Study Yevamot folio 19B with parallel Hebrew-English text, traditional commentary, and modern study tools. Free access to Babylonian Talmud online.
Text Excerpt
רבי שמעון אומר: ביאתה או חליצתה של אחת מהם פוטרת צרתה, חלץ לבעלת מאמר — לא נפטרה צרה. כנסה ומת, ואחר כך נולד לו אח, או שנולד לו אח ואחר כך כנסה, ומת — שתיהן פטורות מן החליצה ומן הייבום.
R' Shimon says: sex or ḥalitza with one of them, i.e., the wife of the second brother, exempts her rival wife, but if he performed ḥalitza with the one who received the levirate betrothal, then her rival wife, i.e., the wife of the second brother, is not thereby exempt, since possibly levirate betrothal does not have the same strength as marriage. If the second brother married his deceased brother’s wife and then died himself, and afterward a brother was born, or if a brother was born and then he married her and died, the two wives are both exempt from ḥalitza and levirate marriage. In this case, one was the wife of a brother with whom he did not coexist and the other her rival wife.
כנסה ונולד לו אח, ואחר כך מת — שתיהן פטורות מן החליצה ומן הייבום, דברי רבי מאיר. ורבי שמעון אומר: הואיל ובא ומצאה בהיתר, ולא עמדה עליו שעה אחת באיסור — מייבם לאיזו מהן שירצה, או חולץ לאיזו מהן שירצה.
The baraita continues: If he married his yevama and then a brother was born, and then he died, both the wife of the first deceased brother and the original wife of the yavam are exempt from ḥalitza and levirate marriage; this is the statement of R' Meir. And R' Shimon says: Since the third brother came and found her in a permitted state, and she was never for a moment prohibited to him, as when he was born she was already the wife of the second brother, who was still alive, he therefore takes whichever he wishes in levirate marriage, or performs ḥalitza with whichever he wishes.
הא בבא דסיפא למאן קתני לה? אילימא לרבי מאיר קתני לה — מכדי לא שני ליה לרבי מאיר בין ייבם ואחר כך נולד בין נולד ואחר כך ייבם?! לערבינהו ולתנינהו!
The Talmud clarifies: The section of the latter clause of the baraita, which refers to the case of a brother born after the levirate marriage, according to whom is it taught? If we say it is taught for the purpose of clarifying the opinion of R' Meir, it does not make sense, since it makes no difference to R' Meir whether the levirate marriage preceded the birth or the birth preceded the levirate marriage. In his opinion under both circumstances she is the wife of a brother with whom he did not coexist. And if this were in fact taught for the purpose of clarifying his opinion it should have combined the cases and taught them together.