Pisqa’ 288¹

1

“If brothers are living as one” (Dt.25:5).

This excludes [from the levirate privilege]

marriage to the widow of a childless brother

who died before the birth of his surviving brother.²

On this basis they taught:

If there were two [married] brothers,

and one of them died,

and another brother was born to them,

and afterwards, the survivor

exercised the levirate privilege

{with his brother’s wife,

whereupon he also died—

the first wife [of the deceased first brother] is expelled

as the widow of a childless brother

who died before his surviving

brother had been born,

and the second is expelled because

she is now a rival of the first

[so that both women are released from obligation

under the rule of levirate privilege.]}³

2

“As one” (Dt.25:5)—

[this verse] excludes, [from the levirate privilege,]

the maternal brother [of the deceased].

Now, we have found cases [in which]

the Torah extends to maternal brothers

the status of paternal brothers.

Is it possible to say that here, too,

[the maternal brother may enjoy

the levirate privilege reserved by Scripture for the paternal brother]?

The Teaching states:

“As one” (Dt.25:5)—

[this verse] excludes, from the levirate privilege,

the maternal brother [of the deceased].

“And one of them dies” (Dt.25:5)—

I might infer only that [the levirate privilege] applies

when there are two brothers, one of whom dies.

How do I know [to apply it] even if there are many brothers?

The Teaching states:

“And one of them dies” (Dt.25:5)—

[one of them implies “one of many”].

How do I know [to apply it] even if all of them die, [leaving one]?

The Teaching states:

“And one of them dies” (Dt.25:5)—

[even if “one of them” is the only surviving brother].

If so, why is it stated:

“And one of them dies” (Dt.25:5)?

Only one widow is subject

to the levir’s privilege [of marrying or releasing her],

but not two widows [of the same brother].

On this basis they taught:

Three brothers are married to three unrelated women.

If one of these brothers dies [without an heir],

and the second brother declares

[to the widow his intention to take her in marriage

under the terms of levirate privilege],

but then he dies childless,

[leaving the third childless brother to survive]—

indeed, these women “loosen the shoe” [of the surviving brother]⁴

and are no longer obliged [to marry him]

under the rule of levirate privilege.⁵

 

“Without a son” (Dt.25:5)—

I might infer only that

the lack of a son

[to inherit the father imposes the levirate bond].

How do I know that

the lack of a son’s son,

or the lack of a son’s daughter,

or the lack of a daughter’s son,

or the lack of a daughter’s daughter

[also imposes this bond]?⁶

The Teaching states:

“Without a son” (Dt.25:5)—

[without heirs] of any kind.

If so, why is it stated:

“Without a son?” (Dt.25:5)

This excludes [from inheriting the dead brother]

any children [he has sired] by a slave-girl or a gentile woman.

3

“The wife of the deceased may not seek beyond her borders for a foreign man” (Dt.25:5).

Now, why do I need this verse?

For we have taught elsewhere:⁷

 

The widow of only one brother

can be subject to levirate privilege,

but not two widows.

But is it possible to say that

this principle applies here as well?

The Teaching states:

“The wife of the deceased may not seek beyond her borders for a foreign man”⁸ (Dt.25:5).

Well, then, what should she do?

She must either “loosen the shoe”

[releasing the levir from his privilege,]

or marry the levir,

[but not a foreign man].

4

One who hands a divorce-document to

a woman he married under levirate privilege—

he disqualifies her from re-marriage to himself,⁹

as well as to any of his brothers.

Is it possible to say that

the divorce-document frees her

[to remarry one she likes]?

It is, after all, a simple matter of reason!

Just as the “loosening of the shoe”

does not free a woman

from a conventional marriage,

but does free a childless widow

from the levirate bond,

isn’t it only reasonable that

a divorce-document,

which does free a woman

from a conventional marriage,

should also free a childless widow

from the levirate bond [to marry as she pleases]?

The Teaching states:

“The wife of the deceased may not seek beyond her borders for a foreign man” (Dt.25:5).

Not until she “releases the shoe.”

5

One who declares his intention

[to exercise the levirate privilege]

has thereby acquired her for himself,

and disqualified her [from marriage] to any of his brothers.¹⁰

Is it possible to say that

his declaration concludes the acquisition

[of the widowed sister-in-law as his new bride]?

The Teaching states:

“Her levir shall consort ¹¹with her” (Dt.25:5)—

sexual penetration¹² concludes the acquisition,

but his declaration of intent does not.

“Her levir shall consort with her” (Dt.25:5)—

whether inadvertently or intentionally,

whether by force or eagerly.

And even if he consorts inadvertently

[without intention to fulfill a commandment],

and she consorts intentionally,

or if he consorts intentionally,

and she consorts inadvertently.¹³

6

[Instead of] “take”[ the verse specifies]:

“Take her” (Dt.25:5).

And [instead of] “exercise the levirate privilege” [the verse specifies]:

“Exercise . . . through her” (Dt.25:5)—

through her excludes [from the levirate bond]

any rival-wife who is closely related to her.

On this basis they taught:

Fifteen types of women

free their rivals,

as well as the rivals of their rivals

from“loosening the shoe”

as well as from the rule of levirate privilege.¹⁴

1. H:279-280;JN2:246-249.
2. Heb: ‘eishet ‘ekhav shel’o hayah be`olamo; literally, “the wife of his brother who died before he entered his world.” That is, a brother born after the death of the childless brother, is not obliged to engage in the levirate relationship.
3. =M.Yev.2:1; // T.Yev.2:1). The bracketed text is supplied from M. Yev. 2: 1 in order to fill the lacuna in the citation.
4. Viz., Dt.25:9-10
5. =M.Yev.3:9, T. Yev.5:7.
6. //T.Yev.5:7
7. Cf. Pisqa’ 289.2
8. Heb: ‘ish zar; literally, “a stranger.” That is, to a man previously unknown to the woman’s family.
9. Under the terms of Dt.24:4, which prohibits a man to re-marry the woman he has divorced.
10. Cf. T. Yev. 7:2.
11. Heb: yavo’; literally, “shall come upon her.” The root is: b-w-‘.
12. Heb: bi’ah; literally, “entry.” The word-play is obvious.
13. Cf. M.Yev.6:1.
14. //M.Yev.1:1.