we dealing?—

For example, when

the yevama sued the yavam to bring her into his household as a wife or to perform chalitza with her,

and

he stood

on this matter

in court,

and fled,

and he became obligated to provide her sustenance,

for the court obligates a yavam who stood in court and fled to feed her, by seizing his property and feeding her from it.

And Rabbi Eliezer holds

in accordance with Rav Pinhas in the name of Rava.

For he said: Every woman who vows—

vows with her husband’s דעת!

And since the yavam became obligated to provide her sustenance, she vows with his דעת, and he can annul her vows.

And Rabbi Eliezer holds likewise in the preceding Mishna: from the moment the husband became obligated to provide her sustenance, she vows with his דעת, and he has the right to annul her vows.

And Rabbi Yehoshua, who says that he annuls when she is awaiting one but not two, holds that zikah is like a woman who has entered his household.

We learned in the Mishna,

we learned in our Mishna: