Yevamot 10a — the Talmud in English

And its mnemonic is

for the six brothers:

At first, four brothers were alive at the same time.

Two of the brothers married two sisters.

The first

brother, who was married to one of the sisters, died.

The fifth

brother was then born. He found the first brother’s wife not subject to levirate marriage, and she became permanently forbidden to him, like the wife of a brother who was not alive in his lifetime.

The third

of the four brothers performed levirate marriage with the first brother’s wife.

The second

brother, who was married to the second sister, died.

The sixth

brother was then born. He found the first brother’s wife already subject to levirate marriage, and she did not become forbidden to him, according to Rabbi Shimon [“he performed levirate marriage and only afterward was born”].

The fourth

brother performed levirate marriage with the second brother’s wife.

The third and fourth brothers then died, and the two sisters became subject to levirate marriage before the fifth and sixth brothers.

For the fifth brother, the sister who had previously been married to the first brother is forbidden, since when he was born he found her not subject to levirate marriage, and she consequently became permanently forbidden to him as the wife of a brother who was not alive in his lifetime.

But the second sister is permitted to him, since she had been married to a brother who was alive in the world together with him.

For the sixth brother, the first brother’s wife is permitted to him, since he found her already subject to levirate marriage.

But the second brother’s wife is forbidden to him, as the wife of a brother who was not alive in his lifetime, and she is permanently forbidden to him.

As stated, such a possibility exists only according to Rabbi Shimon.

According to the Rabbis, however, in every case both sisters are forbidden to the fifth and sixth brothers as the wives of brothers who were not alive in their lifetimes.

The fact that the other brothers performed levirate marriage with the sisters does not prevent the prohibition of the sisters as the wives of brothers who were not alive in the lifetimes of the brothers who were born later.

And since Rabbi Hiyya taught that, with regard to all the women mentioned in our Mishna, if they were two sisters married to two brothers, one can apply to them the rule “the one forbidden to one is permitted to the other”—and this is possible with the wife of a brother who was not alive in his lifetime only according to Rabbi Shimon—it follows that our Mishna also teaches cases that are subject to dispute.

The question therefore returns: Why did Rabbi say to Levi, when Levi asked him why the tanna did not also teach the case of one’s father’s raped wife, according to Rabbi Yehuda: “It seems to me that he has no brain in his skull”!?

Because of this difficulty, the Gemara explains Rabbi’s statement in another way:

Rather, according to Rabbi,

these rules

of Rabbi Hiyya

do not apply to him!

He does not accept those rules, because the phrase “the one forbidden to one is permitted to the other” can apply to the wife of a brother who was not alive in his lifetime only according to Rabbi Shimon.

According to Rabbi, the tanna of our Mishna does not teach a matter that is disputed.

According to Rabbi, the Mishna is speaking of a brother who was born and only afterward performed levirate marriage, and this case is accepted by everyone.

Rav Adda,

known as

“Karkhina,”

who was sitting

before

Rav Kahana, said in the name of Rava:

Actually, Rabbi does accept

the

these rules

of Rabbi Hiyya.

And this is what Rabbi meant

when he said to Levi, “It seems to me that he has no brain in his skull”:

The reason the tanna of our Mishna did not teach the case of one’s mother who was his father’s raped wife, according to Rabbi Yehuda, is that I cannot apply both rules to her at once [the first, “the one forbidden to one is permitted to the other,” and the second, that there is a case of “her sister who is also his wife subject to levirate marriage”].

Rather, only one of the rules can possibly apply to her, either the first or the second.

And since Rabbi agrees with Rabbi Hiyya that the tanna’s intention in the Mishna was to list only women to whom both rules apply at once, Rabbi answered Levi that the case of one’s father’s raped wife could not be included among the women in the Mishna, because both rules cannot apply to her at once:

Because

one’s mother, his father’s raped wife,

can be found

in only one

of the two rules;

one can find her in it,

meaning that only one of the two rules can apply to her.

But

in two,

applying both rules to her at once,

one cannot find her.

For in either case, how could both rules apply to her together?

The Gemara gives the example of a man named Jacob who had sons from several women, so that his sons were paternal but not maternal brothers.

If Jacob

raped two sisters,

and fathered a son with each of them, while Jacob had two other sons from other women,

and Jacob’s two other sons married the two sisters whom their father had raped, and the two brothers died,

the two sisters, who were the mothers of the two surviving sons, would now become subject to levirate marriage before those sons [whom Jacob had fathered with them when he raped them].

Both women would therefore be forbidden to both sons. With regard to each son, one of the women is his mother, and the other is his mother’s sister, who is also a forbidden relative to him.

Thus, the case of

“her sister who is also his wife subject to levirate marriage”

can indeed

be found,

when two sisters who are both women subject to levirate marriage become subject to him.

But, of course, neither of them performs the ritual of release from levirate marriage, since both are forbidden relatives to him.

But the rule

“the one forbidden to one is permitted to the other” -

cannot be found

in this case.

Both women are forbidden to both sons: one because she is his mother, and the other because she is his mother’s sister.

And if

their father Jacob

raped two

women who were

unrelated,

not sisters,

and fathered children with them—

and the two women bore him two sons, and the two unrelated women whom he had raped married two sons whom Jacob had fathered with another woman, and the brothers died, so that the two unrelated women became subject to levirate marriage before their sons,

“the one forbidden to one is permitted to the other”

can be found.

Each son is permitted to the unrelated woman, his father’s raped wife, and forbidden to his mother.

But

“her sister who is also his wife subject to levirate marriage”

cannot be found!

The case was established as involving two unrelated women.

Rav Ashi said: Actually, Rabbi does not accept these rules

of Rabbi Hiyya.

Therefore, the reason Rabbi did not teach the case of one’s mother who was his father’s raped wife is not that both rules cannot apply to her,

and

Rabbi does hold that he

does discuss a disputed matter!

The reason he did not teach the case of one’s mother who was his father’s raped wife is not that he does not discuss disputed matters.

And what did he mean by “It seems to me that he has no brain in his skull,”

which he said

to Levi?

This is what he meant: Why did you not analyze the Mishna carefully

[the continuation of our Mishna, below, 13a], from which it is clear

that the Mishna

is according to the view of

Rabbi Yehuda, who forbids one’s father’s raped wife.

Therefore, according to that view, it is impossible for another brother to marry his father’s raped wife, and consequently it is impossible for his father’s raped wife to become subject to levirate marriage.

As it teaches

in the continuation of our Mishna:

Six forbidden relatives

who are

more severe than these

fifteen forbidden relatives listed in our Mishna, and whose greater severity is

because they are married to other men

rather than to the brothers, since they are equally forbidden to all the brothers:

their rival wives are permitted!

A rival wife of a forbidden relative is forbidden only in a case of levirate marriage. Since these six forbidden relatives cannot marry any of the brothers, they do not become subject to levirate marriage. Therefore, they do not render forbidden their rival wives, who were married together with them to one man.

And these are the six:

one’s mother, one’s father’s wife, and one’s father’s sister,

and so on.

And we raised a question about it:

What does “one’s mother” mean?

In what way is she forbidden as one’s mother?

If you say

it means one’s mother who is

married to his father,

that is the same as one’s father’s wife,

and it should not be listed as a separate forbidden relative!

Rather, is it not

one’s mother who is

his father’s raped wife?

And it teaches: “Because they are

the six more severe forbidden relatives

married to other men.”

And we should infer: specifically,

“to other men, yes,”

they can be married.

But

to the brothers

no:

it is impossible for one’s father’s raped wife to marry the brothers.

Whom do you hear holding this view,

that one’s father’s raped wife is forbidden to marry the brothers?

It is

Rabbi Yehuda,

who forbids one’s father’s raped wife

from marrying any of the brothers, by a prohibition whose violation is punishable by lashes.

And

for this reason he did not teach it

as the case of one’s father’s raped wife in the previous Mishna, which exempts her rival wife from levirate marriage, since it is impossible for one’s father’s raped wife to marry any of the brothers, as she is forbidden to all of them by this prohibition.

Ravina said to Rav Ashi: According to Rabbi Yehuda, too, one can find

sixteen rival wives of forbidden relatives—in the case of the rival wife of one’s father’s raped wife.

For if

a brother violated the prohibition against taking his father’s raped wife,

and married her,

and then died, his father’s raped wife would become subject to levirate marriage!

And we answer:

“If,”

meaning a forbidden act that could occur only after the fact,

he does not teach.

Rav Ashi said to Rav Kahana: Without “if,”

meaning without the deceased brother having violated any prohibition by marrying her,

one can also find

the case of one’s father’s raped wife becoming subject to levirate marriage before him and rendering her rival wife forbidden:

For example,

Jacob raped

his

daughter-in-law,

the wife of his son Reuven,

and fathered a son with her,

who was a mamzer, since his daughter-in-law is forbidden to him by a prohibition punishable by karet.

It follows that the mamzer whom Jacob’s daughter-in-law bore him was the brother of her husband, Reuven!

Reuven then died without children.

And his wife became subject

to levirate marriage

before her son,

the mamzer, who was the brother of her husband!

And since she,

Reuven’s wife,

is forbidden

to enter into levirate marriage with her son because she is his mother,

her rival wife is also forbidden

to enter into levirate marriage, since she is the rival wife of his mother.

In this case, Reuven, the deceased brother, violated no prohibition; the transgressions were committed by others.

Rav Kahana said

to Rav Ashi: The verse speaks only

of “her sister”

that is, of a relationship

permitted

that was created permissibly between the brothers;

it discusses

the case described in the passage on levirate marriage: “When brothers dwell together.”

But

with regard to her sister created through a prohibition,

where the mamzer brother came into existence through a forbidden act,

it does not discuss such a case!

There is no case of becoming subject to levirate marriage here at all.

The Gemara adds:

And nevertheless,

despite Rabbi’s response to Levi’s claim that one’s father’s raped wife should be included in our Mishna—“It seems that he has no brain in his skull”—

he examined it

and Levi added it

to the Mishna.

Levi taught: One’s mother

sometimes

is

one who exempts her rival wife,

and sometimes she does not exempt her rival wife.

How so?

If one’s mother was married to his father and was “married” to his paternal brother

[although, with regard to the prohibition of one’s mother, she is permitted to his brother because he was born to another mother, she is nevertheless forbidden to him by karet as his father’s wife],

and

the paternal brother died—

This is the case of one’s mother who does not exempt her rival wife!

The brother’s marriage to one’s mother did not take effect at all, since she was forbidden to him as his father’s wife.