Yevamot 2b (ב:) — the Talmud in English

14.

And his brother's wife who was not in his world.

The mitzva of yibbum applies only when the two brothers were both alive in the world together, as it is stated in the passage concerning yibbum: “When brothers dwell together,” meaning that they had one shared dwelling in the world.

But if a brother was born after his brother's death, the newborn brother does not perform yibbum with the wife of the brother who died before this brother was born; rather, she is forbidden to him as “a brother's wife who has children.”

That is to say, every brother's wife with whom there is no mitzva of yibbum is not included among the category of a brother's wife who has no children [whom the Torah permitted to the yavam]; rather, she remains under the prohibition of erva of a brother's wife for whom there is no permission for yibbum.

This prohibition is eternal, and there is no possibility of permitting it, even in a situation involving the mitzva of yibbum!

For example, the wife of the deceased brother performed yibbum with another brother who had been alive together with him. Subsequently, that brother died, and she now falls before the brother who was born later, as the wife of this brother who had been alive together with him, so that there is a mitzva of yibbum with her.

But since she is forbidden to him as the wife of the first brother, an erva prohibition like that of a brother's wife who has children, whose prohibition is eternal, the mitzva of yibbum arising from her falling from the second brother cannot permit the prohibition of the erva of a brother's wife that took effect upon her because of the first brother, who was not alive together with him. She is therefore exempt from halitza and yibbum, like the erva of his wife's sister.

She also exempts her rival wife who falls with her from the marriage to the second brother.

For we will learn below that every erva whose punishment is karet, when she falls for yibbum together with a rival wife, both are exempt from halitza and yibbum.

They remain forbidden to him forever under the karet prohibition of a brother's wife who was not permitted for yibbum—that is, like a brother's wife who has children, for whose prohibition there is no permission.

This is an eternal prohibition, which cannot be permitted even if she should again fall before him for yibbum [after she performs yibbum with another brother, he dies, and she again falls before him from that brother].

15.

And his daughter-in-law.

If, after his son died, or after his son divorced her, his brother married her and then died, his son's wife—who is an erva to him [and is forbidden to him forever]—falls before him.

She is exempt from halitza and yibbum by the law of an erva, and she exempts her rival wife.

The Mishna then repeats what it stated at the beginning:

Behold,

fifteen women

these—

exempt their rival wives, and the rival wives of their rival wives, from halitza and from yibbum, until the end of the world.

The Mishna further specifies that a “rival wife of an erva” is considered such only when she fell for yibbum at the time of the brother's death together with the erva.

But if, before the brother's death, the erva ceased to be his brother's wife, as the Mishna will explain, and at the time of the brother's death only the rival wife fell for yibbum, she is not exempt under the law of a rival wife of an erva, even though she had been married together with the erva to this brother.

And all of them,

all the women who are forbidden to perform yibbum because they are ervot—

if they died

during the brother's lifetime, so that at the time of his brother's death only the rival wife falls, and not the erva,

or exercised refusal,

if those ervot had been married to his brother while they were minors, having been married to him by their brothers or mother, in marriages instituted for them by the Sages [since a minor cannot marry by Torah law except through her father].

The Sages instituted that they could exercise refusal and say, “I do not wish to remain bound by the betrothal with which my mother or brother betrothed me to this husband.” By this declaration alone she leaves him, without requiring a get.

Therefore, if the minor erva exercised refusal with regard to her husband's betrothal, she does not fall before him for yibbum together with her rival wife; only the rival wife falls.

or were divorced

by those ervot from the brother before his death.

or were found

to be

ailonit

[a woman incapable of bearing children]. It follows that their betrothals had been in error, and they had not been married to his brother who died.

In all these cases, since the ervot do not fall for yibbum at all,

therefore

their rival wives are permitted

to perform yibbum, because at the time of the brother's death they are not rival wives of an erva.

The tanna adds that when the Mishna says, “and all of them who exercised refusal,” it does not mean that refusal is possible with regard to all these women; likewise, it is not possible for all these women to be found to be an ailonit.

The statement “and all of them who exercised refusal” is not meant literally.

Rather, all those arayot who can become ervot to him only when they are adults, when they become his relatives through his marriage to his wife, must be excluded from this generalization; since they are adults, they cannot exercise refusal.

Likewise, with regard to these women it is impossible to say that they were found to be an ailonit, as will be explained:

And you cannot say with regard to his mother-in-law, his mother-in-law's mother, and his father-in-law's mother: “They were found to be ailonit” or “They exercised refusal.”

For the prohibition of his mother-in-law can arise only after he marries his wife, the daughter of his mother-in-law. Since his mother-in-law has a daughter, she is not an ailonit; and she must necessarily be an adult who cannot exercise refusal, since a minor does not give birth.

The Mishna now explains

how

they

exempt their rival wives:

The Mishna gives the example of the erva of his daughter, since she appears at the beginning of the list of the fifteen women.

If his daughter, or one of all these arayot, was married to his deceased brother,

and

he

also had

to him,

to his deceased brother, also

another wife.

And he died

without children—

then,

just as his daughter,

who is forbidden to him under the prohibition of erva,

is exempt

from halitza and yibbum [the case is one in which there is no additional brother, but only this brother, for if there were another brother, she would not be exempt from yibbum and halitza, and the tanna would have had to say, “just as she is forbidden to this yavam”]—

so her rival wife is exempt

from halitza and yibbum.

The Mishna now explains how the rival wives of an erva exempt their own rival wives.

If there was an additional brother, and

the rival wife of his daughter went and married,

she performed yibbum

with his second brother,

to whom she was permitted.

And

there was

to him,

to his second brother, another

wife, and he died

without children—

the rival wife of his daughter returned and fell before him a second time, from his second brother, together with her rival wife—

just as the rival wife of his daughter is exempt

from halitza and yibbum, since she became forbidden to him forever when she first fell before him, when she fell before him together with his daughter, by the law of “a brother's wife who has children,” for whom there is no permission ever.

so her rival wife,

the second wife of his second brother,

is exempt

from halitza and yibbum.

See the introduction and the notes on the Mishna, where all the great later authorities discuss the fundamental question: Does a rival wife of an erva exempt her rival wife under a new category, that of a “rival wife of a rival wife of an erva”; or, since a rival wife of an erva is an erva of a brother's wife, is she like any erva who exempts her rival wife, with no exemption under a new category called a rival wife of a “rival wife of an erva”?

Following the same principle, the rival wife of a rival wife of an erva is also exempt,

even if there are one hundred

brothers, and the rival wife of the rival wife went and married his third brother, and so on.

The Mishna now explains what it stated above: “And all of them, if they died or were divorced, their rival wives are permitted.”

How does the statement “if they died

the arayot,

their rival wives are permitted” apply?

If his daughter

of the yavam,

or one of all these arayot, was married to his brother,

and

he

had, to his brother, another

wife.

And

his daughter died, or was divorced

by his brother,

and afterward his brother died—

her rival wife is permitted!

Because she was not a rival wife of an erva at the time of falling for yibbum, which is the time of the brother's death.

The Mishna adds another halakha:

And every

minor erva

who can exercise refusal

with regard to her husband's betrothal,

but did not exercise refusal

with regard to her husband—

since her betrothal is only by rabbinic law, she does not exempt her rival wife.

Nevertheless, since her rival wife is a rabbinic rival wife of an erva,

her rival wife performs halitza but does not perform yibbum.

This law applies even if the erva now exercises refusal with the yavam and says that she does not want the betrothal of her deceased husband, even though her betrothal would thereby be retroactively annulled, so that her rival wife was never a rival wife of an erva and should have the law of a rival wife of an erva who exercised refusal, who is permitted to perform yibbum.

Nevertheless, here, since the erva did not exercise refusal with regard to her husband during his lifetime, but exercised refusal with regard to her betrothal to him only after she fell before the yavam, the Sages prohibited her rival wife from performing yibbum.

Because the erva did not exercise refusal with regard to her husband while he was alive, and only now, after his death, refuses his betrothal, her marriage appears to people to have been a fully valid marriage, and her rival wife appears to them to be a rival wife of an erva. If we permit her to perform yibbum, people will err and think that a rival wife of an erva is permitted.

Gemara:

The Gemara explains the order of the list of the fifteen women:

We raised the following discussion:

Granted,

behold,

all of them,

the entire exemption of the fifteen arayot from yibbum, is

from

the exemption of

a wife's sister

from yibbum

we derive

them.

As will be clarified below, the exemption of the erva and her rival wife is derived from the verse: “And a woman to her sister you shall not take, to make her a rival, to uncover her nakedness alongside her, during her lifetime.”

If so,

let him teach

the erva of

a wife's sister first,

since it is the source for the exemption of an erva and her rival wife!

And if you would say

as a resolution, that the

tanna,

according to the order of

the severity of the severities

of the punishments of arayot,

listed them,

and

according to the view of

Rabbi Shimon, who says that the death of

the

burning

is the

most severe

of the four forms of capital punishment imposed by the court.

Therefore, the tanna began with his daughter, for the punishment for her is the most severe, death by burning. He then listed the relatives of his daughter, and his mother-in-law and his mother-in-law's mother, all of whose punishment is burning.

This cannot be the resolution. For:

If so, if the tanna lists them according to the order of the severity of the punishment, following the view of Rabbi Shimon that death by burning is the most severe, the following difficulty arises:

that the tanna lists them according to the order of the severity of the punishment, and follows the method of Rabbi Shimon, that death by burning is the most severe, the following difficulty arises:

Let him teach

the erva of

his mother-in-law first,

before his daughter, since

the primary source of the law of death by

law of death by

burning

is written with regard to his mother-in-law!

The source for the law of burning in the case of his daughter is derived below by a gezerah shavah from his mother-in-law, with regard to whom the law of burning is stated explicitly.

Since his mother-in-law is the source for the law of burning, she should be listed before his daughter.

Furthermore,

there is another difficulty:

after

his

mother-in-law, let him teach

the erva of

his daughter-in-law,

whose punishment is stoning, rather than listing her last, since

after

the death of

burning,

death by

stoning

is the

more severe

one after burning!

Why, then, did the tanna list his daughter-in-law, whose punishment is stoning, only at the end of the list, after the other arayot, who are merely liable to karet and do not incur capital punishment imposed by the court at all!?

Therefore, the Gemara returns and gives another explanation for placing his daughter first:

Rather,

the erva of

his daughter, since

she is not written explicitly in the Torah, but

comes through a homiletic derivation,

being learned from a derivation of the verses,

is beloved to him,

she is dear to the tanna to teach, and he therefore placed her before all the arayot.