YEVAMOS - 003b – חמש עשרה נשים – פרק ראשון – יבמות, ג ע”ב

[The opening number comes] to exclude those of Rav and Rav Assi.^[1]

דרב ודרב אסי - For Rav said: the co-wife of a sotah is forbidden – that is, if his wife committed adultery and he had another wife, and he died without children, both are exempt. And Rav Assi said: the co-wife of an ailonis is forbidden^[2] – if he was married to an ailonis and another woman and died without children, both are exempt. Both rulings are in our chapter (11a).

For Rav and Rav Assi, what does [the second number] come to exclude?

If they hold each other’s view – one [number] excludes the co-wife of a mema’enes, and one excludes the co-wife of a man who remarries his divorcee.^[3]

צרת ממאנת - His brother had [as wives] a minor orphan girl and another woman, and he died, and the minor refused this yavam: she and her co-wife are forbidden to him. Our Mishnah teaches us that although she is forbidden to him, she is not exempt from chalitzah, for this prohibition is Rabbinic, as stated in our chapter – a decree on account of the co-wife of his daughter who refuses.

מחזיר גרושתו - His brother divorced one of his two wives, she married another man, and he transgressed and took her back after her [second] husband’s death; then he died without children. Both are forbidden to be taken in yibum, and the Mishnah’s exclusion teaches us that they require chalitzah.

And if they do not hold each other’s view – one excludes his colleague’s case, and one excludes either the co-wife of a mema’enes or the co-wife of a man who remarries his divorcee.

According to Rav and Rav Assi, let [the Mishnah] teach them [among the women who exempt their co-wives]!

ליתנינהו - The sotah and the ailonis, together with those of the Mishnah, since [according to Rav and Rav Assi] they exempt their co-wives.

Because [such a case] does not occur with a co-wife’s co-wife.^[4]

לפי שאינן בצרת צרה - For with all those of the Mishnah one can teach “if her co-wife went and married his second brother” etc., since she is an ervah only to this one, but to his second brother they are fit; and if [the second brother] took even the co-wife in yibum, and he had another wife and died, and they fell before this one – even the unrelated woman is exempt, since she is the co-wife of the co-wife of his daughter. But with a sotah and an ailonis one cannot teach “if her co-wife went and married his second brother,” for she is forbidden to all the brothers, since the prohibition came upon her through the betrothal of her first husband, and they are all equal in it.

From where are these matters derived? For the Rabbis taught (Vayikra 18:18): “And you shall not take a woman to her sister, to be a rival, to uncover her nakedness upon her, in her lifetime.”^[5]

מנה"מ - That an ervah, her co-wife and her co-wife’s co-wife are exempt forever.

“Upon her” – why does the verse say it?

עליה מה תלמוד לומר - Let it write “to uncover her nakedness in her lifetime,” and you would also understand that during his wife’s lifetime her sister is forbidden to him, and after her death she is permitted.

Since it says (Devarim 25:5) “Her yavam shall come upon her,”^[6] I might understand that the verse speaks even of one of all the arayos stated in the Torah.

שומע אני - Even if one of the arayos fell before him for yibum, she would be taken in yibum.

It says “upon her” here and it says “upon her” there: just as there it is a case of mitzvah, so too here it is a case of mitzvah – and the Merciful One said, “you shall not take.”^[7]

I have only her; from where [do I know] her co-wife?

The verse says, “litzror” (to be a rival).

I have only her co-wife; from where [do I know] her co-wife’s co-wife?

The verse says “litzror,” and not “latzor.”^[8]

לצרור - It implies many co-wives, since it does not write “latzor.”

I have only a wife’s sister; from where [do I know] the other arayos?

You say: Just as a wife’s sister is distinctive in that she is an ervah, one is liable to kares for [living with her] deliberately and to a chatas for doing so unwittingly, and she is forbidden to the yavam – so too any woman who is an ervah, for whom one is liable to kares when deliberate and to a chatas when unwitting, is forbidden to the yavam.^[9]

זדונה כרת - In the section of the arayos (Vayikra 18:29) it is written after all of them, “the souls that do them shall be cut off”; and whatever carries kares when deliberate carries a chatas when unwitting, as derived in our chapter (9a).

I have only them; from where [do I know] their co-wives?

You say: Just as a wife’s sister is distinctive in that she is an ervah, one is liable to kares when deliberate and to a chatas when unwitting, she is forbidden to the yavam, and her co-wife is forbidden – so too any woman who is an ervah, for whom one is liable to kares when deliberate and to a chatas when unwitting, and who is forbidden to the yavam: her co-wife is forbidden.

From here the Sages said: Fifteen women exempt their co-wives and their co-wives’ co-wives from chalitzah and from yibum, forever.^[10]

ט"ו נשים - There are no further arayos carrying kares besides the six arayos of our Mishnah, which never have any aspect of yibum.

I might include even six arayos more severe than these, that their co-wives should be forbidden?^[11]

יכול שאני מרבה כו' - [Women] who are married to others – that their co-wives should be forbidden to marry this one.

You say: Just as his wife’s sister is distinctive in that she is an ervah, one is liable to kares when deliberate and to a chatas when unwitting, she can be married to the brothers, she is forbidden to the yavam, and her co-wife is forbidden – so too any woman who is an ervah, for whom one is liable to kares when deliberate and to a chatas when unwitting, who can be married to the brothers and is forbidden to the yavam: her co-wife is forbidden.

The six more severe arayos are excluded: since they cannot be married to the brothers, their co-wives are permitted – for there is no co-wife except through a brother.

שאין צרה אלא מאח - Since the verse exempted her from his zikah, she is forbidden to him by the prohibition of a brother’s wife who has children, which carries kares, as it is written, “the nakedness of your brother’s wife”; but otherwise the prohibition of a brother’s wife does not rest on her, and she is permitted to him.

We have heard the warning; from where [do we know] the punishment?

עונש מניין - If he took in yibum an ervah or her co-wife.

The verse says (Vayikra 18:29): “For whoever does any of these abominations…”

The reason is that the Merciful One wrote “upon her”; but if not for that, I would have said that a wife’s sister may be taken in yibum.

ה"א אחות אשה מייבמת - [That is,] he takes [her] in yibum.

What is the reason?

מאי טעמא - But she stands under [a prohibition of] kares for him!

Because we say: a positive commandment comes and overrides a negative commandment?!^[12]

דאתי עשה - Of yibum.

ודחי את לא תעשה - For we learn from a verse that a positive commandment comes and overrides a negative commandment, as [the Gemara] goes on to explain.

Granted that we say a positive commandment comes and overrides a negative commandment – that is a plain negative commandment; does it override a negative commandment that carries kares?

And further: a plain negative commandment – from where do we know that [a positive commandment] overrides it?

למעוטי דרב ודרב אסי - And if you ask: let both be excluded by the number of the opening clause – for since it teaches “fifteen women,” one cannot say that it left [cases] out, and all of them are excluded by its not teaching them, as is said in the first chapter of Kiddushin (16b): “And if you say he taught and left out – but it teaches ‘four’!”^[13] One can answer: here it could not teach them, as [the Gemara] concludes, “because they do not occur with a co-wife’s co-wife”; so they cannot be excluded by its not teaching them, but only by the superfluous [number] of the Mishnah. The reasoning of Rav Assi and of the one who disagrees with him I will explain later, with God’s help.

לפי שאינן בצרת צרה - And if you ask: one does find a co-wife’s co-wife with regard to the adulterer – [the sotah] married his brother, who had another wife, and he died without children: she exempts her co-wife from the adulterer, for with regard to the adulterer too she is defiled, as with regard to the husband;^[14] and if the co-wife went and married his second brother, who had another wife, and he died – just as she is exempt, so her co-wife is exempt. One can answer: since with regard to the husband a co-wife’s co-wife does not occur, we should not be stricter with the defilement regarding the adulterer than with the defilement regarding the husband. Further, the Ri said: only the defilement written regarding the husband is like the arayos, for it is written in the form of a prohibition, “Her first husband may not…” (Devarim 24:4); but regarding the adulterer no prohibition is written, only “and she secluded herself and was defiled” (Bamidbar 5:13). And as for what [the Gemara] asks later (11b), “If she had relations, defilement is written of her: ‘and she secluded herself and was defiled’” – implying that from this alone it derives that defilement is written of her as with the arayos – you can say that according to its answer, that she should be under a prohibition, “and she secluded herself and was defiled” alone would not suffice.

מה אחות אשה מיוחדת כו' - And if you ask: [one can object,] what of a wife’s sister – [she is special] in that it is in his power to multiply [them], as [the Gemara] objects in Perek HaBa al Yevimto (54a)? One can answer: it relies on the hekesh of Rabbi Yonah at the end of our sugya (8a).^[15]

יכול שאני מרבה אף שש עריות חמורות מאלו - It could have said: “I might include even [a case] not in a place of mitzvah.”

טעמא דכתב רחמנא עליה הא לאו הכי הוה אמינא אחות אשה מייבמת - The Ri finds it difficult: how does [the Gemara] know this? Let us say that even without “upon her” a wife’s sister would not be taken in yibum, since a positive commandment does not override a negative commandment that carries kares, and “upon her” was needed to forbid [her] in order to teach us that elsewhere it does override in such a case – as it says later: “The reason is that the Merciful One wrote ‘You shall keep My Shabbasos’; but if not so, it would override.” And if you say that [the Gemara] is objecting to the beraisa’s “I might understand,” whose wording implies that without “upon her” I would have said it overrides – if so, what does Rava answer at the end of the conclusion: “The ervah herself needs no verse, for a positive commandment does not override a negative commandment that carries kares”? Rather, perforce “I might understand” is not precise, and this is what it means: if you would say that it overrides, it is written “upon her” – though that is not its main purpose. And the Ri said: if elsewhere a positive commandment did not override a negative commandment that carries kares, the Tanna should not have expounded “upon her” as a prohibition, so that it would not be needed for its own subject but only to teach us that elsewhere it overrides; rather he should have expounded it as a permission: “It says here ‘upon her’ and it says there ‘upon her’” – just as there it is a wife’s sister, so too here it is a wife’s sister, and the Merciful One said, “her yavam shall come upon her”; for it is more reasonable to expound so and to keep the verse to its own subject. Rather, certainly this Tanna holds that a positive commandment overrides a negative commandment that carries kares, and no verse is needed for permission; therefore he expounds it for its own subject, as a prohibition. And Rav Ashi, who objects later (8b), “From where [do you know] that this ‘upon her’ is for prohibition – perhaps it is for permission?”, objects according to Rava, who concludes that a positive commandment does not override a negative commandment that carries kares, as the Ri son of Rabbi Meir explained; but as long as it was thought that it overrides, he could not object so. And Rava need not have said “Rather, you cannot say it is for permission, for if so, ‘to uncover her nakedness’ – how would the case of one [sister] be found?”, as [the Gemara] answers later to Rav Ashi’s question; for the main point of the Talmud’s inference is that it does not expound it as a permission. Rather, in the questioner’s view it was obvious that a positive commandment overrides a negative commandment that carries kares, and Rava answered him the truth: that it is not so.

לא תעשה שיש בו כרת מי דחי - And if you ask: why do we not derive that it overrides from the positive commandment of yibum, which overrides the kares prohibition of a brother’s wife? And if you say that this is what [the Gemara] says later (7b), “Rather, it was needed: you might have thought, let a wife’s sister be derived by ‘mah matzinu’ from a brother’s wife” – if so, how does it reject it: “Are they comparable? There it is one prohibition, here two prohibitions”? We do not make that distinction anywhere, and we learn from kilayim in tzitzis;^[16] how would it want to learn even [a case of] two prohibitions? Further, later, when it wants to learn from Pesach, Tamid and milah, we do not object so. Further, the Talmud leaves aside a brother’s wife, which it is dealing with, and brings it up only at the end. Further, at least for one prohibition let us learn from a brother’s wife! Rather, perforce, later it does not come to learn from a brother’s wife for all places, but only for a wife’s sister, as it concludes the reason, “since she was permitted, she was permitted”; therefore it says “let a wife’s sister come from a brother’s wife,” and not “let it come from a brother’s wife,” as it says in all those later – “let it come from milah,” “let it come from honoring a father” – without mentioning a wife’s sister, because there it comes to learn for all places. And the Ri says: from a brother’s wife one cannot learn generally that a positive commandment overrides a negative commandment that carries kares, for a brother’s wife is different: its mitzvah is through this very act, and it is impossible to fulfil the mitzvah of yibum another way, for otherwise the mitzvah of yibum would be nullified. But from kilayim in tzitzis one learns well for elsewhere, for if one does not fulfil the mitzvah of techeles in linen, one fulfils it in wool, and even so it overrides. Likewise “and he shall shave all his hair” of the metzora can be fulfilled with permitted hair, for “all his hair” still applies, like “you shall do no work” of Shabbos, which refers only to the labors that do not override Shabbos; or else “all his hair” literally, and where the corners of his head and beard had been plucked. And likewise all those that are brought can be fulfilled in another way.

Notes

1. 1. In 3a the Gemara asked what the Mishnah’s opening number, “fifteen women,” comes to exclude. The answer: the rulings of Rav (the co-wife of a sotah is forbidden) and Rav Assi (the co-wife of an ailonis is forbidden) – by fixing the number, the Mishnah teaches that these co-wives are not exempted. A tzarah is a co-wife: another wife of the same deceased husband.
2. 2. A sotah is a wife who was unfaithful to her husband and is forbidden to him. An ailonis is a woman who cannot bear children; a marriage made in ignorance of this is in error. Rav and Rav Assi hold that their co-wives too are freed from yibum.
3. 3. A mema’enes is a fatherless girl married off as a minor by her mother or brothers, who annuls the marriage by refusal (mi’un). A man who remarries his divorcee after she has married another transgresses a Torah prohibition. If Rav and Rav Assi accept each other’s rulings, the Mishnah’s two numbers must exclude these two other cases.
4. 4. A co-wife’s co-wife: the co-wife marries another brother, he dies, and his other wife is exempted too. With the arayos of the Mishnah this can happen, since each is forbidden to only one brother; a sotah or ailonis is forbidden to all the brothers, so the chain can never arise.
5. 5. A wife’s sister is forbidden as long as the wife is alive. From this verse the beraisa derives that an ervah and her co-wives are exempt from yibum.
6. 6. Yibum: when a man dies childless, his brother marries the widow, or frees her by chalitzah. The verse could seem to require this even where the widow is an ervah to the brother.
7. 7. A gezeirah shavah links the same word in two verses. “Upon her” in both teaches that the wife’s-sister prohibition speaks of the yibum situation: she is forbidden even where yibum would be a mitzvah.
8. 8. Litzror has a doubled resh where latzor would do; the extra letter teaches many co-wives – the co-wife and the co-wife’s co-wife.
9. 9. Kares is divine excision, the punishment for a deliberate act; a chatas is the sin-offering brought for unwittingly transgressing a kares prohibition. These traits define the arayos that exempt from yibum.
10. 10. The fifteen women listed in the Mishnah at the opening of the chapter: relatives forbidden to the yavam as ervah, who exempt their co-wives from chalitzah and yibum.
11. 11. Arayos such as his mother or his father’s wife are forbidden to all the brothers alike. Since they can never be married to a brother, they never come to yibum, and so there is no co-wife to exempt.
12. 12. Aseh docheh lo sa’aseh: where a positive mitzvah clashes with a negative one, the positive overrides. Here the mitzvah of yibum would override the prohibition of a wife’s sister.
13. 13. Tana veshayar: a Tanna lists some cases and leaves others out. When he states a number, one cannot say he left any out.
14. 14. A sotah is forbidden both to her husband and to the man with whom she sinned (the bo’el). Tosfos asks whether the bo’el’s prohibition could create a co-wife’s co-wife.
15. 15. Rabbi Yonah’s hekesh: the verse “For whoever does any of these abominations” sets all the arayos alongside a brother’s wife, so their law is learned from hers (Yevamos 8a).
16. 16. Kilayim: wool and linen together are forbidden in a garment, and the next verse commands tzitzis. The juxtaposition teaches that woolen techeles may be put on a linen garment – the source that a positive mitzvah overrides a negative one (Yevamos 4a).