Yevamot 24a — the Talmud in English

For

there

, where there are four brothers, and the two sisters require levirate obligation,

if according to the one who says

that the reason neither of them can perform levirate marriage is because of the halakha that

there is a linkage

, and therefore each one is considered the sister of a woman requiring levirate obligation, and the halitza of his brother does not make her permissible to him, since she became forbidden to him for one moment when she fell before him, while her sister was still subject to him for levirate obligation.

But only there is there a reason to forbid, because

there is a linkage.

And

likewise,

according to the one who says

that the reason in the case of four brothers is because

it is forbidden to annul the mitzva of the brothers-in-law

, and if the first performs levirate marriage, we are concerned lest the second die before performing levirate marriage, and her sister will thereby be released to the marketplace without halitza or levirate marriage, since she is the sister of the wife of the first brother who performed levirate marriage.

And therefore each of them was forbidden to be the first one whom he performs levirate marriage with, and since she was forbidden for one moment, even if one of them performs halitza, the second is forbidden for levirate marriage because she was forbidden for one moment.

But this reason also, that

it is forbidden to annul the mitzva of the brothers-in-law

, applies only with four brothers.

But

here

, the case concerns two men who betrothed two sisters, and the two brothers of each of the deceased men, each of whom betrothed only one sister: only one of them is a yevama with respect to both brothers, and the prohibition is because of uncertainty, lest he took in marriage the one who is not a yevama.

But since it is only uncertainty, if he preceded and took her in marriage, we do not remove her from his possession, since

each one

who took her in marriage,

perhaps it was his own who was cast to him

, for only one of them is a yevama, and when the second brother took her in marriage, the prohibition of the sister of his woman requiring levirate obligation was removed from her, and she was never the wife of his brother, and therefore they do not make him leave her.

We learned in the Mishna:

If they preceded and took them in marriage, they do not remove them from their possession

etc.

Shila taught: And even

if

both are priests

, they do not remove them from their possession, even though one of the sisters is necessarily a woman who underwent halitza, who is forbidden to a priest. For the two brothers of the first betrothed performed halitza for the two sisters because of the uncertainty, and one of them was subject to their halitza, being the wife of their brother [the second betrothed].

And we explain:

What is the reason

that they do not make them leave because of the uncertainty of halitza? After all, whichever way one looks at it, it exists among them?

Because

a woman who underwent halitza

is forbidden

by rabbinic law.

And the Rabbis did not decree concerning a woman of uncertain status who underwent halitza

, and since for each one there is a possibility that he performed levirate marriage with his yevama, he need not make her leave because of the uncertainty that she is the halutza of the second brother.

And we challenge: Is a woman who underwent halitza forbidden only by rabbinic law?

But it was taught

: It is written concerning priests [Leviticus 21], “And a woman

divorced

from her husband they shall not take.”

I have only

that a divorced woman is forbidden to a priest.

From where

do we know that a woman who underwent halitza is forbidden to him?

The verse says, “And a woman.”

It would have been appropriate to write, “A divorced woman they shall not take,” but it says, “a woman divorced,” in order to include a woman who underwent halitza, so that she would be forbidden to a priest.

It follows that her prohibition is from Torah law!?

And we reject this: In truth, the prohibition of a woman who underwent halitza is only

by rabbinic law.

And the verse

, the inclusion from “and a woman,”

is merely a support.

Mishna:

The mitzva is with the eldest

of the brothers of the deceased

to perform levirate marriage.

And if the younger

brother

preceded

and performed levirate marriage, he

acquired

Gemara:

The Sages taught

: It is written in the section of levirate marriage: “

A yevama shall come to him, and he shall take her for himself as a wife, and perform levirate marriage with her.

And it shall be that the firstborn whom she bears shall arise in the name of his deceased brother.”

And the Sages expounded the verses as though they had been written in one continuous sequence: “

And perform levirate marriage with her” —

“and it shall be that the firstborn.”

From here

you learn

that the mitzva is with the eldest to perform levirate marriage

, meaning that the brother who performs levirate marriage should be the firstborn of the brothers.

And concerning the yevama they expounded the verse

“whom she bears”

—excluding a woman incapable of conception, who does not give birth

, and therefore they do not perform levirate marriage with her.

And concerning the brother performing levirate marriage the verse says

“he shall arise in the name of his brother”

, and that means

for inheritance

: the brother who performs levirate marriage inherits him, and the other brothers do not divide with him the inheritance of the deceased brother.

And the beraita continues and says:

You say

“the firstborn brother shall arise in the name of his brother” —

for inheritance.

Or perhaps not

, perhaps it is not so,

but

the meaning is according to the plain sense of the verse, that it concerns the son born to him from the yevama, that the son of the brother who performed levirate marriage arises

in the name

of the deceased brother.

For if the deceased brother was called

Joseph

they call him Joseph.

And if his name was

Johanan

they call him Johanan.

And from where do we know to expound the verse differently from its plain sense and say that the brother performing levirate marriage inherits the estate of the deceased?

It is stated here

in the section of levirate marriage

“he shall arise in the name of his brother.”

And it is stated there

, in Jacob’s command that Ephraim and Manasseh should receive a portion like all the tribes,

“they shall be called by the name of their brothers in their inheritance.”

And we derive a gezera shava:

Just as “name”

, that is, in the verse saying “they shall be called by the name of their brothers in their inheritance,”

which is stated there

, is “name” with regard to

inheritance,

so too, “name” stated here

in the context of levirate marriage means

inheritance

of the brother performing levirate marriage.

And the beraita continues its exposition of the verse:

“And his name shall not be erased”

—excluding the

wife of a

eunuch, whose name is erased.

Since the deceased brother was unable to father children, and his name was erased, there is no obligation to establish a name for him, and his wife is exempt from levirate marriage.

Rava said

, concerning the exposition that “he shall arise in the name of his brother” means for inheritance:

Even though throughout the entire Torah

, when a verse is expounded,

a verse does not depart from its plain meaning

, and the plain meaning also remains valid,

here, the gezera shava “name—name”

and

removed it

and took it

entirely from its plain meaning

, and it is not necessary to call the son born to him by the name of his deceased brother [and Rashi wrote that he learned this from his teacher].

And we challenge:

And

if

were it not for the gezera shava, I would have said

that the meaning of the verse was that the mitzva to establish for his brother a

name

is the establishment of the

name

of the deceased

itself!

But this is impossible.

For

for whom did the Merciful One warn him

concerning establishing the name?

If it is

for the brother performing levirate marriage

, then

“he shall arise in the name of your brother”

should have been

written.

And

if

the command is

to the court

, then

“he shall arise in the name of his father’s brother”

should have been

written!

Necessarily, the verse commands the court to ensure that the brother performing levirate marriage shall arise in the name of his deceased brother, for inheritance.

And we still challenge:

Perhaps this is what the Merciful One said to the court: Say to the brother performing levirate marriage

, that his son who is born to him

“shall arise in the name of his brother!”

And indeed the intention is to call the son by the name of the deceased?

Rather

, we conclude, this is why Rava said:

“The gezera shava came and removed it entirely!”

And we expound the verse in this manner, to establish the brother performing levirate marriage as the heir of the estate of his deceased brother.

And now the Gemara challenges the exposition “and it shall be that the firstborn,” from which it follows that the mitzva is with the eldest to perform levirate marriage:

Now that you have said

that

the verse is written concerning the “eldest,”

say

that specifically the

firstborn

brother is the one who must

perform levirate marriage

, but an ordinary

brother should not perform levirate marriage

at all, even if there is no firstborn brother!?

And we answer:

If so

, if an ordinary brother does not perform levirate marriage with his brother’s wife at all—

The wife of his brother who was not in his world

, who was born after the brother died,

whom the Merciful One excluded

from performing levirate marriage with her—

why is it necessary

to state this?

For it is certain that the brother born after the death of his first brother is not a firstborn, since he was born after the deceased brother.

And it is proved from this exclusion that an ordinary brother also belongs to the mitzva of levirate marriage.

Rav Aha challenges: But say

that an ordinary brother does not perform levirate marriage.

And the brother who was not in his world needs

to be excluded

, for example, when the brother who was born was

the firstborn of his mother

, having been the firstborn of his mother and born after his paternal brother died.

Were he not excluded, he would be obligated in levirate marriage with the wife of his brother who was not in his world, as a firstborn, since he is a firstborn with regard to his mother.

And we answer:

That

you cannot say!

It is impossible to say that a maternal firstborn is called “firstborn” with regard to levirate marriage.

Since

levirate marriage

the Merciful One made dependent on inheritance

, as it is written “together,” and we expound: united with regard to inheritance.

And inheritance

is only

from the father, and not from the mother

. For a maternal firstborn does not take a double portion in his mother’s inheritance like a paternal firstborn; therefore, a maternal firstborn is not included among the firstborn of levirate marriage, which is dependent on inheritance.

Necessarily, since the verse nevertheless needed to exclude a brother who was not in his world from levirate marriage, it follows that the verse does not mean specifically a firstborn, but the eldest among the brothers, even though he is an ordinary brother.

And we still challenge:

But say

that the verse speaks specifically of a firstborn brother.

And it comes only to teach us that specifically

when there is

a

firstborn

, only then

the mitzva of levirate marriage is fulfilled.

And then it is fulfilled both by a firstborn and by an ordinary brother.

And this matter can be learned from the exclusion of the wife of his brother who was not in his world: it is possible that an ordinary brother also performs levirate marriage, and it is stated that this possibility applies specifically when there is a firstborn in the world.

But

when there is no firstborn

—

the mitzva

of levirate marriage is not fulfilled, and she is exempt from levirate marriage even from the ordinary brother, despite his having been in the world together with him!?

And we answer:

The verse says

“when brothers dwell together,

and one of them dies.”

Necessarily, an ordinary brother can also perform levirate marriage, since the meaning of the verse is that it also concerns a case where there were only two brothers.

And in such a case,

is it not the case that the firstborn died, and

nevertheless

the Merciful One said to perform levirate marriage!?

And it is explicit that the mitzva also applies to a

younger

brother.

But say

that the verse speaks specifically where

the younger one died

, since we expound “and it shall be that the firstborn” to mean that the mitzva is with the firstborn to perform levirate marriage, and we establish that the verse speaks specifically in such a case.

And

in such a case

the Merciful One said: Let the firstborn perform levirate marriage.

And we answer:

This

—in that same verse it is written “together.” And through this

the Merciful One excluded the wife of his brother who was not in his world.

when there is no firstborn— one does not return to the eldest among the non-firstborn brothers, and he is not compelled to enter levirate marriage as a firstborn would be. And if you say that this is indeed so, that the mitzva initially applies only to a firstborn, then it follows: why did the elder Abaye teach: “The mitzva is assigned to the eldest to enter levirate marriage”?

That is, when the firstborn dies and an exclusion is needed so that his younger brother should not perform levirate marriage. And it is proved that a younger brother performs levirate marriage even where there is no firstborn.

And we challenge: From the exclusion concerning the wife of his brother who was not in his world, we learned only that the verse “and one of them dies” concerns a case where the firstborn died and the younger one can perform levirate marriage.

But say

: only

when there is no firstborn

, then if

the younger one preceded, he acquired.

And

in a case where

there is a firstborn, if

the

younger one preceded—

—

he did not acquire!?

And we answer:

The verse says, “when brothers dwell together” —

the dwelling of the brothers was made equivalent to one another

, for all are equal to acquire through levirate marriage.

And that which is written, “and it shall be that the firstborn”—it is only for the mitzva!

And we challenge:

But say

that the mitzva initially applies only

if there is a firstborn

, in which case the mitzva is

to return

—to seek out

the eldest.

But

when there is no firstborn

—they do not return to the eldest

among the ordinary brothers, and they do not compel him to perform levirate marriage as they would a firstborn.

And if you will say that this is indeed so, that the mitzva initially applies only to a firstborn,

then evidently

why

did the elder Abaye teach: The mitzva is with the eldest to perform levirate marriage?

If he did not wish, they go to his younger brother

from him.

If he did not wish, they go to his younger brother

from him.

If he did not wish

—the younger one also—to perform levirate marriage,

they return to the eldest

, and compel him to perform levirate marriage.

It follows that the mitzva was stated not only concerning a firstborn, but also concerning the eldest of the brothers. For the meaning of “his younger brother” is that they follow age, and not firstborn and ordinary brother.

And we answer: The law of the eldest of the brothers is

like that of a firstborn

, and his mitzva is for the same reason.

For

just as the firstborn—his firstborn status caused it for him,

so too the eldest

of the brothers,

his eldest status caused it for him

, so that his mitzva to perform levirate marriage is greater than that of the other brothers.

And the Gemara is uncertain:

But say, when a firstborn performs levirate marriage, he should take the inheritance

, since the verse says concerning him, “and it shall be that the firstborn … he shall arise in the name of his brother.”

But

when an ordinary brother performs levirate marriage

—

he should not take the inheritance

of the deceased more than his other brothers who inherit, since concerning him it is not written, “he shall arise in the name of his brother”!?

And we resolve:

The verse says

that the brother performing levirate marriage inherits the deceased, in the language,

“he shall arise in the name of his brother.”

And indeed

this brother has arisen

in his place, and therefore he also inherits him.

And we challenge: If the mitzva also applies to the eldest of the brothers, then—