Nedarim 74a (עד.) — the Talmud in English

Mishna:

A woman awaiting yibbum

a woman whose husband died and who is bound to undergo yibbum with her husband’s brother,

whether

she is bound

to one yavam

her husband had one brother,

or

she is bound

to two yevamin

her husband had several brothers.

Rabbi Eliezer says: He may annul

the yavam may annul her vows.

The Gemara establishes his statement as referring to a case in which he performed ma’amar with her [betrothal with money or a document]. Her status is therefore that of an arusa, and the yavam annuls her vows in partnership with her father.

Rabbi Yehoshua says:

The yavam may annul only when she is bound

to

one

but not to two

as will be explained in the Gemara.

Rabbi Akiva says:

The yavam cannot annul at all,

neither

when she is bound

to one, nor

when she is bound

to two.

For she is not considered an arusa, and the yavam cannot annul even in partnership with her father.

The Mishna then presents the reasons for the dispute among the three of them:

Rabbi Eliezer said:

It can be derived by a kal va-chomer, as follows:

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

through betrothal,

he may annul her vows,

with regard to a woman whom Heaven assigned to him,

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

is it not logical that he may annul her vows?

Rabbi Akiva said to him: No.

Do not derive 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 completely acquired by him, since

others have no rights in her.

But can you

say

this

with regard to a woman whom Heaven assigned to him, who has

also

others with rights in her?

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

Rabbi Yehoshua said to him: Akiva, your words

this argument

apply

to a case in which the yevama fell before

two yevamin.

But

what do you reply regarding

a case in which the yevama fell before

one yavam?

He said to him: The yevama is not completely

belonging entirely

to the yavam, as an arusa is completely

belonging entirely

to the husband.

Gemara:

The Gemara discusses the dispute among the tannaim in the Mishna:

Granted, Rabbi Akiva holds that there is no zekika.

The bond 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 that there is zekika.

The bond of yibbum is a marital status, and it is even stronger than the marital status of betrothal; rather, by virtue of her bond to the yavam, the yevama is considered as though she has already been brought into his household, and therefore the yavam can annul her vows by himself.

This applies when she falls before one yavam. But if she is bound to two yevamin, it is not determined to which of them she is considered to have been brought into 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 her vows.

Rather, Rabbi Eliezer,

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

what is his reason?

If

we were to say that

there is zekika,

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

“there is no retroactive determination,”

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

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

And we answer:

Rabbi Ami said: This is referring to a case in which one of the yevamin performed

one of the yevamin performed

a ma’amar

betrothal with money or a document.

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

the yevama

with a complete acquisition,

and she is truly like his wife [so that he can divorce her with a bill of divorce, without requiring halitza], and therefore he can annul her vows by himself.

And Rabbi Yehoshua could say to you:

This applies with one yavam,

in which case he can annul her vows either by virtue of the bond of yibbum or by virtue of the ma’amar.

But with two yevamin—

no.

And the reason is:

Is there such a thing,

is it possible that this should be the case,

that if

one of the brothers

comes and forbids her to him through intercourse or through a bill of divorce, and

he

annuls her vows?

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

If so, how can it be said that he can annul her vows because she is considered a completely betrothed woman or a completely married woman, when his second brother can still render her forbidden to him?

Therefore, Rabbi Yehoshua holds that when there are two yevamin, and each brother can render her forbidden to the other brother even after the ma’amar, neither the bond of yibbum nor the ma’amar grants him the right to annul her vows.

And Rabbi Akiva holds that there is no zekika—

the bond of yibbum does not at all cause her to be considered his wife, and even when there is only 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:

a ma’amar,

even

according

to

Beit Shammai,

does not acquire

with a complete acquisition sufficient to make her entirely his wife.

Rather,

the ma’amar is effective only with regard to

“pushing away a rival.”

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

But if the yavam performed ma’amar with one of the sisters, and only afterward the second brother, who had been married to the other sister, died, so that the second sister now fell before him for yibbum, the first sister, with whom he performed ma’amar, is not forbidden to him as “the sister of one’s bound yevama.” This is similar to the case in which he first performed yibbum with one of the sisters and afterward his brother, the husband of the other sister, died: the first sister is not forbidden to him as the sister of one’s bound yevama, because the second sister is not bound to him at all, as she is the sister of his wife and therefore does not fall for yibbum.

And since he had already performed ma’amar with her, in this respect she is considered as though she had been brought into his household.

But according to Rabbi Elazar

what can be said?

According to him, it cannot be said that the reason for Rabbi Eliezer’s ruling is that he performed ma’amar with her, since ma’amar does not effect a complete acquisition sufficient for him to annul her vows. The question therefore returns: What is Rabbi Eliezer’s reason for ruling that the yavam can annul her vows both when there is one yavam and when there are two yevamin?

And we answer:

Here, with what are we dealing?

For example, when

the yevama demanded that the yavam bring her into his household as his wife or perform halitza with her,

and

he stood

by that demand

in court,

but then fled,

and became obligated to provide her with maintenance,

as the court obligates a yavam who stood trial and then fled to support her by seizing his property and providing her with maintenance from it.

And Rabbi Eliezer holds

in accordance with Rav Pinhas in the name of Rava.

For he said: Every woman who takes a vow—

takes it with her husband’s דעת in mind!

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

Rabbi Eliezer likewise holds this in the previous Mishna: Once the husband became obligated to provide her with maintenance, she takes vows with his דעת in mind, and he is entitled to annul her vows.

And Rabbi Yehoshua, who says that he may annul her vows when she is bound to one yavam but not when she is bound to two, holds that zekika is like bringing her into his household.

We learned

in our Mishna: