Yevamot 18b — the Talmud in English

As we learned: ![](pamud.bmp "

exact page location")

a shomeret yavam whose brother betrothed

that is, one of the brothers

her sister

of the yevama. From now on, his yevama becomes forbidden to him as the sister of a wife, and she is no longer bound to him, for there is no zekika to a forbidden relation.

It follows that from now on, the sister of the yevama whom he betrothed as a wife is no longer “the sister of one bound to him”:

In the name of Rabbi Judah ben Beteira they said:

Nevertheless, since she appeared to be the sister of one bound to him,

they say to him

to the yavam who betrothed his yevama’s sister:

Wait

before bringing her into marriage —

until your brother performs

with her

an act

that is, until he performs halitza for her; then her zekika toward all the brothers will lapse, and she will no longer appear to be the sister of one bound to you. For from the moment that he performs halitza for her, her zekika toward all the brothers lapses.

That is, Rabbi Judah ben Beteira holds that “there is zekika,” and it was forbidden for the yavam to betroth his yevama’s sister, since she was forbidden to him as the sister of one bound to him.

But once he betrothed her, the zekika of the yevama toward him should have lapsed, since she became a Torah-forbidden relation to him.

Rather, the Sages instituted this because he appears to be taking the sister of one bound to him; and since she is still only his betrothed and he has not yet married her, she should continue to be forbidden to him as though the zekika still existed toward him, until his brother performs halitza for her.

For the Sages gave the zekika the force of betrothal, as though she were betrothed, and the betrothal of this one does not remove the betrothal of that one.

But if the brother had already married her, the Sages did not institute that the yevama should still be considered bound. For marriage is stronger than betrothal; therefore it is as though the marriage of the sister “removes” the zekika of the yevama, and her sister may no longer be forbidden as the sister of one bound to him.

And Samuel said: The halakha is in accordance with Rabbi Judah ben Beteira.

It is thus proven that Samuel held that there is zekika. And necessarily Rav Judah received the halakha that there is zekika from Samuel, his teacher.

He said to him

Rav Joseph said to Abaye: Why did you establish that Rav Judah received it from Samuel, and not from Rav?

For if

it is speaking

that

he received it from

Rav

that there is zekika,

what

difficulty will this pose for you?

There would be

a contradiction between Rav and Rav

that there would be a contradiction in Rav’s statements, for on the one hand Rav Huna said in his name that there is no zekika, while on the other hand Rav Judah said in his name that there is zekika.

This is not a contradiction in Rav’s statements.

For

perhaps they are amoraic opinions

Rav Huna and Rav Judah, who were Rav’s students, disagreed among themselves,

and

they disagreed

according to Rav’s position

as to what his position was.

Abaye said to Rav Joseph:

Since it was stated explicitly in the name of Samuel

that we learned explicitly in Samuel’s name that in his view there is zekika,

and

if it had been

in the name of Rav

it would not be clear what his position was, since it was stated

as amoraic opinions

that Rav’s students disagreed whether there is zekika or there is no zekika.

Therefore,

we do not abandon

we do not set aside what we learned

explicitly in the name of Samuel.

Therefore we must say that Rav Judah, who said that there is zekika, said this according to the position of Samuel, his teacher.

And

not

do we establish

Rav Judah’s statement as having been said in Rav’s name,

as amoraic opinions,

with a dispute here among the amoraim, Rav’s students,

and according to Rav’s position.

Rather, we establish Rav Judah’s statement that there is zekika as having been said in the name of Samuel, his teacher.

Rav Kahana said: I stated this teaching

this

before Rav Zevid of Nehardea.

And

he said

to

you

you

learn it this way,

that you transmit Rav Judah’s statement without explicitly transmitting it in the name of Samuel, his teacher; therefore you dispute among yourselves whether Rav Judah said his statement according to Samuel or according to Rav.

But

we —

transmit it explicitly

Rav Judah’s statement in the name of Samuel, his teacher, and this is how we transmit it:

Rav Judah said in the name of Samuel: If a shomeret yavam dies —

he is forbidden to her mother.

Evidently he holds

Samuel

that there is zekika.

And Samuel followed his own position.

Samuel, who holds that there is zekika, follows his own position:

For Samuel said: The halakha is in accordance with Rabbi Judah ben Beteira.

And the Gemara explains:

And both statements are necessary,

for Samuel had to state both teachings, both the teaching “If a shomeret yavam dies, he is forbidden to her mother,” and the teaching “The halakha is in accordance with Rabbi Judah ben Beteira.”

For if he had taught us

only the teaching

“There is zekika

,” I might have said, these words apply

that there is zekika only

in

a yevama who falls before one yavam

alone,

for the zekika is clearly directed toward him alone.

But with two

yevamin, where it is unknown who will perform yibum with her,

not

would we say that there is zekika toward both of them.

He teaches us

Samuel, in the teaching “The halakha is in accordance with Rabbi Judah ben Beteira,” which concerns zekika to several brothers, that nevertheless there is zekika.

And if he had taught us

only the teaching that

the halakha is in accordance with Rabbi Judah ben Beteira, I might have said, these words apply

that there is zekika only

during her lifetime,

during the life of the yevama, when she has zekika, and even after she becomes a forbidden relation she continues to appear as the sister of one bound to him.

But after death

of the yevama,

her zekika lapses,

and the yavam is then permitted to her relatives.

Therefore,

he teaches us

Samuel “There is zekika,”

for zekika by itself

without halitza

does not lapse.

And he is forbidden to her relatives as though his betrothed had died, in which case he remains forbidden to her relatives even after her death.

Mishna:

In the previous Mishna, the law of the wife of a brother who was not in his world was explained in the case where the third brother was born

before

the second brother performed yibum with the wife of the first brother.

Now the Mishna explains the law of the wife of a brother who was not in his world, when the third brother was born

after

the second brother performed yibum with the wife of the first brother:

If there were

two brothers

in the world,

and one of them died.

And

the brother

performed yibum with his brother’s wife

who had been with him in his world.

And afterward a brother was born to them,

who had not been in the world of the first brother.

And

the second brother died, the one who had performed yibum with the wife of the first brother.

And before the third brother fall the wife of his brother who was not in his world, and her rival:

Behold

the first,

the wife of the first brother, who had performed yibum with the second brother,

goes out because of

the forbidden relation of

“the wife of his brother who was not in his world.”

And she is exempt from yibum and halitza.

And the second,

her rival, the wife of the second brother, goes out like her, without halitza or yibum,

because she is the rival

of a forbidden relation.

But if the second brother did not perform yibum with the wife of the first brother, but only

performed upon her

the second brother

a maamar,

a monetary betrothal, which the Sages instituted so that the yavam should betroth his yevama before having relations with her,

and he died —

the first nevertheless goes out because of the wife of his brother who was not in his world.

Whereas

the second

who is a rabbinically forbidden rival of a forbidden relation, because of the maamar that her husband performed with the first —

performs halitza, but does not perform yibum.

Rabbi Shimon

disagrees with what is stated in the first clause of the Mishna, and

says:

The wife of his brother who was not in his world is not forbidden to him unless the third brother was born and found the wife of his brother who was not in his world while she was still in the “zekikat nissuin of his first brother.”

That is, she had neither performed halitza nor yibum, and she was still bound for yibum by virtue of the marriage of his brother who was not in his world.

At that point, since he cannot perform yibum with her or halitza for her, she becomes forbidden to him as the wife of a brother who was not in his world. And since she became forbidden to him at the time of falling for yibum, she is forbidden to him forever.

But if the third brother was born after the second had performed yibum with the first brother’s wife, and it turns out that the first brother’s wife did not fall before the third, and she was not forbidden to him at the time of falling as a brother’s wife without a possibility of permission, but the third found her at the time of his birth as the wife of his second brother, she is not forbidden to him as the wife of his brother who was not in his world.

Therefore, when the second brother dies, he

may perform yibum with whichever of them he wishes, or perform halitza with whichever of them he wishes.

The reason for Rabbi Shimon’s position will be clarified in the Gemara, according to the approaches of the early authorities, on page 20a.

Gemara:

It was explained in our Mishna that Rabbi Shimon permits the third brother to perform yibum with the wife of his first brother, who performed yibum with his second brother, and the second brother died, when the third brother was born

after

the second brother performed yibum with her.

It follows from here that only in this manner, where the third was born and found her having performed yibum with the second, only then did Rabbi Shimon permit the third to her.

But regarding the prohibition of the wife of his brother discussed in the previous Mishna, when the third was born

before

the second performed yibum, Rabbi Shimon agrees with the Sages that she is forbidden to him forever as the wife of a brother who has children, and she may no longer be permitted to perform yibum with him, even if his brother performed yibum with her and died, and she then falls from him.

Rather, the amoraim disputed the matter:

Rabbi Oshaya said: Rabbi Shimon disagreed

with the Sages

also in

the previous

Mishna,

and held that even if the third brother was born before the second performed yibum with her, and the second performed yibum with her and then died, she may perform yibum!

According to Rabbi Oshaya, Rabbi Shimon’s reason is not as we explained in the Mishna, but is another reason, as will be explained below.

Rabbi Oshaya proves his statement:

From where

do I derive this?

From the fact that an extra Mishna was taught —

the first clause.

For the previous Mishna is entirely superfluous if we do not say as I have said, and it comes to teach that Rabbi Shimon also disagrees with it.

For

for whom was it taught?

For whose sake was the previous Mishna taught, to inform us of his position?

If you say, for the Sages,

if it has the purpose of teaching the position of the Sages who disagree with Rabbi Shimon, while Rabbi Shimon does not speak there because he agrees with the Sages in this law — this cannot be.

For

now, it is already stated in our Mishna that even if

it is already stated in our Mishna that even if the second brother

the second brother performed yibum

the second brother

and finally the third was born,

so that he did not find her at the time of falling for yibum from the first, but found her as the second’s wife,

when he found her,

that when he found her at the time of his birth,

in a permitted state

of yibum by virtue of the second,

he found her — nevertheless

the Sages forbade

him to perform yibum with her, as explained in our Mishna —

the third was born

before the second’s yibum, and became forbidden to him through the first brother’s falling, because she was the wife of his brother who was not in his world,

and

only

afterward the second performed yibum

the second brother —

is it necessary to say so!?

Is it necessary to say that she is forbidden to him?

Rather, is it not that this Mishna, the one preceding our Mishna,

the previous Mishna, which precedes our Mishna,

was necessary for Rabbi Shimon,

to teach us that he also disagrees there.

And he taught the first clause

the previous Mishna

to inform you of Rabbi Shimon’s strength,

that even when the third brother was born and afterward the second performed yibum, Rabbi Shimon permitted it.

And he taught the final clause

our Mishna

to inform you of the strength of the Sages,

that even when he performed yibum and finally the third was born, the Sages forbade it.

And by rights

it would be appropriate

that he should disagree

that he should disagree

Rabbi Shimon

with the Sages immediately and permit it immediately

in the first clause.

Rather, he waited for them

Rabbi Shimon held back and waited

for the Sages until they completed their statement, and afterward,

and then

he disagreed with them.

The Gemara now clarifies: If Rabbi Shimon also permitted it when the third was born and afterward the second performed yibum, then:

Rather, the wife of his brother who was not in his world, according to Rabbi Shimon —

how can you find it?

In what manner can you find it?

With one brother,

where there was one brother who had not been in the world of the second brother,

and he died.

And a brother was born to him

after his death, who cannot perform yibum with his brother’s wife because he was not with him in his world.

Alternatively, with two,

with two brothers, and a third brother was born,

and he did not perform yibum

the second brother did not perform yibum with his brother’s wife,

and he did not die

the second brother had not yet died.

For the third brother is forbidden to perform yibum with her because of her falling from his deceased brother, since he was not with him in his world.

But if the zekika of the first brother lapsed when the second performed yibum, and from then on she is considered the wife of the second brother, it is permitted for the third to perform yibum with her when the second dies, since the second brother was in his world, and she now falls before him as the wife of the second, and not as the wife of the first.

And the Gemara added “and he did not die” because it will be explained below that according to Rabbi Oshaya, if the second dies, she will then become permitted to the third, for the reason that will be explained below.

The Gemara now explains the reason of Rabbi Shimon, according to Rabbi Oshaya, namely, why even when the third was born and afterward the second performed yibum and died, it is permitted for the third brother to perform yibum with her.

It is understandable

if

the second performed yibum

the second

and afterward the third was born,

the third brother, and the second died, it is permitted for the third to perform yibum with her, since

when he found her

the third

he found her “in a permitted state”!

Since she had not become bound to him by virtue of the first, but he found her after she had performed yibum with the second, she was not forbidden to him, and she is permitted to him by virtue of the second.

But

if

the third was born,

and found her in the zekika of the first’s marriage, and she then became forbidden to him as the wife of a brother who has children,

and

only

afterward the second performed yibum

with her.

For what reason

is she permitted to the third when the second dies? She had already become forbidden to him forever when he was born, since at that time she fell in the zekika of the marriage of his first brother, who had not been in his world.

And we answer:

He holds

Rabbi Shimon [according to Rabbi Oshaya]:

a.

There is zekika. The marital zekika that the yavam has toward his yevama is a strong marital bond, and it has several aspects [such as forbidding her relatives, and more, as will be explained below].

The marital bond that exists between a brother-in-law and his levirate wife is a strong marital bond, with several legal consequences, such as forbidding him to marry her relatives, as will be explained below.

b.

And the zekika

of the yevama toward the yavam is a marital bond so strong that

it resembles one already brought into the household.

For even by Torah law, her zekika toward the yavam is considered as though the yavam had already brought her in as a wife!

Therefore, when a new brother is born, he does not find her in the marital bond of his deceased brother, who was not in his world; rather, it is considered as though the marital bond of his deceased brother had completely lapsed and the marital bond of the yavam had begun.

And this marital bond is permitted for yibum to the brother who has now been born, since he was together with his second brother in the world.

That is, according to Rabbi Shimon, according to Rabbi Oshaya, she does not become forbidden to the third brother as the wife of a brother who has no children, since there is here no marital bond of the first, by virtue of which she would become forbidden to him forever, but only the marital bond of the second!

Rav Joseph challenged Rabbi Oshaya

to Rabbi Oshaya:

Now,

here, with

the zekika and the maamar, it is uncertain to Rabbi Shimon whether it resembles one already brought into the household or whether it does not resemble one already brought into the household,

as the Gemara will explain.

With zekika alone,

without a maamar —

is it necessary

to say that according to Rabbi Shimon it does not resemble one already brought into the household!

And the Gemara explains:

What is it?

Where do we find that Rabbi Shimon is uncertain whether with zekika and a maamar it resembles one already brought into the household or not?

As we learned

below, on 31b:

Three brothers

who were

married to three unrelated women.

And one of them died.

And he performed upon her

the second brother

a maamar, and he died —

behold these

the two yevamot, the wife of the first brother and the wife of the second brother,

perform halitza and do not perform yibum.

Since the yevama with whom he performed a maamar is forbidden for yibum, as will be explained, and she also forbids her rival [through the maamar].

As it is stated:

Deuteronomy 25:

“And one of them dies —

the yevama shall come to him.”

The one upon whom there is the zekika of one yavam —

I apply to her “the yevama shall come to him.”

But not

one

upon whom there is the zekika of two yevamin!

And this woman, with whom the second performed a maamar, has the zekika of two yevamin, of the first and of the second, for she is bound by virtue of the first and also by virtue of the second, because he performed a maamar with her. And her rival, the wife of the second, is forbidden for yibum like her.

Rabbi Shimon

disagrees and holds, in either case:

If the maamar acquires her as his wife, she is solely the second’s wife, and there is no zekika of the first.

And if the maamar does not acquire her as his wife, there is no zekika of the second, since she falls not from him but from the first.

Therefore Rabbi Shimon does not accept at all the exposition that one upon whom there is the zekika of two yevamin may not perform yibum.

Therefore Rabbi Shimon

says: He performs yibum with whichever of them he wishes, and performs halitza with the second,

because of the uncertainty!

And the Gemara explains:

He may not perform yibum with both,

according to Rabbi Shimon he does not perform yibum with both of them, because Rabbi Shimon is uncertain,

perhaps “there is zekika

, and by virtue of the zekika the first’s wife is considered as already brought into the household of the second.

And they are

the first’s wife, who is bound to the second, and the second’s wife —

two yevamot who come ![](pamud.bmp "

exact page location")

from one household.

And one may perform yibum with only one yevama from the household, because the Torah said, “the house of his brother,” teaching that he builds one house, but does not build two houses.