Yevamot 28b — the Talmud in English

a prohibition of a mitzva and a prohibition of sanctity —

she performs halitza and does not perform yibbum!

And we answer:

there

[above, in the second chapter,] it is speaking of

a prohibition of a mitzva alone.

But

here

it is speaking of

a prohibition of a mitzva, and

a prohibition of

her sister

of the woman bound in levirate bond.

And therefore,

it might enter your mind,

I might have reasoned,

that there should stand

that it should stand

a prohibition of a mitzva in place of a prohibition of an erva,

so that the matter should be considered as though the sister who is forbidden by a prohibition of a mitzva were an erva [according to the parameters of the Sages’ prohibition, and her sister would be a sister of an erva according to the Sages, and would not be considered the sister of a woman bound in levirate bond, which is also a prohibition of the Sages],

and she should perform yibbum

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

It teaches us

that the sister of a woman forbidden by a prohibition of a mitzva does not perform yibbum, because she is the sister of a woman bound in levirate bond.

And we raise an objection to the Gemara’s answer: How might I have reasoned to say

“and she should perform yibbum?!”

But

since according to Torah law

the prohibition of a mitzva

lies before him,

she falls before him —

he encounters the sister of the woman bound in levirate bond!

And we answer: This is what

it might enter your mind:

Behold, the prohibition of the sister of a woman bound in levirate bond is only a prohibition of the Sages, and I might have reasoned that

because of the mitzva

of yibbum,

the Sages made

a decree to consider the prohibition of a mitzva as a prohibition of an erva, and she should perform yibbum with her sister;

it teaches us

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

We learned in the Mishna:

if one of them was

forbidden to one of them by a prohibition of an erva, and the other was forbidden to the other by a prohibition of an erva — the one forbidden to this one is permitted to that one, and the one forbidden to that one is permitted to this one.

And we examine this: After we have already learned, in the case of two sisters who fell before two brothers, that when one of the two sisters was forbidden to one of the brothers by a prohibition of an erva, it is permitted for that brother to perform yibbum with her sister —

this additionally,

that the tan­nnay repeated and taught when there are two brothers, and before each of them two sisters fall, and for each of them one of them is an erva —

why do I need it?

For

it is the same thing!

For

what difference is it to me

if two sisters fell, when one of the two is an erva only

to one

brother;

what difference is it to me

if they fell in this manner

to two,

so that before two brothers each one is an erva to one of them!?

And we answer:

It is necessary

for both of them.

For if it had taught us there,

the first clause, in which only before one brother one of them is an erva, but to the second brother both are ordinary sisters, I would say that it is permitted for this brother to perform yibbum,

because there is

a

second

brother who cannot perform yibbum, but can only perform halitza.

For it is evident

there that there is a prohibition of the sister of a woman bound in levirate bond, and that is why she is forbidden to the second brother. And the reason she is permitted to the first brother is that her sister is an erva, and she is not the sister of a woman bound in levirate bond.

But here, where there is no

second

brother, as is evident

from the fact that he does not perform yibbum, that there is a prohibition of the sister of a woman bound in levirate bond, for here both of them perform yibbum,

I might say no

they permitted both of them to perform yibbum, so that they would not come to permit the sister of a woman bound in levirate bond.

And if it had taught us here,

in the continuation of the Mishna, where both perform yibbum, when before each one one of the sisters falls as an erva and her sister is not an erva, I would say that

on the contrary,

specifically here both are permitted to perform yibbum, since

both of them demonstrate it to each other!

From the fact that this one performs yibbum specifically with this one, and that one performs yibbum specifically with that one, people see that the second is an erva to each one of them, and they will not come to permit the sister of a woman bound in levirate bond.

But the other one,

in the first clause, where the sister is forbidden by a prohibition of an erva only to one of the two brothers, I would say that

they did not

permit him to perform yibbum, so that they would not err and permit it also to his brother.

Therefore

it is necessary

for both of them.

We learned at the end of the Mishna:

this is the case of which they said

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

And we examine this:

this is —

to exclude what?

And we answer:

To exclude a prohibition of a mitzva to this one and a prohibition of a mitzva to that one,

where both perform halitza and do not perform yibbum, because they are the sister of a woman bound in levirate bond, for according to Torah law both of them fall and stand for yibbum.

And we examine this:

why do I need this additionally?

Why did the tan­nnay need to repeat and teach the case in which one of them is subject to a prohibition of a mitzva for each of the brothers? For

it is the same thing

! For

what difference is it to me

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

to one, what difference is it to me for two

brothers!?

And we answer:

It might have been said: when we do not say, “Place a prohibition of a mitzva in place of a prohibition of an erva”

so as to permit her sister, as we explained above, it is specifically

where there is reason to decree because of

the

second

brother, lest we come to permit him also to perform yibbum, and he encounter the sister of a woman bound in levirate bond.

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

since for both of them one of the sisters is forbidden by a prohibition of a mitzva,

I might say:

For this

brother

we place a prohibition of a mitzva in place of a prohibition of an erva,

so that the prohibition of a mitzva should be considered a prohibition of an erva, and her sister should not be forbidden because of the sister of a woman bound in levirate bond,

and

also

for this

second brother

we place

a prohibition of a mitzva in place of a prohibition of an erva, and let both of them perform yibbum

both of them.

It teaches us

that even in the case of two, we did not place a prohibition of a mitzva in place of a prohibition of an erva.

Rav Yehuda said in the name of Rav: And Rabbi Hiyya likewise taught:

In all of them,

in all fifteen arayot taught in the first Mishna of the first chapter, if two sisters fell before two brothers, when one is an erva to this one and the other is an erva to that one —

I

can be

reading in them

the two rules that the Sages gave 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 an erva.

B.

And her sister,

of the erva, when

she is his yevama

[that is, she falls for yibbum together with her] —

performs halitza or performs yibbum.

For the sister of an erva is not subject to the prohibition of “the sister of a woman bound in levirate bond,” since the erva is not bound for yibbum with regard to the brother to whom she is forbidden, and it follows that both brothers perform yibbum with the two sisters.

And Rav Yehuda interprets,

he repeats and establishes the two rules of “the one forbidden to this one is permitted to that one” and “her sister, when she is his yevama, performs halitza or performs yibbum” only with those arayot in the list beginning

from his mother-in-law onward.

But

the

six in the first group,

the first six arayot among the fifteen, he

does not

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

What is the reason?

Since his daughter,

which is the first in the group of the six arayot of “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], only

through violation can it be found

for her, since only if the brothers violated the girls’ mother do I apply to the two sister-daughters “the one forbidden to this one is permitted to that one.”

But

through marriage —

it cannot be found.

For if one of the brothers married the mother of the two sister-daughters, the second brother cannot marry her, because she becomes forbidden to him by the prohibition of a brother’s wife. And only if

the first initially violated her could it be possible that the second married her.

And according to Rav Yehuda, only with the possibilities of the two rules

through marriage

does he deal,

the tan­nnay teaches in the Mishna.

But with the possibilities of the two rules that can exist only

through violation —

he does not deal!

And since “his daughter,” which is the first in the group of the six arayot that are of the type “his daughter,” can be counted only through violation, he did not include this entire group under this rule.

And

if

Abaye

interprets,

repeats and establishes,

even

the case of

his daughter from a woman he violated,

to which I apply “the one forbidden to this one is permitted to that one.”

Since it can indeed be found,

since I find such a possibility, that through violation I apply “the one forbidden to this one is permitted to that one” in all fifteen women, even in his daughter, I apply this to all of them, each according to the case in which it can be found.

If you wish,

if you wish —

let it be through violation.

If you wish,

if you wish —

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 one is permitted to that one.”

What is the reason?

Since

only

for Rabbi Shimon can it be found,

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

according to the Rabbis it cannot be found.

In a dispute —

he does not deal

Rabbi Hiyya.

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

and such a possibility exists with six brothers,

according to Rabbi Shimon.

And your sign

for the six brothers is:

one died, one was born, and he performed yibbum; one died, one was born, and he performed yibbum.

Initially four brothers were together in the world: Reuven, Shimon, Levi, and Yehuda.

And 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,

Reuven,

who was married to one of the sisters, died.

And

Yissakhar,

the fifth brother,

was born, and found the first one’s wife when she had not undergone yibbum, and she became forbidden to him forever, according to the law of the wife of his brother who was not in his world.

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

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

Shimon died,

he being the second brother, who was married to the second sister.

Zevulun was born,

he being the sixth brother, and found the first one’s wife when she had undergone yibbum, and she is not forbidden to him according to Rabbi Shimon [“he performed yibbum and afterwards he was born”].

And Yehuda performed yibbum

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

Levi and Yehuda died,

the third and fourth brothers,

without sons, and they fell

the two sisters

before

Yissakhar and Zevulun,

the fifth and sixth brothers.

And thus I apply to the wife of his brother who was not in his world the two rules:

A.

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

B.

And her sister, who is his yevama,

performs halitza or performs yibbum:

For Yissakhar, the fifth brother, the wife of Levi is forbidden — she is the sister who had previously been married to Reuven, the first brother, since when Yissakhar was born he found her when she had not undergone yibbum, but was still bound by the levirate bond of Reuven, who had not been with him in his world, and she became forbidden to him forever through the prohibition of the wife of his brother who was not in his world.

But for Zevulun, the sixth brother, the wife of Levi is permitted, since when Zevulun was born he found her when she had undergone yibbum to Levi, and she did not become forbidden to him because of the wife of his brother Reuven, who had not been in his world.

And this, according to Rabbi Shimon, who permits in “he performed yibbum and afterward was born".

Whereas the second sister, the wife of Judah, is permitted to Issachar, for he had an existence in the world together with Shimon, who had been 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; and she was then forbidden to him by the law of the wife of his brother who was not in his world, who is forbidden to him forever.

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

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

Since the yibbum of the sisters by the other brothers does not prevent their prohibition as the wife of a brother who was not in the world of the brothers who were born.

And we raised an objection:

Why do I need

for the purpose of these two rules to arrive at

“Judah performed yibbum?”

But also

without Judah performing yibbum, one can find it

for these two rules, 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, and now Levi’s wife and Shimon’s wife fell before Issachar and Zebulun—

Behold, Levi’s wife [who had been Reuben’s wife, and Levi performed yibbum with her] is forbidden to Issachar by the law of the wife of his 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.

And it turns out that Judah’s yibbum added nothing. If so, this possibility also exists with five brothers, and for what purpose did we establish the case with six brothers?

And we answer:

Because of a rival wife.

For he wished to teach us the rule that one who is forbidden to one is permitted to the other also applies in the case of a rival wife; therefore he stated that Judah performed yibbum with Shimon’s wife, and 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; and since Reuben’s wife is forbidden to Issachar because she is the wife of his brother who was not in his world, that one also forbids her rival wife.

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

And, for example, Reuben’s wife and Shimon’s wife were unrelated women, whereas Levi’s wife and Judah’s wife were sisters. And thus I read concerning the wives of Levi and Judah: they are the rival wives of the wives of Reuben and Shimon, and they are two sisters, one who is forbidden to one is permitted to the other, and her sister, who is his yevama, undergoes yibbum.

And we raised an objection:

This works well with a rival wife.

A rival wife of a rival wife —

what is there to say?

But rival wives of rival wives were also taught in the Mishna, and Rabbi Hiyya taught that in all the cases taught in the Mishna I apply these two rules!?

And we answer:

For example,

there were two additional brothers, Gad and Asher.

That he again

returned

and Gad and Asher also performed yibbum with them,

with the wives of Levi and Judah, [who had been their rival wives of the wives of Reuben and Shimon, and had become forbidden by the law of a rival wife of a forbidden relation], and they had additional wives.

And Gad and Asher died, and their wives, who were Levi’s and Judah’s wives who had undergone yibbum through them, fell together with their rival wives, who were rival wives of a forbidden relation.

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

And, for example, the rival wives of the rival wives were sisters.

Mishna:

a.

Three brothers,

who were

two of them married

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

And it is forbidden for one man to marry both “members of the pair,” but only one “member of the pair” from among the two. 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—

and the two brothers who were married to the two members of the pair died, and the entire pair fell before the third brother, and each one is “the member of the pair of his zekuka,” and she is forbidden to him.

Behold, these perform chalitza and do not undergo yibbum.

For each one of them is a relative of the member of the pair who is zekuka to him, and who is forbidden to him.

And Rabbi Shimon exempts

them even from chalitza.

Because he expounds the verse “to bring rivalry” for a novel matter: all rival wives of a forbidden relation, who became rival wives of one another through the bond, are exempt even from chalitza.

b.

If one of them

of the two sisters

was forbidden to him by a forbidden-relation prohibition—

she is not zekuka to him at all, and her sister does not become forbidden because she is the sister of his zekuka.

Therefore, he is

forbidden

only

to her,

for she is a forbidden relation to him,

and he is permitted to her sister.

c. If one of them was forbidden to him by

a mitzva prohibition,

which are “secondary” relations to forbidden relations, prohibited by rabbinic decree,

or by a sanctity prohibition,

which are priestly prohibitions, for which one is liable for negative commandments—both of them

perform chalitza and do not undergo yibbum.

Gemara:

It was taught in a beraita: Rabbi Shimon exempts both of them from chalitza and from yibbum.

As it is stated: [Leviticus 18]

“And a woman to her sister you shall not take, to bring rivalry”

“And a woman to her sister you shall not take, to bring rivalry”.

When they became

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

rival wives of one another

at the time of the bond, when both of them are zekukot to a yavam—

you shall have no taking with either one of them.

We further learned in the Mishna:

If one of them

was forbidden to him by a forbidden-relation prohibition—he is forbidden to her and permitted to her sister.

And we raised an objection: This very law was taught in the previous Mishna at the beginning of the chapter. If so,

this too

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

why do I need it?

For

it is the same thing,

it is as in the previous Mishna!

And we answer:

It was necessary for Rabbi Shimon;

the tannai needed to teach us this again.

For

it might enter your mind to say,

I might have thought,

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

if so—

let us decree

when one of the sisters is a forbidden relation, that he should not perform yibbum with her sister,

because of two ordinary sisters.

And that is, so that people should not come to permit performing yibbum with one of them even when neither of them is a forbidden relation.

It teaches us

the tannai that they did not decree in a case where one of the sisters is a forbidden relation; rather, the permitted sister undergoes yibbum.

We further learned in the Mishna:

a mitzva prohibition

or a sanctity prohibition—perform chalitza and do not undergo yibbum.