Daf Yomi - Yevamos 32 - Highlights

The Mishna states: Three were two brothers, Reuven and Shimon that were married to two sisters, Rochel and Leah. Reuven died childless, leaving his wife Rochel to fall for yibum to Shimon. (Shimon cannot perform a yibum at this time for Rochel is his wife’s sister.) Afterwards Shimon’s wife dies and now Rochel would be permitted to Shimon (since one’s wife’s sister is permitted to him after his wife dies). Shimon is still forbidden from performing a yibum with Rochel, his wife’s sister because once a yevamah is prohibited to the yavam, she is forbidden forever. (32a)

The Gemora asks a question on our Mishna based on a Mishna we had learned previously (30a). (The Mishna had stated: There were three brothers, Reuven, Shimon and Levi. Reuven and Shimon were married to two sisters, Rochel and Leah. Reuven died childless, leaving his wife Rochel to fall for yibum to Shimon and Levi. Shimon cannot perform a yibum at this time for Rochel is his wife’s sister. Levi performed the yibum, and subsequently, Leah, Shimon’s wife died. Levi died childless, leaving his wife Rochel to fall for yibum again to Shimon. This time, however, she is not forbidden to Shimon because Shimon’s wife had died. The Mishna taught us that nevertheless, Shimon cannot perform a yibum with Rochel because once she was forbidden to Shimon, she remains forbidden to him forever.) The Gemora asks: If in the previous Mishna, when the yevamah was not completely rejected from this house (since she was permitted to Levi), nevertheless, we rule that she remains forbidden to the other brother (Shimon) forever; in our Mishna, where she is completely rejected from this house (for Shimon was the only brother), she should certainly remain forbidden to Shimon (even after his wife dies). Why was it necessary to teach this case?

The Gemora answers: Originally, the Tanna of the Mishna was of the opinion that only in our case would the yevamah remain forbidden because she was completely rejected from this house, however, in the case when she was not completely rejected from the house, the Tanna maintained that she would be permitted (he therefore omitted this case). Afterwards, the Tanna reversed his opinion and ruled that she would remain forbidden in both cases, even when she was not completely rejected from the house. Since this case was dear to him, he inserted it prior to the other ruling; and since the other ruling was taught already, it was not moved from its original place. (32a)

The Gemora cites a braisa: (Three were two brothers, Reuven and Shimon that were married to two sisters, Rochel and Leah. Reuven died childless, leaving his wife Rochel to fall for yibum to Shimon. Shimon cannot perform a yibum at this time for Rochel is his wife’s sister.) If Shimon went ahead and cohabitated with Rochel (while his wife was still alive), he has violated two prohibitions; his brother’s wife and his wife’s sister. These are the words of Rabbi Yosi. Rabbi Shimon said: He is only liable for the prohibition against taking one’s brother’s wife.

The Gemora asks a contradiction from a braisa: Rabbi Shimon said: He is only liable for the prohibition against taking one’s wife’s sister.

The Gemora answers: The first braisa is referring to a case where the prohibition of the brother’s wife preceded the prohibition of the wife’s sister; the second braisa is discussing a case where the prohibition of the wife’s sister preceded the prohibition of the brother’s wife. (Rabbi Shimon holds that a prohibition cannot take effect on an existing prohibition.) (32a)

The Gemora asks on Rabbi Shimon: In the first braisa, where the wife’s sister prohibition does not take effect, why can’t Shimon perform a yibum in this case; the only prohibition is the brother’s wife and the mitzvah of yibum overrides that?

Rav Ashi answers: The wife’s sister prohibition is pending; if at any point in time, the brother’s wife prohibition is lifted, the prohibition of taking one’s wife’s sister will take effect. It is for this reason that the brother’s wife prohibition remains in effect. (32a)?

The Gemora discusses Rabbi Yosi’s opinion: Rabbi Yosi maintains that he is liable for two prohibitions; his brother’s wife and his wife’s sister. It emerges that Rabbi Yosi would hold that a prohibition can take effect on an existing prohibition.

The Gemora asks from a braisa: If one committed a transgression that entails two different death penalties, he receives the one that is stricter. Rabbi Yosi says: He incurs the first punishment. Rabbi Yosi explains in a different braisa: If the woman was first his mother-in-law and later became the wife of another man, he is subject to the mother-in-law prohibition. If the woman was first the wife of another man and later became his mother-in-law, he is subject to the wife of another man prohibition. Thus we see that Rabbi Yosi maintains that one prohibition does not take effect on an existing prohibition.

Rabbi Avahu answers: Rabbi Yosi maintains that one prohibition does not take effect on an existing prohibition; however, he agrees in a case that the second prohibition can take effect if it is a more extensive prohibition. (This explains why Rabbi Yosi maintains that if Shimon went ahead and cohabitated with Rochel, he has violated two prohibitions; his brother’s wife and his wife’s sister. When Shimon married, Rochel was forbidden to him on account of being his wife’s sister. When Reuven married Rochel, she became prohibited to the other brothers besides for Shimon. This prohibition includes more people, so it takes effect on Shimon as well. In a case where the second prohibition is not more extensive, Rabbi Yosi concedes that the second prohibition does not take effect. This would explain Rabbi Yosi’s opinion in the second braisa. A married woman is forbidden to the entire world; becoming his mother-in-law does not create any new prohibitions to any others. This is why the mother-in-law prohibition does not take effect. If she was his mother-in-law first and then she got married, the wife of another man prohibition will take effect. If he committed the transgression unintentionally, he will be required to bring two chatas offerings. If he sinned intentionally, he will be subject to two death penalties, but since he can only be executed once, he will receive the stricter type of execution.)

The Gemora asks: This would only be understandable in a case where the prohibition of the wife’s sister preceded the prohibition of the brother’s wife; since the brother’s wife prohibition includes more people (the brothers), it is deemed a more extensive prohibition and it will take effect. However, where the prohibition of the brother’s wife preceded the wife’s sister prohibition, why would Rabbi Yosi hold that the second prohibition takes effect?

Perhaps you will answer that the second prohibition does add more people; when Shimon marries his wife, he becomes prohibited to all her sisters besides the one who was already his brother’s wife. Let us say that Rochel will be subject to the wife’s sister prohibition besides the brother’s wife prohibition based on that? The Gemora states that this would not be considered an extensive prohibition (the forbidden object becomes prohibited to more people). This is an inclusive prohibition (more objects become forbidden to the same people) and Rabbi Yosi does not hold that the second prohibition takes effect when it is an inclusive one.

Rava answers: Although Rabbi Yosi maintains that he is liable for one prohibition (since the second one does not take effect), he is considered a completely wicked person (for violating two prohibitions) and will be buried in a cemetery reserved for those that were executed by burning or stoning. (32a – 32b)

[END]