Talmud su Deuteronomio 25:5

MISHNAH: Fifteen [categories of] women¹Deut. 25:5 requires that the widow of any man who died without legitimate or illegitimate issue be married by the man’s brother. If, however, that brother is forbidden one of the deceased’s wives by the incest prohibition of Lev. 18 or the rules of Deut. 25:5–10, she may not be married by the brother to whom she is forbidden. free their co-wives²The House of Hillel hold that if one widow is forbidden, all co-widows are forbidden. This is not accepted by the House of Shammai, Mishnah 6. and the co-wives of their co-wives from ḥalîṣah and levirate forever³If one of three brothers had married the second brother’s daughter and another woman, died childless, the other wife was married by the third brother who already had another wife, if the third also dies childless both of his widows are forbidden because one of them is forbidden. This scenario can be extended to n polygamous brothers; n arbitrary.. They are the following: one’s daughter⁴This statement seems to be needed only for an illegitimate daughter, except the daughter from a gentile or a slave woman who are not legally his relatives (Rashi ad loc.). Legitimate children are covered by Lev. 18:17. However, the Yerushalmi (Note 135) does not make any distinction between legitimate and illegitimate daughters.
Sadducees (followed by Karaites and Christians) did forbid marriage with a niece since marriage with an aunt is a biblical prohibition and they held that the incest prohibitions of Lev. 18 are gender symmetric. Pharisaic opinion is that “one does not introduce punishable offence by argument;” what is written is forbidden, what is not written is not (biblically) forbidden., his daughter’s daughter and his son’s daughter⁵Lev. 18:10., his wife’s daughter and her daughter‘s daughter and her son’s daughter⁶Lev. 18:17: “The genitals of a women and her daughter (including mother-in-law and wife) you may not [both] uncover, her son’s daughter (wife’s granddaughter or wife as paternal grandmother’s daughter) or her daughter’s daughter (this forbids the wife’s maternal grandmother) you may not marry to uncover her genitals; they are relatives, it is tabu.”, his mother-in-law and his mother-in-law’s mother and his father-in-law’s mother, his sister⁷This is needed only for the maternal halfsister (Lev. 18:9) married to a paternal halfbrother. It will be established that the levirate applies only to paternal brothers; the first marriage of the halfsister was legitimate. and his maternat aunt⁸Lev. 18:13. and his wife’s sister⁹Lev. 18:18., his maternal halfbrother’s wife¹⁰Lev. 18:16. It is assumed that the halfbrother died or divorced his wife who then married a paternal halfbrother of the man in question to whom she was not related. The earlier marriage to the maternal halfbrother forbade her permanently to the levir, the brother-in-law on the husband’s side.
Since in Deut. 25, “brother” is assumed to mean “paternal brother”, it needs some discussion in the Halakhah why in Lev. 18 “brother” may mean “maternal or paternal brother” since the usual stance is that in legal texts one word can have only one meaning., the wife of his brother who did not live in his world¹¹Deut. 25:5 introduces the rules of the levirate with the statement “If brothers live together”. This means that a brother born after the death of another cannot marry the widow of the deceased, i. e., the childless widow does not have to wait until the newborn baby grows up to marry her but, if there is no other brother, she may immediately marry outside the family., and his daughter-in-law¹²This is obvious (Lev. 18:15) except for the case that the son had died and his widow married a brother of her father-in-law unrelated to her. The prohibition of 18:15 is permanent; the earlier marriage to the son forbade her permanently to the father-in-law..

“Her levir shall come upon her¹²Deut. 25:5.”, that is cohabitation. “And take her as wife for himself”, that is “bespeaking”¹³A better translation, if one identifies biblical and rabbinic Hebrew, would be: “Acquires her as a wife for himself”, by giving her some valuables as for legally valid qiddushin.. I might think that just as cohabitation is final so “bespeaking” is final¹⁴Cohabitation makes the widow his wife; her marriage to him can be terminated only by death or by a bill of divorce. “Bespeaking” does not remove the obligation of ḥalîṣah if the levir changes his mind, in contrast to qiddushin which can be undone only by a bill of divorce.
Tosephta 3:1: “Qiddushin are final, ‘bespeaking’ is not final”.
The Babli, 54a, formulates: “Cohabitation is final, money or a document are not final.” Cohabitation is final even if in error or unintentional (Mishnah 6:1); money or a document are not final even if given as qiddushin and not as “bespeaking”.; the verse says “and act as levir towards her.” This directs the entire paragraph towards levirate. Cohabitation is final, “bespeaking” is not final. Then what is “bespeaking” good for? To forbid her to the brothers¹⁵After “bespeaking”, she remains forbidden to the other brothers even if the “bespeaker” changes his mind..

Since the rabbis say, “bespeaking” acquires but not completely, so they say, a bill of divorce frees but not completely. ⁴The arguments of this paragraph (except the last one) are repeated in a few short lines in Babli Qiddushin 14a. Should not a bill of divorce completely free a sister-in-law by an argument de minore ad majus? Since ḥalîṣah does not free a wife⁵To marry another man. but a bill of divorce does, is it not logical that a sister-in-law, who is freed by ḥalîṣah, should be freed by a bill of divorce? The verse says, “she shall pull off.⁶Pulling off the levir’s shoe; Deut. 25:9. The Babli points to another part of the same verse, “so it should be done”, so and not otherwise.” By pulling off she is freed; she is not freed by a bill of divorce. So it should free anything! It is written⁷Deut. 25:5.: “She shall not belong … to a strange man.” Where do we hold? If he came upon her, she is his wife. If he performed ḥalîṣah with her, she should go and marry an outsider. So we must hold that he gave her a bill of divorce. Also Ḥizqiah stated thus: From where that the sister-in-law is forbidden to himself and his brothers if he gave her a bill of divorce? For him, I read “whom he had sent away⁸Deut. 24:4, speaking about the divorced wife.”. For the brothers, I read “whom he had sent away”. Then should not ḥalîṣah free a wife by an argument de minore ad majus? Since a bill of divorce does not free a sister-in-law but ḥalîṣah does, is it not logical that a wife, who is freed by a bill of divorce, should be freed by ḥalîṣah? The verse says, “⁹Deut. 24:1. he shall write her a bill of divorce.” By a bill of divorce she is freed; she is not freed by ḥalîṣah. So [ḥalîṣah] should free partially! There, it is written, “she shall not belong … to a strange man.” Here, what do you have¹⁰There is no verse indicating any action of ḥalîṣah on the status of a married woman.?