משנה: שְׁלֹשָׁה אַחִין. שְׁנַיִם מֵהֶן נְשׂוּאִין שְׁתֵּי אֲחָיוֹת אוֹ אִשָּׁה וּבִתָּהּ אוֹ אִשָּׁה וּבַת בִּתָּהּ אוֹ אִשָּׁה וּבַת בְּנָהּ. הֲרֵי אֵילוּ חוֹלְצוֹת וְלֹא מִתְייַבְּמוֹת. וְרִבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן פּוֹטֵר. הָֽיְתָה אַחַת מֵהֶן אֲסוּרָה עַל הָאֶחָד אִיסּוּר עֶרְוָה אָסוּר בָּהּ וּמוּתָּר בַּאֲחוֹתָהּ. אִיסּוּר מִצְוָה אוֹ אִיסּוּר קְדוּשָּׁה חוֹלְצוֹת וְלֹא מִתְייַבְּמוֹת. וְרִבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן פּוֹטֵר. MISHNAH: 76Mishnah 3:4. The second widow has to have ḥalîṣah if the first widow did. If the first was married in levirate, the second goes free without ceremony. Three brothers, two of them married to two sisters or a woman and her daughter or a woman and her daughter’s or her son’s daughter: These perform ḥalîṣah but not levirate, but Rebbi Simeon frees them81If both women become widows before one of them is married in levirate or performs ḥalîṣah.
According to the Babli, 28b–29a, R. Simeon reads Lev. 18:18: “Do not take a wife together with her sister to tie into one bundle” that the common candidacy of a woman and her sister destroys both candidacies so that even the one who was widowed first would be freed by her sister. This is not the position of the Yerushalmi which holds that the candidacy of the first widow excludes the second from candidacy, as explained in the Halakhah.. If one of them was forbidden to one of them by an incest prohibition, that one is forbidden for him but her sister is permitted to him77Since one of the sisters is not available to him, the other is not the sister of a candidate for levirate. If they both become candidates at the same time (or at least before the other brother had married one in levirate), they both are sisters of a candidate and therefore forbidden to the second brother.. In case of a commandment prohibition or a holiness prohibition, they have ḥalîṣah but not levirate78Mishnah 3:4. Since a marriage would not be void, ḥalîṣah is necessary.. But Rebbi Simeon frees them82This sentence is not in the Mishnah of the Babli; the Babli holds that in this case, R. Simeon agrees with the majority..
הלכה: שְׁלֹשָׁה אַחִין. שְׁנַיִם מֵהֶן נְשׂוּאִין שְׁתֵּי אֲחָיוֹת כול׳. עוּלָּא בַּר יִשְׁמָעֵאל אָמַר. כָּךְ פֵּירְשָׁהּ רִבִּי הוֹשַׁעְיָה אֲבִי הַמִּשְׁנָה. רִבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן פּוֹטֵר אֶת הַשְּׁנִייָה מִן הַחֲלִיצָה וּמִן הַיִיבּוּם. אָמַר רִבִּי יוֹחָנָן. חֲבוּרָה הָֽיְתָה מַקְשָׁה שֶׁלֹֹּא עָלַת עַל דַּעַת שֶׁיִּקְנֶה אָדָם שְׁתֵּי אֲחָיוֹת כְּאַחַת. אָמַר רִבִּי חֲנִינָא קוֹמֵי רִבִּי מָנָא וּפְלִיגָא. וְלָמָּה רִבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן פּוֹטֵר אֶת הַשְּׁנִייָה מִן הַחֲלִיצָה וּמִן הַיִיבּוּם. אָמַר לֵיהּ. שֶׁלֹּא עָלַת עַל דַּעַת שֶׁיִּקְנֶה אָדָם שְׁתֵּי אֲחָיוֹת כְּאַחַת. תַּמָּן אָֽמְרִין. דִּבְרֵי רִבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן אֵין זִיקָה נוֹפֶלֶת לִמְקוֹם זִיקָה. רִבִּי בָּא בְשֵׁם רִבִּי לָֽעְזָר. וְהוּא שֶׁעָבַר וּבָעַל. הֵיךְ עֲבִידָא. קִידֵּשׁ אֶחָד מִן הַשּׁוּק אֶת הַשְּׁנִייָה. עַל דַּעְתִּין דְּרַבָּנִן קִידּוּשִׁין גְּמוּרִין. עַל דַּעְתֵּיהּ דְּרִבִּי לָֽעְזָר קִידּוּשִׁין תְּלוּיִין. לִכְשֶׁיִּבְעֹל אֶת הָרִאשׁוֹנָה קִידּוּשִׁין תּוֹפְסִין אֶת הַשְּׁנִייָה. בָּא עַל הַשְּׁנִייָה. עַל דַּעְתִּין דְּרַבָּנִן בִּיאַת עֶרְוָה. עַל דַּעְתֵּיהּ דְּרִבִּי לָֽעְזָר אֵינָהּ בִּיאַת עֶרְוָה. מֵתָה הָרִאשׁוֹנָה. עַל דַּעְתִּין דְּרַבָּנִין מוּתָּר בַּשְּׁנִייָה. HALAKHAH: “Three brothers, two of them married to two sisters,” etc. Ulla bar Ismael said, so explained Rebbi Hoshaia, the father of the Mishnah83In the Babli, he and the elder R. Ḥiyya are given as the source of reliable baraitot.: Rebbi Simeon frees the second one from ḥalîṣah and levirate81If both women become widows before one of them is married in levirate or performs ḥalîṣah.
According to the Babli, 28b–29a, R. Simeon reads Lev. 18:18: “Do not take a wife together with her sister to tie into one bundle” that the common candidacy of a woman and her sister destroys both candidacies so that even the one who was widowed first would be freed by her sister. This is not the position of the Yerushalmi which holds that the candidacy of the first widow excludes the second from candidacy, as explained in the Halakhah.. Rebbi Joḥanan said, the group asked, would anybody think that a man could acquire two sisters together84They held that any ḥalîṣah mentioned in the Mishnah is only rabbinic (a view also held in the Babli, 28b/29a). Since nobody assumes that anyone might contract incestuous marriages, that rabbinic institution seems superfluous.? Rebbi Ḥanina said before Rebbi Mana and disagreed: Why does Rebbi Simeon free the second one from ḥalîṣah and levirate? He said to him, because nobody thinks that a man could acquire two sisters together. There they said, the words of Rebbi Simeon imply that no candidacy can come after another candidacy85This statement, attributed to Babylonian sources, is not found in the Babli. Here it is referred to as “the opinion of the rabbis” in the interpretation of R. Simeon.. Rebbi Abba in the name of Rebbi Eleazar: Only if he sinned and had intercourse86R. Eleazar holds that R. Simeon considers candidacy only as tentative (cf. Chapter 2, Note 47). Therefore, the second widow is freed only if the first becomes unquestionably the wife of the third brother; this she can become only by having intercourse which under the circumstances is sinful.. What is the difference? If somebody from the market gave qiddushin to the second sister. Following the rabbis, perfect qiddushin87Since the second widow leaves the family without ceremony.. Following Rebbi Eleazar, suspended qiddushin. When he88The third brother. has intercourse with the first, the qiddushin become valid for the second. If he had intercourse with the second, following the rabbis it is an incestuous act. Following Rebbi Eleazar, it is not an incestuous act89At least not an act which certainly would be incestuous.. If the first one died, following the rabbis the second is permitted to him90To the third brother, but only in the case of two sisters..
הָיָה לָרִאשׁוֹנָה צָרָה. כּוֹנֵס צָרָה וּמְקַייֵם אֶת אִשְׁתּוֹ וְאָסוּר בַּשְּׁנִייָה. הָדָא הִיא מוּתָּר הוּא אָדָם בָּאֲחוֹת צָרַת חֲלוּצָתוֹ. וִיהֵא אָסוּר בַּצָּרָה מִשּׁוּם צָרַת קְרוֹבַת חֲלוּצָתוֹ. אָמַר רִבִּי יוּדָן. אִילּוּ בִיקֵּשׁ לִבְעוֹל אֶת הַצָּרָה עַד שֶׁלֹּא כָנַס שֶׁמָּא אֵינוֹ מוּתָּר בָּהּ. כַּתְּחִילָּה הֻא מוּתָּר וּבַסּוֹף הוּא אָסוּר. אִם אוֹמֵר אַתְּ כֵּן נִמְצֵאת עוֹשֶׂה צָרָה לְאַחַר מִיתָה. וְאֵין צָרָה לְאַחַר מִיתָה. If the first [sister] had a co-wife, he can marry the co-wife, keep his wife, but the second [sister] is forbidden to him49This still refers to the case of the Mishnah where the first brother performed levirate with the first sister but the second brother did nothing with respect to the second sister.. That is “the sister of the co-wife of one with whom he performed ḥalîṣah is permitted to a person.50In Mishnah 4:7: “The relative of the co-wife of one for whom he performed ḥalîṣah”.” Should the co-wife not be forbidden to him as co-wife of a relative of one with whom he performed ḥalîṣah? Rebbi Yudan said, if he wanted to have intercourse with the co-wife before he married52Take her in levirate. This would be the easiest solution since then the second sister is eliminated as co-wife of one married in levirate and the first sister is permitted to the remaining brother., would he not have been permitted? At the start, he is permitted; at the end, he is prohibited? If you say so, you are creating a co-wife after death53By treating candidacy as equivalent of marriage, the co-wife of the second sister would become co-wife of the first, an impossible proposition. and there can be no co-wife after death.
מִחְלְפָא שִׁיטָּתֵיהּ דְּרִבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן. תַּמָּן הוּא אָמַר. מְייַבֵּם לְאֵי זוּ שֶׁיִּרְצֶה וְחוֹלֵץ לַשְּׁנִייָה. וְהָכָא הוּא אָמַר אָכֵין. אָמַר רִבִּי זְעִירָא. עַד אֲנָן תַּמָּן שְׁמָעִית טַעֲמָא. תַּמָּן זִיקַת שְׁנֵי יַבְּמִין אֵינָה זִיקָה וְזִיקָה נוֹפֶלֶת לִמְקוֹם זִיקָה. בְּרַם הָכָא זִיקַת יָבָם אֶחָד וְאֵין זִיקָה נוֹפֶלֶת לִמְקוֹם מַאֲמָר. אָמַר רִבִּי מַתַּנְיָיה. מַה אִיכְפְּלִין אֲחָיוֹת גַּבֵּי נָכְרִיּוֹת. אִין אַתְּ בָּעֵי מִקְשַׁייָא קְשִׁיתָהּ עַל הַהִיא דְּרִבִּי זְעוּרָא בְשֵׁם רַב שֵׁשֶׁת. תַּנֵּיי תַּמָּן דִּבְרֵי רִבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן שְׁתֵּיהֶן אֲסוּרוֹת. מִחְלְפָא שִׁיטָּתֵיהּ דְּרִבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן. תַּמָּן הוּא אָמַר. שְׁתֵּיהֶן אֲסוּרוֹת. וְהָכָא אַתְּ אָמַר. שְׁתֵּיהֶן מוּתָּרוֹת. The argument of Rebbi Simeon seems to be inverted. There91Mishnah 3:10 where R. Simeon completely disregards “bespeaking” while here he even considers candidacy as obstacle., he says, “he marries in levirate the one he wants and performs ḥalîṣah with the other,” and here, he says so? Rebbi Ze‘ira said, when I was still there92In Babylonia. In the Babli, 31b, this argument is labelled rabbinic, not biblical., I learned the reason: There, the candidacy for two brothers-in-law does not interfere and one candidacy can be added to another, but here it is candidacy for one levir and no candidacy can come after a “bespeaking”93A comparison with the earlier quote (Note 85) shows that candidacy and “bespeaking” are put on one and the same level.. Rebbi Mattania said, are not sisters different from unrelated women? If you want a difficulty, find it in what Rebbi Ze‘ira said in the name of RavSheshet: They stated there that Rebbi Simeon forbade both of them94Halakhah 2:2, Note 47. In that case, Rebbi Simeon accepts “bespeaking” as marriage.. The argument of Rebbi Simeon seems to be inverted. There he says, both are forbidden, and here91Mishnah 3:10 where R. Simeon completely disregards “bespeaking” while here he even considers candidacy as obstacle. you says, both are permitted95No answer is given since the earlier explanation of R. Ze‘ira is also valid here..