Study Yevamot folio 11A with parallel Hebrew-English text, traditional commentary, and modern study tools. Free access to Babylonian Talmud online.
Text Excerpt
קשיא. רב אשי סבר לה כריש לקיש, ומתרץ לה כרבי שמעון. רבינא סבר לה כרבי יוחנן, ומתרץ כרבנן.
§ The Talmud comments: Rav Sheshet’s explanation of the contradiction between the first clause and latter clause of the baraita is difficult. Consequently, the Talmud cites different resolutions of this contradiction. Rav Ashi holds in accordance with the opinion of Reish Lakish and resolves the baraita in accordance with the opinion of R' Shimon. Ravina, in contrast, holds in accordance with the opinion of R' Yoḥanan and resolves the baraita in accordance with the opinion of the Rabbis.
רב אשי סבר לה כריש לקיש ומתרץ לה כרבי שמעון: החולץ ליבמתו וחזר וקדשה — צריכה חליצה מן האחין. מאן אחין —
The Talmud elaborates: Rav Ashi holds in accordance with the opinion of Reish Lakish and resolves the baraita in accordance with the opinion of R' Shimon. This is his interpretation: In the case of one who performs ḥalitza with his yevama and went back and betrothed her, and then died, she requires ḥalitza from one of the brothers. Who are the brothers referred to here?
אחין הילודים. כמאן — כרבי שמעון.
Rav Ashi explains that they are the newborn brothers, i.e., those who were born only after the brother betrothed her. Consequently, although this woman was the wife of the first deceased brother before they were born, after their birth she was already the wife of a living brother. Therefore, the prohibition of a wife of a brother with whom he did not coexist never applied, and she requires ḥalitza. In accordance with whose opinion is this ruling? It is in accordance with the opinion of R' Shimon, who maintains that in a case of this kind the brothers are not considered to be coexisting.
עמד אחד מן הנולדים וקדשה — אין לה עליו כלום, כמאן — כריש לקיש.
Meanwhile, the latter clause speaks of a case where one of the brothers who was born in the lifetime of the first brother arose and betrothed her, after another brother had performed ḥalitza. In this case, she has no claims of a bill of divorce on him. In accordance with whose opinion is this ruling? It is in accordance with the opinion of Reish Lakish, who maintains that the penalty of karet applies in this case, and therefore the betrothal is entirely invalid.