Yevomos

(ה) כִּֽי־יֵשְׁב֨וּ אַחִ֜ים יַחְדָּ֗ו וּמֵ֨ת אַחַ֤ד מֵהֶם֙ וּבֵ֣ן אֵֽין־ל֔וֹ לֹֽא־תִהְיֶ֧ה אֵֽשֶׁת־הַמֵּ֛ת הַח֖וּצָה לְאִ֣ישׁ זָ֑ר יְבָמָהּ֙ יָבֹ֣א עָלֶ֔יהָ וּלְקָחָ֥הּ ל֛וֹ לְאִשָּׁ֖ה וְיִבְּמָֽהּ׃ (ו) וְהָיָ֗ה הַבְּכוֹר֙ אֲשֶׁ֣ר תֵּלֵ֔ד יָק֕וּם עַל־שֵׁ֥ם אָחִ֖יו הַמֵּ֑ת וְלֹֽא־יִמָּחֶ֥ה שְׁמ֖וֹ מִיִּשְׂרָאֵֽל׃ (ז) וְאִם־לֹ֤א יַחְפֹּץ֙ הָאִ֔ישׁ לָקַ֖חַת אֶת־יְבִמְתּ֑וֹ וְעָלְתָה֩ יְבִמְתּ֨וֹ הַשַּׁ֜עְרָה אֶל־הַזְּקֵנִ֗ים וְאָֽמְרָה֙ מֵאֵ֨ין יְבָמִ֜י לְהָקִ֨ים לְאָחִ֥יו שֵׁם֙ בְּיִשְׂרָאֵ֔ל לֹ֥א אָבָ֖ה יַבְּמִֽי׃ (ח) וְקָֽרְאוּ־ל֥וֹ זִקְנֵי־עִיר֖וֹ וְדִבְּר֣וּ אֵלָ֑יו וְעָמַ֣ד וְאָמַ֔ר לֹ֥א חָפַ֖צְתִּי לְקַחְתָּֽהּ׃ (ט) וְנִגְּשָׁ֨ה יְבִמְתּ֣וֹ אֵלָיו֮ לְעֵינֵ֣י הַזְּקֵנִים֒ וְחָלְצָ֤ה נַעֲלוֹ֙ מֵעַ֣ל רַגְל֔וֹ וְיָרְקָ֖ה בְּפָנָ֑יו וְעָֽנְתָה֙ וְאָ֣מְרָ֔ה כָּ֚כָה יֵעָשֶׂ֣ה לָאִ֔ישׁ אֲשֶׁ֥ר לֹא־יִבְנֶ֖ה אֶת־בֵּ֥ית אָחִֽיו (י) וְנִקְרָ֥א שְׁמ֖וֹ בְּיִשְׂרָאֵ֑ל בֵּ֖ית חֲל֥וּץ הַנָּֽעַל׃ (ס)

Deuteronomy 25:5-10

(5) When brothers dwell together and one of them dies and leaves no son, the wife of the deceased shall not be married to a stranger, outside the family. Her husband’s brother shall unite with her: he shall take her as his wife and perform the levir’s duty. (6) The first son that she bears shall be accounted to the dead brother, that his name may not be blotted out in Israel. (7) But if the man does not want to marry his brother’s widow, his brother’s widow shall appear before the elders in the gate and declare, “My husband’s brother refuses to establish a name in Israel for his brother; he will not perform the duty of a levir.” (8) The elders of his town shall then summon him and talk to him. If he insists, saying, “I do not want to marry her,” (9) his brother’s widow shall go up to him in the presence of the elders, pull the sandal off his foot, spit in his face, and make this declaration: Thus shall be done to the man who will not build up his brother’s house! (10) And he shall go in Israel by the name of “the family of the unsandaled one.”

רש"י על דברים כ״ה:ה׳:א׳

(א) כי ישבו אחים יחדו. שֶׁהָיְתָה לָהֶם יְשִׁיבָה אַחַת בָּעוֹלָם, פְּרָט לְאֵשֶׁת אָחִיו שֶׁלֹּא הָיָה בְעוֹלָמוֹ (ספרי; יבמות י"ז):

Rashi on Deuteronomy 25:5:1

(1) כי ישבו אחים יחדו IF BRETHREN ABIDE TOGETHER, [AND ONE OF THEM DIE … THE WIFE OF THE DEAD SHALL NOT MARRY ABROAD] — This does not mean that they abide in one city but that they have one “abiding” in the world (that they were living at the same time) thus excluding from the operation of this law the wife of one’s brother who never was in his “world” (i.e. a woman may not marry her brother-in-law who was born after her husband’s death) (Sifrei Devarim 288:2; Yevamot 17b).

יבמות י״ז ב:ט״ו-ט״ז

ורב יהודה אמר שומרת יבם שמתה אסור באמה אלמא קסבר יש זיקה ולימא הלכה כדברי האומר יש זיקה אי הוה אמר הכי הוה אמינא הנ"מ בחד אבל בתרי אין זיקה והא כי פליגי בתרי פליגי אלא אי אמר הכי

Yevamot 17b:15-16

And Rav Yehuda said: In the case of a widow who dies while waiting for her brother-in-law to perform ḥalitza or levirate marriage, he is prohibited from marrying her mother. The Gemara comments: Apparently Rav Yehuda holds that the levirate bond is substantial; this would mean that the attachment between the yevama and the yavam is like that of marriage and that the yavam is therefore prohibited from marrying her relatives. But it must be asked: Why does Rav Yehuda say it in such a way? Let him say: The halakha is in accordance with the statement of the one who says that the levirate bond is substantial. The Gemara responds: If he would have said that, I would say that with regard to the levirate bond, this applies in the case of one brother, but if there were two brothers then the levirate bond is not substantial. The Gemara objects: But when the tanna’im disagree, they disagree in a case of two brothers, so how could one think that Rav Yehuda is speaking only in the case of a single brother? Rather, one must say: If he were to say that the conclusive halakhic ruling is that the bond is substantial,

יבמות ל״ט ב:י״ד-ט״ז

בראשונה שהיו מתכוונין לשם מצוה מצות יבום קודמת למצות חליצה ועכשיו שאין מתכוונין לשם מצוה אמרו מצות חליצה קודמת למצות יבום אמר רמי בר חמא א"ר יצחק חזרו לומר מצות יבום קודמת למצות חליצה א"ל רב נחמן בר יצחק אכשור דרי מעיקרא סברי לה כאבא שאול ולבסוף סברי לה כרבנן

Yevamot 39b:14-16

The Gemara paraphrases the mishna from tractate Bekhorot: Initially, when yevamin would have intent for the sake of fulfilling the mitzva of consummating the levirate marriage, the mitzva of consummating the levirate marriage took precedence over the mitzva of performing ḥalitza. And now that they do not have intent for the sake of fulfilling the mitzva, the Sages say: The mitzva of performing ḥalitza takes precedence over the mitzva of consummating the levirate marriage. Rami bar Ḥama said that Rabbi Yitzḥak said: In later generations they went back to once again saying that the mitzva of consummating the levirate marriage takes precedence over the mitzva of performing ḥalitza. Rav Naḥman bar Yitzḥak said to him in wonderment: Could it be that the later generations improved their spiritual level and now intend to consummate the levirate marriage solely for sake of fulfilling the mitzva? The Gemara explains that this does not mean that the later generations improved themselves; rather, initially they held in accordance with the opinion of Abba Shaul, and so the mitzva of performing ḥalitza took precedence, and in the end they held in accordance with the opinion of the Rabbis, and so the mitzva of consummating the levirate marriage took precedence.

יבמות ל׳ א:ז׳

מתני׳ שלשה אחין שנים מהם נשואים שתי אחיות ואחד נשוי נכרית מת אחד מבעלי אחיות וכנס נשוי נכרית את אשתו ומתה אשתו של שני ואח"כ מת נשוי נכרית הרי זו אסורה עליו עולמית הואיל ונאסרה עליו שעה אחת:

Yevamot 30a:7

MISHNA: 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: One of the husbands of the sisters died, and he who was married to the unrelated woman married the deceased husband’s wife, and then the wife of the second brother, the other one of the sisters, died. Afterward, the brother who was married to the unrelated woman died, leaving two women for levirate marriage before the remaining brother: The unrelated woman and the woman who was previously prohibited as the sister of his deceased wife. In this case, the sister is forbidden to him forever. She is not forbidden due to her status as his wife’s sister, as his wife already died and one’s wife’s sister is permitted after the wife’s death. However, since she was already forbidden to him at one time, she is forbidden to him forever. When she first happened before the brothers for levirate marriage, before the third brother married her, she was forbidden to the second brother as his wife’s sister. Therefore, she is forbidden to him forever. In addition, she exempts her rival wife, the unrelated woman, from levirate marriage.

יבמות ל׳ א:ח׳-י״א

גמ׳ אמר רב יהודה אמר רב כל יבמה שאין אני קורא בה בשעת נפילה (דברים כה, ה) יבמה יבא עליה הרי היא כאשת אח שיש לה בנים ואסורה מאי קמ"ל תנינא הרי זו אסורה עליו עולמית הואיל ונאסרה עליו שעה אחת מהו דתימא הני מילי היכא דלא איחזיא לה בנפילה ראשונה אבל היכא דאיחזיא לה בנפילה ראשונה אימא תישתרי קמ"ל הא נמי תנינא שני אחין נשואים שתי אחיות מת אחד מהם ואח"כ מתה אשתו של שני הרי זו אסורה עליו עולמית הואיל ונאסרה עליו שעה אחת מהו דתימא התם הוא דאידחי לה מהאי ביתא לגמרי אבל הכא דלא אידחי לה מהאי ביתא לגמרי אימא מיגו דחזיא להאי נשוי נכרית חזיא נמי להאי קמ"ל:

Yevamot 30a:8-11

GEMARA: Rav Yehuda said that Rav said a principle on this matter: Any yevama to whom the verse “Her brother-in-law will have intercourse with her” (Deuteronomy 25:5) cannot be applied at the time that she happens before him for levirate marriage because she was forbidden to him at that moment, is then forever considered to be like the wife of a brother with whom she has children, and she is forbidden to him. The Gemara asks: What is Rav teaching us with this statement? We already learned this in the mishna: She is forbidden to him forever, since she was forbidden to him at one time. The Gemara answers: This was necessary lest you say that this ruling applies only in cases where she was not eligible at all during the first time that she happened before the brothers for levirate marriage. Such is the case in the mishna, when she was forbidden to the yavam as his wife’s sister the entire time that she was eligible for levirate marriage. Even though his wife died after the other yavam married this woman, because she was forbidden to him that entire time, she is forbidden to him forever. But in cases where she was eligible at some point during the first time she happened before the brothers for levirate marriage, such as in the scenario where the brother’s wife died prior to the time when his other brother married her, one could say that she would be permitted. In that case, since the prohibition had in the meantime been canceled and she was indeed rendered eligible for levirate marriage with him during the period of the first time she happened before him, one might think that she would now be permitted. It is for this reason that Rav teaches us that even in this scenario she would be forbidden to him forever. The Gemara raises an objection: We learned this as well, as a later mishna (32a) states: In the case of two brothers who were married to two sisters, if one of them, i.e., one of the brothers, died and afterward the wife of the second brother died, then she, the surviving wife, is forbidden to him, the surviving brother, forever, since she was forbidden to him during the period she happened before him at one time. The Gemara answers: One cannot learn the halakhic principle from that case. Lest you say that there she is forbidden forever because of the following argument: When she was forbidden to the brother, she was precluded from entering this household completely, i.e., from the entire obligation of levirate marriage. She received total exemption from the mitzva of levirate marriage because this obligation applied only to the one remaining brother, and she was forbidden to him at the time that she happened before him for levirate marriage. But here, however, in the case Rav is referring to, where she was not completely precluded from entering this household because she still required levirate marriage with another brother, one could say: Since she is eligible and permitted to this brother, who was married to the unrelated woman, she is eligible for this second brother following the death of his wife as well, in other words, she was not rendered completely exempt from the obligation of levirate marriage. Lest one make this argument, Rav teaches us that under any circumstances she who was forbidden at one time is forbidden forever.

יבמות פ״ז ב:ד׳

ת"ל (משלי ג, יז) דרכיה דרכי נועם וכל נתיבותיה שלום

Yevamot 87b:4

The verse states: “Her ways are the ways of pleasantness, and all her paths are peace” (Proverbs 3:17). In other words, since the ways of Torah are those of pleasantness, the Torah would not obligate a woman who has married in the meantime to subsequently perform ḥalitza, as this might demean her in her husband’s eyes.

ויקרא י״ח:י״ח

(יח) וְאִשָּׁ֥ה אֶל־אֲחֹתָ֖הּ לֹ֣א תִקָּ֑ח לִצְרֹ֗ר לְגַלּ֧וֹת עֶרְוָתָ֛הּ עָלֶ֖יהָ בְּחַיֶּֽיהָ׃

Leviticus 18:18

(18) Do not marry a woman as a rival to her sister and uncover her nakedness in the other’s lifetime.

We use cookies to give you the best experience possible on our site. Click OK to continue using Sefaria. Learn More.OKאנחנו משתמשים ב"עוגיות" כדי לתת למשתמשים את חוויית השימוש הטובה ביותר.קראו עוד בנושאלחצו כאן לאישור