Yevamot 18a — the Talmud in English

It might have been said

that she is forbidden only

during the lifetime

of the yevama,

but after the death

of the yevama

the bond is released for her,

and her mother is permitted.

It teaches us this:

without the yibum or chalitza of her rival—

it is not released.

Shall we say that it supports him

for Rav Yehuda, from the Mishna below [49a]:

His yevama who died—

he is permitted to her sister.

And it implies that only

with her sister, yes,

he is permitted, similarly to his wife who died, with whose sister he is permitted.

But

with her mother—

no!

For there is a bond.

And we reject this:

The same law applies even with her mother

that he is forbidden.

And since at the beginning it taught, “His wife who died”—

“he is permitted to her sister,”

that

specifically with her sister

he is permitted,

but with her mother, no.

For she becomes

his mother-in-law even after the death of his wife,

a prohibition from the Torah.

It also taught at the end, “He is permitted to her sister,”

but the same law applies with her mother.

Rav Huna bar Hiyya raised an objection

from our Mishna, in which we learned:

The second brother performed

with the second yevama

a maamar

with the yevama who had fallen from the first brother, who had not been in the world of the third brother,

and he died

the second brother, and now the wife of his first brother who had not been in his world, and the second wife, who is the rival of the first wife by virtue of the maamar that the second brother performed with her, fall before the third brother.

Thus the

second yevama,

the wife of the second brother—

performs chalitza,

because by Torah law she is not the rival of the forbidden wife of his brother who had not been in his world,

and does not undergo yibum

because she is the rival of the wife of his brother who had not been in his world, by rabbinic maamar.

And Rav Huna bar Hiyya infers:

The reason is that he performed with her

the second brother

a maamar

with the first brother’s wife; therefore the second brother’s wife does not undergo yibum, since she is the rival of the forbidden wife of his brother who had not been in his world, by rabbinic maamar.

Had he not performed with her

the second brother

a maamar

with the first brother’s wife, and he died, then the second brother’s wife, who is called

“the second”—

would likewise undergo yibum!

Because she is not the rival of the wife of his brother who had not been in his world.

And if you say, “There is a bond”

to forbid the relatives of the yevama, how can she undergo yibum when the second brother did not perform a maamar with her?

For

she becomes

the wife of the second brother

“the rival of the wife of his brother who had not been in his world

by virtue of the bond”!

For the first brother’s wife, who is “the wife of his brother who had not been in his world” of the third brother, was bound to the husband of the second wife, and thereby they became rivals, rabbinically, according to the one who says “there is a bond,” to regard the yevama as though she were betrothed to the yavam.

Rabba said: The same law applies even though he did not perform with her

the second brother

a maamar—

the second performs chalitza, but does not perform yibum.

Because indeed, by virtue of the bond of “the wife of his brother who had not been in his world” to the second brother, the second brother’s wife becomes her “rival of a forbidden woman,” and she is forbidden to undergo yibum with the third brother.

And that which it teaches

in our Mishna, “The second brother performed with her

a maamar,”

is in order

to exclude,

to remove and exclude

from

the method of

Beit Shammai.

For they say,

Beit Shammai:

A maamar

that the yavam performs by means of money betrothal with his yevama

acquires

the yevama

with a complete acquisition,

from the Torah. And according to them, the second wife becomes by Torah law the rival of the forbidden wife of his brother who had not been in his world, and is exempt even from chalitza.

Therefore

it teaches us

our Mishna that the maamar does not acquire the yevama with a complete acquisition, but only rabbinically. Therefore, even if the second brother performed a maamar with her, the second brother’s wife requires chalitza.

But the same law applies if he did not perform a maamar with her: the second brother’s wife performs chalitza but does not undergo yibum, because she is “the rival of the forbidden wife of his brother who had not been in his world, by virtue of the bond”—according to the one who says there is a bond!

Abaye raised an objection to Rabba

from the beraita [below, 19a]:

For it was taught:

Two brothers

who were

in one world.

And one of them died without offspring.

And this second brother arose to perform a maamar with his yevama.

But he did not manage

the second brother

to perform a maamar with her before a brother was born to him

—a third brother, who had not been in the world of the first brother—

and he died

the second brother, without performing a maamar with her—

The first,

who had fallen from his brother who had not been in his world,

goes out

without chalitza

because of

the forbidden wife of

his brother who had not been in his world.

And the second,

the wife of the second brother—

either performs chalitza or undergoes yibum!

And if you say there is a bond,

how can the second undergo yibum?

For

she becomes

the second

“the rival of the wife of his brother who had not been in his world, by virtue of the bond”!

And how can she undergo yibum!?

Rabba said to Abaye:

This

beraita,

whose

method is it? It is the method of

Rabbi Meir, who says: There is no bond.

But according to the one who says there is a bond, she indeed performs chalitza but does not undergo yibum.

Below, Rav Pappa and Rabbi Oshaya disagreed whether “the bond is like marriage.” And the Gemara below brings a proof for Rav Pappa, who holds that the bond is not like marriage, from this beraita, at whose end it says, “the words of Rabbi Meir.”

And the Gemara now assumed that Rabbi Meir holds that there is no bond at all to forbid the relatives of the yevama.

Therefore Abaye wondered at Rabba’s answer:

And does Rabbi Meir hold

that

“there is no bond”?

But we learned

below [26a], in an anonymous Mishna, without dispute, and it is the method of Rabbi Meir:

Four brothers, two of whom were married to two sisters, and they died,

the two brothers

who were married to the sisters—

these

two sisters

perform chalitza but do not undergo yibum,

since each one is “the sister of his bound one.”

And if it enters your mind

that

Rabbi Meir holds “there is no

bond”—

why, according to him, do both of them not undergo yibum!?

For

these

two sisters

come from two houses,

from two houses of two brothers

they come,

and they do not come from one house, such that they could not perform yibum with both of them.

And if so,

this

brother

should perform yibum with one

sister,

and this

brother

should perform yibum with one

sister.

For according to Rabbi Meir there is no prohibition against taking the sister of his bound one!

Rather, it is necessarily that Rabbi Meir holds, “there is a bond.”

And if so, there is a contradiction to his words in the earlier beraita, where he held that there is no bond.

Rabba said to him:

In truth,

Rabbi Meir holds

there is no bond!

And that which he is required to perform chalitza with both sisters is not because of the prohibition of the sister of his bound one, but

because he holds

Rabbi Meir that

it is forbidden to nullify the mitzva of yevamin,

and because of this he forbade performing yibum with both of them:

For perhaps, while he is performing yibum,

perhaps by the time one brother

one

performs yibum with one sister, a long period will pass before he performs yibum with her, and after he performs yibum with her

the other one dies,

the second brother dies before he manages to perform yibum with the second sister.

Then the second sister will not be able to undergo yibum, for she is the sister of his wife. And she will also go out without chalitza, as the law is concerning a yevama who is forbidden to the yavam.

And you will have nullified the mitzva of yevamin

of the second sister.

Therefore they instituted that both perform chalitza, and even one brother may perform chalitza with both! And Abaye objected:

And if

Rabbi Meir holds that

there is no bond—

let the mitzva of yevamin be nullified

!

And not that there is a connection between the bond and the nullification of the mitzva of yevamin.

Rather, since we have heard that Rabban Gamliel holds both of these things—that there is no bond, and that it is permitted to nullify the mitzva of yevamin—why should Rabbi Meir not also hold like him!?

For Rabban Gamliel said, “There is no bond,” and “it is permitted to nullify the mitzva of yevamin”!

For we learned

below in the Mishna [109a]:

Two brothers who were married to two sisters, and one was an adult, married to one brother by Torah law, while the second was a minor whom her mother and brothers married off, whose marriage was only rabbinic.

And the husband of the adult died, and his adult wife fell before the brother who was married to her minor sister, through a rabbinic marriage.

And that brother is forbidden to perform yibum with her, even though she is his yevama by Torah law, whereas the marriage of his minor wife is only rabbinic, since she is his wife’s sister rabbinically.

And Rabbi Eliezer and Rabban Gamliel disagreed about this.

According to Rabbi Eliezer, there is a bond, and the adult sister who falls before him, and is bound to him by Torah law, thereby forbids his minor wife to him, since she becomes forbidden as “the sister of his bound one.”

From now on he is forbidden both with his wife and with his yevama.

Therefore, they teach his minor wife to refuse him, thereby uprooting her marriage to him retroactively, and then he can perform yibum with her adult sister.

Rabban Gamliel says:

There is no bond. And his minor wife is not forbidden as the sister of his bound one. And since his minor wife is not forbidden, there is no need to teach her to refuse him.

Rather,

if she refused

him—

she refused,

and he is then permitted to perform yibum with her adult sister.

And if she did not refuse

him—she herself is permitted to him, while the adult yevama

shall wait until the minor becomes an adult,

and her marriage will become a marriage by Torah law.

And

then

this yevama goes out

the yevama

because of

the forbidden woman,

the wife’s sister,

without yibum and without chalitza!

That is, Rabban Gamliel holds that there is no bond; therefore the yavam is permitted with his minor wife, and it is permitted to nullify the mitzva of yevamin. Therefore they do not teach her to refuse him; rather, he may marry her with a Torah marriage when she becomes an adult, and the mitzva of yibum of her adult sister will be nullified.

And if so, why should Rabbi Meir not hold like Rabban Gamliel, that it is possible to nullify the mitzva of yevamin?

He said to him

Rabba: Is it really that you compare

Rabban Gamliel to Rabbi Meir?

Does Rabbi Meir, who holds like Rabban Gamliel that there is no bond, have to hold like Rabban Gamliel in every matter, also that it is permitted to nullify the mitzva of yevamin!?

Abaye said to him:

No.

Rather,

this is what we are saying:

Is it possible that the disagreement between them is so extreme, that

Rabbi Meir is concerned even about the possibility

of nullifying the mitzva of yevamin, for he said, concerning two sisters who fell from two brothers, that he should perform chalitza with both, lest one of the brothers die and the mitzva of yevamin not be fulfilled,

whereas

Rabban Gamliel is not concerned even about certain

nullification of the mitzva of yevamin—

he is not concerned!

For he permitted him to marry his minor wife when she becomes an adult, and her sister will go out because of the wife’s sister, and he will actively nullify the mitzva of yevamin.

And Rabba rejected this: this is not an extreme disagreement, but a principled one—whether it is forbidden to nullify the mitzva of yevamin or whether it is permitted to nullify it.

Therefore,

perhaps one who is not concerned

with the nullification of the mitzva of yevamin [Rabban Gamliel]—

even about certain

nullification

he is not concerned.

And

if

one who is concerned

with the nullification of the mitzva of yevamin [Rabbi Meir]—

he is concerned even about a possibility.

Abaye said to Rav Yosef: This statement of Rav Yehuda

who said that there is a bond, and that the yavam is forbidden with his wife’s relatives even after her death—

is that of Shmuel!

Rav Yehuda heard it from his teacher Shmuel, and not from Rav, who was also a teacher of Rav Yehuda.