Se ci fossero tre fratelli, due di loro sposati con due sorelle e uno di loro single — se uno dei mariti delle sorelle morisse, e il fratello single facesse un maamar in lei, e poi morisse il secondo fratello —Beth Shammai dice: Sua moglie rimane con lui [Perché Beth Shammai sostiene che la donna promessa sposa da Maamar è considerata sua moglie, in modo che quando sua sorella gli si imbatte in seguito non le è vietato a causa di "la sorella del suo parente uno "] e l'altro esce [anche da Chalitzah, a causa di" la sorella di sua moglie ".] E Beth Hillel dice: Deve mandare via sua moglie da get e da Chalitzah, e la moglie di suo fratello da Chalitzah. [Perché Maamar non è sufficiente a darle lo status di donna sposata, e l'altro è proibito a causa della "sorella della sua parente". Un get è necessario a causa del ma'amar, che è un fidanzamento parziale, e il fidanzamento non si dissolve senza un get. E richiede anche chalitzah, poiché poiché il ma'amar non è autentico fidanzamento, è ancora legata a lui (per yibum) e richiede chalitzah per sciogliere quel legame; in modo che prima le dia un tentativo, e poi chalitzah. E questa è l'halachah.] E questo è il caso in cui dissero (13: 7): "Guai a lui in ragione di sua moglie, e guai a lui in ragione della moglie di suo fratello!"
Bartenura on Mishnah Yevamot
ואחד מופנה – without a wife (i.e., single, a bachelor).
Ask RabbiBookmarkShareCopy
English Explanation of Mishnah Yevamot
Introduction
This mishnah continues to deal with variants upon the situation where two of three brothers were married to two sisters.
Ask RabbiBookmarkShareCopy
Bartenura on Mishnah Yevamot
אשתו עמו – for since the School of Shammai holds that she is [his] wife through statement of intention [of levirate marriage] is considered as married, and when her sister fell after this [through the death of her husband, the second brother], she was not forbidden because of her being the sister of his levirate relation.
Ask RabbiBookmarkShareCopy
English Explanation of Mishnah Yevamot
Three brothers, two of whom were married to two sisters and the third was unmarried: When one of the sisters’ husbands died, the unmarried brother performed for her ma’amar, and then his second brother died: Beth Shammai says: his wife [remains] with him while the other is exempt because she is his wife’s sister. Beth Hillel however says that he must divorce his wife with a get and by halitzah, and his brother’s wife by halitzah. This is the case in regard to which they said: “woe to him because of his wife, and woe to him because of his brother’s wife.” Reuven and Shimon were married to Rachel and Leah, and Levi was unmarried. When Reuven dies, Levi performed ma’amar with Rachel. Ma’amar, as we have learned before, is an act parallel to betrothal with a regular woman, and is only done in the case of yibbum. Ma’amar is performed by the man giving a symbolic amount of money to the woman. Rachel becomes his quasi-fiancee after having ma’amar, but she is not fully his wife until he performs yibbum (intercourse). Before Levi can have yibbum with Rachel, Shimon also dies, thereby making Leah liable for yibbum. The question is now asked, can Levi continue to stay married to Rachel, even though he is liable to have yibbum with Rachel’s sister. According to Beth Shammai, the first woman (Rachel) remains Levi’s wife and Leah is exempt from either yibbum or halitzah. In other words, Beth Shammai sees in ma’amar a full marital act, one which makes Rachel Levi’s full wife. Since he is already married to Rachel, he cannot have yibbum with Leah, Rachel’s sister, and she is completely exempt. According to Beth Hillel, ma’amar does not make Rachel into a full wife, such that it would be biblically forbidden for Levi to marry her sister. Therefore, when Leah becomes obligated for yibbum, it is the case of two sisters who are both liable to have yibbum with the same man. As we have learned previously, in such a case both must have halitzah, and neither may have yibbum, since a man cannot marry the sister of his z’kukah. In addition, Rachel requires a get, since she did have ma’amar, which is an act of betrothal. The final clause of the mishnah relates that it is about such a case that people say, woe to him for losing his wife and woe to him for losing his brother’s wife. For without having done anything wrong, both of these women are prohibited to him.
Ask RabbiBookmarkShareCopy
Bartenura on Mishnah Yevamot
מוציא אשתו בגט – for the statement of intention of [eventual] levirate marriage is not strong to compare it to someone married, and this prohibits her because of her being the sister of his levirate relation, and it requires a Jewish bill of divorce because the statement of intention which is partial betrothal/Kiddushin and Kiddushin is not released without a Jewish bill of divorce. And she requires Halitzah for since the statement of intention is not complete Kiddushin/betrothal, she is still his levirate relation and requires Halitzah for her levirate connection. And in the opening clause [of the Mishnah], he gives her a Jewish bill of divorce, and then performs Halitzah to her, and such is the Halakha.
