## Yevamot Daf 18a

###### Yevamot 18a:1
[Yevamot 18a:1](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Yevamot/r/18a:1)

הֲוָה אָמֵינָא מֵחַיִּים, אֲבָל לְאַחַר מִיתָה — פָּקְעָה לַהּ זִיקָה, קָא מַשְׁמַע לַן דְּזִיקָה בִּכְדִי לָא פָּקְעָה. לֵימָא מְסַיַּיע לֵיהּ: יְבִמְתּוֹ שֶׁמֵּתָה — מוּתָּר בַּאֲחוֹתָהּ. בַּאֲחוֹתָהּ אִין, בְּאִמָּהּ לָא!

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**I would say** that the levirate bond applies as long as the *yevama* requiring levirate marriage **is alive but** that **after** her **death the bond was terminated.** In other words, after the *yevama* died any relationship between the two dissolved. **This comes to teach us that the bond is not terminated without cause** but instead requires an actual act, such as *ḥalitza* or levirate marriage. Until one of these acts is performed, the bond remains in place. **Let us say that it supports** Rav Yehuda’s opinion from that which was taught: If **his *yevama* dies, he is permitted to** marry **her sister.** From here the Gemara deduces: **Her sister, yes; her mother, no,** in accordance with the opinion of Rav Yehuda.


###### Yevamot 18a:2
[Yevamot 18a:2](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Yevamot/r/18a:2)

הוּא הַדִּין דַּאֲפִילּוּ בְּאִמָּהּ, וְאַיְּידֵי דִּתְנָא רֵישָׁא: אִשְׁתּוֹ שֶׁמֵּתָה — מוּתָּר בַּאֲחוֹתָהּ, דַּוְקָא בַּאֲחוֹתָהּ, אֲבָל בְּאִמָּהּ לָא, דְּהָוְיָא לַהּ אִיסּוּרָא דְּאוֹרָיְיתָא — תְּנָא נָמֵי סֵיפָא מוּתָּר בַּאֲחוֹתָהּ.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara rejects this: **The same is true, that even her mother** is permitted. **And** this language was used only **since he taught in the first clause** of the *baraita*: If **his wife dies he is permitted to take her sister; specifically her sister but not her mother, as she is forbidden by Torah** law. Therefore, **he also taught in the latter clause** that **he is permitted to** marry **her sister.**


###### Yevamot 18a:3
[Yevamot 18a:3](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Yevamot/r/18a:3)

מֵתִיב רַב הוּנָא בַּר חִיָּיא: עָשָׂה בָּהּ מַאֲמָר וּמֵת — שְׁנִיָּה חוֹלֶצֶת וְלֹא מִתְיַיבֶּמֶת. טַעְמָא דַּעֲבַד בַּהּ מַאֲמָר, הָא לָא עֲבַד בַּהּ מַאֲמָר — שְׁנִיָּה נָמֵי יַבּוֹמֵי מְיַיבְּמָה, וְאִי אָמְרַתְּ יֵשׁ זִיקָה, הָוְיָא לַהּ צָרַת אֵשֶׁת אָחִיו שֶׁלֹּא הָיָה בְּעוֹלָמוֹ בְּזִיקָה!

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**Rav Huna bar Ḥiyya raised an objection** to this from the mishna: If **he performed levirate betrothal with her and** then **died, the second** woman **performs *ḥalitza* and may not enter into levirate marriage.** This implies that **the reason is** specifically **that he performed levirate betrothal with her. Had** the brother **not performed levirate betrothal with her, the second** woman **would also** be permitted to **enter into levirate marriage. And if you say that the** levirate **bond is substantial,** then she would be considered **a rival wife of the wife of a brother with whom** the third brother **did not coexist by that bond.** Since the wife of a brother with whom he did not coexist is prohibited from entering into levirate marriage, her rival wife would likewise be forbidden from doing so.


###### Yevamot 18a:4
[Yevamot 18a:4](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Yevamot/r/18a:4)

אָמַר רַבָּה: הוּא הַדִּין דְּאַף עַל גַּב דְּלָא עֲבַד בַּהּ מַאֲמָר — שְׁנִיָּה מִחְלָץ חָלְצָה, יַבּוֹמֵי לָא מִיַּיבְּמָה.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**Rabba said:** This should not be read precisely, as **the same is true even if** the second brother **did not perform levirate betrothal; the second** woman **must perform *ḥalitza* but may not enter into levirate marriage,** as the levirate bond renders her a rival wife of the wife of a brother with whom the third brother did not coexist.


###### Yevamot 18a:5
[Yevamot 18a:5](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Yevamot/r/18a:5)

וְהָא דְּקָתָנֵי מַאֲמָר, לְאַפּוֹקֵי מִבֵּית שַׁמַּאי, דְּאָמְרִי: מַאֲמָר קוֹנֶה קִנְיָן גָּמוּר — קָא מַשְׁמַע לַן.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**And** the reason **that** it **teaches** the case of **levirate betrothal** specifically was **in order to exclude** the opinion of **Beit Shammai, who said:** The legal status of **levirate betrothal** with a *yevama* eligible for levirate marriage **is** that of **a full-fledged acquisition,** and it is legally binding to the same degree as an actual betrothal. Therefore, even *ḥalitza* would be unnecessary, similar to the case of a rival wife of a forbidden relation. This is what **it comes to teach us:** Even if he performed levirate betrothal she is not truly considered the rival wife of a forbidden relation; the prohibition concerning her is by rabbinic law, and she is therefore required to perform *ḥalitza*.


###### Yevamot 18a:6
[Yevamot 18a:6](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Yevamot/r/18a:6)

אֵיתִיבֵיהּ אַבָּיֵי: שְׁנֵי אַחִין בְּעוֹלָם אֶחָד, וָמֵת אֶחָד מֵהֶן בְּלֹא וָלָד, וְעָמַד הַשֵּׁנִי הַזֶּה לַעֲשׂוֹת מַאֲמָר בִּיבִמְתּוֹ, וְלֹא הִסְפִּיק לַעֲשׂוֹת בָּהּ מַאֲמָר עַד שֶׁנּוֹלַד לוֹ אָח, וּמֵת. הָרִאשׁוֹנָה — יוֹצְאָה מִשּׁוּם אֵשֶׁת אָחִיו שֶׁלֹּא הָיָה בְּעוֹלָמוֹ, וּשְׁנִיָּה — אוֹ חוֹלֶצֶת אוֹ מִתְיַיבֶּמֶת. וְאִי אָמְרַתְּ יֵשׁ זִיקָה, הָוְיָא לַהּ צָרַת אֵשֶׁת אָחִיו שֶׁלֹּא הָיָה בְּעוֹלָמוֹ בְּזִיקָה!

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**Abaye raised an objection to** this from that which was taught: In the case of **two brothers who coexisted, and one died childless and the second arose to perform levirate betrothal with his *yevama* but did not manage to perform levirate betrothal before** a third **brother was born, and** then the second brother, who also had a wife, **died,** whereby both women would fall before the newly born brother for levirate marriage, then **the first goes out** and is not obligated in levirate marriage **because** she is **the wife of his brother with whom he did not coexist, and the second** woman, who was the wife of the second brother, **either performs *ḥalitza* or enters into levirate marriage. But if you say that the** levirate **bond is substantial,** then the wife of the second brother **would be rendered a rival wife of the wife of a brother with whom he did not coexist** by that **bond.**


###### Yevamot 18a:7
[Yevamot 18a:7](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Yevamot/r/18a:7)

הָא מַנִּי — רַבִּי מֵאִיר הִיא, דְּאָמַר: אֵין זִיקָה. וּמִי סְבִירָא לֵיהּ לְרַבִּי מֵאִיר אֵין זִיקָה? וְהָתְנַן: אַרְבָּעָה אַחִים, שְׁנַיִם מֵהֶן נְשׂוּאִים שְׁתֵּי אֲחָיוֹת, וּמֵתוּ הַנְּשׂוּאִין הָאֲחָיוֹת — הֲרֵי אֵלּוּ חוֹלְצוֹת וְלֹא מִתְיַיבְּמוֹת.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara rejects that: In accordance with **whose** opinion **is this? It is** the opinion of **Rabbi Meir, who said: The** levirate **bond is not substantial.** The Gemara asks: **Does Rabbi Meir hold that the** levirate **bond is not substantial?** After all, unattributed *mishnayot* are in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Meir, and **didn’t we learn** in a mishna (26a): In the case of **four brothers, two of whom are married to two sisters,** if **those married to the sisters died,** whereby both sisters fall before the surviving brothers for levirate marriage, **then those** two sisters **must perform *ḥalitza* and may not enter into levirate marriage.** It would seem that the reason for this is that each of the sisters has a levirate bond to both remaining brothers.


###### Yevamot 18a:8
[Yevamot 18a:8](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Yevamot/r/18a:8)

וְאִי סָלְקָא דַעְתָּךְ סָבַר רַבִּי מֵאִיר אֵין זִיקָה, הָנֵי מִתְּרֵי בָּתֵּי קָאָתְיָין, הַאי לְיַיבֵּם חֲדָא וְהַאי לְיַיבֵּם חֲדָא!

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**And if it enters your mind to say** that **Rabbi Meir held that the** levirate **bond is not substantial,** didn’t **these** two sisters **come from two** different **houses,** as each was married to a different brother? If so, **one** brother **should take one in levirate marriage and the other should take one in levirate marriage.**


###### Yevamot 18a:9
[Yevamot 18a:9](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Yevamot/r/18a:9)

לְעוֹלָם אֵין זִיקָה. מִשּׁוּם דְּקָסָבַר אָסוּר לְבַטֵּל מִצְוַת יְבָמִין — דְּדִלְמָא אַדִּמְיַיבֵּם חַד, מָיֵית אִידַּךְ, וְקָא בָּטְלָת מִצְוַת יְבָמִין.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara answers: **Actually,** in Rabbi Meir’s opinion **the** levirate **bond is not substantial.** The mishna states that they perform *ḥalitza* and do not enter into levirate marriage **because he held that it is prohibited to nullify the mitzva of levirate marriage.** That is to say, it is prohibited to act in such a way that the mitzva of levirate marriage becomes obviated. Under these circumstances there is concern that **perhaps as one** brother **performs levirate marriage** to one of the sisters **the other** brother **dies** before he manages to perform levirate marriage to the other. If that were to happen, **you** would thereby **nullify the mitzva of levirate marriage** since the sister that would now fall before the remaining brother would be his wife’s sister and therefore prohibited from entering into levirate marriage with him.


###### Yevamot 18a:10
[Yevamot 18a:10](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Yevamot/r/18a:10)

וְאִי אֵין זִיקָה — תִּיבְטַל! דְּהָא רַבָּן גַּמְלִיאֵל אָמַר: אֵין זִיקָה, וּמוּתָּר לְבַטֵּל מִצְוַת יְבָמִין.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara objects: **But if the** levirate **bond is not substantial,** then **let** the mitzva of levirate marriage **be nullified.** That is, if the levirate bond does not carry any real obligation, then the mitzva itself never truly came into effect. **As Rabban Gamliel said: The** levirate **bond is not substantial, and it is permitted to nullify the mitzva of levirate marriage.**


###### Yevamot 18a:11
[Yevamot 18a:11](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Yevamot/r/18a:11)

דִּתְנַן, רַבָּן גַּמְלִיאֵל אוֹמֵר: אִם מֵאֲנָה — מֵאֲנָה, וְאִם לֹא מֵאֲנָה — תַּמְתִּין עַד שֶׁתַּגְדִּיל, וְתֵצֵא הַלֵּזוּ, מִשּׁוּם אֲחוֹת אִשָּׁה.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**As we learned** in a mishna (109a): That mishna discusses a case of two brothers who were married to two sisters. One sister is an adult and therefore her marriage was fully effectual, and one sister is still a minor, and she was orphaned from her father, and her marriage was valid only by rabbinic ordinance. If the brother who was married to the elder sister died, then that sister falls for levirate marriage before the brother married to the minor. Under these circumstances, the Sages suggested directing the minor to refuse her marriage to her husband so that he would be able to take his brother’s wife in levirate marriage. If the minor does not do so, he would be unable to take her sister in marriage, as she would be the sister of his minor wife and thereby fully exempt from the levirate obligation. **Rabban Gamliel said: If** the minor **refused** in the meantime of her own accord, **then she refused, but if she did not refuse, let her wait until she reaches** the age of **maturity, and** then **that other** adult sister **will be exempt** from performing *ḥalitza* or levirate marriage **due to** the fact that she is his **wife’s sister.** Here it is apparent that Rabban Gamliel is not concerned about nullifying the mitzva of levirate marriage from one of them.


###### Yevamot 18a:12
[Yevamot 18a:12](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Yevamot/r/18a:12)

אֲמַר לֵיהּ: דְּרַבָּן גַּמְלִיאֵל אַדְּרַבִּי מֵאִיר קָרָמֵית?! לָא, הָכִי קָאָמְרִינַן: רַבִּי מֵאִיר חָיֵישׁ אֲפִילּוּ לִסְפֵיקָא, רַבָּן גַּמְלִיאֵל אֲפִילּוּ לְוַדַּאי לָא חָיֵישׁ! דִּלְמָא מַאן דְּלָא חָיֵישׁ — אֲפִילּוּ לְוַדַּאי לָא חָיֵישׁ, וּמַאן דְּחָיֵישׁ — אֲפִילּוּ לִסְפֵיקָא חָיֵישׁ.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
Rabba **said to** Abaye: Do you wish to **raise a contradiction between** the words of **Rabban Gamliel and Rabbi Meir?** This would imply that the contradiction needs to be resolved, but statements from two different *tanna’im* do not need to agree or to be resolved. Abaye responded: **No,** in fact **this is what we meant to say:** How could one possibly say that **Rabbi Meir is concerned** lest there be nullification of the mitzva of levirate marriage **even when it is uncertain** because perhaps the first brother will not die, whereas **Rabban Gamliel is not concerned** that the mitzva be nullified **even when it is certain?** It is surprising that there should be such a great difference between the tannaitic opinions. Rabba answered: **Perhaps the one who is not concerned** about nullification of the mitzva of levirate marriage **is not concerned even if** nullification is **certain, and the one who is concerned is concerned even if** nullification **is uncertain.**


###### Yevamot 18a:13
[Yevamot 18a:13](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Yevamot/r/18a:13)

אֲמַר לֵיהּ אַבָּיֵי לְרַב יוֹסֵף: הָא דְּרַב יְהוּדָה — דִּשְׁמוּאֵל הִיא. דִּתְנַן:

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
With regard to the actual dispute between Rav Huna and Rav Yehuda, **Abaye said to Rav Yosef: This** *halakha* stated **by Rav Yehuda,** that even if a woman waiting for levirate marriage dies her mother is still forbidden to the *yavam*, **is** from his teacher **Shmuel** and not from Rav, who was also one of his teachers. Evidence for this can be found in **that** which **we learned** in a mishna (41a):