Yevamot 3b (ג:) — the Talmud in English

One count comes

to exclude

the position

of Rav, according to whom, if a woman committed adultery while married, she herself may not undergo yibbum, and therefore her rival wife, known as the “rival wife of a sota,” is exempt from both yibbum and halitza.

The Mishna comes to exclude and reject his opinion.

And a second count comes, in order to exclude the position

And

a second count comes in order to exclude the position

of Rav Asi, according to whom an aylonit, a woman incapable of bearing children, who herself may not undergo yibbum, also exempts her rival wife from both yibbum and halitza.

The Mishna comes to reject this as well.

The Gemara continues to explain:

Rav and Rav Asi, who add the rival of a sota and the rival of an aylonit, what does the first count in the Mishna and what does the final count come to exclude—

And

according to Rav and Rav Asi,

who add the rival wife of a sota and the rival wife of an aylonit, what do the count at the beginning of the Mishna and the count at its conclusion

come to exclude—

what does each of them come to exclude?

The Gemara answers:

If they hold

Rav and Rav Asi

each of the other’s

position, it may be said that the two counts come to exclude the following:

One

of them comes

to exclude the rival wife of a woman who refuses

the yavam.

If a minor yevama fell before the yavam—her mother or brothers having married her off, so that her marriage was valid only by rabbinic enactment—and the minor refused her husband’s marriage after she had fallen before the yavam, both she and her rival wife are forbidden in yibbum [by a rabbinic decree, as will be explained in this chapter], but they are obligated to perform halitza.

This is what the Mishna comes to exclude: the rival wife of a woman who refuses is not like the other rival wives of an erva, but is obligated to perform halitza, since her prohibition against yibbum is only by rabbinic enactment.

And one

count comes

to exclude the rival wife of one who remarries his divorced wife.

If the deceased brother had been married to a woman, divorced her, and she then married another man, thereby becoming forbidden to return to her first husband; and the second husband died or divorced her, and the first husband then took her back as his wife in violation of the prohibition—

she herself may not undergo yibbum, since she had been forbidden to the deceased brother by the prohibition against one who remarries his divorced wife after she had married another.

But her rival wife may undergo yibbum [according to the Sages; as for the opinion of Rabbi Yosei ben Kippar, the Gemara later, on 11b, leaves the matter unresolved].

The Mishna comes to exclude this case and to say that the rival wife of one who remarries his divorced wife is not like other rival wives of an erva.

And if Rav and Rav Asi do not hold

Rav and Rav Asi

each of the other’s

position, they will explain, each according to his own position, the two exclusions represented by the two counts as follows:

One

count in the Mishna comes

to exclude

his

colleague’s position.

And one

count comes

to exclude either the rival wife of a woman who refuses or the rival wife of one who remarries his divorced wife.

But the following objection still remains:

According to Rav,

who holds that a sota [an adulterous woman] and her rival wife are exempt from yibbum,

and

likewise

according to Rav Asi,

who holds that the rival wife of an aylonit also may not undergo yibbum,

let the Mishna teach them!

Why did the tannai not teach these cases in our Mishna, saying that an aylonit and a sota exempt their rival wives as well?

And we answer:

Because

the rival wife of a sota or the rival wife of an aylonit

is not a “rival wife of a rival wife.”

For the prohibition of the “rival wife of an aylonit” or the “rival wife of a sota” is a prohibition that applies equally with regard to all the brothers. It is therefore impossible for one of the brothers to perform yibbum with the rival wife of the sota or with the rival wife of the aylonit, after which she would fall a second time together with her rival wife, who would then be considered a “rival wife of a rival wife.”

The Gemara now discusses the source of the law taught in the Mishna, that an erva, her rival wife, and the rival wife of her rival wife are exempt from yibbum and halitza:

And we inquire:

From where are these matters derived?

From where do we know that an erva, her rival wife, and the rival wife of her rival wife may never undergo yibbum or halitza?

[See the version of the Vilna Gaon, who did not read “the rival wife of a rival wife.” Many principles stated concerning the rival wife of an erva depend on this version.]

As the Sages taught:

It is written in the passage concerning forbidden relations [Leviticus 18], regarding the prohibition against a man’s wife’s sister:

And

“You shall not take a woman together with her sister, to make her a rival, to uncover her nakedness alongside her, during her lifetime.”

The word

“alongside her”

is superfluous, and it comes to be expounded.

And

what does it teach?

What does the superfluous word “alongside her” come to teach?

Since it is stated

in the passage concerning yibbum [Deuteronomy 25]:

“Her yevama shall come upon her.”

Once the verse stated, “Her yevama shall come upon her,”

I might understand

that the Torah permitted all prohibitions of forbidden relations in the context of the mitzva of yibbum.

And

even with regard to any one of all the forbidden relations stated in the Torah, the verse

“Her yevama shall come upon her”

speaks.

This cannot be said.

For it may be learned by means of a gezerah shavah that the Torah did not command yibbum with a woman who is forbidden to the yavam as an erva. For:

It is stated here,

with regard to the prohibition of a man’s wife’s sister: “You shall not take a woman together with her sister, to make her a rival, to uncover her nakedness

alongside her

during her lifetime.”

And it is stated there,

with regard to the mitzva of yibbum: “Her yevama shall come

upon her.”

Just as there,

in the passage concerning yibbum, the phrase “Her yevama shall come upon her” is stated

in the context of the mitzva

of yibbum,

so too here,

in the passage concerning forbidden relations, the phrase “You shall not take a woman together with her sister, to make her a rival, to uncover her nakedness alongside her” —

even

in the context of the mitzva

of yibbum!

And the Merciful One said:

Even if a yevama from the deceased brother falls before you, whom it is a mitzva to take in yibbum, here, since she is your wife’s sister—

you shall not take

her!

This concludes the derivation that an erva is exempt.

From here comes the derivation that the rival wife of an erva is exempt:

And I have only

learned from this verse that

she alone,

the yevama herself who is a man’s wife’s sister, is prohibited.

Her rival wife,

the rival wife of a man’s wife’s sister—

from where

do we know that she too may not undergo yibbum?

The verse states: “You shall not take a woman together with her sister,

to make her a rival.”

The expression “You shall not take her to make her a rival” teaches that you shall not take even the rival wife of your wife’s sister. As stated, the verse speaks even in the context of the mitzva of yibbum.

And I have only

learned from here,

as the source,

only

the prohibition against performing yibbum with

the rival wife

of a man’s wife’s sister.

The rival wife of her rival wife,

the rival wife of a man’s wife’s sister, where the rival wife of the erva went and underwent yibbum through another brother, and had a rival wife in that household as well; then the brother who performed yibbum with her died, and the rival wife of the erva fell a second time, together with her rival wife, before a yavam to whom she had been forbidden at the first falling because she was the rival wife of an erva—

she herself may not undergo yibbum, since she became forbidden to him at the first falling as the wife of a brother who has children, and she can never again become permitted.

But

from where

do we know that the rival wife of the rival wife, whose first falling for yibbum this is, and who was never forbidden, may not undergo yibbum either?

The verse states: “To make her a rival,”

using a doubled expression,

and it did not

say merely

“to rival.”

alone.

The verse, by using the expression “to make her a rival,” teaches that multiple rival wives are prohibited: the rival wife of a rival wife, and so on forever, is prohibited.

And I have only

learned from this verse, which discusses the forbidden relation of a man’s wife’s sister,

only

the case of

a man’s wife’s sister,

who may not undergo yibbum.

The other forbidden relations—

from where

do we know that they too may not undergo yibbum?

You say:

You can learn them by a mah matzinu from a man’s wife’s sister, as follows:

Just as a man’s wife’s sister

is

unique

in that

she is an erva, and for intentionally violating her one is liable to karet, while for unwittingly violating her one brings a sin-offering,

and

she is

forbidden to the yavam,

so too any woman who is an erva, and for intentionally violating her one is liable to karet, while for unwittingly violating her one brings a sin-offering—

she is

forbidden to the yavam.

And I have only

learned

them alone,

the forbidden relations themselves, who may not undergo yibbum.

Their rival wives,

the rival wives of the other forbidden relations—

from where

do we know that they too may not undergo yibbum?

You say:

You can learn them as well, by a mah matzinu from the rival wife of a man’s wife’s sister, as follows:

Just as a man’s wife’s sister

is

unique

in that

she is an erva, and for intentionally violating her one is liable to karet, while for unwittingly violating her one brings a sin-offering, and she is forbidden to the yavam—

her rival wife is forbidden,

so too any woman who is an erva, and for intentionally violating her one is liable to karet, while for unwittingly violating her one brings a sin-offering, and she is forbidden to the yavam—

her

rival wife is forbidden.

From here the Sages said: Fifteen women—

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

The beraita now explains that one cannot derive from the verse “to make her a rival” that every “rival wife of an erva” is prohibited in the same manner as the prohibition of the erva herself, even outside the context of the mitzva of yibbum. That would mean that it is forbidden for anyone to marry the rival wives of all women who are forbidden to him as forbidden relations.

For it would be reasonable to say that the verse “to make her a rival,” which does not itself discuss the mitzva of yibbum, comes to teach that if the erva was married to an unrelated man who had an additional wife, the very relationship between the two women, as wives of one man, gives the other woman the status of a “rival wife of an erva,” and by virtue of this status she would be forbidden to him just like the erva herself.

That is, if the husband of the rival wife of the erva died or divorced her, she would be forbidden to marry a man to whom the erva herself is forbidden:

I might expand [from the meaning of “to make her a rival”] the prohibition of the “rival wife of an erva” to every situation, even outside the context of yibbum.

That is, I might expand from this verse

even

the six forbidden relations [his mother, his father’s wife, his father’s sister, his paternal half-sister, his father’s brother’s wife, and his paternal brother’s wife who has children].

These six forbidden relations are

“more severe” than these,

the fifteen forbidden relations in our Mishna, in that they cannot marry any of the brothers, because they are equally forbidden to all the brothers.

And one might say that

their rival wives

of these six forbidden relations are

forbidden as well.

That is, the verse “to make her a rival” does not speak specifically of the rival wife of an erva in the context of yibbum, but also outside the context of yibbum!?

This cannot be derived, because:

You say

that you must refute this and say that by a mah matzinu one learns that the prohibition of the rival wife of an erva applies only in the context of yibbum.

Just as a man’s wife’s sister

is

unique

in that

she

is

an erva, and for intentionally violating her one is liable to karet, while for unwittingly violating her one brings a sin-offering, and she can

be

married to

the other

brothers, but is forbidden to the yavam

who married her sister—

her rival wife is forbidden.

So too any

woman

who is an erva, and for intentionally violating her one is liable to karet, while for unwittingly violating her one brings a sin-offering, and she can

be

married to

the other

brothers, but is forbidden to the yavam

him—

her rival wife is forbidden.

The six more severe forbidden relations are excluded, since it is impossible

for them

to marry the brothers—

their rival wives are permitted.

The reason is that

a rival wife

of an erva is prohibited

only

when she is a rival wife

of a brother.

For the Torah does not prohibit the rival wife of an erva with a new prohibition called “the rival wife of an erva.” Rather, it merely exempts her from yibbum; consequently, she is automatically forbidden to the yavam by the prohibition of a brother’s wife, like the wife of a brother who has children.

But the rival wife of an erva outside the context of yibbum is not prohibited, because she is not the wife of a brother, and she is not prohibited merely because she has the status of a rival wife of an erva.

The beraita continues and asks:

The warning—the prohibition of a rival wife of an erva in the context of yibbum—

we have heard.

The warning concerning a man’s wife’s sister is derived from “You shall not take a woman together with her sister,” and from it we learned the other forbidden relations by a mah matzinu.

The warning concerning the rival wife of a man’s wife’s sister is derived from “to make her a rival,” and from it we derive the other forbidden relations by a mah matzinu.

But since the plain meaning of the verse “You shall not take a woman together with her sister, to make her a rival” does not concern the context in which there is a mitzva of yibbum, and we learned only by the gezerah shavah of “upon her” that it applies even in the context of the mitzva of yibbum, it is possible that the derivation from “upon her” reveals only that the prohibition stated in this verse applies even in the context of yibbum.

But

the punishment

of karet, which is not mentioned in this verse—

from where

do we know that, even in the context of yibbum, the punishment of karet applies to the erva and her rival wife?

negative prohibition

concerning forbidden relationships.

The Gemara raises a difficulty:

a.

You may say that we say, “a positive mitzva comes and overrides a negative prohibition,”

The verse says,

at the end of that passage [which contains the warnings concerning all the forbidden relations], that there is a punishment of karet for everyone concerning whom a warning is issued in that passage:

“For everyone who commits any of these abominations

shall be cut off.”

Since, in the warning concerning a man’s wife’s sister, the Torah added the word “upon her” to teach that this verse speaks even in the context of the mitzva of yibbum, and likewise, through the word “to make her a rival,” the Torah included the prohibition of a rival wife of an erva in the context of yibbum, it follows that both of them—the erva and her rival wife—are included in the general punishment of karet at the end of the passage.

For they too are included in the category of “all these abominations,” for which karet is imposed.

It follows that the principal novelty of the beraita is that there is a special derivation in the Torah, from the superfluous word “upon her,” teaching that even in the context of the mitzva of yibbum there is a prohibition against uncovering nakedness.

The Gemara now discusses the novelty derived from the word “upon her.”

The reason is that the Merciful One wrote “upon her.”

If not for this,

I would have thought

that

a man’s wife’s sister may undergo yibbum.

What is the reason?

How could the prohibition of the erva have been permitted?

For we say: the positive mitzva

of yibbum

comes

to

override

the prohibition of a

negative commandment

concerning forbidden relations.

The Gemara raises an objection: 1.

I would say that we say, “a positive mitzva comes and overrides a negative

commandment,”

when the matter concerns overriding

a prohibition of

a mere negative commandment.

But when the matter concerns overriding

a negative commandment punishable by karet—

does it override

a positive mitzva!? 2.

Furthermore,

there is another matter that we must determine: regarding

a prohibition that is

a mere negative commandment—

from where do we know that

a positive mitzva

overrides

it?