Yevamot 19a — the Talmud in English

And on the other hand,

one of them is levirate-married

from among them,

and the other is released

without halitza, on account of “he builds one house, but you do not build two houses,” also

not

possible.

Perhaps there is no zika

considered

as though she had been taken in marriage, and they are two yevamot coming from two houses;

and he must perform halitza for the second, even if he levirate-married the first.

And Rav Yosef concludes his difficulty against Rabbi Oshaya and demonstrates his proof:

It follows that it is uncertain to him

to Rabbi Shimon whether zika together with maamar is considered as though she had been taken in marriage or not.

And how did Rabbi Oshaya say that according to Rabbi Shimon, with mere zika she is considered as though she had been taken in marriage!?

And if you would say

to answer that Rabbi Shimon is not uncertain, but holds with certainty that zika is considered as though she had been taken in marriage—and indeed

by Torah law, so it is—

when two yevamot fall before him one after the other, one from the first brother and the second from the second brother, the first is considered as though she had been taken in marriage by the second brother; and when the second brother dies, it is considered that two yevamot fall from “one house” [of the second brother] before the third brother.

And since “he builds one house but does not build two houses,” Rabbi Shimon holds

that he levirate-marries

only

one

of them

and releases one.

And

only

by rabbinic decree is it forbidden

to release the second without halitza,

as a decree because perhaps

people will err, and

say

that even in a case of

two yevamot coming from two houses,

such as when the falling occurred simultaneously, precisely, when the two brothers died at once, even then they say:

one

of the two

is levirate-married, and the other is released with nothing at all!

And this is an error. For if the two brothers died together, “zika as though taken in marriage” was not created with the second brother, and it follows that there are here two separate fallings from two houses, and the levir must build both of them.

It is impossible to explain Rabbi Oshaya’s words in accordance with Rabbi Shimon in this way. For:

But Rabbi Shimon’s reason—

is because of “maamar and not-maamar,”

for he is uncertain whether maamar effects acquisition or not, as will be explained:

For it was taught,

as we learned thus in a baraita, concerning this Mishna about three brothers who married three unrelated women, and the first died, and the second performed maamar with her, and then died: both perform halitza and are not levirate-married, since the wife of the first has the zika of two levirs, and the wife of the second is her rival-wife and performs halitza like her:

Rabbi Shimon said to the Sages:

Why do both perform halitza, and why do we not say that the third brother may levirate-marry even the wife of the first, after the second performed maamar with her and died?

For

if the maamar of the second

is considered

“maamar,”

so that the acquisition effected by the maamar makes her his wife—she is not considered “one upon whom there is the zika of two levirs,” but only the zika of the second levir, who performed maamar with her.

And if so, why should he not levirate-marry her? For

the wife

of his

second

brother alone

is he having intercourse with!

And if the maamar of the second is not

considered

“maamar,”

and she is not acquired by him through the maamar to be his wife, likewise she is not “one upon whom there is the zika of two levirs,” but he may levirate-marry her. For

the wife

of the

first

alone

is he having intercourse with!

And it is demonstrated that because of the uncertainty whether maamar effects acquisition or not, Rabbi Shimon disputed the Sages, and not because of a decree lest people come to levirate-marry when the two brothers’ falling occurred simultaneously and precisely.

And Rav Yosef argues to Rabbi Oshaya: If Rabbi Shimon indeed holds as you say, that zika is as though taken in marriage, why did Rabbi Shimon say that if two yevamot fell one after the other, one is levirate-married and the other leaves through halitza!?

For if zika is as though taken in marriage, the wife of the first was taken in marriage through zika to the second. And it follows that when the second dies, the two yevamot fall before the third from “one house.”

And if so, it is enough for the third brother to levirate-marry only one of them, and the second leaves because “he builds one house and does not build two houses”!?

Abaye said to him

to Rav Yosef:

Do you not distinguish,

and do you not hold that regarding the matter of zika as though taken in marriage [according to Rabbi Oshaya in accordance with Rabbi Shimon], one must distinguish

between the zika of one levir and the zika of two levirs?

For

perhaps when Rabbi Shimon said

in our Mishna that

“zika is considered as though she were taken in marriage” [and therefore he permits the wife of a brother who was not alive in his lifetime even when he was born first and ultimately levirate-married her], it is specifically

with

the

zika of

one levir.

Since with regard to one levir, she can be considered, by virtue of the zika, as though she had been taken in marriage to him.

And in our Mishna, the wife of the first is bound only to the second brother, and not to the third, since he was not alive in the lifetime of the first.

And in light of this, Rabbi Oshaya explained Rabbi Shimon’s reason: that zika is as though taken in marriage.

Therefore, even if the third brother, who was not alive in the lifetime of the first, was born before the second brother levirate-married the wife of the first brother, the matter is considered as though the wife of the first had already been taken in marriage to the second, and the third brother does not find her with the “zika of the marriage of the first brother.” And she is not forbidden to him by the law of the wife of a brother for whom there is no permission of levirate marriage.

But with two levirs—

not

did Rabbi Shimon say that zika is as though taken in marriage.

Therefore, in the case of three men who were married to three unrelated women, from which Rav Yosef raised his difficulty, if the wife of the first fell first, she is not considered the wife of the second by virtue of zika as though taken in marriage; and if the second dies and his wife also falls, this is not a falling of two yevamot from one house.

And Rav Yosef returned and argued:

And does Rabbi Shimon distinguish

in the matter of “zika as though taken in marriage” between the zika of one levir and the zika of two levirs?

For it was taught: Rabbi Shimon stated a general principle:

Whenever the birth

of the third brother, who was not alive in the lifetime of the first, was

prior to the marriage

[levirate marriage] of the second brother to the wife of the first brother—

the wife of the first neither performs halitza nor is levirate-married

by the third brother.

For she is forbidden to him as a close relation, by the law of the wife of a brother who was not alive in his lifetime.

But if the

marriage

[levirate marriage] of the second brother

preceded the birth

of the third brother, and afterward the second died—

she either performs halitza or is levirate-married!

Is it not,

does the baraita not speak

of one levir?

And it teaches,

if the birth of the third brother occurred before the second levirate-married her—

she neither performs halitza nor is levirate-married!

And if Rabbi Shimon holds that zika is as though taken in marriage with one levir, as Rabbi Oshaya said, she should not have become forbidden as the wife of a brother who was not alive in his lifetime, for here there is the zika of one levir alone, and she is as one who was taken in marriage to him.

Rather, Rav Yosef demonstrates, this is not Rabbi Shimon’s reason: that zika is as though taken in marriage with one levir!

The Gemara rejects this: There is no proof from here. For

not

does the baraita speak of a case in which there was one levir, but

of two levirs,

in which Rabbi Shimon holds that zika is not considered as though taken in marriage.

But Rav Yosef continues and raises a difficulty:

But

if this was

with one levir—

what?

Do you

likewise

say that zika is as though taken in marriage, and even if he was born and afterward she was levirate-married, Rabbi Shimon holds that she is

either one who performs halitza or one who is levirate-married,

since zika is as though taken in marriage!?

If so, instead of teaching,

instead of our learning in the baraita that Rabbi Shimon distinguishes between levirate marriage preceding birth and birth preceding levirate marriage, that if

the marriage preceded the birth—

she either performs halitza or is levirate-married,

let him distinguish

that Rabbi Shimon should distinguish

and teach

the distinction even

in it,

in the case where birth preceded levirate marriage:

When are these words stated,

that she becomes forbidden?—

with two levirs,

when zika is not as though taken in marriage.

But with one levir,

where zika is considered as though taken in marriage—

she either performs halitza or is levirate-married!

And we answer: There is no proof from Rabbi Shimon’s words, for

the entire matter speaks of two levirs.

Rabbi Shimon wished to make known his distinction with two levirs: when it is permitted for them and when it is forbidden for them; and you should not raise a difficulty that Rabbi Shimon should make known another distinction with one levir.

But Rav Yosef adds and argues:

And if so,

if you say in accordance with Rabbi Oshaya’s words, that when there is a falling before one levir, zika is as though taken in marriage, and even if he was born and afterward she was levirate-married, Rabbi Shimon holds that she is levirate-married—

what is the “general principle

that the tanna stated in the name of Rabbi Shimon?

For we learned in the baraita: “Rabbi Shimon stated a general principle: Whenever birth precedes marriage, she neither performs halitza nor is levirate-married.” And how can one say “whenever,” when this applies only to two levirs, whereas with one levir she is even levirate-married according to Rabbi Shimon!?

And furthermore, Rav Oshaya raises an objection

against Rabbi Oshaya: We learned in a Mishna below [28b]:

Three brothers,

who had

two of them married:

two sisters, or a woman and her daughter,

or a woman and her daughter’s daughter,

or a woman and her son’s daughter—

that is, two brothers were married to a “pair” of women, such as two sisters, or such as a woman and her daughter, who together as a “pair” constitute a forbidden relation to one man.

And the two brothers died—

these perform halitza and are not levirate-married,

since each one is “the close relation of his bound woman.”

And Rabbi Shimon exempts

them from halitza and from levirate marriage, since each one is the close relation of his bound woman, and he derives this from “to vex,” as will be explained below.

And Rav Oshaya infers:

And if it enters your mind

in accordance with Rabbi Oshaya, that

Rabbi Shimon holds “zika is considered as though taken in marriage,”

why does Rabbi Shimon exempt them all?—

Let him levirate-marry the first one,

the one who fell first!

For since zika is as though taken in marriage, only she is considered as though taken in marriage to him, whereas the second, her partner, who falls after her, is not considered “bound” at all, since she is forbidden to him by virtue of the taking in marriage of the first!

And

if so,

the other should be exempted,

her partner, who falls second, who is not bound to him at all, and should not render the first forbidden by virtue of being the close relation of his bound woman!?

Rav Amram said:

Indeed so: the first is levirate-married, and the second leaves because she is forbidden as a close relation.

And

what is the “exempts

that Rabbi Shimon said

also”—

he exempts the second.

And we refute this:

But it was taught: Rabbi Shimon exempts both of them!?

And not as you said, that only the second is exempt and the first is levirate-married.

Rava said:

Rabbi Shimon’s intention in exempting “both of them” is to exempt the two who fell from the second brother.

That is,

the “second” in this pair,

of two sisters.

And

the

“second” in this pair,

of a woman and her daughter.

And this is in a case where two brothers were married to two “pairs”: one pair of two sisters, and a second pair of a woman and her daughter.

And they had a third brother.

And the first brother died, and behold, his wives fall for levirate marriage only before the third brother, for to the second brother both of them are considered forbidden relations [one is his wife’s sister, and the other is his wife’s daughter].

And according to Rabbi Oshaya, in accordance with Rabbi Shimon, one of the two wives of the first is considered to the third as “taken in marriage” to him.

And afterward the second brother died, and his two wives fell for levirate marriage before the third brother.

And since one of the two wives of the first is considered as though taken in marriage to the third from the time the first brother died [and it does not matter to us now which one she is], her “partner” [for example, her sister], who fell from the second brother, leaves because she is forbidden as a close relation.

Whereas the second wife of the second brother, who is the “second” in the second pair [a woman and her daughter], leaves by the law of a rival-wife of a forbidden relation.

Therefore, according to Rabbi Shimon, the third brother levirate-marries one of the two wives of the first [and her rival-wife is released by the law that “he builds one house and does not build two houses”].

For example, he levirate-marries the sister who fell first.

Then her sister, who is the second in the pair of sisters, is exempt from halitza and levirate marriage, by the law of a forbidden relation.

And likewise the second woman, who is the “second” in the second pair [the pair of a woman and her daughter], is exempt from halitza and levirate marriage by the law of a rival-wife of a forbidden relation.

Whereas the first woman in this pair, who had been married to the first brother, is released from levirate marriage and halitza through the levirate marriage of her rival-wife.

And we refute this:

Rava was mistaken regarding the four pairs

in the Mishna!

For he holds that the Mishna speaks of two brothers who were married to two pairs, and that Rabbi Shimon exempts the second in each pair.

But this is not so!

First, for it teaches, “either or”!

And it implies that the two brothers were married either to this pair or to that pair, and not that they were married to two pairs.

Furthermore:

even if we say in accordance with Rava, that Rabbi Shimon exempts all the “seconds” in each pair, and that the baraita speaks of brothers who married several pairs, it still must be asked: why did Rabbi Shimon state the exemption of “both of them”?

For he exempts all the second women of the pairs, and if so,

“Rabbi Shimon exempts all four of them”—

he should have needed to say!

And we should have established it as a case where two brothers married all four pairs. Then one of the first brother’s wives is levirate-married, and her three rival-wives are exempt because “he builds only one house.”

Whereas all four of the second women of the pairs, who were married to the second brother, are exempt. For one of them leaves by the law of a “forbidden relation,” since her partner is already considered as though taken in marriage, whereas the other three women of the second brother leave by the law of rival-wives of a forbidden relation!

Furthermore,

a difficulty may be raised against Rava’s answer from that which

was explicitly taught:

:

Rabbi Shimon exempts both of them,

the two women of the pair, such as a woman and her sister who fall before him from two brothers,

from halitza and from levirate marriage!

As it is stated

[Leviticus 18]:

“And a woman to her sister you shall not take, to vex”—

The verse teaches that

when they became

two sisters

rival-wives to each other,

even if they became rival-wives to each other through zika to one levir, as here—

you shall have no taking with even one of them!

And how did Rava say that he levirate-marries one of the women of the pair and exempts only the second in each pair!?

Rather, Rav Ashi said

another answer to resolve the difficulty from this baraita against Rabbi Oshaya:

If they fell one after the other—

so indeed,

according to Rabbi Shimon, we say that zika is as though taken in marriage. Indeed, the one who falls first of the two women of the pair is levirate-married even after her partner’s falling.

For “zika as though taken in marriage” prevents the zika of the second, and she leaves by the law of a forbidden relation, and does not render the first forbidden by the law of the sister of his bound woman.

And that which we found that Rabbi Shimon exempts both women of the pair—

In what case are we speaking here—

that they fell

both

simultaneously,

when the two brothers died at the same time, and the death of one did not precede the death of the other in any way.

And Rabbi Shimon holds like Rabbi Yosei the Galilean, who said: It is possible to make precise simultaneity,

that two things can occur at exactly the same time.

The law of Rabbi Yosei the Galilean concerns two firstborn animals of a pure animal, both of which emerged together from their mother’s womb. According to Rabbi Yosei, it is possible that both emerged together, and both belong to the koen. Whereas the Sages dispute him and hold that it is impossible to make precise simultaneity; rather, one is the firstborn and the other is not the firstborn.

The Sages disagree with him and hold that exact simultaneity cannot be determined; rather, one is the firstborn and the other is not the firstborn.

Then there is no situation in which the bond, as though the first had been taken in marriage, causes the second to be excluded because of an erva.

And only when both of them fell at one time did Rabbi Shimon renew his ruling: that they derive from “to bind,” a renewed legal ruling, that two sisters who became co-wives of one another through the levirate bond are exempt from chalitza and from yibbum, by virtue of their being co-wives of one another through the bond!

And now the Gemara brings the position of Rav Pappa, who disagrees with Rabbi Oshaya:

Rav Pappa said:

only

when he performed yibbum and afterward a brother was born—

does Rabbi Shimon disagree.

But

when a brother was born and afterward he performed yibbum—

he does not disagree,

but Rabbi Shimon holds like the Rabbis, that she may not be taken by him in yibbum.

And both of them,

the two Mishnayot—

were needed for the Rabbis.

And as we objected: If so, the first Mishna is superfluous, for if, when he performed yibbum and afterward a brother was born, the Rabbis prohibit her, it is obvious that when a brother was born and afterward he performed yibbum they prohibit her; and if so, why was the first Mishna, concerning when a brother was born and afterward he performed yibbum, taught?

There is a way to answer:

and

to say that it was taught in the formulation of

“not only this, but also this”—

it teaches

them.

And now the Gemara brings a proof for Rav Pappa, that Rabbi Shimon concedes to the Sages, when a brother was born and afterward he performed yibbum, that she is forbidden, and we do not say that the levirate bond is as though she had been taken in marriage.

It was taught in accordance with Rav Pappa, and it is a refutation of Rabbi Oshaya,

who holds that even when a brother was born and afterward he performed yibbum, Rabbi Shimon disagrees, because the levirate bond is as though she had been taken in marriage:

For it was taught:

Two brothers were in one world, and one of them died without offspring.

And this second one arose to perform maamar with his yevama.

But he did not manage to perform maamar with her before a brother was born to him,

and he died,

the second one [and below the Gemara will explain what “he arose but did not manage” means]—

And now the wife of the first and the wife of the second fall before the third brother—

The yevama

the first,

who fell from the first brother—

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

And

whereas the yevama

second,

the wife of the second brother, who was with him in his world—

either performs chalitza or is taken in yibbum!

But if

he performed maamar with her,

the second one,

and afterward a brother was born,

the

brother,

the third—

or a brother was born to him,

a third one,

and afterward he performed maamar with her,

the second brother,

maamar.

And he died,

the second brother—

The first,

the wife of the first,

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

And

the

second,

the wife of the second brother, who became the co-wife of the first brother as a result of the maamar that her husband performed with her—

performs chalitza and is not taken in yibbum!

For the maamar that the second one performed with the wife of the first does not have the power to make the second one’s wife a complete co-wife of a forbidden relation, who would be released without chalitza.