Jerusalem Talmud Yevamot 2.1

משנה: כֵּיצַד אֵשֶׁת אָחִיו שֶׁלֹּא הָיָה בְעוֹלָמוֹ. שְׁנֵי אַחִים וּמֵת אֶחָד מֵהֶם וְנוֹלַד לָהֶן אָח וְאַחַר כָּךְ יִבֵּם הַשֵּׁנִי אֶת אֵשֶׁת אָחִיו וָמֵת. הָרִאשׁוֹנָה יוֹצֵאת מִשּׁוּם אֵשֶׁת אָחִיו שֶׁלֹּא הָיָה בְעוֹלָמוֹ וְהַשְּׁנִיָיה מִשּׁוּם צָרָתָהּ. עָשָׂה בָהּ מַאֲמָר וָמֵת שְׁנִיָיה חוֹלֶצֶת וְלֹא מִתְיַיבֶּמֶת.

MISHNAH: In which way “the wife of his brother who did not live in his world”? There were two brothers, one of them died, then a brother was born to them, and after that the second brother took his brother’s wife in levirate, and died. The first woman leaves as widow of his brother who did not live in his world and the second one because she is her co-wife. If he had “bespoken” her, the second performs ḥalîṣah but not levirate.

הלכה: כֵּיצַד אֵשֶׁת אָחִיו שֶׁלֹּא הָיָה בְעוֹלָמוֹ כול׳. יַחדָּיו. פְּרָט לְאֵשֶׁת אָחִיו שֶׁלֹּא הָיָה בְעוֹלָמוֹ. דִּלֹא כֵן מַה אֲנָן אָמְרִין. מֵת בְּלֹא בָנִים תְּהֵא אִשְׁתּוֹ אֲסוּרָה לְהִינָּשֵׂא. שֶׁמָּא יוֹלִיד אָבִיו בֵּן וּתְהֵא אִשְׁתּוֹ זְקוּקָה לְיִיבּוּם. מֵעַתָּה אֲפִילוּ מֵתָה אִמּוֹ תְּהֵא אִשְׁתּוֹ אֲסוּרָה לְהִינָּשֵׂא. שֶׁמָּא יֵלֵךְ אָבִיו וְיִשָּׂא לוֹ אִשָּׁה אֲחֶרֶת וְיוֹלִיד בֵּן וּתְהֵא אִשְׁתּוֹ זְקוּקָה לְיִיבּוּם. וְיֹאמֶר קִרְיָיה וּבֵן וְאַב אֵין לוֹ. אֶלָּא כֵן אֲנָן קַיָימִין כְּשֶׁמֵּת וְהִנִּיחַ אֶת אִשְׁתּוֹ מְעוּבֶּרֶת. שֶׁלֹּא תֹאמַר. אִילּוּ מֵת וְהִנִּיחַ אֶת אִשְׁתּוֹ מְעוּבֶּרֶת שֶׁמָּא אֵינָה צְרִיכָה לְהַמְתִּין וְלֵידַע אִם בֶּן קַיָימָא הוּא וְאִם אֵינוֹ בֶּן קַיָימָא. אַף הָכָא תְהֵא צְרִיכָה לְהַמְתִּין וְלֵידַע אִם בֶּן קַיָימָא הוּא וְאִם אֵינוֹ בֶּן קַיָימָא. לְפוּם כֵּן צָרַךְ מֵימַר יַחדָּיו. פְּרָט לְאֵשֶׁת אָחִיו שֶׁלֹּא הָיָה בְעוֹלָמוֹ.

HALAKHAH: Why “the wife of his brother who did not live in his world”? “Together”, this excludes the wife of his brother who did not live in his world. Because if it were not so, what would we say? If he died childless, his widow would be forbidden to remarry, for maybe his father would have another son and his widow would then be a candidate for the levirate! Even if [the deceased’s] mother had died, his widow would be forbidden to remarry, [because] maybe the father would go and marry a new wife who could have a son and the widow would then be a candidate for the levirate! Then the verse would have to read: “He has neither father nor son”! One would compare this to the case that he left his widow pregnant; does she not have to wait to know whether the child is viable or not? Here also, should she not have to wait to know whether the child is viable or not? Therefore it was necessary to say “together”; this excludes the wife of his brother who did not live in his world.

יְבָמָהּ יָבֹא עָלֶיהָ. זֶה הַבִּיאָה. וּלְקָחָהּ לוֹ לְאִשָּׁה. זֶה הַמַּאֲמָר. יָכוֹל יְהֵא כְשֵׁם שֶׁהַבִּיאָה גוֹמֶרֶת בָּהּ כָּךְ יְהֵא מַאֲמָר גּוֹמֵר בָּהּ. תַּלמוּד לוֹמַר וְיִבְּמָהּ. עוּרָה אֶת כָּל הַפָּרָשָׁה כּוּלָּהּ לְיִיבּוּם. הַבִּיאָה גוֹמֶרֶת בָּהּ וְאֵין הַמַּאֲמָר גּוֹמֵר בָּהּ. אִם כֵּן מַה הוֹעִיל בָּהּ מַאֲמָר. לְאוֹסְרָהּ לָאַחִין.

“Her levir shall come upon her”, that is cohabitation. “And take her as wife for himself”, that is “bespeaking”. I might think that just as cohabitation is final so “bespeaking” is final; the verse says “and act as levir towards her.” This directs the entire paragraph towards levirate. Cohabitation is final, “bespeaking” is not final. Then what is “bespeaking” good for? To forbid her to the brothers.

רִבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן אוֹמֵר. הַמַּאֲמָר אוֹ קוֹנֶה אוֹ לֹא קוֹנֶה. מַה טַעֲמָא דְרִבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן. יְבָמָהּ יָבֹא עָלֶיהָ. זוֹ הַבִּיאָה. וּלְקָחָהּ לוֹ לְאִשָּׁה. זֶה הַמַּאֲמָר. וּכְשֵׁם שֶׁהַבִּיאָה גוֹמֶרֶת בָּהּ כָּךְ הַמַּאֲמָר גּוֹמֵר בָּהּ. אוֹ יְבָמָהּ יָבֹא עָלֶיהָ וַהֲרֵי הִיא לְקוּחָה לוֹ וְהַמַּאֲמָר לֹא הוֹעִיל בָּהּ. כְּלוּם.

Rebbi Simeon says, “bespeaking” either acquires or does not acquire. What is the argument of Rebbi Simeon? “Her levir shall come upon her”, that is cohabitation. “And take her as wife for himself”, that is “bespeaking”. Just as cohabitation is final so “bespeaking” is final. Or “her levir shall come upon her”, then she has been acquired by him and “bespeaking” was of no use to her.

רִבִּי לָעְזָר בֶּן עֲרָךְ אוֹמֵר. הַמַּאֲמָר קוֹנֶה קִנְיָין גָּמוּר בִּיבָמָה. מַה טַעֲמָא דְּרִבִּי לָעְזָר בֶּן עֲרָךְ. וּלְקָחָהּ לוֹ לְאִשָּׁה. הֲרֵי הִיא כְקִידּוּשֵׁי אִשָּׁה. מַה קִידּוּשֵׁי אִשָּׁה קוֹנִין קִנְיָין גָּמוּר. אַף הַמַּאֲמָר קוֹנֶה קִנְיָין גָּמוּר בִּיבָמָה. אֵי זוֹ הִיא מַּאֲמָר בִּיבָמָה. הֲרֵי אַתְּ מְקוּדֶּשֶׁת לִי בְּכֶסֶף וּבְשָׁוֶה כֶסֶף.

Rebbi Eleazar ben Arakh says, “bespeaking” acquires a sister-in-law completely. What is the argument of Rebbi Eleazar ben Arakh? “And take her as wife for himself”, the same expression is used as for qiddushin of a woman. Just as qiddushin acquire completely, so “bespeaking” acquires a sister-in-law completely. What is the formula for “bespeaking” a sister-in-law? “You are betrothed to me by money or money’s worth.”

בֵּין רַבָּנִין בֵּין רִבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן מוֹדֵיי בָהּ. כְּרַבָּנִין. צַד שֶׁקָּנָה בָהּ מַאֲמָר כְּנֶגְדּוֹ אָסוּר בְּצָרָה. וְצַד שֶׁלּא קָנָה בָהּ מַאֲמָר כְּנֶגְדּוֹ הֵיתֵר בְּצָרָה. לְפִיכָךְ חוֹלֶצֶת וְלֹא מִתְיַיבֶּמֶת. כְּרִבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן. קָנָה מַאֲמָר שְׁתֵּיהֶן מוּתָּרוֹת. לא קָנָה מַאֲמָר הָרִאשׁוֹנָה אֲסוּרָה וְהַשְּׁנִיָיה מוּתֶּרֶת. מִסָּפֵק חוֹלֶצֶת וְלֹא מִתְיַיבֶּמֶת. מַה נְפִיק מִן בֵּינֵיהוֹן. בָּא עַל הַשְּׁנִיָיה. עַל דַּעְתִּין דְּרַבָּנִין בִּיאוֹת עֶרְוָה. מִפְּנֵי שֶׁעָשָׂה בָּהּ מַאֲמָר. הָא אִם לֹא עָשָׂה בָהּ מַאֲמָר מִתְיַיבֶּמֶת וְאֵין לוֹ זִיקָה בָהּ. אָמַר רִבִּי חַגַיי. קִיַימְתָּהּ בְּהַהוּא דָמַר רִבִּי יַעֲקֹב בַּר אָחָא בְשֵׁם רִבִּי לָעְזָר. שׁוֹמֶרֶת יָבָם שֶׁמֵּתָה מוּתָּר בְּאִמָּהּ. זִיקָה הְָיְתָה לוֹ בָהּ. כֵּיוָן שֶׁמֵּתָה בָטְלָה זִיקָתָהּ. וְהָכָא כֵּיוָן שֶׁמֵּת בָּטְלָה זִיקָתוֹ.

Both the rabbis and Rebbi Simeon agree to the following. According to the rabbis, the aspect which “bespeaking” acquires is forbidden in the co-wife, the aspect which “bespeaking” does not acquire is permitted in the co-wife; therefore, the latter has to have ḥalîṣah but not levirate. According to Rebbi Simeon, if “bespeaking” acquires, both are permitted. If “bespeaking” does not acquire, the first one is forbidden but the second one permitted. Out of doubt, she has to have ḥalîṣah but not levirate. What is the difference between them? If he slept with the second one. In the opinion of the rabbis, an incestuous intercourse because he had “bespoken”. Therefore, if he had not “bespoken” she may have levirate and there is no candidacy at all. Rebbi Ḥaggai said, I explained that following what Rebbi Jacob bar Aḥa said in the name of Rebbi Eleazar: If a woman waiting for her levir died, her mother is permitted to him. He had in her an interest of candidacy. When she died, the candidacy was eliminated. And here, when he died, the candidacy was eliminated.