Today’s daf TB Yevamot 30 provides four textbook cases of three brothers, two of whom marry two sisters and the third brother marries a woman who is completely unrelated to the two sisters. We’ll see a problem after analyzing case #1 and case #4.
Case #1: “In the case of three brothers, two of whom were married to two sisters and one who was married to an unrelated woman, the following occurred: The husband of one of the sisters died childless, and the brother who was married to the unrelated woman married, i.e., performed levirate marriage with, the deceased brother’s wife and later died himself, childless. In this situation, both women happen for levirate marriage before the other, remaining, brother. The first woman is dismissed due to the prohibition proscribing the sister of one’s wife, as she is the sister of this brother’s wife, and the second woman is dismissed due to her status as the first woman’s rival wife. Following the first levirate marriage, this second woman became the rival wife of the sister, and is therefore exempt from levirate marriage as well. If, however, the brother married to the unrelated woman performed only levirate betrothal, but had not yet consummated the levirate marriage with the sister, and he died, the unrelated woman, whose halakhic status with regard to yibbum is similar to that of a sister’s rival wife, must perform ḥalitza and may not enter into levirate marriage.” (Sefaria.org translation)
To better understand the Mishnah let’s give names to the players. Reuvan, Shimon, and Levi are brothers. Reuvan married Sarah and Shimon married Rebecca. Sarah and Rebecca are sisters. Levi married Rachel and Rachel is not related all to Sarah and Rebecca.
Scenario one, Stage I: Shimon dies without children. Because Sarah and Rebecca are sisters, Reuvan is forbidden to do yibum because Rebecca is a prohibited marriage, an ‘erva. Consequently, Levi does yibum with Rebecca.
Stage II: Levi dies without children. Reuvan still can’t do anything with Rebecca because she is an ‘erva and Rachel doesn’t need yibum or halitza because she is a co-wife of an ‘erva.
Scenario two, stage I: Everything remains the same except Levi only does ma-amar a not yibum with Rebecca.
Stage II: Levi dies without children. Rebecca is still an ‘erva. According to Beit Hillel ma-amar only creates the impression of marriage. Reuvan can’t do yibum, but must do halitza with Rachel.
The Gemara concludes that there is no substantial bond or אֵין זִיקָה. “The Gemara deduces the following halakha from the second clause of the mishna: The reason that the mishna requires ḥalitza is specifically because he, the brother who was married to the unrelated woman, performed levirate betrothal with the sister. Consequently, had he not performed levirate betrothal with her, the unrelated woman would be permitted to enter into levirate marriage as well. This is true despite the fact that the levirate bond could potentially render her the rival wife of his wife’s sister. Rav Naḥman said: That is to say, the levirate bond is not substantial (אֵין זִיקָה); the woman requiring levirate marriage is not considered married to the yavam. And this is true even if the levirate bond was with a single brother, as this widowed sister happened for levirate marriage only before the brother who was married to the unrelated woman; her levirate bond was with him alone.” (Sefaria.org translation)
Case #4 “In the case of three brothers, two of whom were married to two sisters and one who was married to an unrelated woman, the following occurred: Shimon, the husband of one of the sisters, divorced his wife, and then Levi, who was married to the unrelated woman, died, and Shimon, the man who divorced his wife, married, i.e., performed levirate marriage with, her, i.e., this unrelated woman. And then Shimon himself later died, so that the unrelated woman happened for levirate marriage before Reuven, the third brother, who is married to the second sister. In this scenario, Reuven is allowed to consummate the levirate marriage with the unrelated woman. This is the case that was referred to when they said: And with regard to all those fifteen forbidden relatives who died or were divorced, their rival wives are permitted to enter into levirate marriage. This is because at the time that they happened before the yavam for levirate marriage they were no longer the rival wives of a forbidden relative.” (Sefaria.org translation) I’m sorry I didn’t keep the names the same. I didn’t read the English translation of case #4 before explaining case #1.
Now concerning this case the Gemara concludes that there is a substantial bond יֵשׁ זִיקָה. “The Gemara deduces from here that the reason for this halakha is specifically that Shimon divorced his wife and after that Levi died and Shimon married the unrelated woman. But if Levi had died first, and later Shimon divorced his wife, then the unrelated woman would be forbidden to Reuven due to the levirate bond that existed between her and Shimon prior to the latter’s divorce. She would be considered the rival wife of the divorced woman who is the sister of Reuven’s wife. Rav Ashi said: That is to say, the levirate bond is substantial (יֵשׁ זִיקָה), even with two brothers. Although the unrelated woman required levirate marriage with two brothers, the levirate bond is substantial enough to create a relationship between the unrelated woman and Shimon such that the unrelated woman is considered the rival wife of the divorced woman, i.e., the sister of Reuven’s wife.” (Sefaria.org translation)
You would assume that all four an anonymous mishnayot’s conclusion will be consistent; however, the premise of the first case is there is no substantial bond אֵין זִיקָה according to Rav Naḥman and the premise of the fourth case is there is a substantial bond יֵשׁ זִיקָה according to Rav Ashi. The Gemara goes on to explain how each Rabbi would solve this contradiction.
“Rav Ashi could have said to you: Rav Naḥman’s deduction in the first mishna was not logically necessary. With regard to that mishna, one could have said that when the mishna requires ḥalitza in the case of levirate betrothal, the same is true even in the case where he who was married to the unrelated woman did not perform levirate betrothal with her. In that case as well, the unrelated woman must perform ḥalitza and may not enter into levirate marriage since she was the rival wife of his wife’s sister by levirate bond. And the reason that it teaches the ruling in the case of levirate betrothal was not in order to inform us that she was forbidden due to levirate betrothal, but rather to exclude the statement of Beit Shammai, who say that through the act of levirate betrothal one acquires the yevama” (Sefaia.org translation)
After much discussion the Gemara
comes to the conclusion that Rav
Naḥman says that the mishnayot don’t have to be consistent. “This
works out well if he holds in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yirmeya, who
said with regard to a seeming contradiction between this mishna and an
earlier mishna (13a): The mishnayot are disjointed; he who taught
this mishna did not teach that mishna. The earlier mishna established
the principle that if a man was married to two women, one of whom was a
forbidden relative, and he divorced the forbidden relative before he died, then
the rival wife is no longer prohibited to the brothers.” (Sefaria.org translation)
No comments:
Post a Comment