Yevamot 19a (יט.) — the Talmud in English

Conversely,

if he performs yibbum with one

of them,

and exempts the other

without halitza, on the basis of “He builds one house, but he does not build two houses,” it is

not

possible.

Perhaps the bond

is not considered

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

therefore, he must perform halitza with the second one, even if he performed yibbum with the first.

Rav Yosef concludes his objection to Rabbi Oshaya and demonstrates his proof:

Apparently, it is uncertain to him

—to Rabbi Shimon—whether a bond together with ma’amar is considered as though she had been taken in marriage or not.

But how could Rabbi Oshaya say that, according to Rabbi Shimon, in the case of a bond alone she is considered as though she had been taken in marriage?!

And if you would say

by way of explanation that Rabbi Shimon is not uncertain, but certainly holds that a bond is considered as though she had been taken in marriage: indeed,

by Torah law, that is so

when two yevamot fall before him one after the other, one from the first brother and the other 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 as though the two yevamot fall from “one house” [that of the second brother] before the third brother.

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

he performs yibbum with

only

one

of them

and exempts one.

But

only

by rabbinic decree is it prohibited

to release the second without halitza,

as a decree on account of the possibility that

people will err and

say

that even in the case of

two yevamot who come from two houses,

such as when the two brothers died at exactly the same time and the yevamot fell simultaneously, one nevertheless says:

one

of the two

he performs yibbum with, and the other is exempt without anything at all!

That is an error. For if the two brothers died together, no “bond as though she had been taken in marriage” was created with the second brother; consequently, there are two separate acts of falling from two houses, and the yavam must build both of them.

This cannot be the explanation of Rabbi Oshaya’s statement according to Rabbi Shimon, because:

But Rabbi Shimon’s reason—

is because of “ma’amar and not ma’amar,”

as he is uncertain whether ma’amar effects acquisition or not, as will be explained:

As it was taught:

This is what we learned in a baraita concerning this Mishna, which discusses three brothers who married three unrelated women; the first brother died, the second performed ma’amar with his yevama, and then died. Both women must perform halitza and may not undergo yibbum, since the wife of the first brother has a bond with two yevamim, while the wife of the second brother is her rival wife and must perform halitza like her:

Rabbi Shimon said to the Sages:

Why must both perform halitza? Why do we not say that the third brother may perform yibbum even with the wife of the first brother, after the second performed ma’amar with her and died?

For

if the ma’amar of the second

is considered

“ma’amar,”

and the acquisition effected by the ma’amar makes her his wife, she is not considered “one who has a bond with two yevamim”; rather, she has only the bond of the second yavam, who performed ma’amar with her.

If so, why may he not perform yibbum with her? After all,

the wife

of his

second

brother alone

is the one with whom he engages in intercourse!

And if the ma’amar of the second is not

considered

“ma’amar,”

and she was not acquired by him through the ma’amar to become his wife, she is likewise not “one who has a bond with two yevamim”; rather, he may perform yibbum with her. For

the wife

of the

first

brother alone

is the one with whom he engages in intercourse!

It is thus demonstrated that Rabbi Shimon disagreed with the Sages because of his uncertainty whether ma’amar effects acquisition or not, and not because of a decree lest people come to perform yibbum when the two brothers died simultaneously.

Rav Yosef says to Rabbi Oshaya: If Rabbi Shimon indeed holds as you say, that a bond is considered as though she had been taken in marriage, why did Rabbi Shimon say that when two yevamot fell one after the other, one undergoes yibbum and the other is released through halitza?!

But if a bond is considered as though she had been taken in marriage, the wife of the first brother was considered as though she had been taken in marriage with the second through the bond. Consequently, when the second brother died, the two yevamot fell before the third brother from “one house.”

If so, it should suffice for the third brother to perform yibbum with only one of them, while the second would be released because “he builds one house but does not build two houses”?!

Abaye said to

Rav Yosef:

Do you not distinguish

—do you not hold that, regarding the concept that a bond is considered as though she had been taken in marriage [according to Rabbi Oshaya’s explanation of Rabbi Shimon], one must distinguish

between the bond of one yavam and the bond of two yevamim?

After all,

perhaps when Rabbi Shimon said

in our Mishna that

“a bond is considered as though she had been taken in marriage,”

[and therefore he permits the wife of a brother who was not alive in the lifetime of the first brother even when the third brother was born first and ultimately performed yibbum], it was specifically

with

a bond to

one yavam.

For, with regard to one yavam, she can be considered, by virtue of the bond, as though she had been taken in marriage by him.

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

Accordingly, Rabbi Oshaya explained Rabbi Shimon’s reason as being that a bond is considered as though she had been taken in marriage.

Therefore, even if the third brother, who was not alive in the lifetime of the first brother, was born before the second brother performed yibbum with the wife of the first brother, she is nevertheless considered as though she had already been taken in marriage by the second. The third brother does not encounter her with the “bond of the marriage of the first brother,” and she is not prohibited to him as the wife of a brother who has no possibility of yibbum with her.

But with two yevamim—

not

did Rabbi Shimon say that a bond is considered as though she had been taken in marriage.

Therefore, in the case of the three men who were married to three unrelated women, which was the basis of Rav Yosef’s objection, if the wife of the first brother fell first, she is not considered the wife of the second brother by virtue of a bond as though she had been taken in marriage. And if the second brother dies and his wife also falls, this is not a case of two yevamot falling from one house.

Rav Yosef returned and argued:

And does Rabbi Shimon distinguish

with regard to “a bond as though she had been taken in marriage” between the bond of one yavam and the bond of two yevamim?

But was it not taught: Rabbi Shimon stated a general principle:

Whenever the birth

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

preceded the marriage

[through yibbum] of the second brother to the wife of the first brother—

she may perform neither halitza nor yibbum

through the third brother.

For she is forbidden to him as the wife of a brother who was not alive in the lifetime of the first brother.

But if the

marriage

[through yibbum] of the second brother

preceded the birth

of the third brother, and the second brother subsequently died—

she may either perform halitza or undergo yibbum!

Is it not the case

that the baraita is speaking

of one yavam?

And it teaches

that if the third brother was born before the second performed yibbum—

she may perform neither halitza nor yibbum!

If Rabbi Shimon held that a bond is considered as though she had been taken in marriage with one yavam, as Rabbi Oshaya said, she should not have been prohibited as the wife of a brother who was not alive in the lifetime of the first brother. After all, there is a bond here to only one yavam, and she is considered as though she had been taken in marriage by him.

Rather, Rav Yosef demonstrates that this is not Rabbi Shimon’s reason: that a bond is considered as though she had been taken in marriage with one yavam!

The Gemara rejects this: There is no proof from here, because

not

is the baraita speaking of a case in which there was one yavam; rather, it is speaking

of two yevamim,

with regard to whom Rabbi Shimon holds that a bond is not considered as though she had been taken in marriage.

But Rav Yosef continues and raises an objection:

But

if the case were

with one yavam—

what

would be the ruling?

Would you indeed

say that a bond is considered as though she had been taken in marriage, and that even if the brother was born and only afterward performed yibbum, Rabbi Shimon holds that she

may either perform halitza or undergo yibbum,

since a bond is considered as though she had been taken in marriage?!

If so, instead of teaching,

as the baraita does, that Rabbi Shimon distinguishes between yibbum preceding birth and birth preceding yibbum, so that if

the marriage preceded birth—

she may either perform halitza or undergo yibbum—

let him distinguish

—let Rabbi Shimon make a distinction—

and teach it

even

in that case,

where birth preceded yibbum:

When are these matters stated,

that she is prohibited?

With two yevamim,

when a bond is not considered as though she had been taken in marriage.

But with one yavam, when a bond is considered as though she had been taken in marriage—

she may either perform halitza or undergo yibbum!

The Gemara answers: This is no proof from Rabbi Shimon’s words, because

the entire passage is speaking of two yevamim.

Rabbi Shimon wished to teach his distinction with regard to two yevamim—when yibbum is permitted for them and when it is prohibited. Therefore, you cannot raise the difficulty that Rabbi Shimon should have taught another distinction with regard to one yavam.

But Rav Yosef adds and argues:

Rather, if you say, as Rabbi Oshaya said, that when an yevama falls before one yavam, a bond is considered as though she had been taken in marriage, and that even if the brother was born and only afterward performed yibbum, Rabbi Shimon holds that she may undergo yibbum—

what is the meaning of “general principle”

that the tanna stated in Rabbi Shimon’s name?

For we learned in the baraita: “Rabbi Shimon stated a general principle: Whenever birth preceded marriage, she may perform neither halitza nor yibbum.” How can it say “whenever,” when this applies only to two yevamim, whereas with one yavam she may even undergo yibbum according to Rabbi Shimon?!

And furthermore, Rabbi Oshaya raises an objection

to Rabbi Oshaya: We learned in the Mishna below [28b]:

Three brothers,

of whom

two were married

to two sisters, or to a woman and her daughter,

or to a woman and her daughter’s daughter,

or to a woman and her son’s daughter—

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

And the two brothers died—

these women must perform halitza but may not undergo yibbum,

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

But Rabbi Shimon exempts

them from halitza and from yibbum, since each one is the relative of his bound woman; he derives this from the verse “to cause distress,” as will be explained below.

Rav Oshaya infers:

And if it enters your mind

that Rabbi Shimon holds, as Rabbi Oshaya stated, that

Rabbi Shimon is of the opinion that “a bond is considered as though she had been taken in marriage,”

why does Rabbi Shimon exempt them all?

Let him perform yibbum with the first one,

the one who fell first!

For since a bond is considered as though she had been taken in marriage, only she is considered as though she had been taken in marriage by him, whereas the second woman, her partner, who falls after her, is not considered “bound” at all, since she is forbidden to him by virtue of the first woman’s having been taken in marriage.

And

if so,

the other should be exempt,

her partner who fell second, since she is not bound to him at all; she should not render the first woman prohibited as the relative of his bound woman?!

Rav Amram said:

That is indeed so: the first woman undergoes yibbum, and the second is released because she is forbidden to him.

And

what is the meaning of “exempts”

that Rabbi Shimon said,

also? It means that he

exempts the second woman.

The Gemara refutes this:

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

That is not as you said, that only the second is exempt and the first undergoes yibbum.

Rava said:

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

That is,

the “second woman” in this pair,

the pair of two sisters,

and

the

“second woman” in this pair,

the pair of a woman and her daughter.

And this is the case, for example, with two brothers who were married to two “pairs”: one pair consisting of two sisters, and the second pair consisting of a woman and her daughter.

And they had a third brother.

The first brother died, and his wives fell for yibbum only before the third brother, since to the second brother both of them were forbidden relationships [one was his wife’s sister, and the other was his wife’s daughter].

According to Rabbi Oshaya’s explanation of Rabbi Shimon, one of the two wives of the first brother is considered, with regard to the third brother, as though she had been taken in marriage by him.

Then the second brother died, and his two wives fell for yibbum before the third brother.

Since one of the first brother’s two wives was considered as though she had been taken in marriage by the third brother from the time the first brother died [and it is irrelevant to us at present which one she is], her “partner” [for example, her sister], who fell from the second brother, is released as a forbidden relationship.

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

Therefore, according to Rabbi Shimon, the third brother performs yibbum with one of the first brother’s two wives [and her rival wife is released under the principle “he builds one house but does not build two houses”].

For example, he performs yibbum with the sister who fell first.

Her sister, who is the second woman in the pair of sisters, is then exempt from halitza and yibbum as a forbidden relation.

Likewise, the second woman, who is the “second woman” in the second pair [the pair of the woman and her daughter], is exempt from halitza and yibbum under the law of a rival wife of a forbidden relation.

Whereas the first woman in this pair, who was married to the first brother, is released from yibbum and halitza through the yibbum performed with her rival wife.

The Gemara refutes this:

Rava erred with regard to the four pairs

in the Mishna!

He assumes that the Mishna is discussing two brothers who were married to two pairs, and that Rabbi Shimon exempts the second woman in each pair.

But that is not so!

First, because it teaches, “or, or”!

This indicates 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 accept Rava’s explanation—that Rabbi Shimon exempts all the second women in each pair, and that the baraita is discussing brothers who married several pairs—there is still a difficulty: Why does Rabbi Shimon state the exemption of “both of them”?

After all, he exempts all the second women in the pairs. If so,

“Rabbi Shimon exempts all four of them”—

he should have said!

We would have had to establish the case as one in which two brothers married all four pairs. In that case, one of the first brother’s wives undergoes yibbum, while her three rival wives are exempt because “he builds only one house.”

Meanwhile, all four of the second women in the pairs, who were married to the second brother, are exempt. One of them is released as a forbidden relation, since her partner is already considered as though she had been taken in marriage, while the other three wives of the second brother are released as rival wives of a forbidden relation!

Furthermore,

there is a difficulty with Rava’s resolution from the fact that

it was explicitly taught

:

Rabbi Shimon exempts both of them,

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

from halitza and from yibbum!

As it is stated

[Leviticus 18]:

“And a woman and her sister you shall not take, to cause distress”—

The verse teaches that

when they become

two sisters

rival wives of one another,

even if they became rival wives of one another through a bond to one yavam, as here—

you shall have no taking of either one!

How, then, did Rava say that he performs yibbum with one of the women in the pair and exempts only the second woman in each pair?!

Rather, Rav Ashi said

another resolution to the difficulty posed by this baraita against Rabbi Oshaya:

If they fell one after the other—

indeed,

according to Rabbi Shimon, we say that a bond is considered as though she had been taken in marriage. Indeed, the first of the two women in the pair to fall undergoes yibbum even after her partner falls.

For “a bond is considered as though she had been taken in marriage” prevents the second woman’s bond from taking effect; she is released as a forbidden relation and does not prohibit the first woman as the sister of his bound woman.

And the case in which we find that Rabbi Shimon exempts both women in the pair—

What are we dealing with here?

They

both fell

simultaneously,

the two brothers having died at exactly the same time, with the death of neither preceding the death of the other at all.

And Rabbi Shimon follows the view of Rabbi Yosei the Galilean, who said: It is possible to determine exact simultaneity,

so that two events occur at precisely the same moment.

Rabbi Yosei the Galilean’s ruling concerns two firstborn animals of a kosher species that emerged together from their mother’s womb. According to Rabbi Yosei, it is possible for both to emerge together, and both belong to the koen.

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, regarded as though the first had been married, causes the second to be exempt on account of erva.

And only when both fell before him at the same time did Rabbi Shimon innovate his ruling: they derive from the verse “to bind them” a novel law, namely, that when two sisters became each other’s rivals through the levirate bond, they are exempt from both halitza and levirate marriage, by virtue of their having become each other’s rivals through the bond!

The Gemara now presents the view of Rav Pappa, who disagrees with Rabbi Oshaya:

Rav Pappa said:

only

when he performed levirate marriage and afterward another brother was born—

does Rabbi Shimon disagree.

But

when another brother was born and afterward he performed levirate marriage—

he does not disagree;

Rabbi Shimon instead holds like the Rabbis, that she may not enter into levirate marriage with him.

And both,

the two Mishnayot—

were necessary according to the Rabbis.

And regarding what we asked: If so, the first Mishna is superfluous, because if, when he performed levirate marriage and afterward another brother was born, the Rabbis prohibit her, it is obvious that when another brother was born and afterward he performed levirate marriage they prohibit her; and if so, why was the first Mishna, concerning a brother who was born and afterward levirate marriage was performed, taught?

It can be answered:

and

it was taught in the formulation of

“Not only this, but even that”—

it teaches

them.

The Gemara now brings a proof for Rav Pappa, that Rabbi Shimon agrees with the Rabbis that when another brother was born and afterward levirate marriage was performed, she is prohibited, and we do not say that the bond is regarded as a consummated marriage.

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

who holds that even when another brother was born and afterward levirate marriage was performed, Rabbi Shimon disagrees, because the bond is regarded as a consummated marriage:

For it was taught:

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

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

But he did not have time to perform maamar with her before another brother was born to him,

and he died,

the second brother [and below the Gemara explains the meaning of “he arose but did not have time”]—

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

The yevama

first,

who fell before him from the first brother—

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

And

if the yevama is the

second,

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

she must either undergo halitza or enter into levirate marriage!

But if

he performed

the second brother

with her maamar, and afterward the

third

brother

was born—

or a third brother was born to him

and

afterward he performed maamar with her,

the second brother

performed maamar.

And he died,

the second brother—

The first,

the wife of the first brother,

is exempt 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 rival of the first brother’s wife as a result of the maamar performed with her by her husband—

must undergo halitza but may not enter into levirate marriage!

For the maamar performed by the second brother with the first brother’s wife is not powerful enough to make the second brother’s wife a full-fledged rival of an erva, who would be exempt without halitza.