Study Yevamot folio 20A with parallel Hebrew-English text, traditional commentary, and modern study tools. Free access to Babylonian Talmud online.
Text Excerpt
שמגרשה בגט, ומחזירה. התם נמי, לימא ״ויבמה״ — עדיין יבומין הראשונים עליה, ותיבעי חליצה!
that he must divorce his yevama with a bill of divorce and she does not also require ḥalitza. And he may remarry her, if he wishes, after the divorce; as the halakha is not ruled in accordance with the opinion that after he performs the mitzva she is once more forbidden to him as his brother’s wife. Why? There, too, let the halakha say that the verse states: “And consummate the levirate marriage [veyibbema],” as explained above, meaning that the first levirate bond is still upon her and she should also require ḥalitza.
שאני התם דאמר קרא ״ולקחה לו לאשה״, כיון שלקחה — נעשית כאשתו לכל דבר. אי הכי הכא נמי! הא כתב רחמנא ״ויבמה״.
The Talmud answers: It is different there, as the verse states: “And take her to him to be his wife” (Deuteronomy 25:5) to teach that once he has taken her, her legal status is that of his wife in every sense. The Talmud objects: If so, here too, in the case of a brother born after the levirate marriage, according to the opinion of the Rabbis this same principle should apply. The Talmud answers that God states: “And consummate the levirate marriage [veyibbema],” that is, even after the marriage she is still considered to be the wife of the deceased brother [yevama] with respect to any brothers who are born later.
The Talmud asks: What did you see to distinguish in this way and say that once she is married the levirate obligation is totally abrogated with regard to ḥalitza, but that she remains prohibited as the wife of a brother with whom one did not coexist with respect to any brothers born in the future? The Talmud answers: It stands to reason to say: Toss that which is permitted on that which is permitted, and toss that which is prohibited on that which is prohibited. In other words, in cases where the woman becomes permitted to her yavam through levirate marriage, it stands to reason that this permitted state is absolute, but with regard to the prohibition against taking the wife of a brother with whom one did not coexist, it stands to reason that the verse comes to teach that she retains her prohibited status with respect to any brothers born in the future.