gistfile1.txt

&{[{"analysisInput":{"documents":{"id":"1","language":"en","text":[{"id":"1","language":"en","text":"[]interface {}{[]interface {}{\"implies that the mishna \u003cb\u003eteaches\u003c/b\u003e a case in which \u003ci\u003eḥalitza\u003c/i\u003e is performed \u003cb\u003e\u003ci\u003eab initio\u003c/i\u003e.\u003c/b\u003e This indicates that this is the first course of action and the only way to resolve the situation. The Gemara asks further: And \u003cb\u003elet him say to him\u003c/b\u003e the following: The mishna prohibits levirate marriage \u003ci\u003eab initio\u003c/i\u003e in this case, due to a rabbinic \u003cb\u003edecree lest he proceed and perform the \u003ci\u003eḥalitza\u003c/i\u003e with the first\u003c/b\u003e sister \u003cb\u003efirst,\u003c/b\u003e whereby it would be prohibited to consummate the levirate marriage with the second. Perhaps for this reason the Sages decreed that it is prohibited to consummate the levirate marriage even if \u003ci\u003eḥalitza\u003c/i\u003e was performed with the second sister. The Gemara answers: \u003cb\u003eIt teaches: They may not enter into levirate marriage.\u003c/b\u003e This indicates that \u003cb\u003ethe \u003ci\u003ehalakha\u003c/i\u003e of levirate marriage does not apply here at all.\u003c/b\u003e Accordingly, even after the fact, if he performed \u003ci\u003eḥalitza\u003c/i\u003e with the second sister, the \u003ci\u003ehalakha\u003c/i\u003e of levirate marriage would not apply to the first sister.\", \"The Gemara asks: \u003cb\u003eAnd let him say to him\u003c/b\u003e a different reason for the ruling of the mishna: It is due to a rabbinic \u003cb\u003edecree lest\u003c/b\u003e the second brother \u003cb\u003edie, and it is prohibited to negate the mitzva of levirate marriage.\u003c/b\u003e Perhaps for this reason it would be forbidden to consummate the levirate marriage in the case where two sisters happened before him for levirate marriage, and not due to the prohibition proscribing the sister of a woman with whom he has a levirate bond. The Gemara answers: \u003cb\u003eRabbi Yoḥanan was not concerned over\u003c/b\u003e the possibility of the \u003cb\u003edeath\u003c/b\u003e of a brother, and in his opinion there is no need to make a decree to address such cases.\", \"The Gemara asks: \u003cb\u003eAnd let\u003c/b\u003e Rabbi Yoḥanan \u003cb\u003esay to him\u003c/b\u003e that this mishna \u003cb\u003eis\u003c/b\u003e in accordance with the opinion of \u003cb\u003eRabbi Elazar, who said: Once\u003c/b\u003e the \u003ci\u003eyevama\u003c/i\u003e \u003cb\u003estood before him at one time as forbidden,\u003c/b\u003e even if it was not at the time that she happened before him, \u003cb\u003eshe remains forbidden to him forever.\u003c/b\u003e Perhaps the mishna could be explained according to Rabbi Elazar’s opinion. The Gemara answers: \u003cb\u003eSince\u003c/b\u003e the opinion of \u003cb\u003eRabbi Elazar\u003c/b\u003e is cited explicitly \u003cb\u003ein the latter clause\u003c/b\u003e of the mishna, it can be deduced that \u003cb\u003ethe first clause is not\u003c/b\u003e according to the opinion of \u003cb\u003eRabbi Elazar.\u003c/b\u003e Therefore, this ruling cannot be attributed to Rabbi Elazar.\", \"The Gemara asks: \u003cb\u003eAnd let him say to him\u003c/b\u003e that here the reference is to a situation \u003cb\u003ewhere\u003c/b\u003e the two brothers died at once, and consequently both of the women \u003cb\u003ehappened before\u003c/b\u003e the \u003ci\u003eyevamin\u003c/i\u003e for levirate marriage \u003cb\u003eat the same time. And\u003c/b\u003e this mishna \u003cb\u003eis\u003c/b\u003e in accordance with the opinion of \u003cb\u003eRabbi Yosei HaGelili, who says: It is possible to be precise.\u003c/b\u003e It is possible to determine that two events occurred at exactly the same moment, both sisters were forbidden at the time that they happened before the brothers-in-law. The Gemara answers: \u003cb\u003eThe \u003ci\u003etanna\u003c/i\u003e did not teach an unattributed\u003c/b\u003e mishna \u003cb\u003ein accordance with\u003c/b\u003e the opinion of \u003cb\u003eRabbi Yosei HaGelili.\u003c/b\u003e Any time the mishna is cited in accordance with Rabbi Yosei HaGelili’s opinion, it is always attributed to him explicitly.\", \"The Gemara asks: \u003cb\u003eAnd let him say to him\u003c/b\u003e a different explanation for the ruling: This mishna is indeed addressing a case where the brothers died one after the other, yet \u003cb\u003ewe do not know which\u003c/b\u003e sister \u003cb\u003ehappened\u003c/b\u003e before the \u003ci\u003eyevamin\u003c/i\u003e for levirate marriage \u003cb\u003efirst.\u003c/b\u003e In that case, it would be impossible to determine which sister would be permitted.\", \"The Gemara answers: \u003cb\u003eIf so, that which\u003c/b\u003e the mishna \u003cb\u003eteaches\u003c/b\u003e in the latter clause: \u003cb\u003eAnd if they married\u003c/b\u003e their wives \u003cb\u003ebefore\u003c/b\u003e consulting the court \u003cb\u003ethey should divorce them,\u003c/b\u003e is difficult. Why must they divorce their wives in this situation? \u003cb\u003eGranted,\u003c/b\u003e the brother who took \u003cb\u003ethe first\u003c/b\u003e sister in levirate marriage must divorce her, as \u003cb\u003ewe say to him: Who permitted her to you?\u003c/b\u003e Indeed, she was forbidden as the sister of a woman with whom he had a levirate bond, and so he must divorce her. \u003cb\u003eHowever,\u003c/b\u003e the brother who took \u003cb\u003ethe second\u003c/b\u003e sister \u003cb\u003ecould say: My fellow\u003c/b\u003e brother \u003cb\u003econsummated the levirate marriage with the second\u003c/b\u003e sister, but \u003cb\u003eI am consummating the levirate marriage with the first\u003c/b\u003e sister. It is possible that after the other brother consummated the levirate marriage with the second sister, the first sister would then be permitted to him after the fact, and he is not required to divorce her unless it is certain that he violated a prohibition.\", \"The Gemara concludes: Indeed, \u003cb\u003ethis is what\u003c/b\u003e Rabbi Yoḥanan meant when he \u003cb\u003esaid to\u003c/b\u003e Rabbi Yosei bar Ḥanina: \u003cb\u003eI do not know who taught: Sisters,\u003c/b\u003e for according to these considerations he cannot properly resolve the ruling of this mishna.\", \"\u003cb\u003eWe learned\u003c/b\u003e in the mishna: If \u003cb\u003eone of\u003c/b\u003e the sisters \u003cb\u003ewas forbidden to one\u003c/b\u003e of the brothers due to a \u003cb\u003eprohibition against forbidden relatives\u003c/b\u003e because she was a relative of his wife or a relative from his mother’s side, then \u003cb\u003ehe is prohibited from\u003c/b\u003e marrying \u003cb\u003eher but permitted to\u003c/b\u003e marry \u003cb\u003eher sister.\u003c/b\u003e But \u003cb\u003ethe second\u003c/b\u003e brother, who is not a close relative of either sister, \u003cb\u003eis prohibited from\u003c/b\u003e marrying \u003cb\u003eboth of them. It enters your mind\u003c/b\u003e to say \u003cb\u003ethat\u003c/b\u003e a forbidden woman, such as \u003cb\u003ehis mother-in-law, happened\u003c/b\u003e before the \u003ci\u003eyavam\u003c/i\u003e for levirate marriage \u003cb\u003efirst.\u003c/b\u003e\", \"Accordingly, the Gemara asks: \u003cb\u003eAnd why\u003c/b\u003e would both women be forbidden to the second brother? \u003cb\u003eLet the son-in-law rise and consummate the levirate marriage with\u003c/b\u003e the sister \u003cb\u003ewho is not his mother-in-law first. Consequently, with regard to the other\u003c/b\u003e brother, \u003cb\u003ehis mother-in-law would be\u003c/b\u003e considered \u003cb\u003ea \u003ci\u003eyevama\u003c/i\u003e who was permitted\u003c/b\u003e to perform levirate marriage at the time that she happened before him, \u003cb\u003eand then forbidden\u003c/b\u003e when her sister happened before him for levirate marriage as well, \u003cb\u003eand then subsequently became permitted\u003c/b\u003e when his brother consummated the levirate marriage with her sister. If so, the mother-in-law \u003cb\u003eshould return to her original permitted status\u003c/b\u003e and may enter into levirate marriage with him.\", \"\u003cb\u003eRav Pappa said:\u003c/b\u003e The mishna is referring to a case \u003cb\u003ewhere\u003c/b\u003e the woman \u003cb\u003ewho was not his mother-in-law happened\u003c/b\u003e before the brothers for levirate marriage \u003cb\u003efirst,\u003c/b\u003e in which case she was permitted to both of them. When her sister, i.e., the mother-in-law, happened before them for levirate marriage as well, both women were rendered forbidden to the second brother, as each one is the sister of a woman with whom he has a levirate bond. Because the mother-in-law was forbidden from the time that she happened before the \u003ci\u003eyavam\u003c/i\u003e for levirate marriage, she can never be permitted to him.\", \"§ With regard to the case of two brothers who married their wives before consulting the court, the mishna states that the women should be divorced. \u003cb\u003eRabbi Eliezer\u003c/b\u003e disagrees and \u003cb\u003esays\u003c/b\u003e that this is a matter of dispute between Beit Shammai and Beit Hillel, as \u003cb\u003eBeit Shammai say:\u003c/b\u003e They may maintain them as their wives, and Beit Hillel say: They should divorce them. An expanded version of this discussion \u003cb\u003eis taught\u003c/b\u003e in the \u003ci\u003eTosefta\u003c/i\u003e (5:1): \u003cb\u003eRabbi Eliezer says\u003c/b\u003e that \u003cb\u003eBeit Shammai say: They may maintain them\u003c/b\u003e as their wives, \u003cb\u003eand Beit Hillel say: They should divorce them. Rabbi Shimon says: They may maintain them\u003c/b\u003e as their wives. \u003cb\u003eAbba Shaul\u003c/b\u003e disagrees with Rabbi Eliezer and \u003cb\u003esays: This was a matter of leniency for Beit Hillel.\u003c/b\u003e They were the ones who put forth a lenient ruling, \u003cb\u003eas Beit Shammai say: They should divorce them, and Beit Hillel say: They may maintain\u003c/b\u003e them as their wives.\", \"The Gemara asks about this \u003ci\u003ebaraita\u003c/i\u003e: \u003cb\u003eIn accordance with whose\u003c/b\u003e opinion \u003cb\u003eis\u003c/b\u003e the statement of \u003cb\u003eRabbi Shimon?\u003c/b\u003e This matter is a dispute between Beit Hillel and Beit Shammai, with different versions of their opinions, and therefore Rabbi Shimon should not have formulated the \u003ci\u003ehalakha\u003c/i\u003e in this manner. Indeed, \u003cb\u003eif\u003c/b\u003e he holds \u003cb\u003ein accordance with\u003c/b\u003e the opinion of \u003cb\u003eBeit Shammai,\u003c/b\u003e then \u003cb\u003ethat is\u003c/b\u003e the same as the opinion of \u003cb\u003eRabbi Eliezer.\u003c/b\u003e He would thereby conclude that the \u003ci\u003ehalakha\u003c/i\u003e is in accordance with the opinion of Beit Shammai, as per Rabbi Eliezer’s version. If so, he should have formulated his opinion in that way. \u003cb\u003eIf,\u003c/b\u003e however, he holds \u003cb\u003ein accordance with\u003c/b\u003e the opinion of \u003cb\u003eBeit Hillel,\u003c/b\u003e then \u003cb\u003ethat is\u003c/b\u003e the opinion of \u003cb\u003eAbba Shaul.\u003c/b\u003e The Gemara responds: \u003cb\u003eThis is what he is saying:\u003c/b\u003e Rabbi Shimon actually maintains a third opinion: \u003cb\u003eBeit Shammai and Beit Hillel did not dispute this matter;\u003c/b\u003e both agreed that the marriages may be maintained.\", \"§ The mishna stated: If \u003cb\u003eone of\u003c/b\u003e the sisters \u003cb\u003ewas\u003c/b\u003e forbidden to one of the brothers due to a prohibition against forbidden relations, then he is prohibited from marrying her but permitted to marry her sister. The Gemara asks: \u003cb\u003eWe\u003c/b\u003e already \u003cb\u003elearned\u003c/b\u003e this \u003cb\u003eon one occasion: When her sister,\u003c/b\u003e who is a forbidden relative to the \u003ci\u003eyavam\u003c/i\u003e, \u003cb\u003eis her \u003ci\u003eyevama\u003c/i\u003e\u003c/b\u003e as well, \u003cb\u003eshe either performs \u003ci\u003eḥalitza\u003c/i\u003e or enters into levirate marriage.\u003c/b\u003e\", \"The Gemara answers: It is \u003cb\u003enecessary\u003c/b\u003e that this be said here as well, \u003cb\u003efor if it taught us\u003c/b\u003e this \u003ci\u003ehalakha\u003c/i\u003e only \u003cb\u003ethere\u003c/b\u003e in its more general formulation (\u003ci\u003eYevamot\u003c/i\u003e 20a), then I might have said: The \u003ci\u003eyavam\u003c/i\u003e is permitted to marry the sister \u003cb\u003ebecause there is no\u003c/b\u003e reason \u003cb\u003eto issue\u003c/b\u003e a rabbinic \u003cb\u003edecree due to a second\u003c/b\u003e brother. There, there is only one \u003ci\u003eyavam\u003c/i\u003e, to whom one sister is permitted and the other is forbidden. \u003cb\u003eHere, however,\u003c/b\u003e in the case of two brothers, \u003cb\u003ewhere there is\u003c/b\u003e reason \u003cb\u003eto issue\u003c/b\u003e a rabbinic \u003cb\u003edecree due to the second\u003c/b\u003e brother, lest he consummate the levirate marriage as well, \u003cb\u003eI would say\u003c/b\u003e that we do \u003cb\u003enot\u003c/b\u003e allow even the first brother to perform levirate marriage, and both sisters-in-law should be forbidden to both brothers.\", \"\u003cb\u003eAnd if\u003c/b\u003e the mishna \u003cb\u003ehad taught us\u003c/b\u003e the \u003ci\u003ehalakha\u003c/i\u003e only \u003cb\u003ehere,\u003c/b\u003e it would have been possible to say that the permissibility of levirate marriage here is \u003cb\u003ebecause there is\u003c/b\u003e a second brother who \u003cb\u003eindicates,\u003c/b\u003e by refraining from performing levirate marriage, that the sister of a woman bound by a levirate bond is forbidden. \u003cb\u003eHowever, there,\u003c/b\u003e where there \u003cb\u003eis not a second\u003c/b\u003e brother, \u003cb\u003eI would say no,\u003c/b\u003e this \u003ci\u003ehalakha\u003c/i\u003e would not apply, due to a concern that people might wrongly conclude that the sister of a woman bound by a levirate bond is permitted. Therefore, it is \u003cb\u003enecessary\u003c/b\u003e to state this \u003ci\u003ehalakha\u003c/i\u003e in both places.\", \"It was taught in the mishna: If one of the sisters was forbidden to one of the brothers due to \u003cb\u003ea prohibition\u003c/b\u003e resulting from \u003cb\u003ea mitzva\u003c/b\u003e or due to a prohibition stemming from sanctity, then her sister must perform \u003ci\u003eḥalitza\u003c/i\u003e and may not enter into levirate marriage. The Gemara wonders: \u003cb\u003eWe\u003c/b\u003e already \u003cb\u003elearned this as well:\u003c/b\u003e\"}, []interface {}{\"If \u003cb\u003ea prohibition\u003c/b\u003e resulting from \u003cb\u003ea mitzva\u003c/b\u003e or \u003cb\u003ea prohibition\u003c/b\u003e stemming from \u003cb\u003esanctity\u003c/b\u003e will be transgressed through the levirate marriage, then the woman must \u003cb\u003eperform \u003ci\u003eḥalitza\u003c/i\u003e and she may not enter into levirate marriage.\u003c/b\u003e The Gemara answers: There is a novelty here: \u003cb\u003eThere,\u003c/b\u003e where the \u003ci\u003ehalakha\u003c/i\u003e is reviewed in general terms, it speaks of \u003cb\u003ea prohibition due to a mitzva alone.\u003c/b\u003e One woman happened before the \u003ci\u003eyavam\u003c/i\u003e for levirate marriage and it is only as a result of this prohibition that she is prevented from entering levirate marriage. \u003cb\u003eHere,\u003c/b\u003e there is \u003cb\u003ea prohibition\u003c/b\u003e resulting from \u003cb\u003ea mitzva and,\u003c/b\u003e in addition, \u003cb\u003eher sister\u003c/b\u003e happened before the \u003ci\u003eyevamin\u003c/i\u003e for levirate marriage together with her.\", \"\u003cb\u003eIt might enter your mind to say: Let the prohibition\u003c/b\u003e resulting from \u003cb\u003ea mitzva stand in\u003c/b\u003e the same \u003cb\u003eplace,\u003c/b\u003e i.e., level of severity, \u003cb\u003eas the prohibition against forbidden relatives.\u003c/b\u003e Consequently, the woman who is forbidden to the \u003ci\u003eyavam\u003c/i\u003e is considered a forbidden relative and her sister is permitted to him. Despite the fact that the prohibition resulting from a mitzva is not as severe, here is it is given equal status, \u003cb\u003eand\u003c/b\u003e we might say: \u003cb\u003eLet\u003c/b\u003e her sister \u003cb\u003eenter into levirate marriage.\u003c/b\u003e Therefore, \u003cb\u003ethis comes to teach us\u003c/b\u003e that this is not the case.\", \"The Gemara asks: \u003cb\u003eAnd\u003c/b\u003e why in fact \u003cb\u003edoes\u003c/b\u003e her sister not \u003cb\u003eenter into levirate marriage?\u003c/b\u003e The Gemara answers: Her sister is forbidden to him \u003cb\u003ebecause by Torah\u003c/b\u003e law the prohibited woman \u003cb\u003eis\u003c/b\u003e still \u003cb\u003eset before\u003c/b\u003e \u003ci\u003ethe yavam\u003c/i\u003e for levirate marriage. Were he to take the sister in levirate marriage \u003cb\u003ehe would\u003c/b\u003e essentially \u003cb\u003ebe encountering the sister of the woman with whom he has\u003c/b\u003e a levirate bond. \u003cb\u003eIt might enter your mind to say\u003c/b\u003e that \u003cb\u003edue to the mitzva\u003c/b\u003e of levirate marriage, \u003cb\u003ethe Sages did as they did\u003c/b\u003e and nullified their decree prohibiting the sister of a woman with whom the \u003ci\u003eyavam\u003c/i\u003e has a levirate bond from entering levirate marriage, when the original sister is forbidden only as the result of a mitzva. Therefore, it \u003cb\u003eteaches us\u003c/b\u003e that they did not cancel their decree in this situation.\", \"It was taught in the mishna: If \u003cb\u003eone of those\u003c/b\u003e women was forbidden to this one brother due to a prohibition against forbidden relatives and the second was forbidden to that second brother due to a prohibition against forbidden relatives, then she who is forbidden to this brother is permitted to that brother, and she who is forbidden to that brother is permitted to this one. The Gemara asks: \u003cb\u003eWhy do I need this\u003c/b\u003e \u003ci\u003ehalakha\u003c/i\u003e \u003cb\u003eas well, for this is\u003c/b\u003e identical to \u003cb\u003ethat\u003c/b\u003e which was taught earlier, when the mishna stated that if one of the sisters was forbidden to one of the brothers due to a prohibition against forbidden relatives, then he is forbidden to marry her but permitted to marry her sister. However, the second brother, who is not a close relative of either sister, is prohibited from marrying both of them. Once the mishna taught that the \u003ci\u003eyavam\u003c/i\u003e is permitted to marry the woman to whom he is not related, \u003cb\u003ewhat is the\u003c/b\u003e difference \u003cb\u003eto me\u003c/b\u003e if there is \u003cb\u003eone\u003c/b\u003e brother \u003cb\u003eor two\u003c/b\u003e brothers? If this happened to both brothers, clearly both should be allowed.\", \"The Gemara answers: It is \u003cb\u003enecessary\u003c/b\u003e to state this, \u003cb\u003efor if it taught us\u003c/b\u003e the \u003ci\u003ehalakha\u003c/i\u003e only \u003cb\u003ethere,\u003c/b\u003e in the case where only one brother is permitted, one might have said: \u003cb\u003eThis is because there is a second\u003c/b\u003e brother \u003cb\u003ewho indicates\u003c/b\u003e that the sister of a woman bound by a levirate bond is forbidden to him by refraining from levirate marriage with her. \u003cb\u003eHowever, here,\u003c/b\u003e where there \u003cb\u003eis not a second\u003c/b\u003e brother \u003cb\u003ewho indicates\u003c/b\u003e this, as both brothers are performing levirate marriage, then \u003cb\u003eI would say no;\u003c/b\u003e this \u003ci\u003ehalakha\u003c/i\u003e would not apply, due to the concern that people might wrongly conclude that the sister of a woman with whom the \u003ci\u003eyavam\u003c/i\u003e has a levirate bond is permitted even in cases where the other woman is not a forbidden relative.\", \"\u003cb\u003eAnd\u003c/b\u003e the opposite could also be said: \u003cb\u003eIf it taught us\u003c/b\u003e the ruling only \u003cb\u003ehere,\u003c/b\u003e in the case of two brothers, one might have said: \u003cb\u003eOn the contrary, they both indicate\u003c/b\u003e the nature of \u003cb\u003eeach other’s\u003c/b\u003e status. Each of the brothers married a specific sister-in-law, i.e., the woman who was not his close relative, indicating he does not have a levirate bond with the other sister. \u003cb\u003eBut in the other\u003c/b\u003e case, where one brother is allowed to consummate the levirate marriage and the second brother is forbidden to both sisters, I might say that \u003cb\u003eno,\u003c/b\u003e we would not allow marriage to the first brother either. Therefore, it is \u003cb\u003enecessary\u003c/b\u003e to state the \u003ci\u003ehalakha\u003c/i\u003e in both instances.\", \"It was taught in the mishna: \u003cb\u003eAnd this is\u003c/b\u003e the case that was referred to when \u003cb\u003ethey said:\u003c/b\u003e When her sister is also her \u003ci\u003eyevama\u003c/i\u003e, she either performs \u003ci\u003eḥalitza\u003c/i\u003e or enters into levirate marriage. The Gemara asks: \u003cb\u003eWhat does\u003c/b\u003e the expression: \u003cb\u003eThis is,\u003c/b\u003e come to \u003cb\u003eexclude?\u003c/b\u003e The Gemara answers: \u003cb\u003eIt excludes\u003c/b\u003e the case where there is \u003cb\u003ea prohibition\u003c/b\u003e resulting from \u003cb\u003ea mitzva for this\u003c/b\u003e one \u003cb\u003eand a prohibition\u003c/b\u003e resulting from \u003cb\u003ea mitzva for that\u003c/b\u003e one. Although each woman is forbidden to a different brother due to a prohibition resulting from a mitzva, they may not both enter into levirate marriage.\", \"The Gemara asks: \u003cb\u003eWhy do I need this as well? This is\u003c/b\u003e identical to \u003cb\u003ethat\u003c/b\u003e which was taught previously, that if one of the sisters was forbidden to the \u003ci\u003eyavam\u003c/i\u003e due to a prohibition resulting from a mitzva, then he is not permitted to consummate the levirate marriage with either of them. \u003cb\u003eWhat\u003c/b\u003e difference \u003cb\u003eis\u003c/b\u003e there \u003cb\u003eto me\u003c/b\u003e if she happened before \u003cb\u003eone\u003c/b\u003e brother \u003cb\u003eor two?\u003c/b\u003e\", \"The Gemara answers: \u003cb\u003eLest you say:\u003c/b\u003e There is only one instance \u003cb\u003ewhen we do not say: Let the prohibition\u003c/b\u003e resulting from \u003cb\u003ea mitzva stand in\u003c/b\u003e the same \u003cb\u003eplace,\u003c/b\u003e i.e., level of severity, \u003cb\u003eas a prohibition against forbidden relatives.\u003c/b\u003e It occurs in a case \u003cb\u003ewhere it is\u003c/b\u003e appropriate \u003cb\u003eto issue\u003c/b\u003e a rabbinic \u003cb\u003edecree due to the second\u003c/b\u003e brother, who is prohibited from marrying both sisters. \u003cb\u003eBut\u003c/b\u003e in a case \u003cb\u003ewhere it is not\u003c/b\u003e appropriate \u003cb\u003eto issue\u003c/b\u003e a rabbinic \u003cb\u003edecree due to the second\u003c/b\u003e brother, as the second sister is permitted to the second brother as well, I might \u003cb\u003esay: For this\u003c/b\u003e brother, \u003cb\u003elet us stand the prohibition\u003c/b\u003e resulting from \u003cb\u003ea mitzva in\u003c/b\u003e the same \u003cb\u003eplace as a prohibition against forbidden relatives, and for this\u003c/b\u003e brother \u003cb\u003elet us stand the prohibition\u003c/b\u003e resulting from \u003cb\u003ea mitzva in\u003c/b\u003e the same \u003cb\u003eplace as a prohibition against forbidden relatives, and\u003c/b\u003e as a result both brothers may \u003cb\u003econsummate the levirate marriage.\u003c/b\u003e Therefore, \u003cb\u003eit teaches us\u003c/b\u003e that this is not so.\", \"§ Incidental to this \u003ci\u003ehalakha\u003c/i\u003e, the Gemara cites the following statement: \u003cb\u003eRav Yehuda said that Rav said, and similarly Rabbi Ḥiyya teaches\u003c/b\u003e in a \u003ci\u003ebaraita\u003c/i\u003e: \u003cb\u003eWith regard to all of those\u003c/b\u003e women enumerated in the first mishna of the tractate, who are forbidden to the \u003ci\u003eyevamin\u003c/i\u003e as forbidden relatives, the following situation could arise: These women could also be two sisters who were married to two brothers who happen before their \u003ci\u003eyevamin\u003c/i\u003e for levirate marriage while each one is a forbidden relative to one of the \u003ci\u003eyevamin\u003c/i\u003e. In these situations, \u003cb\u003eI could apply\u003c/b\u003e the ruling that \u003cb\u003eshe who is forbidden to this\u003c/b\u003e brother \u003cb\u003eis permitted to that\u003c/b\u003e brother, \u003cb\u003eas well as\u003c/b\u003e the ruling that \u003cb\u003ewhen her sister is also her \u003ci\u003eyevama\u003c/i\u003e she may either perform \u003ci\u003eḥalitza\u003c/i\u003e or enter into levirate marriage.\u003c/b\u003e\", \"\u003cb\u003eBut Rav Yehuda interprets\u003c/b\u003e these principles as applying only to those cases found in the list \u003cb\u003efrom\u003c/b\u003e the \u003cb\u003emother-in-law of\u003c/b\u003e the \u003ci\u003eyavam\u003c/i\u003e \u003cb\u003eand onward, but not to the six cases at the beginning,\u003c/b\u003e which include his daughter, and his wife’s daughter, and their descendants.\", \"\u003cb\u003eWhat is the reason\u003c/b\u003e for Rav Yehuda’s distinction? \u003cb\u003eThis is because you find\u003c/b\u003e the scenario where two women who are candidates for levirate marriage are both sisters as well as the daughters of the two \u003ci\u003eyevamin\u003c/i\u003e only in a case where the women are the daughters of the \u003ci\u003eyevamin\u003c/i\u003e \u003cb\u003ethrough rape, but you cannot find it\u003c/b\u003e in a case where they are his daughters \u003cb\u003ethrough marriage.\u003c/b\u003e If one brother married a woman and had a daughter with her, then this woman, the wife of a brother who has children, is forbidden to all of his brothers. Therefore, it would be impossible for another brother to have a daughter with that same woman, and therefore the two daughters could never be sisters. The scenario of daughters who are also sisters is possible only when the first brother raped a woman and gave birth to a daughter, such that the woman is not forbidden to his brothers. If one of the brothers then had a daughter with this woman and both daughters married other brothers who then died, it is possible that these daughters would happen before their fathers for levirate marriage.\", \"Rav Yehuda maintains that the current mishna \u003cb\u003edeals with\u003c/b\u003e cases of \u003cb\u003emarriage but does not deal with\u003c/b\u003e cases of \u003cb\u003erape,\u003c/b\u003e and therefore he does not apply the principles governing sisters to those cases.\", \"\u003cb\u003eAnd Abaye interprets\u003c/b\u003e these principles as applying \u003cb\u003eeven to his daughter from a woman he raped. Since you\u003c/b\u003e can \u003cb\u003efind this\u003c/b\u003e scenario, \u003cb\u003eif\u003c/b\u003e the statement \u003cb\u003ewants\u003c/b\u003e to deal with cases of \u003cb\u003erape, let it; if it wants\u003c/b\u003e to deal with cases of \u003cb\u003emarriage, let it.\u003c/b\u003e It is preferable to explain this matter with regard to cases of marriage, but if that is not possible, it can still be explained as dealing with cases of rape. \u003cb\u003eHowever, it cannot\u003c/b\u003e be explained as referring to \u003cb\u003ethe wife of a brother with whom he did not coexist.\u003c/b\u003e Even according to the opinion of Abaye, this case cannot be included, \u003cb\u003esince you can find\u003c/b\u003e a situation where two sisters happen before two brothers for levirate marriage while each woman is the wife of a brother with whom he did not coexist only \u003cb\u003eaccording to\u003c/b\u003e the opinion of \u003cb\u003eRabbi Shimon, while\u003c/b\u003e such a case \u003cb\u003ecannot be found according to\u003c/b\u003e the opinion of \u003cb\u003ethe Rabbis.\u003c/b\u003e And Rabbi Ḥiyya \u003cb\u003edoes not deal with\u003c/b\u003e cases that are subject to \u003cb\u003edispute.\u003c/b\u003e\", \"\u003cb\u003eAnd Rav Safra interprets\u003c/b\u003e these principles as applying to the \u003cb\u003ewife of a brother with whom he did not coexist, and you\u003c/b\u003e can \u003cb\u003efind this\u003c/b\u003e scenario \u003cb\u003ein the case\u003c/b\u003e of the \u003cb\u003esix brothers and according to\u003c/b\u003e the opinion of \u003cb\u003eRabbi Shimon. And your mnemonic\u003c/b\u003e to remember how this might come about \u003cb\u003eis\u003c/b\u003e as follows: \u003cb\u003eDied, born, consummated the levirate marriage; died, born, consummated the levirate marriage.\u003c/b\u003e\", \"How could this come about? There were two brothers, \u003cb\u003eReuven and Shimon,\u003c/b\u003e who were \u003cb\u003emarried\u003c/b\u003e to \u003cb\u003etwo sisters.\u003c/b\u003e And there were two other brothers, \u003cb\u003eLevi and Yehuda,\u003c/b\u003e who were \u003cb\u003emarried\u003c/b\u003e to \u003cb\u003etwo unrelated women. Reuven died, Yissakhar was born, and Levi consummated the levirate marriage\u003c/b\u003e with Reuven’s wife. Afterward, \u003cb\u003eShimon died, Zevulun was born, and Yehuda consummated the levirate marriage\u003c/b\u003e with Shimon’s wife. Later, \u003cb\u003eLevi and Yehuda died childless and\u003c/b\u003e these two sisters \u003cb\u003ehappened before Yissakhar and Zevulun for levirate marriage.\u003c/b\u003e\", \"In this scenario, the woman who had been Reuven’s wife \u003cb\u003eis forbidden to this\u003c/b\u003e brother, Yissakhar, as the wife of a brother with whom he did not coexist, because he was not alive at the same time as Reuven, and yet \u003cb\u003eshe is\u003c/b\u003e nevertheless \u003cb\u003epermitted to this\u003c/b\u003e brother, Zevulun, because when Zevulun was born this woman was already the wife of Levi, a brother with whom he did coexist. According to Rabbi Shimon, the fact that she had previously been the wife of Reuven, a brother with whom he did not coexist, is not taken into account. Similarly, with regard to Shimon’s wife, we find that \u003cb\u003eshe who is forbidden to this\u003c/b\u003e one \u003cb\u003eis permitted to that\u003c/b\u003e one. Shimon’s wife is forbidden to Zevulun as the wife of a brother with whom he did not coexist, but she is nevertheless permitted to Yissakhar. Accordingly, the situation of \u003cb\u003eher sister who is her \u003ci\u003eyevama\u003c/i\u003e,\u003c/b\u003e i.e., two sisters who are \u003ci\u003eyevamot\u003c/i\u003e and yet are allowed to perform levirate marriage, can be applied to this case as well.\", \"The Gemara asks: \u003cb\u003eWhy do I\u003c/b\u003e need to assume that this is referring to a scenario where \u003cb\u003eYehuda consummated the levirate marriage? You can find this\u003c/b\u003e possibility \u003cb\u003ein\u003c/b\u003e a case where \u003cb\u003eYehuda did not consummate the levirate marriage as well.\u003c/b\u003e This scenario can also take place with only five brothers and without Yehuda: Reuven and Shimon were married to two sisters, Reuven died, Yissakhar was born, and Levi consummated the levirate marriage with Reuven’s wife. Then Shimon died and Zevulun was born. If Levi then dies, Levi’s wife is forbidden to Yissakhar as the wife of his brother Reuven, with whom he did not coexist, but she would be permitted to Zevulun because she was already the wife of Levi when Zevulun was born. Shimon’s wife would be forbidden to Zevulun but permitted to Yissakhar.\", \"The Gemara responds: This is \u003cb\u003edue to the rival wife.\u003c/b\u003e It was taught in this way in order to make the principle applicable not only to the wives, but also to their rival wives. In this scenario, Levi and Yehuda were previously married to two sisters who then became the rival wives of a wife of a brother with whom one did not coexist. This allows the ruling to apply to the case of rival wives as well. The Gemara notes: \u003cb\u003eThis works out well\u003c/b\u003e if the mishna comes to include only \u003cb\u003ea rival wife\u003c/b\u003e herself, but \u003cb\u003ewhat can be said\u003c/b\u003e about \u003cb\u003ethe rival wife of a rival wife?\u003c/b\u003e How can this case explained? If one aims to include all of the details of the mishna in Rabbi Ḥiyya’s principle, then the mishna must be referring not only to a case involving the brothers’ rival wives, but also to the rival wives of those rival wives mentioned in the mishna.\", \"The Gemara answers: Therefore, one must include a case \u003cb\u003ewhere Gad and Asher subsequently consummated the levirate marriage\u003c/b\u003e with these women \u003cb\u003eas well.\u003c/b\u003e That is, initially there were two other brothers, Gad and Asher, who consummated the levirate marriage with the previous wives of Levi and Yehuda, each of whom had taken one of the wives of Reuven and Shimon. Later, when Gad and Asher died, their previous wives, who are the rival wives of the rival wives of Reuven and Shimon’s wives, happen before Yissakhar and Zevulun for levirate marriage.\", \"\u003cstrong\u003eMISHNA:\u003c/strong\u003e In the case of \u003cb\u003ethree brothers, two of whom were married to\u003c/b\u003e close relatives, e.g., \u003cb\u003etwo sisters; or a woman and her daughter; or a woman and her daughter’s daughter; or a woman and her son’s daughter,\u003c/b\u003e if the two brothers who were married to two close relatives died and their wives happened before a third brother for levirate marriage, \u003cb\u003ethen these\u003c/b\u003e two women must \u003cb\u003eperform \u003ci\u003eḥalitza\u003c/i\u003e and may not enter into levirate marriage,\u003c/b\u003e as each of them is a relative of a woman with whom he has a levirate bond. \u003cb\u003eAnd Rabbi Shimon exempts\u003c/b\u003e them even from the obligation to perform \u003ci\u003eḥalitza\u003c/i\u003e.\", \"If \u003cb\u003eone of them was forbidden to him,\u003c/b\u003e the third brother, due to \u003cb\u003ea prohibition against forbidden relatives,\u003c/b\u003e then \u003cb\u003ehe is prohibited from\u003c/b\u003e marrying \u003cb\u003eher but is permitted to\u003c/b\u003e marry \u003cb\u003eher sister.\u003c/b\u003e Because the woman who is forbidden to him is not considered to be a woman who requires him for levirate marriage, there is only one woman who happens before him for levirate marriage. However, if one of the women was forbidden due to \u003cb\u003ea prohibition\u003c/b\u003e resulting from \u003cb\u003ea mitzva or a prohibition\u003c/b\u003e stemming from \u003cb\u003esanctity,\u003c/b\u003e then \u003cb\u003ethey\u003c/b\u003e must \u003cb\u003eperform \u003ci\u003eḥalitza\u003c/i\u003e and may not enter into levirate marriage.\u003c/b\u003e This is because these prohibitions do not completely cancel the levirate bond.\", \"\u003cstrong\u003eGEMARA:\u003c/strong\u003e \u003cb\u003eIt is taught\u003c/b\u003e in a \u003ci\u003ebaraita\u003c/i\u003e: \u003cb\u003eRabbi Shimon exempts both of them from \u003ci\u003eḥalitza\u003c/i\u003e and from levirate marriage, as it is stated: “And you shall not take a woman to her sister, to be a rival to her”\u003c/b\u003e (Leviticus 18:18). This indicates that \u003cb\u003eat the time that\u003c/b\u003e a situation arises wherein \u003cb\u003ethey are to become rival wives to each other,\u003c/b\u003e e.g., two sisters happen before one \u003ci\u003eyavam\u003c/i\u003e for levirate marriage, \u003cb\u003eyou shall not have\u003c/b\u003e the ability \u003cb\u003eto take even one of them\u003c/b\u003e in marriage. In his opinion, both women are exempt from both levirate marriage and \u003ci\u003eḥalitza\u003c/i\u003e at the moment that they happen before the \u003ci\u003eyavam\u003c/i\u003e, just as a forbidden relative is exempt from both levirate marriage and \u003ci\u003eḥalitza\u003c/i\u003e.\", \"It was taught in the mishna: If \u003cb\u003eone of them was\u003c/b\u003e forbidden to him due to a prohibition against forbidden relatives, he is prohibited from marrying her but is permitted to marry her sister. The Gemara asks: \u003cb\u003eWhy do I need this\u003c/b\u003e statement \u003cb\u003eas well? This is\u003c/b\u003e identical to \u003cb\u003ethat\u003c/b\u003e which was taught in the previous mishna.\", \"The Gemara answers: \u003cb\u003eIt was necessary\u003c/b\u003e to state this again here \u003cb\u003eaccording to\u003c/b\u003e the opinion of \u003cb\u003eRabbi Shimon. It might enter your mind to say: Since Rabbi Shimon said\u003c/b\u003e that \u003cb\u003etwo sisters may not perform \u003ci\u003eḥalitza\u003c/i\u003e and may not enter into levirate marriage,\u003c/b\u003e as the very fact that they require levirate marriage from the same man and stand to become rival wives to each other renders them forbidden, \u003cb\u003ewe should issue\u003c/b\u003e a rabbinic \u003cb\u003edecree\u003c/b\u003e in this case as well. Although in this case only one of the sisters is eligible for levirate marriage, as the other is a forbidden relative, perhaps there should be a rabbinic decree prohibiting the \u003ci\u003eyavam\u003c/i\u003e from marrying the permitted sister, \u003cb\u003edue to\u003c/b\u003e the similarity to the case of \u003cb\u003etwo sisters in general\u003c/b\u003e who happen before him for levirate marriage. \u003cb\u003eThis teaches us\u003c/b\u003e that even Rabbi Shimon does not hold that there is a rabbinic decree in this case.\", \"It was taught in the mishna that if the wives are forbidden to the \u003ci\u003eyavam\u003c/i\u003e due to \u003cb\u003ea prohibition\u003c/b\u003e resulting from \u003cb\u003ea mitzva\u003c/b\u003e or sanctity, they must perform \u003ci\u003eḥalitza\u003c/i\u003e and may not enter into levirate marriage.\"}}"}]}}},{"tasks":{"extractiveSummarizationTasks":{"parameters":[{"model-version":"latest","sentenceCount":"3","sortBy":"Offset"}]}}}] 0 -1}