Yevamot 8a — the Talmud in English

It is understandable where he married

the

dead

brother's one sister,

and afterward married

the

living

brother's second sister.

Since initially the living brother was forbidden to the dead brother's wife on account of the prohibition of a brother's wife, and only afterward, when he married her sister, was he forbidden to her by the second prohibition of a wife's sister.

Then it would indeed have been possible to compare the law of yibbum to the law of the impurity of a leper, and to say:

since

given that

it was permitted

to him—the first prohibition, namely,

the prohibition of a brother's wife—

it was also permitted,

the second

prohibition,

namely,

a wife's sister.

Just as Ulla said: since it was permitted for him to insert his thumbs when he was a leper, it was also permitted for him to insert them while impure with a seminal emission, the impurity of leprosy having been permitted first and the impurity of the emission second.

Therefore, “upon her” was needed to exclude this.

Rather,

if

the living

brother

married

one of the sisters first, and was first forbidden to her sister,

and

only

afterward married

the

dead

brother's sister, and she then became forbidden to him by the second prohibition of a brother's wife.

In such a case,

the prohibition of a wife's sister

preceded,

preceding the prohibition of 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 also permitted. Rather, the first prohibition remains in its place.

And even if the

brother

who died

married her first, and she was first forbidden by the prohibition of a brother's wife, and only afterward the living brother married her sister—

also

it is not satisfactory to say, “since it was permitted, it was permitted,” since this is not similar to Ulla's statement!

For in Ulla's matter, it was permitted for the leper to insert his thumbs immediately when the morning of the eighth day dawned, before the leper became impure with the impurity of a seminal emission.

Therefore,

it is understandable where the

brother

who died married first, and died.

And she fell before the living brother for yibbum, and the prohibition of a brother's wife was then permitted to him.

And

only

afterward married

the

living

brother her sister.

For she was fit,

in such a case,

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.

For then it would have been possible to say in yibbum as Ulla said, “since it was permitted, it was permitted,” and it would be permitted for him to marry his wife's sister, since the prohibition of a brother's wife was permitted to him. Therefore, “upon her” was needed to exclude this.

Rather,

if

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 was alive

married her sister—

it turns out that

she was not fit for him,

for the dead man's wife was not permitted to the living brother

at all!

Therefore, we do not apply to her, “since it was permitted, it was permitted.”

What?

For does Ulla

not concede that if

a leper

saw a seminal emission on the night of the eighth day,

when he was still not fit to insert his thumbs, since the morning had not arrived, which was the appropriate time to bring his offerings and insert his hands into the Temple courtyard, and he became impure with the impurity of a seminal emission—

he does not insert his hands for the thumbs?

And we do not say, “since it was permitted, it was permitted,” since

he had not yet left

still

at the time [

for the time ]

that was fit for bringing an offering,

because the impurity of the emission preceded the appropriate time for bringing his offerings and inserting his thumbs.

If so, why was “upon her” needed?

And we answer:

Rather, when “upon her” was needed—

where the dead man married

a woman

and died,

and she became permitted for yibbum,

and afterward the

brother

who was alive married

her sister, and therefore it would have been possible to say that since the prohibition of a brother's wife was permitted to him, a wife's sister was also permitted to him, by virtue of “since it was permitted, it was permitted”; therefore, the verse required “upon her” to exclude this.

And if you wish, say:

for this “upon her” was needed, since without it,

it could be derived

that there is a mitzva of yibbum even with all the forbidden relations involving karet—

by means of the analogy, from Rabbi Yona!

For Rabbi Yona expounded that, since 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 forbidden relation.

Rabbi Yona's analogy concerns the liability for initial penetration with a forbidden relation.

Liability for initial penetration is stated with regard to a menstruant, as it is said: “she uncovered her source.” And since a menstruant was juxtaposed with all the forbidden relations, one is liable with regard to all the forbidden relations for initial penetration with them.

For Rabbi Yona said, and some say Rav Huna son of Rav Yehoshua:

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

the verse said

at the end of the passage of forbidden relations, including a menstruant [Leviticus 18]:

“For anyone who does any of all these abominations”—

they shall be cut off!”

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

Now, since we have Rabbi Yona's juxtaposition, it would be possible to say that

all the forbidden relations were juxtaposed—

to a brother's wife!

And we would say by force of this juxtaposition:

Just as a brother's wife is permitted

for yibbum,

so too all the forbidden relations are also permitted

for yibbum.

And one cannot distinguish between a brother's wife, which has one prohibition, and the other forbidden relations, which have two prohibitions [the first, the forbidden relation, and the second, a brother's wife], for one does not refute an analogy [Rashi].

Therefore,

the Merciful One wrote

with regard to a wife's sister:

“upon her,”

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

Rav Aḥa of Difti said to Ravina: Since

all

the forbidden relations

enumerated in our Mishna,

on the one hand,

there is a possibility of juxtaposing them to a brother's wife,

of juxtaposing them through Rabbi Yona's analogy so that their law would be 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,

there is a possibility of juxtaposing them

all the forbidden relations

to a wife's sister,

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

If so, the question is:

What did you see,

what did you see,

that you juxtaposed,

that you juxtaposed the other forbidden relations

to a wife's sister,

with regard to whom “upon her” was stated to prohibit her yibbum, and through the juxtaposition to a wife's sister you learned that all the other forbidden relations are prohibited for yibbum?

Juxtapose them,

juxtapose all the forbidden relations

to a brother's wife,

and permit the yibbum of the forbidden relations just as a wife's sister was permitted for yibbum!?

The Gemara answers with two answers:

1.

If you wish, say:

when there is a choice:

on the one hand, to juxtapose all the forbidden relations to a brother's wife,

for leniency,

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

and

if, on the other hand, to juxtapose all the forbidden relations to a wife's sister, for

stringency,

to prohibit them for yibbum—

we juxtapose for stringency!

Therefore, we juxtapose all the forbidden relations to a wife's sister, to be stringent and prohibit them for yibbum.

2.

If you wish, say: Here,

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

two prohibitions [

a forbidden relation 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 an analogy.

But here,

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

one prohibition

in her.

And

therefore

two

prohibitions, those of the other forbidden relations,

from

one

single

prohibition, that of a brother's wife,

we do not learn!

Now the Gemara brings Rava's position, who says that indeed “upon her” does not come to teach concerning the forbidden relation itself that she is not subject to yibbum, since the positive commandment of yibbum does not override the severe prohibition involving karet of the forbidden relation.

Rather, the verse “upon her” comes to prohibit her rival-wife, and the teaching of “to distress” is not sufficient! 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 commandment does not override a prohibition involving karet.

When the verse was needed

“upon her”—

to prohibit

the

rival-wife

of the forbidden relation. The Gemara is astonished at Rava:

And

is

the forbidden relation

herself

not in need of a verse

to prohibit her for yibbum?

But was it not taught

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

I have only

that she is prohibited by virtue of the teaching of “upon her”

but she,

the forbidden relation herself; from where do I derive her rival-wife? The verse says, “to distress”!

And it is proven that “upon her” comes to teach concerning the forbidden relation herself, whereas her rival-wife is learned from “to distress”!?

The Gemara answers: The fact that the beraita expounds from “upon her” to prohibit the forbidden relation does not mean precisely that; rather, it is needed

because of her rival-wife

of the forbidden relation, as the Gemara will explain below how the two teachings, “upon her” and “to distress,” are to be learned.

Yet it is still difficult from the continuation of the wording of the beraita, from which it is proven that the teaching “upon her” indeed comes to teach about the exemption of the forbidden relation herself from yibbum:

But it teaches: I have only

to learn from “upon her”

but

to exempt

them,

all the forbidden relations!

The Gemara answers:

Because of their rival-wives

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

The Gemara raises an objection against Rava from Rabbi's words, who brings another source for exempting a forbidden relation and her rival-wife. It is proven that were it not for a special teaching 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 the reason Rava stated, that a positive commandment does not override a prohibition involving karet.

Come and hear: Rabbi says:

From here it is to be learned that a forbidden relation and her rival-wife are exempt from yibbum, as it is stated in the passage of yibbum [Deuteronomy 25]: “Her husband's brother shall come upon her, take her to himself as a wife, and perform yibbum with her.”

The verse could have said, “and he shall take her as a wife and perform yibbum.”

And since instead of saying

“and he shall take”,

the verse said

“and he shall take her,”

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

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

Likewise, instead of saying

“and he shall perform yibbum”,

the verse said

“and he shall perform yibbum with her,”

indicating that he performs yibbum specifically with this one and not with another.

That is, the verse came to teach that there is a woman who is not subject to yibbum.

The meaning of these two exclusions is:

to prohibit rival-wives and forbidden relations

for yibbum.

And Rabbi's words prove against Rava: the reason that a positive commandment does not override a prohibition involving karet is not sufficient; rather, a special teaching is indeed needed to exempt the forbidden relation herself from yibbum! And the Gemara answers the wording of the beraita:

Say,

correct the wording of the beraita and say in it:

to prohibit the rival-wives of forbidden relations!

But the forbidden relation herself does not require an exclusion from the verse.

And we refute:

But he derives it from two verses!

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

Is it not,

necessarily, 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 for Rava:

No.

Rabbi does not intend to expound the two verses, one for the forbidden relation and the other for the rival-wife. For the forbidden relation herself does not require a teaching to prohibit her for yibbum, since a positive commandment does not override a prohibition involving karet.

Rather,

both this and that,

both this verse and that verse—he expounds both verses

for the matter of the

matter of the

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

And this is how he expounds it:

One

verse, “and he shall take her,” comes to teach prohibition: “and he shall take her”—this one, and not another.

And the verse comes

to

prohibit,

to prohibit

the rival-wife

of a forbidden relation

in a situation of a mitzva.

That is, to prohibit the rival-wife of a forbidden relation in the situation of the mitzva of yibbum.

And one

verse, “and he shall perform yibbum with her,” comes for permission: to limit the prohibition of a rival-wife learned from “and he shall take her,” and to say that not every rival-wife is prohibited.

And the verse comes

to permit,

to permit

the rival-wife

of a forbidden relation

not in a situation of the mitzva

of yibbum!

And a special verse is needed to permit the rival-wife of a forbidden relation when not in a situation of the mitzva of yibbum, since without it it would have been possible to understand that the prohibition of a rival-wife, learned from “and he shall take her,” applies to every rival-wife.

That is, since the rival-wife is together with the forbidden relation in the same household, the designation “rival-wife of a forbidden relation” takes effect upon her, and by virtue of this designation she becomes prohibited like the forbidden relation.

According to Rabbi, therefore, the Torah wrote the innovation of the rival-wife of a forbidden relation in the passage of yibbum, to teach you that this prohibition applies even in a situation of the mitzva of yibbum, and all the more so when not in a situation of yibbum.

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

The Gemara explains the teaching:

What is the reason,

how can you expound the permission of a rival-wife of a forbidden relation when not in a situation of the mitzva from the verse “and he shall perform yibbum with her”?—

Since the entire verse “and he shall perform yibbum with her” is superfluous!

For the verse already said above, “Her husband's brother shall come upon her and take her to himself as a wife,” and that would have been sufficient; it need not have added and said

“and he shall perform yibbum”,

or

“and he shall perform yibbum with her,”

with the additional letter heh.

Rather, the superfluous verse “and he shall perform yibbum with her” teaches you 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 prohibition of a rival-wife of a forbidden relation in general. Rather, only

in a situation of yibbum is the rival-wife prohibited

of a forbidden relation.

But

when not in a situation of yibbum—

the rival-wife is permitted

of a forbidden relation.

Rav Ashi said: Our Mishna also precisely indicates this,

that the forbidden relation herself is not exempt from yibbum by virtue of a teaching from the verse, but as Rava said, she is exempt because a positive commandment does not override a prohibition involving karet.

For it teaches

in our Mishna:

Fifteen women exempt their rival-wives.

And it indicates that the entire innovation that the tannai needed to state is that they exempt their rival-wives from yibbum.

But “they themselves are exempt

and

exempt

their rival-wives,” which would indicate that there is an innovation also in the exemption of the forbidden relations themselves—

it does not teach!

Learn from it

that the exemption of the forbidden relations themselves contains no innovation, because they are exempt on account of the rule applying to all prohibitions: a positive commandment does not override a prohibition involving karet.

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

Now the Gemara explains how Rava [and likewise Rav Ashi, who precisely inferred this from our Mishna] explains the two teachings, “upon her” and “to distress,” with regard to the rival-wife of a forbidden relation:

We examine Rava's words:

And what is different about the forbidden relation

herself

that she does not require a verse

to exempt her from yibbum, since

a positive commandment does not override a prohibition involving karet,

if so,

the rival-wife

of a forbidden relation, after you learned from “to distress” that there is a prohibition of a rival-wife of a forbidden relation,

also does not require a verse,

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

For it is possible to exempt her from yibbum

because of

the reason Rava stated,

that a positive commandment does not override a prohibition involving karet!

Rav Aḥa bar Bibi Mar said to Ravina:

Indeed, this is a justified claim.

Rather, what was said in Rava's name must be corrected, and

this is what they said,

this is what they said

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

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

For after we have learned the very prohibition of the rival-wife of a forbidden relation from “to distress,” that there is a prohibition in the rival-wife of a forbidden relation just as in the forbidden relation, it is obvious that she is not subject to yibbum even without the teaching of “upon her,” since a positive commandment does not override a prohibition involving karet. [For at the conclusion of the passage, karet is stated for everything mentioned in it, including the rival-wife of a forbidden relation, which is learned from “to distress.”]