The Mishna on daf TB Nedarim 74 asked the question whether a yavam has the power to dissolve his yevama's vows. A husband died childless. His brother, the yavam, must either marry his widowed sister-in-law, the yevama, or dissolve their bond with the ceremony of halitza. The rabbis instituted a kiddushin like ceremony called mamar. The Mishnah posits three different opinions.
“With regard to a widow waiting for her yavam to perform levirate marriage, whether she is waiting for one yavam, if her late husband had only one brother, or whether she is waiting for two or more yevamin, if he had several brothers, Rabbi Eliezer says: A yavam can nullify her vows. Rabbi Yehoshua says: If she is waiting for one yavam, he can nullify her vows, but not if she is waiting for two. Rabbi Akiva says: A yavam cannot nullify her vows, regardless of whether she is waiting for one yavam or for two or more.
"The mishna then elaborates: Rabbi Eliezer said: Just as with regard to a woman he acquired for himself through betrothal, he nullifies her vows, so too with regard to a woman acquired for him from Heaven, i.e., the yevama, isn’t it logical that he should be able to nullify her vows?
"Rabbi Akiva said to him: No, if you say that a husband can nullify the vows of a woman he acquired for himself, over whom others have no authority, shall you also say that this is the case with regard to a woman acquired for him from Heaven, over whom others have authority? If there are two yevamin, each yavam has equal authority with regard to her vows.
”Rabbi Yehoshua said to him: Akiva, your statement applies in a situation with two yevamin, but how do you reply to Rabbi Eliezer in the case of one yavam? Rabbi Akiva said to him: A yevama is not the full-fledged wife of the yavam in the way that a betrothed woman is her husband’s full-fledged wife, and the yavam is not empowered to nullify vows at all.” (Sefaria.org translation)
Even though the Mishnah never mentioned the idea of mamar, Rabbi Ami teaches that it is implicit in the Mishnah. To prove that mamar is implicit in the Mishnah, the Gemara cites a baraita that is almost identical to our Mishnah, but is slightly different.
“The Gemara comments: It is also taught in a baraita that Rabbi Eliezer is addressing a case where levirate betrothal has been performed, in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Ami: With regard to a widow awaiting her yavam, whether she is waiting for one yavam, if her late husband had only one brother, or for two or more yevamin, Rabbi Eliezer says: The yavam can nullify her vows, and Rabbi Yehoshua says: He can nullify her vows only in a case where she is waiting for one yavam, but not if she is waiting for two. Rabbi Akiva says: Nullification is not possible at all, not if she is waiting for one, and not if she is waiting for two or more.
"The baraita continues: Rabbi Eliezer said to his disputants: And just as if one accepts that a man cannot nullify the vows of a woman in whom he has no share until she enters into his jurisdiction through betrothal, yet once she enters into his jurisdiction, she is fully under his authority for the nullification of her vows, so too with regard to a woman in whom he has a share before she enters his jurisdiction, i.e., his yevama, once she enters his jurisdiction, is it not logical that she be fully under his authority for the nullification of her vows?
"The baraita continues: Rabbi Akiva said to him: No, your a fortiori inference is refutable. If you spoke of a man having authority over the vows of a woman he acquired for himself through betrothal, that would be different: Just as he has no share in her before betrothal, so too others have no share in her. Will you say the same with regard to a woman who is acquired for him from Heaven, i.e., his yevama, for whom, just as he has a share in her, so do others, i.e., his brothers, also have a share in her, as they also are yevamin?
“The baraita continues: Rabbi Yehoshua said to him: Akiva, your statement fits a situation with two yevamin, but what do you answer for the case of one yavam? Rabbi Akiva replied to him: Did we distinguish between one yavam and two yevamin, regardless of whether he performed levirate betrothal or whether he did not perform levirate betrothal? And just as in other matters there is no such distinction, so too with regard to vows.
“The baraita adds a comment: Ben Azzai stated his response to hearing this discussion in this language: Woe [ḥaval] to you, ben Azzai, that you did not serve Rabbi Akiva properly.” (Sefaria.org translation)
Because the Gemara never decides which one of the three rabbis holds the accepted position, the Ron explains why he chooses Rabbi Akiva's position that the yavam may not dissolve his yevama's vows no matter what. First of all, he says that based on the consensus in massekhet Yevamot the levirate bond is substantial ( יֵשׁ זִיקָה ) and binds the couple together in a real way. Rabbi Akiva's position that the levirate bond is not substantial ( אֵין זִיקָה ) in the Mishnah has to change and he also agrees that the levirate bond is substantial. Nevertheless, he can still hold his position that the yavam may never dissolve the yevama's vows. The case of the arusa, the woman who has gone through the first stage of marriage, is qualitatively different from the case of the yevama, if the arusa has intercourse with another man besides her arus, her punishment is stoning. Even if the yevama has intercourse with another man, her bond with her yavam is weaker; consequently, she is not stoned. Secondly, the baraita concludes with Ben Azzai praising Rabbi Akiva's approach. Thirdly, in this argument between Rabbi Akiva, Rabbi Eliezer, and Rabbi Yehoshua, Rabbi Akiva has the last word. Since he has the last word, he must have won the debate.
No comments:
Post a Comment