Yevamot 9b — the Talmud in English

The wife of his brother who was not in his world, ![](pamud.bmp "

exact page location")

about which Rabbi Shimon and the Rabbis disagree,

whether, if she was taken in yibum by his second brother, who was with him in his world, and afterward the second brother died, she may be taken in yibum by 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: since the second brother took her in yibum, and the third brother was born, the third brother found 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 yibum.

And

nevertheless

it teaches

the case of the erva of the wife of his brother who was not in his world in our Mishna, that she is not taken in yibum when she falls from the second brother, and she also exempted her rival wife, in accordance with the Rabbis. And this is contrary to Rabbi Shimon, who holds that she herself is taken in yibum! And we answer:

when he was born

the third brother,

and afterward the second took her in yibum,

the second brother,

Rabbi Shimon does not disagree

that she is not taken in yibum.

For if the third brother was born before the second brother took her in yibum, he found her as the wife of the first brother while she still had the bond of his marriage, for she stood to be taken in yibum in order to establish a name for him.

And since it was then forbidden for him to take her in yibum, for he had not been together with the first brother in the world, she was then forbidden to him like the wife of a brother who has children.

And this prohibition is a permanent prohibition, and the yibum of the second brother does not help to remove this prohibition from her with regard to him.

Therefore, if the second brother dies, she is forbidden to him with the prohibition of an erva, and she is not taken in yibum by him; rather, she also exempts her rival wife.

And our Mishna is speaking of such a case of the wife of his brother who was not in his world, concerning which there is no disagreement.

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 took her in yibum, and the second brother died, she is taken in yibum by the third brother.

And according to this, Rabbi Shimon disagrees with our Mishna, and it follows only the Rabbis. And if the Mishna takes an example that is subject to disagreement, it should also have taken the case of his mother who was raped by his father, even though that case is subject to disagreement between the Rabbis and Rabbi Judah! And we answer:

that

below

was refuted

was disproved

Rabbi Oshaya.

was rejected.

Therefore, our Mishna may 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 took her in yibum, for in such a manner Rabbi Shimon agrees with the Rabbis.

Two sisters who were married to two brothers of the yavam, and the two brothers died, and the two sisters fell for yibum before the brother of the deceased, it is impossible to take both of them in yibum, since each one of them is the “sister of one bound to him.”

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

[And as will be explained later in the tractate]

And we find two principles concerning two sisters who fall before two brothers for yibum: namely, that those two sisters were married to two brothers, and the two brothers died, and both of them fall for yibum:

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

Her sister [of the erva], who is his yevama [who falls together with her for yibum], performs halitza or is taken in yibum!

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

Therefore, her sister, the erva, may be taken in yibum by him.

For this sister is not considered “the sister of one bound to him,” since her other sister, who is his mother-in-law, is an erva to him and is not bound to him for yibum.

And in this case, according to this principle, only one of the sisters is taken in yibum, whereas the second departs because of the erva.

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

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

the two brothers are forbidden to take the two sisters in yibum, because each one of them is “the sister of one bound to him,” and it is forbidden rabbinically to take the relatives of one bound to him in yibum.

But if it happened that the two sisters were the mothers-in-law of the two brothers—one sister was the mother-in-law of this brother, and the other sister was the mother-in-law of the second brother—then both of them are taken in yibum: each one is taken in yibum by the brother to whom she is permitted.

For each one of them is not considered “the sister of one bound to him,” since her sister is an erva to him and is not bound to him.

And thus I apply to them: the one forbidden to this one is permitted to that one,

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

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

The sister of an erva, when she is his yevama [when two sisters fall for yibum, one is an erva and her sister is the yevama who is permitted]—she either performs halitza or is taken in yibum.

And we raise an objection:

But Rav Judah said in the name of Rav—and Rabbi Hiyya likewise taught:

In all of them,

in all fifteen arayot taught in our Mishna, if two sisters fell before two brothers, when one is an erva to this one and the other is an erva to that one,

I

can

apply to them

the two principles given by the Sages concerning two sisters who fall for yibum.

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

The sister

forbidden to this one—

is permitted to that one,

to the other brother, to whom she is not an erva.

And

the second sister,

forbidden to this one—

is permitted to that one,

to the other brother, to whom she is not an erva.

B.

And her sister

of the erva, when

she is his yevama [

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

performs halitza or is taken in yibum.

For the sister of the erva does not have the prohibition of “the sister of one bound to him,” because the erva is not bound for yibum with regard to the brother to whom she is forbidden.

And Rav Judah translates,

he repeats and establishes the two principles of “the one forbidden to this one is permitted to that one,” and “her sister, when she is his yevama, performs halitza or is taken in yibum,” only with regard to those arayot that are in the list beginning

with his mother-in-law and onward.

But

the

six cases in the beginning,

the first six arayot among the fifteen, he

does not

repeat with regard to them the principle “the one forbidden to this one is permitted to that one.”

What is the reason?

Since his daughter,

who is the first in the list of the six arayot of “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 in rape,

for only if the brothers raped the mother of the daughters do I apply to the two sister-daughters “the one forbidden to this one is permitted to that one.”

But

through marriage—

it is not found.

For if one of the brothers married the mother of the two sister-daughters, the second brother could not marry her, because she would become forbidden to him by the prohibition of a brother’s wife. Only if the first one raped her initially could it be possible for the second one to marry her.

And according to Rav Judah, only the possibilities of the two principles

through marriage—

is the tanna speaking of them,

the tanna repeats in the Mishna.

But the possibilities of the two principles that are possible only

through rape—

he is not speaking of them!

And

if

Abaye—

translates,

repeats and establishes

even

the

daughter by his raped woman,

to whom I apply “the one forbidden to this one is permitted to that one.”

Since it is possible to find it,

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

If you wish,

if it is your desire—

let it be from rape.

If you wish,

if it is your desire—

let it be from marriage.

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

not

do we apply to her “the one forbidden to this one is permitted to that one.”

What is the reason?

Since

only

for Rabbi Shimon is it possible to find it,

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

for the Rabbis it is not possible to find it.

In a disagreement—

he is not speaking.

And Rav Safra translates: even the wife of his brother who was not in his world, and it is possible to find it with six brothers,

and such a possibility is found with six brothers,

and according to Rabbi Shimon.