Yevamot 8a (ח.) — the Talmud in English

This is understandable where he married

the brother

who died

one of the sisters,

and afterward the brother who

the brother

who was alive

the second sister.

Since initially the living brother was prohibited from marrying the dead brother’s wife because of the prohibition against a brother’s wife, and only afterward, when he married her sister, was he prohibited from marrying her by the second prohibition, that of a wife’s sister.

In that case, it would indeed have been possible to compare the law of yibbum to the law of the impurity of a leper, and say,

since

since

it was permitted

the first prohibition was permitted to him, namely

the prohibition against a brother’s wife—

it was also permitted

to him the

prohibition

second, namely

a wife’s sister.

This is analogous to what Ulla said: Since a leper was permitted to place his thumbs inside the Temple courtyard, he was also permitted to place them there while impure with seminal emission, with the leper’s impurity being the first impurity to be permitted and the impurity caused by the emission the second.

Therefore, the word “upon her” was necessary to reject this reasoning.

Rather,

if

the brother who

the brother

was alive

first married one of the sisters, and was initially prohibited from marrying her sister,

and

only

afterward married

the brother

who died

the sister, and she then became prohibited to him by the second prohibition, that of a brother’s wife.

In such a case,

the prohibition of a wife’s sister

preceded

the prohibition against a brother’s wife!

Then it is impossible to say: Since the second prohibition, that of a brother’s wife, was permitted, the first prohibition, that of a wife’s sister, which took effect before it, was likewise permitted. Rather, the first prohibition remains in place.

And even if the brother who

the brother

who died

first married her, so that she was initially prohibited because of the prohibition against a brother’s wife, and only afterward the living brother married her sister—

also

it is not satisfactory to say: Since one prohibition was permitted, the other was permitted, because this case is not comparable to Ulla’s statement!

For in Ulla’s case, the leper was permitted to place his thumbs inside the Temple courtyard immediately when the morning of the eighth day dawned, before he became impure with the impurity of seminal emission.

Therefore,

this is understandable where he married

first the brother

who died, and died.

She then fell before the living brother for yibbum, and the prohibition against a brother’s wife was thereby permitted to him.

And

only

afterward married

the brother

who was alive

her sister.

For she was fit

in such a case she was fit

for him

for the living brother, to perform yibbum with her,

in the interim

during the period between the brother’s death and the time when he married her sister.

At that point, it would have been possible to say in the case of yibbum as Ulla did: “Since one prohibition was permitted, the other was permitted,” and he would be permitted to marry his wife’s sister, since the prohibition against a brother’s wife was permitted to him. Therefore, the word “upon her” was necessary to reject this.

Rather,

if

the brother who

the brother

who died

married a woman

and did not die

until the living brother married her sister.

And afterward,

before the brother died,

the brother who

the brother

who was alive

married her sister—

it follows that

she was not fit for him

the dead man’s wife was never permitted to the living brother

at all!

Therefore, we cannot apply to her the principle, “Since one prohibition was permitted, the other was permitted.”

But

is it true that

Ulla would not concede that if

a leper

saw seminal emission on the night of the eighth day,

when he was still not fit to place his thumbs inside, since the morning had not yet arrived, the appropriate time to bring his offerings and place his hands in the Temple courtyard, and he became impure with the impurity of seminal emission—

he does not place his thumbs inside?

And we do not say, “Since one prohibition was permitted, the other was permitted,” since

he had not yet emerged

still

at the time [

at the time ]

when it was fit to bring an offering in it,

because the impurity caused by the emission preceded the time fit for bringing his offerings and placing his thumbs inside.

If so, why was the word “upon her” necessary?

And we answer:

Rather, when “upon her” was necessary—

where the dead brother married

a woman

and died,

and she became permitted for yibbum,

and afterward the brother who

the brother

who was alive

married her sister. Therefore, it would have been possible to say that since the prohibition against a brother’s wife was permitted to him, a wife’s sister was likewise permitted to him, based on “Since one prohibition was permitted, the other was permitted.” Consequently, the Torah had to write “upon her” to reject this.

And if you wish, say:

For this reason “upon her” was necessary, since without it,

it could be derived

that there is a mitzva of yibbum even in the case of all those forbidden by a prohibition carrying karet—

by means of the juxtaposition, from Rabbi Yona!

Rabbi Yona expounded that, because all the forbidden relations were juxtaposed together, as will be explained in the following beraita, the law of one forbidden relation can be learned from the law of another.

Rabbi Yona’s juxtaposition concerns the liability for initial intercourse with a forbidden relation.

Liability for initial intercourse is stated with regard to a menstruating woman, as it is written: “She exposed her source.” Since a menstruating woman was juxtaposed with all the other forbidden relations, one is liable for initial intercourse with all the forbidden relations.

As Rabbi Yona said, and some say that it was Rav Huna, son of Rav Yehoshua:

The juxtaposition of all the forbidden relations to one another is derived from the fact that

the verse says

at the end of the passage concerning forbidden relations, including a menstruating woman [Leviticus 18]:

“For anyone who commits any of these abominations—

they shall be cut off!”

By using the expression “any of these abominations,” the verse included all the forbidden relations and juxtaposed them to one another.

Now, since we have Rabbi Yona’s juxtaposition, it would have been possible to say that

all the forbidden relations were juxtaposed—

to a brother’s wife!

And we could have said on the basis of this juxtaposition:

Just as a brother’s wife is permitted

for yibbum,

so too all the forbidden relations are permitted

for yibbum.

Nor can one distinguish between a brother’s wife, which involves one prohibition, and the other forbidden relations, which involve two prohibitions [one being the forbidden relationship and the other the prohibition against a brother’s wife], since one does not challenge a juxtaposition [Rashi].

Therefore,

the Merciful One wrote

with regard to a wife’s sister,

“upon her,”

in order to reject the permission of yibbum with a wife’s sister; and through Rabbi Yona’s juxtaposition, the same is learned with regard to the other forbidden relations, from a wife’s sister.

Rav Aḥa of Difti said to Ravina: Granted,

that

all the forbidden relations

listed in our Mishna,

on the one hand,

can be juxtaposed to a brother’s wife,

so that Rabbi Yona’s juxtaposition would teach that their law is like that of a brother’s wife, which is permitted for yibbum, and they too would be permitted for yibbum.

And

on the other hand,

they can be juxtaposed

all the forbidden relations

to a wife’s sister,

with regard to whom “upon her” was stated, prohibiting yibbum with her.

If so, the difficulty is:

What did you see

what did you see

that you juxtaposed

that you juxtaposed the other forbidden relations

to a wife’s sister,

which is prohibited for yibbum by the verse “upon her,” and thereby learned through the juxtaposition to a wife’s sister that all the other forbidden relations are prohibited for yibbum?

Juxtapose them

juxtapose all the forbidden relations

to a brother’s wife,

and permit their yibbum, just as a wife’s sister was permitted for yibbum!?

The Gemara gives two answers:

1.

Alternatively, one can say:

When there is a choice:

On the one hand, to juxtapose all the forbidden relations to a brother’s wife,

leniently,

and learn from the juxtaposition that they are subject to yibbum;

and

on the other hand, to juxtapose all the forbidden relations to a wife’s sister,

stringently,

to prohibit them for yibbum—

we juxtapose them stringently!

Therefore, all the forbidden relations are juxtaposed to a wife’s sister, in order to be stringent and prohibit them for yibbum.

2.

Alternatively, one can say: Here,

with regard to the other forbidden relations married to his brother, there are

two prohibitions [

the forbidden relationship and a brother’s wife ].

And

also

here,

with regard to a wife’s sister married to his brother, there are

two prohibitions [

a wife’s sister and a brother’s wife ].

And two

prohibitions

from two

prohibitions

we learn

through a juxtaposition.

But here,

with regard to a brother’s wife, there is only

one prohibition

involved.

And

therefore,

two

prohibitions, those of the other forbidden relations,

from

one prohibition,

one

of a brother’s wife—

we do not learn!

The Gemara now presents Rava’s view: Indeed, “upon her” does not teach that the forbidden relation herself is not subject to yibbum, because the positive mitzva of yibbum cannot override the severe prohibition carrying karet.

Rather, the verse “upon her” comes to prohibit her rival wife, and the derivation from “to afflict” is insufficient, as will be explained.

Rava said: The forbidden relation

herself

does not require a verse

to teach that she is not subject to yibbum, since

a positive mitzva does not override a prohibition carrying karet.

When the verse

“upon her”

was necessary

to prohibit the

rival wife

of the forbidden relation. The Gemara challenges Rava:

And

is it true that

the forbidden relation

herself

does not require a verse

to prohibit her for yibbum?

But it was taught

above [3b], in a beraita that expounds the verse “upon her” as the source for exempting a forbidden relation from yibbum:

I have derived only

that she is prohibited through the derivation from “upon her,”

but she

alone, the forbidden relation herself; from where do I derive her rival wife? The verse states: “to afflict”!

This proves that “upon her” comes to teach about the forbidden relation herself, while her rival wife is learned from “to afflict”!

The Gemara answers: The fact that the beraita derives from “upon her” that the forbidden relation is prohibited is not meant literally; rather, it is needed

because of her rival wife, as the Gemara will explain below, how both derivations, “upon her” and “to afflict,” are to be understood.

The Gemara continues: But the wording of the beraita still presents a difficulty, as it indicates that the derivation “upon her” indeed teaches that the forbidden relation herself is exempt from yibbum:

But the continuation of the beraita is still difficult, since it clearly indicates that the teaching “upon her” does indeed teach that the forbidden woman herself is exempt from levirate marriage:

But it teaches: I have derived only

from “upon her”

but

to exempt

them,

all the forbidden relations!

The Gemara answers:

Because of their rival wives

the beraita states the derivation from “upon her” already with regard to the forbidden relations themselves; but in truth, this entire derivation is required only for the rival wives of a forbidden relation, as will be explained below.

The Gemara raises a further difficulty against Rava from Rabbi’s statement, which provides another source for exempting the forbidden relation and her rival wife. This proves that without a special derivation exempting the forbidden relation from yibbum, she would be subject to yibbum, and we do not say that she is not subject to yibbum for Rava’s reason, that a positive mitzva does not override a prohibition carrying karet.

Come and hear: Rabbi says:

From here it can be learned that a forbidden relation and her rival wife are exempt from yibbum, as it is stated in the passage concerning yibbum [Deuteronomy 25]: “Her brother’s wife shall come to him, and he shall take her as his wife, and perform yibbum with her.”

The verse could have said: “And he shall take her as his wife and perform yibbum.”

Since instead of saying

“and he shall take”,

the verse says

“and he shall take her,”

this indicates that the verse comes to exclude something, and say: He shall take this woman as a wife specifically, but not another.

That is, there is a woman whom he may not take.

Likewise, instead of saying

“and perform yibbum”,

the verse says

“and perform yibbum with her,”

indicating that he performs yibbum specifically with this woman, but not with another.

That is, the verse comes to teach that there is a woman with whom he does not perform yibbum.

The implication of these two exclusions is:

to prohibit rival wives and forbidden relations

for yibbum.

Rabbi’s statement therefore proves the opposite of Rava’s view: It is not sufficient to say that a positive mitzva does not override a prohibition carrying karet; rather, a special derivation is indeed needed to exempt the forbidden relation herself from yibbum. The Gemara answers by emending the wording of the beraita:

Say

correct the wording of the beraita and state:

to prohibit the rival wives of forbidden relations!

The forbidden relation herself, however, does not require an exclusion from the verse.

We challenge this:

But he derives it from two verses!

Rabbi derives this from two verses, “and he shall take her” and “and perform yibbum with her.”

Is it not

necessarily the case that

one

verse he expounds

to

exempt

the forbidden relation

from yibbum,

and one

verse he expounds

to

exempt

the rival wife!

The Gemara answers on behalf of Rava:

No.

Rabbi does not intend to expound the two verses, one for the forbidden relation and the other for the rival wife. The forbidden relation herself does not require a derivation to prohibit her for yibbum, since a positive mitzva does not override a prohibition carrying karet.

Rather,

both this and that,

both verses, are expounded

for the

matter of a

rival wife, one for prohibition and the other for permission.

This is how he expounds them:

One verse,

One

verse, “and he shall take her,” comes to teach a prohibition: “And he shall take her”—this woman, but not another.

The verse comes

to prohibit,

to prohibit the

rival wife

of a forbidden relation

in a situation involving the mitzva.

That is, it prohibits the rival wife of a forbidden relation in a situation involving the mitzva of yibbum.

And one

verse, “and perform yibbum with her,” comes to permit, limiting the prohibition of a rival wife of a forbidden relation learned from “and he shall take her,” and teaching that not every rival wife of a forbidden relation is prohibited.

The verse comes

to permit,

to permit the

rival wife

of a forbidden relation

not in a situation involving the mitzva

of yibbum!

A special verse is needed to permit the rival wife of a forbidden relation when there is no mitzva of yibbum, since without it one might have understood that the prohibition of a rival wife of a forbidden relation, learned from “and he shall take her,” applies to every rival wife of a forbidden relation.

That is, since the rival wife is together with the forbidden relation in the same household, she acquires the status of “the rival wife of a forbidden relation,” and because of this status she becomes prohibited like the forbidden relation.

According to Rabbi, the Torah stated the novel law of a rival wife of a forbidden relation in the passage concerning yibbum to teach that this prohibition applies even where there is a mitzva of yibbum, and certainly where there is no yibbum.

Therefore, an additional verse, “and perform yibbum with her,” was necessary to teach that the prohibition of a rival wife of a forbidden relation applies only in a situation involving yibbum, and not to every rival wife of a forbidden relation.

The Gemara explains the derivation:

What is the reason,

how can you derive the permission of a rival wife of a forbidden relation when there is no mitzva from the verse “and perform yibbum with her”?

Because the entire verse “and perform yibbum with her” is superfluous!

For the verse already stated above: “Her brother’s wife shall come to him, and he shall take her as his wife,” and that would have been sufficient; it did not need to add

“and perform yibbum”,

or

“and perform yibbum with her,”

with the additional letter he.

Rather, the superfluous verse “and perform yibbum with her” teaches that the exclusion from “and he shall take her,” which teaches that a rival wife of a forbidden relation is prohibited, does not teach a general prohibition of a rival wife. Rather, only

in a situation involving yibbum is the rival wife prohibited

of a forbidden relation.

But

when there is no yibbum—

the rival wife is permitted

of a forbidden relation.

Rav Ashi said: Our Mishna also indicates this,

that the forbidden relation herself is not exempt from yibbum by virtue of a derivation from Scripture, but as Rava said, she is exempt because a positive mitzva does not override a prohibition carrying karet.

As it teaches

in our Mishna:

Fifteen women exempt their rival wives.

This indicates that the entire novel point that the tanna needed to state was that they exempt their rival wives from yibbum.

But “they themselves are exempt

themselves

and exempt

their rival wives,” which would indicate that there is a novel point even in the exemption of the forbidden relations themselves—

it does not teach!

Conclude from this

that there is no novel point in the exemption of the forbidden relations themselves, because they are exempt on account of the general rule that applies to all prohibitions: A positive mitzva does not override a prohibition carrying karet.

If so, the wording of our Mishna proves Rava’s view.

The Gemara now explains how Rava [and Rav Ashi as well, who inferred this from our Mishna] understands the two derivations, “upon her” and “to afflict,” as referring to the rival wife of a forbidden relation:

We inquire concerning Rava’s statement:

And what is different about the forbidden relation

herself,

that she does not require a verse

to exempt her from yibbum, since

a positive mitzva does not override a prohibition carrying karet,

if so, the

rival wife

of a forbidden relation, after you have learned from “to afflict” that there is a prohibition against a rival wife of a forbidden relation,

also does not require a verse,

there is no need for the derivation from “upon her” to exempt her from yibbum.

For she could be exempted from yibbum

because of

the reason Rava stated,

that a positive mitzva does not override a prohibition carrying karet!?

Rav Aḥa bar Bibi the elder said to Ravina:

Indeed, this is a valid argument.

Rather, what was said in Rava’s name must be emended, and

this is what they said

this is what was said

in the name of Rava: A rival wife also does not require a verse.

There is no need for the derivation from “upon her” to exempt the rival wife of a forbidden relation from yibbum.

Once we have learned the fundamental prohibition of a rival wife of a forbidden relation from “to afflict,” that there is a prohibition against a rival wife of a forbidden relation just as there is against the forbidden relation herself, it is obvious that she is not subject to yibbum even without the derivation from “upon her,” since a positive mitzva does not override a prohibition carrying karet. [For at the conclusion of the passage, karet is stated with regard to everything mentioned there, including the rival wife of a forbidden relation, which is learned from “to afflict.”]