Yevamot 28b (כח:) — the Talmud in English

The prohibition of a mitzva and the prohibition of sanctity –

she performs halitza and does not undergo yibbum!

And we answer:

There,

in the earlier chapter, it is speaking of

the prohibition of a mitzva alone.

But

here

it is speaking of

the prohibition of a mitzva, and

the prohibition of

her sister

of the woman subject to the levirate bond.

Therefore,

it might have entered our minds

that I would have thought,

that the prohibition should stand

that

the prohibition of a mitzva should take the place of the prohibition of a forbidden relation,

meaning that the matter should be regarded as though the sister who is forbidden by the prohibition of a mitzva were a forbidden relation [according to rabbinic parameters, so that her sister would be deemed a sister of a forbidden relation by rabbinic law, and not a sister of a woman subject to the levirate bond, which is also a rabbinic prohibition],

and she should undergo yibbum

the sister of the woman forbidden by the prohibition of a mitzva.

It teaches us

that the sister of a woman forbidden by the prohibition of a mitzva does not undergo yibbum, because she is the sister of a woman subject to the levirate bond.

And we challenge the Gemara’s answer: How could I have thought to say

“and she should undergo yibbum!”?

But

since, according to Torah law,

the prohibition of a mitzva

falls before him,

she falls before him –

he encounters the sister of a woman subject to his levirate bond!

And we answer: This is what

might have entered your mind:

The prohibition against the sister of a woman subject to the levirate bond is only rabbinic, and I might have thought that

because of the mitzva

of yibbum,

the Sages would institute

a decree to regard the prohibition of a mitzva as a forbidden relation, and she should undergo yibbum;

it teaches us

that they did not do so, and her sister does not undergo yibbum.

We learned in the Mishna:

If one of them

is forbidden to one of the brothers by the prohibition of a forbidden relation, and the other is forbidden to that brother by the prohibition of a forbidden relation – the one forbidden to this brother is permitted to the other, and the one forbidden to the other is permitted to this one.

And we consider this: After we have already learned that when two sisters, both yevamot, fall before two brothers, and one of them is forbidden to one of the brothers by the prohibition of a forbidden relation, that brother is permitted to perform yibbum with her sister –

Is this also

the case that the tanna repeated here, when there are two brothers, and before each of them fall the two sisters, with one of them a forbidden relation to each brother –

why do I need it?

For

it is the same thing!

For

what difference is there to me

if two sisters fell, with one of the two being a forbidden relation only

to one

brother;

what difference is there to me

if they fell in this manner

to two

brothers, with each one a forbidden relation to one of them!?

And we answer:

It is necessary

for both cases.

Had it taught us there,

the first clause, in which only one of them is a forbidden relation before one brother, while to the second brother both are ordinary sisters, I might have said that the latter brother is permitted to perform yibbum

because there is

a

second

brother who can perform only halitza.

For it is evident

there that there is a prohibition against the sister of a woman subject to his levirate bond, and that is why she is forbidden to the second brother. The reason she is permitted to the first brother is that her sister is a forbidden relation, and she is therefore not the sister of a woman subject to his levirate bond.

But here, where there is no

second

brother whose conduct demonstrates

by his not performing yibbum that there is a prohibition against the sister of a woman subject to his levirate bond – for here both brothers perform yibbum –

say that they did not

permit both of them to perform yibbum, lest they come to permit the sister of a woman subject to a levirate bond.

And had it taught us here,

the continuation of the Mishna, where both women undergo yibbum, when for each one of them one of the sisters who falls before her is a forbidden relation and her sister is not a forbidden relation, I might have said that

on the contrary,

only here both are permitted to undergo yibbum, since

each of them demonstrates the status of the other!

From the fact that this brother performs yibbum specifically with this one, and that brother performs yibbum specifically with that one, people will see that the other sister is a forbidden relation to each of them, and they will not come to permit the sister of a woman subject to a levirate bond.

But the other case,

the first clause, in which the sister is forbidden by the prohibition of a forbidden relation to only one of the two brothers, I might have said that

they did not

permit him to perform yibbum, lest they err and permit his brother as well.

Therefore

it is necessary

for both cases.

We learned at the end of the Mishna:

This is the case concerning which they said

that her sister, when she is his yevama, either performs halitza or undergoes yibbum.

And we consider this:

This is –

to exclude what?

And we answer:

To exclude the case of a prohibition of a mitzva for this one and a prohibition of a mitzva for that one,

in which both women perform halitza and do not undergo yibbum, because they are sisters of women subject to a levirate bond; for according to Torah law both of them fall before them and stand ready for yibbum.

And we consider this:

Why do I need this as well?

Why was it necessary for the tanna to repeat the case in which one of them is subject to the prohibition of a mitzva for each of the brothers, when

it is the same thing

as the previous case? For

what difference is there to me

if one of them is subject to the prohibition of a mitzva

for one, what difference is there to me if it is for two

brothers!

And we answer:

It might have been said: When we do not say, “Regard the prohibition of a mitzva as a prohibition of a forbidden relation,”

in order to permit her sister, as we explained above, that is specifically

where there is reason to decree because of

the

second

brother, lest we come to permit him as well to perform yibbum, and he encounter the sister of a woman subject to a levirate bond.

But where there is no reason to decree because of the second brother,

since for both of them one of the sisters is subject to the prohibition of a mitzva,

one might say:

For this

brother

we regard the prohibition of a mitzva as a prohibition of a forbidden relation,

so that the prohibition of a mitzva is considered like a prohibition of a forbidden relation, and her sister is not forbidden because she is the sister of a woman subject to a levirate bond,

and

also

for this

second brother

we regard

the prohibition of a mitzva as a prohibition of a forbidden relation, and let both of them perform yibbum

with them.

It teaches us

that even in the case of two brothers, we did not regard the prohibition of a mitzva as a prohibition of a forbidden relation.

Rav Yehuda said that Rav said: And Rabbi Hiyya likewise taught:

In all of them,

in all fifteen forbidden relations listed in the first Mishna of the first chapter, if two sisters fall before two brothers, with one a forbidden relation to this brother and the other a forbidden relation to that brother –

I

can

apply to them

the two principles stated by the Sages in our Mishna concerning two sisters who fall for yibbum before two brothers.

a. The sister

forbidden to this one –

is permitted to that one,

the other brother, to whom she is not a forbidden relation.

b.

And her sister

of the forbidden relation, when

she is his yevama

that is, when she falls for yibbum together with her –

performs halitza or undergoes yibbum.

For the sister of a forbidden relation is not subject to the prohibition of “the sister of a woman subject to his levirate bond,” since the forbidden relation is not subject to yibbum with respect to the brother to whom she is forbidden. Consequently, both brothers perform yibbum with the two sisters.

And Rav Yehuda expounds

that the two principles, “the one forbidden to this brother is permitted to that brother,” and “her sister, when she is his yevama, performs halitza or undergoes yibbum,” apply only to those forbidden relations listed

from his mother-in-law onward.

But

the

six cases at the beginning,

the first six forbidden relations among the fifteen, he

does not

teach under the principle “the one forbidden to this brother is permitted to that brother.”

What is the reason?

Since his daughter,

which is the first in the group of six forbidden relations involving a “daughter” [his daughter, his daughter’s daughter, his son’s daughter, his wife’s daughter, his wife’s daughter’s daughter, and his wife’s son’s daughter],

is found only in the case of rape,

for only if the brothers raped the girls’ mother can the two sisters be described as “the one forbidden to this brother is permitted to that brother.”

But

through marriage –

it cannot be found.

For if one of the brothers married the mother of the two sisters, the second brother could not marry her, because she would be forbidden to him by the prohibition of a brother’s wife. Only if

the first brother raped her initially could it be possible for the second brother to have married her.

In Rav Yehuda’s view, the tanna teaches the two principles only in cases that are possible

through marriage –

he is speaking of those cases.

But in cases in which the two principles are possible only

through rape –

he is not speaking of them!

And since “his daughter,” the first in the group of six forbidden relations of the type “daughter,” can be included only through rape, he did not include this entire group under this principle.

And

if

Abaye

expounds,

teaches and establishes,

even

the case of

his daughter born from a rape, to which I apply “the one forbidden to this brother is permitted to that brother.”

Since it is possible to find such a case,

given that I can find a case of rape in which “the one forbidden to this brother is permitted to that brother” applies to all fifteen women, even to his daughter, I apply this principle to all of them, each according to the case in which it can occur.

If you wish,

if you prefer –

let it be through rape.

If you wish,

if you prefer –

let it be through marriage.

But the wife of his brother who was not in his world –

we do not

apply to her “the one forbidden to this brother is permitted to that brother.”

What is the reason?

Since

only

according to Rabbi Shimon is it possible to find this case,

to apply to her “the one forbidden to this brother is permitted to that brother” [as will be explained below], whereas

according to the Sages it cannot be found

at all.

In a dispute –

he does not speak

of the possibility taught by Rabbi Hiyya.

And Rav Safra expounds: Even the wife of his brother who was not in his world; and it can be found with six brothers,

so that such a possibility exists with six brothers,

according to Rabbi Shimon.

And your mnemonic

for the six brothers

is: “One dies, one is born, and one performs yibbum; one dies, one is born, and one performs yibbum.”

At first, four brothers were all alive in the world: Reuven, Shimon, Levi, and Yehuda.

Two of the brothers,

Reuven and Shimon,

were

married to two sisters.

And the other two,

Levi and Yehuda,

were

married to two unrelated women.

The first brother died,

Reuven,

who had been married to one of the sisters.

And

Yissakhar,

the fifth brother,

was born,

and found the first brother’s wife not subject to yibbum; she was therefore permanently forbidden to him, in accordance with the law concerning the wife of a brother who was not in his world.

And Levi performed yibbum,

the third of the original four brothers, with the wife of Reuven, the first brother.

Shimon died,

the second brother, who had been married to the second sister.

Zevulun was born,

the sixth brother, and found the first brother’s wife subject to yibbum. According to Rabbi Shimon, she was not forbidden to him [“he performed yibbum and afterward the brother was born”].

And Yehuda performed yibbum,

the third brother, with the wife of Shimon, the second brother.

Levi and Yehuda died,

the third and fourth brothers,

without children, and the two sisters fell

before

the presence of

Yissakhar and Zevulun,

the fifth and sixth brothers.

Thus, I can apply both principles to the wife of his brother who was not in his world:

a.

The one forbidden to this brother is permitted to that brother.

b.

And her sister, who is his yevama,

performs halitza or undergoes yibbum:

To Yissakhar, the fifth brother, the wife of Levi is forbidden: she is the sister who had previously been married to Reuven, the first brother. For when Yissakhar was born, he found her not subject to yibbum, but standing under the levirate bond to Reuven, who had not been alive together with him in the world; she was therefore permanently forbidden to him by the prohibition of the wife of a brother who was not in his world.

But to Zevulun, the sixth brother, Levi’s wife is permitted, since when Zevulun was born, he found her subject to yibbum to Levi; she was not forbidden to him on account of Reuven’s wife, as Reuven had not been in his world.

And this is according to Rabbi Shimon, who permits the case of “she performed yibbum and afterward he was born.”

Whereas the second sister, Judah’s wife, is permitted to Issachar, since he had been present in the world together with Shimon, who was married to the second sister.

But she is forbidden to Zebulun, since he was born and found her when she had not undergone yibbum, but was falling before him from Shimon, who had not been with him in his world. At that point she became forbidden to him by the law of the wife of a brother who was not in his world, who is forbidden to him permanently.

And, as stated, such a possibility applies only according to Rabbi Shimon.

For according to the Rabbis, in every case both sisters are forbidden to Issachar and Zebulun, the fifth and sixth brothers, by the law of the wife of a brother who was not in his world.

Since the yibbum of the sisters by the other brothers does not prevent their being forbidden to the brothers who were born subsequently as the wives of brothers who were not in their world.

The Gemara raises an objection:

Why do I need

in order to establish these two principles to arrive at the case where

Judah performed yibbum?

But even

without Judah performing yibbum, one can find

these two principles with regard to Issachar.

For if Reuben died and Issachar was born, and Levi performed yibbum with Reuben’s wife; and afterward Shimon died and his wife did not undergo yibbum, and Zebulun was born; and Levi died, so that Levi’s wife and Shimon’s wife now fell before Issachar and Zebulun—

Levi’s wife [who had been Reuben’s wife and with whom Levi performed yibbum] is forbidden to Issachar by the law of the wife of a brother who was not in his world. And she is permitted to Zebulun, since he was born after Levi had already performed yibbum with her.

Whereas Shimon’s wife is permitted to Issachar, who was with him in his world, and forbidden to Zebulun, who was not with him in his world.

It follows that Judah’s performance of yibbum added nothing. If so, this possibility exists even with five brothers; why did we establish the case with six brothers?

And we answer:

Because of a rival wife.

For he wished to teach us the principle that when one is forbidden in one case and permitted in the other, the same applies to a rival wife as well. Therefore, he stated the case in which Judah performed yibbum with Shimon’s wife, Judah died, and Levi’s wife and Judah’s wife fell before Issachar and Zebulun together with their rival wives.

Levi’s wife is the rival wife of Reuben’s wife, with whom Levi performed yibbum. Since Reuben’s wife is forbidden to Issachar as the wife of a brother who was not in his world, that woman also renders her rival wife forbidden.

And Judah’s wife is the rival wife of Shimon’s wife, with whom Judah performed yibbum. Shimon’s wife is forbidden to Zebulun as the wife of a brother who was not in his world, and she renders her rival wife forbidden as well.

And this is the case where Reuben’s and Shimon’s wives were unrelated women, whereas Levi’s and Judah’s wives were sisters. Thus I apply the statement to the wives of Levi and Judah: they are the rival wives of Reuben’s and Shimon’s wives, and they are two sisters, one of whom is forbidden in one case and permitted in the other, while her sister, who is his yevama, undergoes yibbum.

The Gemara raises an objection:

That works with regard to a rival wife.

But a rival wife of a rival wife—

what is there to say?

After all, rival wives of rival wives were also taught in the Mishna, and Rabbi Hiyya taught that with regard to all the cases taught in the Mishna, I apply these two principles!?

And we answer:

For example,

there were two additional brothers, Gad and Asher.

They then returned

and again

Gad and Asher also performed yibbum with the wives of Levi and Judah, [who were the rival wives of Reuben’s and Shimon’s wives and had become forbidden as rival wives of an ervah], and they had additional wives.

Gad and Asher died, and their wives fell before the brothers. These were the wives of Levi and Judah, with whom Gad and Asher had performed yibbum, together with their rival wives, who were rival wives of an ervah’s rival wife.

The rival wife of Levi’s wife [formerly] became forbidden to Issachar, and she was a rival wife of a rival wife of an ervah; and the rival wife of Judah’s wife [formerly] became forbidden to Zebulun, and she was a rival wife of a rival wife of an ervah.

And this is the case where the rival wives of the rival wives were sisters.

Mishna:

a.

Three brothers,

of whom

two were married

to two women who together are considered a “pair.”

One man is forbidden to marry both “members of the pair,” but may marry only one “member of the pair.” For example, the two brothers were married to:

Two sisters.

Or a woman and her daughter.

Or a woman and her daughter’s daughter.

Or a woman and her son’s daughter—

The two brothers who were married to the two members of the pair died, and the entire pair fell before the third brother. Each one is the “pair of the woman to whom he is bound,” and is forbidden to him.

These women perform chalitza and do not perform yibbum.

Since each one is a relative of the woman to whom her brother is bound and who is forbidden to him.

And Rabbi Shimon exempts

them even from chalitza.

Because he expounds the verse “to be a rival” to teach a novel matter: all rival wives of an ervah, who became rival wives of one another through the bond of yibbum, are exempt even from chalitza.

b.

If one of them,

of the two sisters,

was forbidden to him as an ervah—

She is not bound to him at all, and her sister does not become forbidden as the sister of a woman to whom he is bound.

Therefore, he is

forbidden

only

to her,

since she is an ervah to him,

and he is permitted to her sister.

c. If one of them was forbidden to him

by a prohibition of a mitzva,

meaning a “secondary” relation to an ervah, which is forbidden by rabbinic decree,

or by a prohibition of sanctity,

meaning a priestly prohibition, which is a prohibition entailing lashes—both women

perform chalitza but do not perform yibbum.

Gemara:

It was taught in a baraita: Rabbi Shimon exempts both women from chalitza and from yibbum.

As it is stated: [Leviticus 18]

“And you shall not take a woman in addition to her sister, to make her a rival.”

When they become

two sisters [or two other members of a pair, as detailed in the Mishna],

rivals of one another

at the time of the bond, when both are bound to the levir—

you shall have no taking of either one of them.

We further learned in the Mishna:

If one of them

was forbidden to him as an ervah—he is forbidden to her and permitted to her sister.

The Gemara raises an objection: This law was stated literally in the previous Mishna, at the beginning of the chapter. If so,

this additional statement

—that the tanna repeated and taught this law again in our Mishna—

why do I need it?

After all,

it is the same thing,

as it was in the previous Mishna!

And we answer:

It was necessary with regard to Rabbi Shimon,

for the tanna to teach us this again.

For

it might enter your mind to say

that,

since Rabbi Shimon said: Two sisters neither perform chalitza nor perform yibbum,

if so—

we should decree

that when one of the sisters is an ervah, he should not perform yibbum with her sister,

due to two ordinary sisters.

That is, so that people would not come to permit performing yibbum with one of them even when neither of them is an ervah.

He teaches us

that the tanna did not issue such a decree when one of the sisters is an ervah. Rather, the permitted sister undergoes yibbum.

It teaches us

that they did not enact such a safeguard when one of the sisters is a forbidden relative. Rather, the permitted sister may enter into levirate marriage.

We further learned in the Mishna:

A prohibition of a mitzva

or a prohibition of sanctity: they perform chalitza but do not perform yibbum.