Pisqa’ 2891
1
“Then, the first son she shall bear” (Dt.25:6).
Is it possible to say that
if [the deceased brother’s] name was “Yose,”
[the son sired by the levir should] also be called “Yose?”
Or if [he was named] “Yohanan,”
[the son should] also be called “Yohanan?”
The Teaching states:
“Shall be assigned the name of his dead brother” (Dt.25:6)—
Any name [assigned to the infant] will do
[to transmit the deceased’s lineage].
If so, why, does it state:
“Then, the first son she shall bear” (Dt.25:6)?
This teaches that:
It is appropriate for the oldest [surviving brother]
to take the levirate privilege
[but not an absolute requirement].2
2
“She shall bear” (Dt.25:6)—
this excludes a ram-like woman3
—[who has proven] incapable of bearing—
[from the rule of levirate privilege]
“Shall be assigned the name of his . . . brother” (Dt.25:6)—
but not the name of his father’s [dead] brother.
“His dead brother” (Dt.25:6)—
since we have taught elsewhere:4
The widow of only one brother
can be subject to levirate privilege,
but not two widows—
[only one brother may exercise the levirate privilege
with only one widow.]
On what basis do we know that
if the first brother dies [childless],
the second shall exercise the levirate privilege.
And if the second dies [childless],
then the third shall exercise the levirate privilege?
The Teaching states:
“his dead brother” (Dt.25:6)—
dead is interpreted inclusively
[such that a succession of brothers
is mandated until the widow bears a male heir].
“So that his name is not obliterated in Israel” (Dt.25:6)—
this excludes a eunuch [from exercising the levirate privilege],
for his name has already been obliterated
[by virtue of his castration].5
3
“Now, if the man has no desire to take” (Dt.25:7).
But not if the All-Present has no desire
for her [remarriage].
Shall I reject incestuous marriages involving partners,
for whom the penalty is judicial execution,
yet not reject marriages involving partners
for whom the penalty is excision at the hands of Heaven?
The Teaching states:
“My levir refuses to build his brother’s name in Israel!” (Dt.25:7)—
but not if the All-Present refuses
to sanction her [remarriage].
Shall I reject incestuous marriages involving partners
for whom the penalty is excision at the hands of Heaven,
yet not reject incestuous marriages involving proscribed partners
[for whom Scripture provides no death penalty]?
The Teaching states:
“He does not consent to betroth me!” (Dt.25:7)—
but not if the All-Present denies consent
to her [remarriage].
4
“To take his childless sister-in-law” (Dt.25:7).
Why do I need this verse?
Because it is stated:
“Then the first son she shall bear” (Dt.25:6)—
is it possible to say that
I should exclude [from the levirate bond]
an infertile woman, an aged woman, or a minor,
since they are [proven] incapable of bearing?
The Teaching states:
“To take his childless sister-in-law . . .”
and “his childless sister-in-law shall go up” (Dt.25:7)—
this [repetition of childless in a single verse] is inclusive,
[implying that some forms of infertility, mentioned above,
exempt the widowed sister-in-law from the levirate bond].
5
“Then [she] shall go up to the gate” (Dt.25:7)—
going up implies that
the court should be the most august in the city,
and under the auspices of the elders.
“My levir refuses” (Dt.25:7)—
but not if the All-Present refuses
to sanction her [remarriage].
“To build his brother’s name” (Dt.25:7)—
this excludes a castrate
[from the levirate privilege,]
for even if he wanted to build,
he would be unable to,
[by virtue of his castration].6
“Build his brother’s name” (Dt.25:7)—
R. Judah says:
Here, name (Dt.25:7) is specified, and elsewhere (Dt.25:6),
[the verse] specifies “the name of his dead brother.”
Just as name, specified elsewhere (Dt.25:6),
implies a bequest,
so, too, name specified here (Dt.25:7)
implies a bequest.
And just as name specified here (Dt.25:7)
implies offspring [to receive the bequest],
so, too, name specified elsewhere (Dt.25:6)
implies offspring.
6
“In Israel” (Dt.25:7)—
but not among proselytes.
On this basis you can teach:
two proselyte brothers
whose conception was not consecrated
[by the mother’s conversion prior to pregnancy],
but whose birth [after conversion] was consecrated—
are exempt from “loosening the shoe”
and the rule of levirate privilege,
as it is said:
“In Israel” (Dt.25:7)—
but not among proselytes.7
“He does not consent to betroth me!” (Dt.25:7)—
but not if the All-Present denies consent
to her [remarriage].