משנה: שְׁנֵי אַחִים וּמֵת אֶחָד מֵהֶן וְיִיבֵּם הַשֵּׁנִי אֶת אֵשֶׁת אָחִיו וְאַחַר כָּךְ נוֹלַד לָהֶן אָח וָמֵת. הָרִאשׁוֹנָה יוֹצֵאת מִשּׁוּם אֵשֶׁת אָחִיו שֶׁלֹּא הָיָה בְעוֹלָמוֹ וְהַשְּׁנִייָה מִשּׁוּם צָרָתָהּ. עָשָׂה בָהּ מַאֲמָר וָמֵת שְׁנִייָה חוֹלֶצֶת וְלֹא מִתְיַבֶּמֶת. רִבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן אוֹמֵר מְייַבֶּם לְאֵיזוֹ שֶׁיִּרְצֶה אוֹ חוֹלֵץ לְאֵיזוֹ שֶׁיִּרְצֶה. MISHNAH: There were two brothers, one of them died and the second30Who already has a wife. If he has no wife, the rules for the widow of the first brother do not change. took his brother’s widow in levirate; afterwards a brother was born to them, and he died. The first woman31The widow. The author of this Mishnah holds that the widow does not lose her status as widow of the first by her marriage to the second brother. She leaves the family of her dead husbands and is free to marry any outsider without further ceremony. leaves as wife of his brother who did not live in his world and the second one as her co-wife. If [the second brother] had bespoken [the widow of the first] when he died, the second performs ḥalîṣah but cannot have levirate32As explained in the preceding paragraph.. Rebbi Simeon says, he may take in levirate any one he wants or performs ḥalîṣah with any one he wants33As shown in the next paragraph, this must refer to the first case and R. Simeon must hold that the marriage to the second brother erases her status as widow of the first..
הלכה: שְׁנֵי אַחִים וּמֵת אֶחָד מֵהֶן כול׳. רִבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן אוֹמֵר. הַמַּאֲמָר אוֹ קוֹנֶה אוֹ לֹא קוֹנֶה וְאַתְּ אָמַר אָכֵין. וּמְייַבְּמִין לְבַעֲלַת מַאֲמָר. וְחָשׁ לוֹמַר שֶׁמָּא לֹא קָנָה מַאֲמָר וְנִמְצָא מִתְחַייֵב עָלֶיהָ מִשֵּׁם אֵשֶׁת אָחִיו שֶׁלֹּא הָיָה בְעוֹלָמוֹ. וְחוֹלְצִין לְבַעֲלַת מַאֲמָר. וְחָשׁ לוֹמַר שֶׁמָּא קָנָה מַאֲמָר וְנִמְצֵאת הַשְּׁנִייָה זְקוּקָה לוֹ. הֲװֵיי מַה דְאָמַר רִבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן עַל רֵישֵׁיהּ. HALAKHAH: “If there were two brothers, one of them died”, etc. Rebbi Simeon says, “bespeaking” either acquires or does not acquire, and you say so34Could R. Simeon refer to the woman “bespoken” when the second brother died?? May one permit levirate with the “bespoken” woman? One should suspect that “bespeaking” does not acquire; then he35The youngest brother born after the death of the first. would be guilty because of “wife of his brother who did not live in his world.” Can the “bespoken” one perform ḥalîṣah? Should one not suspect that “bespeaking” does acquire; then the second {widow] is a candidate for [the third brother]36According to R. Simeon, see Note 33. Another argument with the same result is in the Babli, 18b.. It must be that Rebbi Simeon refers to the first case.
אָמַר רִבִּי יוֹחָנָן. מוֹדֶה רִבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן בָּרִאשׁוֹנָה. אַשְׁכָּח תַּנֵּי. עוֹד הִיא בְּמַחֲלוֹקֶת. מַה בֵּין רִאשׁוֹנָה וּמַה בֵּין שְׁנִייָה. רִאשׁוֹנָה בָּא וּמְצָאָהּ בְּאִיסּוּר. וְהַּשְּׁנִייָה בָא וּמְצָאָהּ בְּהֵיתֵר. רִבִּי יוֹחָנָן בָּעֵי. אֵשֶׁת אָבִיו שֶׁמְּצָאָהּ לִפְנֵי אֶחָד מִן הַשּׁוּק מַה אָמַר בָּהּ רִבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן. מִפְּנֵי שֶׁמְּצָאָהּ בְּהֵיתֵר מוּתֶּרֶת. לֹא אָמַר רִבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן אֶלָּא עַל יְדֵי אַחִין מִן הָאַב. רִבִּי יַעֲקֹב בַּר אָחָא אָמַר רִבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן בֵּן לָקִישׁ בָּעֵי. אֵשֶׁת אָחִיו מֵאִמּוֹ שֶׁמְּצָאָהּ לִפְנֵי אֶחָד מִן הַשּׁוּק מַה אָמַר בָּהּ רִבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן. מִפְּנֵי שֶׁמְּצָאָהּ בְּהֵיתֵר מוּתֶּרֶת. לֹא אָמַר רִבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן אֶלָּא עַל יְדֵי אַחִים מֵאָב. רִבִּי יוּדָן בָּעֵי. צָרַת אֲחוֹת אִמּוֹ שֶׁמְּצָאָהּ לִפְנֵי אֶחָד מִן הַשּׁוּק. מִפְּנֵי שֶׁמְּצָאָת בְּהֵיתֵר מוּתֶּרֶת. רִבִּי אָבִין בָּעִין.גְּרוּשָׁה שֶׁנַּעֲשֵׂית אַלְמָנָה. אַתְּ אָמַר מַה דְאָמַר רִבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן עַל רֹאשָׁהּ. Rebbi Joḥanan said, Rebbi Simeon agrees in the first case37The case of Mishnah 1, when the third brother was born after the death of the first and before the second brother married the widow in levirate.. It was found stated, that also is in disagreement. What is the difference between the first and second cases? In the first case he came and found her forbidden38“He” is the newly born brother, “she” is the widow of the first brother. The argument shows that R. Simeon could not possibly disagree with Mishnah 1., in the second he came and found her permitted39As wife of a living brother. The text is from Tosephta 3:1; the same argument is found in Babli, 19b.. Rebbi Joḥanan asked, if he found his father’s wife40A man with two wives dies, leaving one of them pregnant while the other is already married to an outsider when the pregnant widow gives birth to a boy. Is the remarried one still “his father’s wife” (Lev. 18:8)? married to an outsider, what does Rebbi Simeon say about her? Because he came and found her permitted, is she permitted? Rebbi Simeon said that only relative to paternal brothers41The answer is readily understood but not the question. Deut. 25:5 cancels the prohibition of Lev. 18:16 but no other prohibition from Lev. 18; the same conclusion in Babli, 20a.
In the Babli, 20a, the impossible question is about a maternal halfsister married to a paternal halfbrother when the new baby was born.. Rebbi Jacob bar Aḥa said, Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish asked: His maternal halfbrother’s wife which he found married to an outsider, what does Rebbi Simeon say about her? Because he came and found her permitted, is she permitted? Rebbi Simeon said that only relative to paternal brothers. Rebbi Yudan asked, a co-wife of his maternal aunt which he found married to an outsider? Because he came and found her permitted, is she permitted? Rebbi Abin asked, if a divorcee became a widow42This is a different case altogether. A Cohen is forbidden to marry a divorcee (Lev. 21:7). If a Cohen was born when a certain woman who had been divorced had remarried and now was a widow, is she a widow or a divorcee for him? No answer is given since she is both a divorcee and a widow.? You have to say that Rebbi Simeon referred to the first case.
מַה אָמַר רִבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן בְּבַעֲלַת מַאֲמָר. נִישְׁמְעִינָהּ מִן הָדָא. רִבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן אוֹמֵר. בִּיאָתָהּ וַחֲלִיצָה שֶׁלְּאַחַת מֵהֶן פּוֹטֶרֶת צָרָתָהּ. וְאִם חָלַץ לְבַעֲלַת מַאֲמָר אַף הַשְּׁנִייָה צְרִיכָה חֲלִיצָה. אַתְּ אָמַר. בִּיאָתָהּ אוֹ חֲלִיצָתָהּ שֶׁלְּאַחַת מֵהֶן פּוֹטֶרֶת צָרָתָהּ. מַה נַפְשֵׁךְ. קָנָה מַאֲמָר שְׁתֵּיהֶן נָשָׁיו. נִפְטְרָה בַּחֲלִיצַת חֲבֵירָתָהּ. לֹא קָנָה מַאֲמָר אֵין הָרִאשׁוֹנָה צְרִיכָה חֲלִיצָה. וְאִם חָלַץ לְבַעֲלַת מַאֲמָר אַף הַשְּׁנִייָה צְרִיכָה חֲלִיצָה. שֶׁמָּא לא קָנָה מַאֲמָר וְלֹא נָֽגְעָה בָהּ חֲלִיצָה וְיִיבּוּם שֶׁמָּא קָנָה מַאֲמָר וְנִפְטְרָה בַּחֲלִיצַת חֲבֵירָתָהּ. מַה נְפִיק מִן בֵּינֵיהוֹן. חָלַץ לָרִאשׁוֹנָה וּבָא עַל הַשְּׁנִייָה. עַל דַּעְתִּין דְּרַבָּנִין בִּיאַת עֶרְוָה. עַל דַּעְתֵּיהּ דְּרִבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן אֵינָהּ בִּיאַת עֶרְוָה. בָּא עַל הָרִאשׁוֹנָה וּבָא עַל הַשְּׁנִייָה. עַל דַּעְתִּין דְּרַבָּנִן הָרִאשׁוֹנָה בִּיאַת עֶרְוָה וְהַשְּׁנִייָה צְרִיכָה גֵט וַחֲלִיצָה. עַל דַּעְתֵּיהּ דְּרִבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן שְׁתֵּיהֶן צְרִיכוֹת גֵּט. הָרִאשׁוֹנָה צְרִיכָה גֵט שֶׁמָּא קָנָה מַאֲמָר. וְהַשְּׁנִייָה צְרִיכָה גֵט שֶׁמָּא קָנָה יִיבּוּם שֶׁמָּא קָנָה מַאֲמָר נִפְטֶרֶת מֵחֲלִיצַת חֲבֵירָתָהּ. What does Rebbi Simeon say about the “bespoken” woman43The second case in the Mishnah, when the additional brother was born after the second brother bespoke his brother’s widow and before his death.? Let us hear from the following: “Rebbi Simeon says, the cohabitation or the ḥalîṣah of one of them44A slightly confusing wording. “One of them” means “a certain one of them”, viz., the brother’s original wife. frees her co-wife but if he performed ḥalîṣah with the “bespoken” woman, her colleague also needs ḥalîṣah45Since it is doubtful whether the “bespoken” one was his wife it is doubtful whether her ḥalîṣah means anything.. You say, the cohabitation or the ḥalîṣah of one of them frees her co-wife. However one argues, if “bespeaking” acquires, both are his wives and any one of them becomes free by her colleague’s ḥalîṣah. If “bespeaking” does not acquire, the first one does not need ḥalîṣah, but if he performed ḥalîṣah with the “bespoken” one, the second one also needs ḥalîṣah. Maybe “bespeaking” does not acquire, then ḥalîṣah or levirate do not apply to her. Maybe “bespeaking” does acquire; then she is freed by her colleague’s ḥalîṣah. What is the difference between them46Are there additional practical differences between the theories of the rabbis as given in the Mishnah and R. Simeon?? If he performed ḥalîṣah with the first and cohabited with the second47Again, “the first” is the widow of the first brother, “the second” the wife of the second brother. “He” is the third brother born after the death of the first.. In the opinion of the rabbis it was an incestuous cohabitation48“If he performed ḥalîṣah with the first” means “even if” since for the rabbis ḥalîṣah of the first is legally impossible and therefore irrelevant. The relation with the second was certainly partially incestuous.. In the opinion of Rebbi Simeon it was not an incestuous cohabitation49Since the second one is permitted, Note 44.. If he cohabited both with the first and the second widow, in the opinion of the rabbis with the first it was incest44A slightly confusing wording. “One of them” means “a certain one of them”, viz., the brother’s original wife. and the second needs a bill of divorce and ḥalîṣah50With the sister-in-law in a case not covered by Deut. 25:5.. In the opinion of Rebbi Simeon, both need a bill of divorce. The first one needs a bill of divorce; perhaps the “bespeaking” did acquire. The second one needs a bill of divorce; perhaps levirate did acquire; if “bespeaking” did acquire, she was freed by her colleague’s ḥalîṣah51Since for the rabbis “bespeaking” is partial acquisition of the widow as a wife, the second, the original wife of the second brother, was partially co-wife of the widow of the first brother. That aspect of her which was not that of co-wife is acquired by the third brother in levirate and needs a divorce; then she also needs ḥalîṣah for that aspect which was not acquired. In no case can she be permitted to stay with the third brother..
רִבִּי זְעוּרָא בְשֵׁם רַב שֵׁשֶׁת. תַּנֵּי תַּמָּן. דִּבְרֵי רִבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן שְׁתֵּיהֶן אֲסוּרוֹת. וְקַשְׁיָא. קָנָה מַאֲמָר שְׁתֵּיהֶן מוּתָּרוֹת. לֹא קָנָה מַאֲמָר אֶלָּא זִיקָה. וְקַשְׁיָא. קָנָה זִיקָה שְׁתֵּיהֶן מוּתָּרוֹת. לֹא קָנָה זִיקָה הָרִאשׁוֹנָה אֲסוּרָה וְהַשְּׁנִייָה מוּתֶּרֶת. שֶׁמָּא זִיקַת רִבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן כְּמַאֲמָר דְּרַבְּנָן. כְּמַה דְרַבָּנָן אָֽמְרֵי. הַמַּאֲמָר קָנָה וּמְשַׁייֵר. כֵּן אָמַר. זִיקָה קוֹנָה וּמְשַׁייֶרֶת. וְקַשְׁיָא. צַד שֶׁקּוֹנָה זִיקָה כְּנֶגְדּוֹ אָסוּר בַּצָּרָה. צַד שֶׁלֹּא קָוֹנָה זִיקָה כְּנֶגְדּוֹ הֵיתֵר בַּצָּרָה. אָמַר שַׁמַּי. וְכִי וּמַה נַפְשֵׁךְ בָּעֲרָיוֹת. מַהִיא בְּהוֹן. כְּהִיא דְאָמַר רִבִּי אָחָא בְשֵׁם רִבִּי בּוּן בַּר חִייָה. כָּל־יְבָמָה שֶׁאֵין כּוּלָּהּ לִפְנִים צַד הַקָּנוּי שֶׁבָּהּ נִידוֹן לְשֵׁם עֶרְוָה. וְעֶרְוָה פוֹטֶרֶת צָרָתָהּ. Rebbi Ze‘ira in the name of Rav Sheshet: There53In Babylonia. No similar statement is found in the Babli. In the discussion there, whether candidacy has any legal consequences other than preventing the widow to marry outside the clan, the name of R. Simeon is not mentioned., one stated: The words of Rebbi Simeon are that both are forbidden. This is difficult. If “bespeaking” acquires, are not both permitted? This is a question of acquiring not by “bespeaking” but by candidacy. This is difficult. If candidacy acquires, both are permitted. If candidacy does not acquire, the first one is forbidden but the second permitted. Maybe candidacy for Rebbi Simeon is like “bespeaking” for the rabbis. Just as the rabbis say, “bespeaking” acquires but leaves a remainder, so Rebbi Simeon says, candidacy acquires but leaves a remainder. This is difficult. That aspect which is acquired by candidacy implies a prohibition of an equal part of the co-wife, that part which is not acquired by candidacy implies permission of an equal aspect of the co-wife! Shammai54Rebbi Shammai, the late Amora. said, is this kind of argument applicable to incest prohibitions? What does he mean? As Rebbi Aḥa said in the name of Rebbi Abun bar Ḥiyya, the aspect acquired in any sister-in-law which is not totally inside [the family] is considered to be under the incest prohibition and an incest prohibition frees her co-wife55This statement is stronger than that ascribed to the Sages about “bespeaking”. The lifting of the incest prohibition of Lev. 18:16 applies only to a brother who can marry the widow without doubt. If any condition of the levirate is not fully met, there can be no levirate and the co-wife is freed without ḥalîṣah..