Talmud for Yevamot 4:1

הדא דרבי יוסי בן חנינה. א"ל ר' בנימין בר גידל או מה עליה שנאמר להלן בשאינה יבמה הכתוב מדבר אף עליה שנאמר כאן בשאינה יבמה הכתוב מדבר. א"ל רב אחא התורה אמרה ביבמה ואת אומר בשאינה יבמה א"ל ר' בנימין בר גידל התורה אמרה בשאינה יבמה ואת אומר ביבמה. ואיקפיד ר' אחא לקיבליה. א"ר יוסי לא דרבי אחא פליג אלא דהוא מקפד על לישנא דשמע מן רביה מה כדון יבמה יבא עליה מה עליה שנא' להלן בשאינה יבמה אף עליה שנאמר כאן אפי' יבמתו אמרה תורה (ויקרא י״ח:י״ח) ואשה אל אחותה לא תקח אין לי אלא היא צרתה מניין ת"ל לצרור לא לצרתה ולא לצרת צרתה. אין לי אלא אחות אשתו שאר כל העריות מנין ר' זעירה בשם ר' יוסה בר חנינה קל וחומר מה אחות אשתו מיוחדת ערוה שיש לה היתר לאחר איסורה הרי היא אסורה להתייבם. שאר כל העריות שאין להן היתר לאחר איסורן לא כל שכן. מה זו ערוה פוטרת צרתה אף שאר כל העריות פוטרות צרותיהן עד כדון כר' עקיבה כר' ישמעאל תני ר' ישמעאל קל וחומר מה אחות אשתו מיוחדת ערוה שחייבין על זדונה כרת ועל שגגתה חטאת הרי הוא אסורה להתייבם אף כל ערוה שחייבין על זדונה כרת ועל שגגתה חטאת תהא אסורה להתייבם. מה נפיק מן ביניהון אלמנה לכהן גדול מאן דמר ערוה שיש לה היתר לאחר איסורה זו הואיל ואין לה היתר לאחר איסורה הרי היא אסורה להתייבם מאן דמר ערוה שחייבין על זדונה כרת ועל שגגתה חטאת הרי זו אסורה להתייבם זו הואיל ואין חייבין על זדונה כרת ועל שגגתה חטאת תהא מותרת להתייבם. ר' אייבו בר נגרי קריספי בשם רשב"ל (דברים כ״ה:ה׳) לא תהיה אשת המת החוצה לאיש זר זו אשה שהיא זרה לו אמרה התורה לא תהיה לו לאשה אפי' מצוה. מעתה לא תהא צריכה חליצה אמר ר' ירמיה יבמתו יבמתו התורה ריבתה בחליצה. אי יבמתו יבמתו התורה ריבתה בייבום. תני רבי ישמעאל (דברים כ״ה:ז׳) מאן יבמי זו שמיאן יבמי לא שמיאינו שמים. מעתה לא תהא צריכה חליצה. הווי צורכה להון דאמר רבי ירמיה יבמתו יבמתו

If it becomes shadowy, the intermediate period (twilight) has arrived. If darkness has set in, so that the upper atmosphere has become indistinguishable from the lower, night has arrived. Rabbi says: When, at the period of the new moon, the sun commences to go down and the moon to appear, it is twilight. know that I am the Lord, when I have opened your graves.2 In Palestine they said: Also the Key of Sustenance, for it is said, Thou openest thy hand etc.3 Why does not R. Johanan include also this [key]? — Because in his view sustenance is [included in] Rain.4 R. ELIEZER SAYS: ON THE FIRST DAY OF THE FEAST etc. The question was asked, Whence did R. Eliezer derive this? Did he learn it from Lulab5 or from the Libation of Water?6 If he learnt it from Lulab, then just as the obligation of the use of the Lulab comes into force on the [first] day of Tabernacles, so too should we begin to make mention of rain on that day. Or perhaps he learnt it from Libation. [If so, then] just as Water Libation may be [carried out] on the evening [preceding the first day] — (for a Master [interpreting the verse], And the meal-offering thereof and their drink-offerings,7 said, Even by night)-so too should one begin to make mention of rain on that evening!8 — Come and hear: R. Abbahu said: R. Eliezer deduced it from Lulab only. Some there are who say: R. Abbahu had a tradition. Whilst others say: He based it on a Baraitha. Which is the Baraitha? — It has been taught: ‘When do we [begin to] make mention of Rain? R. Eliezer says: From the time of the taking up of the Lulab; R. Joshua says, From the time when the Lulab is discarded.9 Said R. Eliezer: Seeing that these Four Species are intended only to make intercession for water,10 therefore as these cannot [grow] without water so the world [too] cannot exist without water. R. Joshua said to him: Is not rain on the Feast a sure sign of [God's] anger? R. Eliezer replied: I too did not say to pray but to make mention. And just as one makes mention of the Revival of the Dead all the year round11 although it will take place only in its proper time, so too should mention be made of the Power of Rain all the year round although it comes only in its due season. Therefore if one desires to make mention all the year round he may do so. Rabbi says: I hold the view that when one ceases to pray [for rain]12 one should also no longer make mention of it. R. Judah b. Bathyra says: On the second day of the Feast one [begins] to make mention. R. Akiba says: On the sixth day of the Feast. R. Judah says in the name of R. Joshua: The last to step before the Ark on the last day of the Feast makes mention, the first does not; on the first day of Passover the first makes mention, the last does not. Did not then R. Eliezer reply well to R. Joshua?- R. Joshua can answer you: It is quite in order to make mention of the Revival of the Dead [all the year round], since any day may be its time, but is rain seasonable at all times? Have we not learnt: Should Nisan terminate and then rain fall it is a sign of [God's] anger, for it is said, Is it not wheat harvest to-day etc.?13 ‘R. Judah b. Bathyra says: on the second day of the Feast one [begins] to make mention’. What is R. Judah b. Bathyra's reason? — It has been taught: R. Judah b. Bathyra says, Of the second day of the Feast, Scripture Says, we-niskehem,14 [‘and their drink-offerings’] and of the sixth day, u-nesakeah15 [‘and its drink-offerings’] and of the seventh day, kemishpatam16 [according to their rule]. Note [the letters] Mem, Yod, Mem which form the word mayim [‘water’].17 Here you have the biblical allusion to the Libation of Water. And what makes him [R. Judah b. Bathyra] fix it on the second day? — Because [the first of the allusions to the Water Libation] is found in connection [with the order for] the second day. Hence why we should [begin] to make mention on the second day. R. Akiba says: On the sixth day of the Feast one [begins] to make mention, for of the sixth day Scripture says, And its drink-offerings.18 Scripture thus speaks of two libations,19 the Libation of Water and the Libation of Wine. Perhaps both Libations must be of wine? — He [R. Akiba] is of the same opinion as R. Judah b. Bathyra who said, There is an allusion to water.2

Jerusalem Talmud Yevamot

MISHNAH: Fifteen [categories of] women¹Deut. 25:5 requires that the widow of any man who died without legitimate or illegitimate issue be married by the man’s brother. If, however, that brother is forbidden one of the deceased’s wives by the incest prohibition of Lev. 18 or the rules of Deut. 25:5–10, she may not be married by the brother to whom she is forbidden. free their co-wives²The House of Hillel hold that if one widow is forbidden, all co-widows are forbidden. This is not accepted by the House of Shammai, Mishnah 6. and the co-wives of their co-wives from ḥalîṣah and levirate forever³If one of three brothers had married the second brother’s daughter and another woman, died childless, the other wife was married by the third brother who already had another wife, if the third also dies childless both of his widows are forbidden because one of them is forbidden. This scenario can be extended to n polygamous brothers; n arbitrary.. They are the following: one’s daughter⁴This statement seems to be needed only for an illegitimate daughter, except the daughter from a gentile or a slave woman who are not legally his relatives (Rashi ad loc.). Legitimate children are covered by Lev. 18:17. However, the Yerushalmi (Note 135) does not make any distinction between legitimate and illegitimate daughters.
Sadducees (followed by Karaites and Christians) did forbid marriage with a niece since marriage with an aunt is a biblical prohibition and they held that the incest prohibitions of Lev. 18 are gender symmetric. Pharisaic opinion is that “one does not introduce punishable offence by argument;” what is written is forbidden, what is not written is not (biblically) forbidden., his daughter’s daughter and his son’s daughter⁵Lev. 18:10., his wife’s daughter and her daughter‘s daughter and her son’s daughter⁶Lev. 18:17: “The genitals of a women and her daughter (including mother-in-law and wife) you may not [both] uncover, her son’s daughter (wife’s granddaughter or wife as paternal grandmother’s daughter) or her daughter’s daughter (this forbids the wife’s maternal grandmother) you may not marry to uncover her genitals; they are relatives, it is tabu.”, his mother-in-law and his mother-in-law’s mother and his father-in-law’s mother, his sister⁷This is needed only for the maternal halfsister (Lev. 18:9) married to a paternal halfbrother. It will be established that the levirate applies only to paternal brothers; the first marriage of the halfsister was legitimate. and his maternat aunt⁸Lev. 18:13. and his wife’s sister⁹Lev. 18:18., his maternal halfbrother’s wife¹⁰Lev. 18:16. It is assumed that the halfbrother died or divorced his wife who then married a paternal halfbrother of the man in question to whom she was not related. The earlier marriage to the maternal halfbrother forbade her permanently to the levir, the brother-in-law on the husband’s side.
Since in Deut. 25, “brother” is assumed to mean “paternal brother”, it needs some discussion in the Halakhah why in Lev. 18 “brother” may mean “maternal or paternal brother” since the usual stance is that in legal texts one word can have only one meaning., the wife of his brother who did not live in his world¹¹Deut. 25:5 introduces the rules of the levirate with the statement “If brothers live together”. This means that a brother born after the death of another cannot marry the widow of the deceased, i. e., the childless widow does not have to wait until the newborn baby grows up to marry her but, if there is no other brother, she may immediately marry outside the family., and his daughter-in-law¹²This is obvious (Lev. 18:15) except for the case that the son had died and his widow married a brother of her father-in-law unrelated to her. The prohibition of 18:15 is permanent; the earlier marriage to the son forbade her permanently to the father-in-law..

Ask RabbiBookmarkShareCopy

Jerusalem Talmud Yevamot

⁶Mishnah 4:10. There, we have stated: “If a brother gave qiddushin to the sister of a woman waiting for the levir⁷After the death of the brother, when the sister-in-law’s sister was prohibited to him since the widow is a candidate for levirate with any one of the brothers., they said in the name of Rebbi Jehudah ben Bathyra: One says to him, wait until your brother has acted. If [one of the] brothers performed ḥalîṣah or married her, he may marry his wife⁸Since the candidacy obstacle to marriage was removed. The same holds if the widow dies.. If the sister-in-law died, he may marry his wife. If the levir died, he has to send away his wife by a bill of divorce and his brother’s widow by ḥalîṣah.⁹Only if he is the only remaining brother. Then he is forbidden to marry his betrothed and has to divorce her. The widow becomes the sister of a woman divorced by him and cannot be married.” It says only: If the sister-in-law died, his wife is permitted to him. But if his wife died, his sister-in-law is forbidden to him. Rebbi Joḥanan said, these are the words of Rebbi Eliezer¹⁰The source of the argument is Mishnah 13:6. In the tradition of the Babli, the author is R. Eleazar (ben Arakh, the Tanna). The Babli disagrees (41a) and holds that both opinions are compatible with the position of the Sages who in this case might agree with R. Eleazar that a woman whom a brother could not marry for one moment is permanently forbidden to him.. But the Sages say, if his sister-in-law died, his wife is permitted to him, if his wife died, his sister-in-law is permitted to him. Rebbi Joḥanan said¹¹In Chapter 1 (Note 71), this is a statement of R. Eleazar (the Amora) in the name of R. Abun. In the Babli, 27b, R. Joḥanan disagrees and holds that any sister-in-law who cannot be married in levirate at the moment of death of her husband can never be a party to levirate., the Sages hold that for anything induced by a cause, if the cause is removed the prohibition is removed. But for Rebbi Eliezer, if the cause is removed the prohibition remains.

Ask RabbiBookmarkShareCopy

Jerusalem Talmud Yevamot

Rebbi Yose ben Ḥanina asked before Rebbi Joḥanan: Here¹³Mishnah 4:10., you say, if his sister-in-law died, his wife is permitted to him, if his wife died, his sister-in-law is permitted to him, and here¹⁴Mishnah 3:1. If one of the brothers performs ḥalîṣah with the woman who became a widow later, the sister who first became a widow should be permitted to the other brother by the rule spelled out by R. Joḥanan; see below. you say so? He said to him, I do not know the reason for [the rule regarding] sisters¹⁵In the Babli, 27b, R. Joḥanan is quoted as saying that he does not know the author of Mishnah 3:1. This means he is unable to analyze the hidden premisses on which the ruling is based.. Rebbi Abba, Rebbi Ḥiyya, in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: I do not know the reason for [the rule regarding] sisters who are sisters-in-law¹⁶He spelled out that his criticism refers to Mishnah 3:1, not 4:10.. Rebbi Hila, Rebbi Yasa, in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: The prohibition of sisters who are sisters-in-law cannot be compared to the prohibition of sisters who are not sisters-in-law. Rebbi Jeremiah said, explain it that the house fell on both [brothers] at the same time¹⁷Cf. Note 1. In that case, we do not know which of the two brothers died first; there are no discernible first and second widows to apply the rule of Mishnah 4:10. A similar argument in the Babli, 28a.. Rebbi Yose asked, did Rebbi Joḥanan say, I do not know the reason for [the rule regarding] sisters who are sisters-in-law if the house fell on both [brothers] at the same time? Only if they died one after the other. They wanted to say, what was the problem of Rebbi Joḥanan? If the second one died, why should the first one not be permitted to him? But if the first one died, the second should be forbidden to him. Rebbi Yudan said, both cases are the same problem for him. And candidacy counts for nothing since if there are three brothers,two of them paternal but not maternal halfbrothers, and two maternal but not paternal halfbrothers. If the paternal halfbrother died first¹⁸Brother 2 is paternal halfbrother of brother 1 and maternal halfbrother of brother 3. There is no relationship between 1 and 3. If 1 dies childless, his widow becomes a candidate for levirate with 2. and the second brother had no time to perform ḥalîṣah or levirate before he died, and she became eligible for his maternal halfbrother, may he not take her¹⁹If candidacy had given her some status comparable a wife of 2, she would be forbidden to 3. Since this case is never mentioned, one has to conclude that for 3 she is the widow of an unrelated man. In the Babli, Nedarim 74a, this position is ascribed to R. Aqiba, but not accepted by the other Sages.? This shows that candidacy is nothing, [otherwise] she should be forbidden as the maternal halfbrother’s wife.

Ask RabbiBookmarkShareCopy

Talmud for Yevamot 4:1

Jerusalem Talmud Yevamot

Jerusalem Talmud Yevamot

Jerusalem Talmud Yevamot

Jerusalem Talmud Yevamot

Jerusalem Talmud Yevamot

Jerusalem Talmud Yevamot

Jerusalem Talmud Yevamot

Jerusalem Talmud Yevamot

Jerusalem Talmud Yevamot

Jerusalem Talmud Yevamot

Jerusalem Talmud Yevamot

Jerusalem Talmud Yevamot

Jerusalem Talmud Yevamot

Jerusalem Talmud Yevamot

Jerusalem Talmud Kiddushin