|  |  | Previous Folio / Yebamoth Directory / Tractate List / Navigate Site # Babylonian Talmud: Tractate Yebamoth ### Folio 27a if he1 participated in the halizah with the sisters, the rivals are not exempt;2 how then should Reuben,3 where the halizah of Simeon4 has the force of a valid halizah,5 participate in an impaired halizah?6 — By saying. 'One brother participates in the halizah with all of them' he also meant 'the third widow'.7 But surely, 'All of them' was stated!8 -As the majority is on his side9 it may be described as 'All of them'. If you prefer I might say: Only in respect of exempting one's rival10 did Samuel say that proper halizah was required; as regards exempting herself, however, [any halizah]11 sets her free.12 [To turn to] the main text,13 Samuel said: If he14 participated in the halizah with the sisters, the rivals are not exempt;15 ff with the rivals. the sisters are exempt.16 If he17 participated in the halizah with the one18 who had been divorced,19 her rival is not thereby exempt;20 if with the rival21 the divorced woman is exempt — 22 If he17 participated in the halizah with one18 to whom he addressed a ma'amar, her rival is not thereby exempt;23 if with the rival,24 the widow to whom the ma'amar had been addressed is exempt.25 In what respect are the sisters different that [by their halizah] the rivals should not be exempted? Apparently because [each one of them] is 'his wife's sister' through the levirate bond;26 [but for this very reason] the sisters also, if he participated in the halizah with their rivals, should not be exempt, since those are the rivals of 'his wife's sister' through the levirate bond!27 — Samuel holds the opinion that no Ievirate bond exists. But, surely, Samuel said that a levirate bond did exist!28 -He was here speaking in accordance with the view of him who maintains that a levirate bond does not exist. If so,29 why are not the rivals exempt when he participated In the halizah with the sisters? One can well understand why Rachel's30 rival is not exempt; for, as he had already participated in the halizah of Leah31 and only subsequently participated in the halizah of Rachel, Rachel's halizah is a defective one;32 but Leah's rival should be exempt!33 -When he34 said that 'The rivals are not exempt', he meant indeed the rival of Rachel. But, surely, he used the expression 'rivals'!35 -Rivals generally. If so,36 how could the sisters be exempt if he participated in the halizah with their rivals? Is Rachel exempt by the halizah of her rival!37 Surely we learned: A man is forbidden to marry the rival of the relative of his halizah 38 — Samuel also [is of the same opinion] but draws a distinction according to the manner In which39 one began or did not begin: If one began with the sisters40 he must not finish with the rivals,41 for we learned, 'A man is forbidden to marry the rival of the relative of his haluzah';42 but if he began with the rivals43 he may finish even with the sisters,44 for we learned, 'A man is permitted to marry the relative of the rival of his haluzah'.45 R. Ashi said: Your former assumption46 may still be upheld, and [yet no difficulty47 arises] because the levirate bond is not strong enough to make the rival equal to the forbidden relative herself.48 It was taught in agreement with the view of R. Ashi: If the levir participated in the halizah with the sisters, their rivals are not thereby exempt; but if with the rivals, the sisters are thereby exempt. What is the reason? Obviously49 because he is of the opinion that a levirate bond exists and that that bond is not strong enough to make the rival equal to the forbidden relative herself. R. Abba b. Memel said: Who is the author of this?50 Beth Shammai; for we learned: Beth Shammai permit the rivals to the [surviving] brothers.51 If so,52 let them53 be taken in levirate marriage also!54 [This is] in agreement with R. Johanan b. Nuri who said: Come, let us issue an ordinance that the rivals perform the halizah but do not marry the levir.55 But did not a Master say that they had hardly time to conclude the matter before confusion set in?56 — R. Nahman b. Isaac replied: After him57 they re-ordained it. The question was raised: To Part b Original footnotes renumbered. See Structure of the Talmud Files A levir whose two deceased childless brothers were survived by two widows who were sisters, each of whom had also a rival. Because the halizah with the sisters is defective, the levir not being in a position to marry either of them. Cf. supra p. 263, n. 11, Cf. supra note 2, cf. note 4. Simeon, having participated in no halizah, the second sister is not the sister of his haluzah. In the case of Reuben who had already participated in the halizah of one sister, the halizah with the second is a halizah performed by the sister of his haluzah, which is not a completely valid operation. I.e., the second brother, after he participated in the halizah with the second widow, also participates in the halizah with he third (who is now the sister of his as well as of his brother's haluzah): and there is no need, according to Samuel, for a defective halizah to go the round of all the surviving brothers. How- then could the expression 'all' refer to the second and third widows only? Simeon having participated in the halizah of two widows out of the three. As he actually said, 'The rivals are not exempt'. Even a defective one. In the case of the three widows mentioned above, where there are no rivals, the defective halizah is, therefore, valid even according to Samuel. A passage from which was cited supra top of page. V.p. 164, n. 10. V.p. 164, n. 11. As the prohibition to marry the rivals is not so severe as that of the sisters, the halizah with the former is of greater validity and force than that with the latter. Cf. supra p. 163, n. 11. The levir. Of two sisters-in-law, widows of the same brother. By the levir prior to the halizah. A halizah after a divorce is defective, since the levirate bond had already been partially severed by the divorce that preceded it. Since no letter of divorce was given to her. Infra 51a. Since the halizah alone does not in this case exempt the widow; a divorce also, owing to the ma'amar, being required. To whom no ma'amar had been addressed. infra 53a. In consequence of which he may marry neither of them and the halizah in which he participates is for this reason of a defective character. A rival taking the place of a forbidden relative, being subject to the same restrictions as the relatives, is also forbidden to be taken in levirate marriage. Supra 18b. That no levirate bond exists and the halizah with the sisters is consequently perfectly valid. I.e., the sister who was second to perform the halizah. Rachel was Jacob's second, Leah his first wife (v. Gen. XXIX, 23-28). I.e., the first sister. Cf. previous note. Because Rachel cannot any more be married to him owing to her being the sister of his haluzah. Leah's halizah having been perfect, since the levir could have married her if he wished. Samuel. The plural. That the expression of 'rivals' refers only to rivals of the sister who was second to perform the halizah and not to those of the first also. Would the sister of a haluzah be exempt by the halizah of her rival? Infra 40b. As he cannot marry the rival of Rachel who is his haluzah's sister, his halizah with her would be of a defective character which, consequently, could not exempt Rachel. Lit., 'he said'. Participated in the halizah with one of them. By participating in the halizah with the rival of the second sister. Such halizah would not exempt the sister. Much more so the relative herself. The halizah, therefore, being defective, would have to be performed by both the second sister and her rival. If he participated in the halizah with the rival of the first sister. He may participate in halizah not only with the rival of the second sister and thus exempt the sister herself, but also with the second sister and thus exempt her rival. Rachel (the second sister), being the relative of Leah (the first sister) who is the 'rival' of the haluzah, is consequently permitted to marry the levir, and her halizah is, therefore, perfectly valid and exempts also her rival. That the rivals are not exempted by the halizah of the sisters, owing to its defectiveness which is due to the existence of the levirate bond (cf. supra p. 164, n. 21). As to why the halizah of the rival of the relative of a haluzah should be more valid than that of the relative of the haluzah herself (v. supra p. 266, n. 2). The Rabbis who forbade the marriage of a zekukah owing to the levirate bond did not extend the prohibition to her rival. The halizah of the latter is, therefore, more valid and exempts also the former. Lit., 'not'? The Baraitha quoted. Supra 132, 'Ed. Iv, 8; as marriage with the rivals is permitted, their halizah also (cf. supra p. 163, n. 11) is perfectly valid. That the Baraitha quoted represents the view of Beth Shammai. The rivals. Why then was only halizah mentioned? Supra 13b, 14b. Supra 15a, q.v. notes. R. Johanan b. Nuri. Tractate List / Glossary / / Bible Reference ### Yebamoth 27b Between the one1 who was given2 a letter of divorce and the other1 to whom a ma'amar had been addressed2 who is to be preferred?3 Is she who was divorced to be preferred.4 or is, perhaps, she to whom the ma'amar had been addressed to be preferred since she is nearer to him in respect to intercourse? — R. Ashi replied, Come and hear: R. Gamaliel, however, admits5 that a letter of divorce6 after a ma'amar,7 and a ma'amar6 after a letter of divorce8 is valid.9 Now, if a letter of divorce has the preference.10 the ma'amar after it should have no validity; and if the ma'amar has the preference, the divorce after it should have no validity. Consequently it must be concluded that they have both equal validity. This proves it. R. Huna11 said in the name of Rab: If two sisters who were sisters-in-law became subject to one levir, the one is permitted12 when he13 has participated in her halizah; and the other is permitted14 when he has participated in her halizah. If the first15 died16 he17 is permitted [to marry] the second,18 and there is no need to state that if the second19 died16 the first is permitted,14 since, as a sister-in-law who was permitted,20 then forbidden21 and then again permitted,22 she returns to her former state of permissibility. R. Johanan, however, said: If the second19 died16 he17 is permitted to marry the first,23 but if the first24 died he is forbidden to marry the second.19 What is the reason? Because any sister-in-law to whom the injunction. Her husband's brother shall go in unto her25 cannot be applied at the time of her coming under the obligation of the levirate marriage26 is, indeed,27 like the wife of a brother who has children and is, consequently, forbidden. But does not Rab hold the same view?28 Surely Rab said: Any woman to whom the injunction, Her husband's brother should go in unto her25 cannot be applied at the time of her coming under the obligation of the levirate marriage is, indeed, like the wife of a brother who has children and is, consequently, forbidden!29 -That statement30 applies only to the case where the woman is faced with the prohibition of 'a wife's sister', which is Pentateuchal;31 here, however, [the prohibition due to] the levirate bond is only Rabbinical.32 R. Jose b. Hanina raised the following objection against R. Johanan:33 IN THE CASE OF FOUR BROTHERS, TWO OF WHOM WERE MARRIED TO TWO SISTERS, IF THOSE WHO WERE MARRIED TO THE SISTERS DIED, BEHOLD, THESE MUST PERFORM HALIZAH BUT MAY NOT BE TAKEN IN LEVIRATE MARRIAGE. But why? Let one of the brothers take on the duty of participating in the halizah with the second widow, and thus place the first widow, in relation to the second, in the category of a deceased brother's wife that was permitted- then forbidden, and then again permitted,34 and thus she would return to her former state of permissibility! — The other replied: I do not know who was the author of the statement concerning the sisters.35 But let him rather reply that the meaning of the expression of MUST PERFORM THE HALIZAH, which had been used, indeed signifies that only one is to perform the halizah!36 -The expression used was THEY MUST PERFORM THE HALIZAH.37 Then let him reply that the expressions THEY MUST PERFORM THE HALIZAH 37 refers to women generally38 who perform the halizah!-It was stated, BEHOLD THESE.39 Let him, then, reply that [this is a case] where halizah was already performed by the first!40 -[The expression] THESE MUST PERFORM HALIZAH - To Next Folio - Original footnotes renumbered. See Structure of the Talmud Files Of two widows of the same husband who was survived by one brother. By the surviving brother. In respect of the halizah, if that halizah is to exempt the rival. None of these widows may be taken in levitate marriage: the one, because a letter of divorce was given to her, and the other, because she is the rival of the former. The only question is, which of the two should perform the halizah and which should thereby be exempt. I.e., shall she perform the halizah and thus exempt her rival? Cur. edd. add., 'because he began with her with halizah'. Rashal (Glosses. a.l.) reads, 'divorce' for 'halizah'. Both additions are absent in MSS, v. Tosaf. s.v. [H]) Though he holds that a divorce to one of the widows of his deceased brothers after a divorce to her rival is invalid (infra 50a). To one of the widows of his deceased childless brother. That had been first addressed to the other widow, her rival. Given first to the other. Infra 51a. Lit., 'there is'. If the ma'amar was made first, the subsequent divorce forbids the marriage of the second and also that of the first, the ma'amar to her not being regarded as actual marriage, and if the divorce was first and the ma'amar afterwards, the second widow also requires a divorce, the divorce of the first not having the force of halizah to invalidate the ma'amar addressed to the second. Over the ma'amar. Asheri: Judah. To marry any stranger. The levir. To marry any stranger. Widow; the one whose husband died first, and who became subject to the levirate marriage before the other. Before she had performed the halizah with the levir. The levir. Since death had severed his levirate bond with the first, and the surviving widow is no longer the sister of a zekukah. The widow of the brother who died after the first, and who became subject to the levirate marriage after the subjection of the first. To the levir. At the time she became subject to him there was no other zekukah. When her sister's husband died. When her sister died. V. note 2, because at the time she became subject to the levirate marriage she was permitted to him. V. note 2. Deut. XXV, 5. As in this case where she was forbidden to the levir, as 'the sister of his zekukah', at the time she came under the obligation of the levirate marriage through her husband's death. Lit., 'behold'. That had been advanced by R. Johanan. Infra 30a, 111b. Of Rab, just quoted. As in the case of three brothers two of whom were married to two sisters (infra 30a) in connection with which Rab made his statement. And is, therefore, removed as soon as one of the sisters dies. The same objection applies to Rab also (Rashi). Cf. however, Tosaf. s.v. [H] a.l. V. supra 2 p. 169, nn. 7, 11. I.e., the Mishnah is not authoritative. — Lit., 'she performs the halizah, (namely) one', i.e., the second widow. [H] the pr. particip. plural. In similar circumstances. Which implies the two spoken of. So that the other, who is not exempted by that of the first, must also perform halizah. Tractate List / Glossary / / Bible Reference |  |  |