Yevamot 9b (ט:) — the Talmud in English

The wife of his brother who was not in his world,

over which Rabbi Shimon and the Rabbis disagree,

concerning a case where she performed yibbum with his second brother, who was with him in his world, and afterward the second brother died: whether she may perform yibbum with the third brother, who was not in the world of the first brother [but was in the world of the second brother], or not.

For Rabbi Shimon holds that since the second brother performed yibbum with her, and the third brother was born, the third brother encountered her not as the wife of the first brother but as the wife of the second brother.

And since the third brother was in the world together with the second brother, if the second brother dies, she falls before him for yibbum.

And

nevertheless

it teaches

the case of the wife of his brother who was not in his world among the forbidden relations in our Mishna, meaning that she may not perform yibbum when she falls from the second brother, and she even exempted her rival wife, in accordance with the Rabbis. But this is contrary to Rabbi Shimon, who holds that she herself may perform yibbum! And we answer:

When he was born

the third brother,

and afterward the second performed yibbum,

with her,

Rabbi Shimon does not disagree

that she may not perform yibbum.

For if the third brother was born before the second brother performed yibbum with her, he encountered the wife of the first brother while she still retained the bond of the first brother’s marriage, since she stood ready to perform yibbum in order to perpetuate his name.

And since at that time he was forbidden to perform yibbum with her, as he had not been present together with the first brother in the world, she then became forbidden to him like the wife of a brother who has children.

And this prohibition is permanent, and the second brother’s performance of yibbum cannot remove this prohibition from her with regard to him.

Therefore, if the second brother dies, she is forbidden to him as a forbidden relation, and she may not perform yibbum with him; rather, she also exempts her rival wife.

And it is this case of the wife of his brother who was not in his world, over which there is no disagreement, that our Mishna is discussing.

And we challenge this:

But Rabbi Oshaya said

below [17b]:

Rabbi Shimon disagreed even in the first case,

for according to Rabbi Oshaya, Rabbi Shimon holds that even if the third brother was born and afterward the second brother performed yibbum, and the second brother then died, she may perform yibbum with the third brother.

And according to this, Rabbi Shimon disagrees with our Mishna, and it follows only the view of the Rabbis. And if the Mishna chooses an example that is disputed, it should also have mentioned his mother, who was raped by his father, despite the fact that this case too is disputed by the Rabbis and Rabbi Yehuda! And we answer:

That

below

Rabbi Oshaya was refuted;

he was disproved

Rabbi Oshaya.

was rejected.

Therefore, our Mishna can be established as referring to the wife of his brother who was not in his world, in the case where he was born and afterward the second brother performed yibbum, in which case Rabbi Shimon agrees with the Rabbis.

Two sisters who were married to two brothers of the yavam, and both brothers died, causing the two sisters to fall before the surviving brother for yibbum: he cannot perform yibbum with both of them, since each one is the “sister of a woman bound to him.”

The Sages prohibited the sister of the yevama who is bound to him for yibbum, as though she were his relative.

As will be explained later in the tractate.

We find two principles concerning two sisters who fall before two brothers for yibbum—that is, the two sisters were married to two brothers, both brothers died, and both women consequently fall for yibbum:

The first principle is stated below in the Mishna, on 20a:

Her sister [the sister of the forbidden relation], who is her yevama [who falls together with her for yibbum]—either performs halitza or performs yibbum!

That is, if two sisters fall before one yavam, and one of the sisters is forbidden to this yavam by a Torah prohibition of forbidden relations—for example, if one of the sisters was his mother-in-law—this sister is not bound to him at all.

Therefore, her sister may perform yibbum with him.

For this sister is not considered the “sister of a woman bound to him,” since her other sister, who is his mother-in-law, is a forbidden relation to him and is not bound to him for yibbum.

In this case, according to this principle, only one of the sisters performs yibbum, while the other is released because of the forbidden relationship.

The second principle is taught below, at the beginning of the chapter of Four Brothers:

Two brothers married two sisters, and they died, and they had two brothers—

The two brothers are forbidden to perform yibbum with the two sisters, since each one is the “sister of a woman bound to him,” and it is forbidden by rabbinic decree to perform yibbum with the relative of a woman bound to him.

But if it happened that the two sisters were the respective mothers-in-law of the two brothers—one sister being the mother-in-law of one brother and the other sister being the mother-in-law of the second brother—then both perform yibbum: each one performs yibbum with the brother to whom she is permitted.

For neither one is considered the “sister of a woman bound to him,” since her sister is a forbidden relation to him and is not bound to him.

And thus I apply to them the following formulation: The one forbidden to this brother is permitted to that one,

and the one forbidden to that one is permitted to this one!

The Mishna adds there: And this is what they said [the first principle]:

The sister of a forbidden relation, when she is her yevama [when two sisters fall for yibbum, one is a forbidden relation and her sister is the yevama who is permitted]—either performs halitza or performs yibbum.

And we ask:

But Rav Yehuda said that Rav said, and likewise Rabbi Hiyya taught:

In all of them,

in all fifteen forbidden relations taught in our Mishna, if two sisters fall before two brothers, one being a forbidden relation to one brother and the other being a forbidden relation to the other brother,

I

can

apply to them

the two principles formulated by the Sages concerning two sisters who fall for yibbum.

A. The principle repeated in the Mishna below, in the chapter of Four Brothers:

The sister

forbidden to this brother—

is permitted to that one,

the other brother, to whom she is not a forbidden relation.

And

the second sister,

forbidden to this brother—

is permitted to that one,

the other brother, to whom she is not a forbidden relation.

B.

And her sister

of the forbidden relation, when

she is her yevama

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

either performs halitza or performs yibbum.

For the sister of the forbidden relation is not subject to the prohibition of “the sister of a woman bound to him,” since the forbidden relation is not bound for yibbum with regard to the brother to whom she is forbidden.

And Rav Yehuda interprets,

teaches and establishes the two principles of “the one forbidden to this brother is permitted to that one,” and “her sister, who is her yevama, either performs halitza or performs yibbum,” only with regard to those forbidden relations in the list beginning

with his mother-in-law and onward.

But

with regard to

the six cases at the beginning,

the first six forbidden relations among the fifteen, he

does not

teach the principle “the one forbidden to this brother is permitted to that one.”

What is the reason?

Since his daughter,

the first in the list of the six forbidden relations involving a “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],

is found only through rape

in the sense that only if the brothers raped the mother of the daughters can I apply to the two sister-daughters the principle “the one forbidden to this brother 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 could not marry her, since she would be forbidden to him as a brother’s wife. It is possible only if the first brother raped her initially, after which the second could marry her.

And according to Rav Yehuda, the tanna of the Mishna

is discussing

only the possibilities involving both principles that arise

through marriage.

But the possibilities involving both principles that can arise only

through rape—

he is not discussing!

And

if

Abaye

interprets,

teaches and establishes

even

the case of

his daughter born of a raped woman,

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

Since it can indeed be found,

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

If you wish,

if you prefer—

let it be through rape.

If you wish,

if you prefer—

let it be through marriage.

But the wife of his brother who was not in his world—

no,

we do not apply to her the principle “the one forbidden to this brother is permitted to that one.”

What is the reason?

Since

only

for Rabbi Shimon can it be found,

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

for the Rabbis it cannot be found.

In a dispute—

he is not discussing it.

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

such a possibility exists with six brothers,

in accordance with Rabbi Shimon.