Yevamot 17b (יז:) — the Talmud in English

The one who teaches

“the first”

is released because she is the wife of his brother who was not in his world,

is not mistaken.

For

what does “the first”

that the tanna said mean? It refers to the one who is

“the first in the falling”

—the one who fell first, from the first brother, while her co-wife fell only in the second falling, from the second brother.

And the one who teaches “the second”

is released because she is the wife of his brother who was not in his world, is likewise

not mistaken.

For

what does “the second”

that the tanna said mean? It refers to the woman who was

second in marriage

to the second brother, who had already been married to one woman and afterward performed yibbum with his yevama, the wife of his first brother.

The Gemara rejects this: Must the Mishna necessarily be speaking of a case in which the second brother first married his wife and only afterward performed yibbum with his yevama, which is why she is called “the second”?

Who—

is it the case that

we are not dealing

in our Mishna with a situation

in which

he first

performed yibbum

with the yevama who had fallen to him from his first brother,

and

only

afterward took in marriage

his wife? In that case, it would be impossible to call the wife of the first brother “the second in marriage”!

Rather,

this is how the second version should be explained:

What does “the second

is released because she is the wife of his brother who was not in his world” mean? It is the one who was

second in marriage,

who had been married twice: once to the first brother and a second time to the second brother.

The Gemara now explains the basis of the law concerning the wife of his brother who was not in his world:

“The wife of his brother who was not in his world”—

where is it written

that she is forbidden for yibbum?

Rav Yehuda said in the name of Rav: The verse says

at the beginning of the passage concerning yibbum [Deuteronomy 25]:

“When brothers dwell—

together.”

This is how the verse is expounded: “‘When brothers dwell’”—the verse speaks of brothers

who had

one dwelling together in the world

—

excluding the wife of his brother who was not in his world,

for the two brothers did not have “one dwelling” together in the world.

“Together”

means that the mitzva of yibbum applies only to brothers who are

“distinct” in inheritance,

who are fit to inherit from one another. [See below, later on this folio, in Rashi’s discussion of the same teaching.]

Excluding his maternal brother,

for he does not inherit from him, nor does his maternal brother inherit from him; therefore, the law of yibbum does not apply to them.

Rabba said:

The fact that the mitzva of yibbum applies only to

paternal brothers

is derived

through a gezera shava,

“brotherhood, brotherhood,” from the sons of Jacob [Genesis 42].

Just as there,

Just as there,

the sons of Jacob said to their father, when they returned from Egypt the first time and told him what they had said to the “master of the land” [Joseph]:

“We are twelve brothers, sons of our father.”

And the sons of Jacob were brothers

through their father, but not through their mother.

So too here, with regard to yibbum, “when brothers dwell,” the verse speaks of brothers

through their father,

but not

of brothers

through their mother.

The Gemara raises a difficulty: Why must we learn from the sons of Jacob that the brotherhood mentioned with regard to yibbum is only brotherhood through the father? Let us learn from the passage concerning forbidden relationships, where the brotherhood mentioned there includes even brotherhood only through the mother:

And let us derive

through a gezera shava,

“brotherhood, brotherhood,” from the passage concerning forbidden relationships,

where we find that “the nakedness of your brother’s wife” refers both to one’s paternal brother and to one’s maternal brother!

And we answer:

We derive

the gezera shava from “when

brothers dwell” [

with regard to yibbum]

from

“twelve

brothers

sons of our father.”

But we do not derive “when

dwell

brothers”

from “the nakedness of your

What difference does it make

brother

you shall not uncover.”

The Gemara challenges this:

What difference does it make whether “brothers” or “your brother” is written? What difference does it make for the teaching of a gezera shava whether the words are identical in the two places? After all, a gezera shava is learned from the similarity between the matters in the two passages, not from the identical wording:

“And the koen shall come”—

But the school of Rabbi Yishmael taught

in connection with a gezera shava concerning the afflictions of houses, that a gezera shava is learned even without identical wording: It is stated [Leviticus 14]

“and the priest shall return,”

and it is stated

“and the priest shall come”—

“this returning is the same as that coming.”

Since the intended meaning in both is the same matter, one may be learned from the other through a gezera shava.

And we answer:

This applies

when one learns a gezera shava even when the words are not identical,

where there is nothing

that is an identical word

that resembles it.

But where there is something that resembles it,

as here, where it is possible to learn the gezera shava from the identical words “brothers, brothers,”

we derive it from what resembles it,

and do not learn the gezera shava of “brothers” from “your brother.”

The Gemara still raises a difficulty:

And let us derive “brotherhood, brotherhood” from Lot, as it is written [

Genesis 13], when Abraham our forefather said to Lot:

“For we are brothers.”

Since Lot was the son of Haran, Abraham’s brother, and Abraham referred to them as “brothers,” we should learn through the gezera shava of “brothers, brothers” that yibbum should also apply to the son of a brother, who would perform yibbum with the wife of his deceased paternal uncle!

And we answer:

It is more reasonable that he should derive it from the sons of Jacob,

that it is preferable to learn from them through a gezera shava and say that the brotherhood relevant to yibbum is only between paternal brothers, rather than learn from Abraham and Lot that yibbum applies to the sons of brothers.

Because

the word “brothers” written concerning the sons of Jacob is

“superfluous.”

It is unnecessary, so that it is available to teach through it a gezera shava concerning the brotherhood of yibbum.

Since it could have written, “Twelve are your servants, sons of our father.”

And it is written,

and Scripture added the word

“brothers”—

infer from this that it is available for derivation, that Scripture added the word “brothers” so that it would be available for a gezera shava concerning yibbum.

For if the Merciful One had written only

But in Abraham our forefather’s statement to Lot, the word “brothers” is not superfluous and available for a gezera shava!

The Gemara further explains the verse, “When two brothers dwell together”:

And it was necessary to write “when

dwell

brothers,”

and it was necessary

also to add and

to write “together.”

For had the Merciful One written

only

“brothers,”

I would have said that we should derive “brotherhood, brotherhood” from Lot,

so that even the son of a brother could perform yibbum.

And if you would say,

as we wished to say, that it is impossible to learn from Lot through a gezera shava, since

it is not superfluous,

for there is no superfluous word there available to establish the teaching of a gezera shava, whereas among the sons of Jacob there is the available word “brothers” from which to derive the law of yibbum through a gezera shava—

That is not so!

You cannot say that there is nothing “available” in the statement of Abraham and Lot from which to establish the teaching of a gezera shava from Lot.

Rather, indeed,

it is available because of this!

Since it could have written

that Abraham said to Lot, “We are

bad

people,”

but it is written “brothers”—

infer from this that it is available for derivation!

It would therefore have been possible to learn through a gezera shava from Lot that the yibbum of a nephew with his paternal uncle’s wife applies.

Therefore, the Merciful One added and

wrote “together,”

to teach that the mitzva of yibbum applies only to brothers

distinct in inheritance,

who share a single inheritance between them.

And had the Merciful One written

only

“together”

and not “brothers,”

I would have said

that the mitzva of yibbum applies only

when the brothers are united

through their

father and mother,

so that their brotherhood is through both father and mother [and I would say that this is the meaning of “together”].

Therefore,

it is necessary

to write “brothers” as well, and to learn through a gezera shava from the sons of Jacob that the brotherhood is through the father alone.

The Gemara challenges the need to write “brothers,” so that we would not infer from “together” that the brotherhood must be through both father and mother:

But

the initial assumption that yibbum applies only to brothers whose brotherhood is through both father and mother—

from where could that be inferred?

From where would we come to say this!?

After all, the mitzva of

yibbum—

the Merciful One made it dependent on inheritance,

as it is written concerning the yavam, “He shall establish the name of his deceased brother.” The “establishment of the name” of the deceased means that the brother who performs yibbum acquires all the property of the deceased, and not the other brothers.

And “inheritance”

is only

through the father, and not through the mother!

And we answer: Nevertheless,

it was necessary

to write “brothers.”

For

it might have entered your mind that, since

the very matter of yibbum

is an innovation, for it permits a forbidden relationship,

in that the wife of one’s brother is permitted

to him,

to the yavam—

And if so,

say

that “the wife of one’s brother” is not permitted

until the two brothers are united

both

through the father and

also

through the mother.

Therefore,

it is necessary

to write “brothers,” in addition to “together,” to teach that brotherhood through the father and not through the mother is also considered brotherhood for purposes of yibbum.

Rav Huna said in the name of Rav: If a yevama awaiting yibbum dies, the

yavam is permitted

to marry

her mother.

But as long as she is alive, he may not take her mother or one of her other close relatives, because thereby the yevama would become forbidden to him, and he would be unable to perform yibbum with her, causing the mitzva of yibbum to be nullified. He may not perform yibbum “in order to nullify the mitzva of yevamin.”

The Gemara infers:

Evidently,

it is apparent from his statement that he permitted him to marry her mother after the yevama’s death,

he holds

Rav Huna in the name of Rav,

“there is no bond.”

That is, the bond of the yevama to him does not have the power to cause her to be considered, by rabbinic law, as though she were his betrothed, so that her mother would become forbidden to him as his mother-in-law, by rabbinic law.

The Gemara raises a difficulty: If so,

let

Rav Huna in the name of Rav

say: “The halakha follows the one who says, ‘There is no bond’”!

For the tannaim disagreed over this matter, whether the relatives of a yevama who is awaiting yibbum are forbidden to the yavam.

We find this disagreement among the tannaim below [41a], in a case where the yavam transgressed and betrothed his yevama’s sister, thereby nullifying the mitzva of yevamin, since his yevama now became forbidden to him as his wife’s sister, and she was no longer subject by Torah law to either halitza or yibbum: Is the sister of his yevama, whom he betrothed as a wife, forbidden to him by the rabbinic prohibition of “the sister of one bound to him”?

Rabbi Yehuda ben Beteira says: “There is a bond,” and the prohibition of “the sister of one bound to him” remains in force even after his yevama has become forbidden to him!

Since the Sages said that his betrothal of his yevama’s sister [despite the fact that it takes effect by Torah law!] cannot remove the rabbinic prohibition of “the sister of one bound to him.”

Therefore, he must wait before consummating his marriage, and refrain from taking his wife’s sister [who is betrothed to him by Torah law] into marriage until one of his brothers performs halitza with the yevama or performs yibbum with her; then the bond is removed from her, and he is permitted to her relatives.

The Sages hold that “there is no bond.” Although, initially, he may not betroth his yevama’s sister because it is forbidden to nullify the mitzva of yevamin, if he transgressed and betrothed her, he may consummate the marriage, because there is no prohibition concerning the relatives of his yevama.

Since the tannaim disagreed on this matter, Rav Huna in the name of Rav should have said that the halakha follows the one who says that there is no bond. We would then know that a person is permitted to the relatives of his yevama in a case where there is no nullification of the mitzva of yevamin, such as after his yevama’s death.

And we answer:

Had Rav Huna said

this,

“so,”

that the halakha follows the one who says that there is no bond, without explaining his statement as permitting him to marry the relatives of his yevama after her death,

I would have said that this applies

when the bond of the yevama to the yavam is not considered as though she were betrothed to him, so that her relatives would be forbidden to him, when the bond exists

with two

yevamin. In that case, she cannot be considered betrothed to both yevamin simultaneously, and we do not know before whom she will ultimately fall for yibbum, so that we might say that she is already like his betrothed.

But with one

yavam, since she is designated exclusively for him, I would say that

“there is a bond”

with regard to him, as though she were his betrothed, and the yavam would be forbidden by rabbinic law to the relatives of his yevama, as though he had already taken her into marriage and she had become his betrothed.

And I would say that this prohibition applies to the relatives of his yevama even after her death, despite the fact that he had not performed yibbum with her!

Therefore, Rav Huna in the name of Rav preferred to inform us that in every case, including when she falls before a single yavam, he is not forbidden to her relatives.

But there is still a difficulty:

Let

Rav Huna in the name of Rav say explicitly:

“The halakha follows the one who says that there is no bond even when she falls before

a single

yavam!”

And this is Rabbi Akiva, who holds below [29b] that the bond, even with a single yavam, does not have the power to cause her to be considered his wife with regard to the annulment of vows [whereas Rabbi Eliezer and Rabbi Yehoshua disagree and hold that the yavam can annul the vows of his yevama by virtue of the marital bond between them].

And we answer:

If he had said this,

that the halakha follows the one who says that there is no bond even when she falls before a single yavam,

I would have said

that

even during her lifetime,

while the yevama is alive, there is no bond, and not only after her death!

That is, he would be permitted to marry the mother of his yevama, even before performing halitza with her; the yevama would then be released without halitza, like a forbidden woman, since from that point she would be forbidden to him as his stepdaughter.

This teaches us

Rav Huna in the name of Rav that only

after the death

of his yevama

there is no

bond, and only then is he permitted to marry the mother of his yevama.

But

during the lifetime

of his yevama,

he may not

marry her,

because it is forbidden

for the yavam

to nullify the mitzva of yevamin.

If he marries the mother of his yevama, then his yevama will be released without either yibbum or halitza, like a forbidden woman, and he will thereby nullify his mitzva to perform yibbum or halitza.

And the Gemara brings a proof against Rav’s statement from a Mishna, from which it is evident that there is zika.

We learned [

below, 49a ]:

his yevama who died—

he is permitted to her sister,

as any other person is permitted, when there is no possibility of yibbum, to his wife’s sister after his wife’s death.

This implies that only

with regard to her sister, yes,

is he permitted, as he is permitted to his wife’s sister after her death;

but

with regard to her mother—

no!

Because there is zika, and she is forbidden to him.

And we answer:

The same הדין applies: even with regard to her mother

he is permitted after the death of his yevama.

And since the first clause was taught

of that Mishna:

his wife who died—

he is permitted to her sister,

for with regard to his wife, after she died,

with regard to her sister, yes,

he is permitted.

But with regard to her mother,

after his wife died,

no,

she is not permitted to him.

For she becomes

his mother-in-law, even after his wife’s death,

a Torah prohibition.

The final clause was also taught:

his wife died—

he is permitted to her sister,

but the same הדין applies to her mother.

And Rav Yehuda

disagrees with Rav Huna citing Rav, and

said: A shomeret yavam who died—

he is forbidden to her mother.

Apparently, Rav Yehuda holds

Rav Yehuda:

there is zika,

meaning that the yevama is considered as though she had been married to the yavam, and therefore he is forbidden to her relatives. And we challenge this:

Let

Rav Yehuda

say: “The halakha is in accordance with the one who says, ‘There is zika’”!

And we answer:

Had

Rav Yehuda

said this, I would have said that this applies

when there is zika

to

one yavam

alone,

for the zika is only to him.

But with two

yevamim,

there is no zika,

and therefore Rav Yehuda teaches us that there is zika even when there are two yevamim.

And we challenge this:

But when

Rabbi Yehuda ben Beteira and the Sages disputed whether there is zika or no zika,

with two

yevamim

they disputed!

Rav Yehuda should therefore have said that the halakha follows Rabbi Yehuda ben Beteira, who says that there is zika, and we would have known that this refers even to zika involving two yevamim! In light of this difficulty, the Gemara offers another answer.

Rather, if

Rav Yehuda

had said this,

that there is zika, and had not said, “A shomeret yavam who died is forbidden to her mother,”