Talmud su Deuteronomio 25:6

Rebbi Isaac ben Tevele in the name of Rebbi Eleazar: The reason of Rebbi Jehudah: “¹¹²Deut. 25:6. The verse connects the birth of a first-born with the inheritance of the dead brother. The first-born whom she will bear shall be”; He compared it to a first-born. Since the first-born does not inherit during his father’s lifetime, so this one does not inherit during his father’s lifetime. But since the first-born inherits after his father’s death, does this one inherit after his father’s death¹¹³Since the first-born inherits an extra portion from the estate, does the levir inherit the separate inheritance of his wife’s first husband separately?? Rebbi Ze‘ira said, since the first-born does not inherit when it was time to inherit, so this one does not inherit when it was time to inherit¹¹⁴The separatee inheritance of the first-born is restricted (Deut. 21:17) to “all that is found of his property.” This is interpreted as excluding claims that are not yet collected; cf., e. g., Babli Baba batra 55a. Since the inheritance of the dead brother is under his wife’s lien for her ketubah, it is not considered as “found of his property”.. Afterwards he cannot inherit. Rebbi Abba bar Cahana, Rebbi Ḥiyya bar Ashi in the name of Rav: Practice follows Rebbi Jehudah. Rebbi Joshua ben Levi said, practice follows Rebbi Judah. Rebbi Abbahu, Rebbi Eleazar in the name of Rebbi Hoshaia, practice follows Rebbi Judah. Rebbi Joḥanan said, many times I sat before Rebbi Hoshaia and never heard that from him. He said to him, does nobody exist who heard something his partner did not hear¹¹⁵The Babli, 40a, strongly disagrees since practice follows the anonymous majority. This is the position of R. Joḥanan’s teacher R. Yannai.?

HALAKHAH: “The obligation of levirate is on the oldest [brother] but if a younger one got the start on him, he acquired, etc.” “The obligation of levirate is on the oldest,” since it is said¹⁶⁸Deut. 25:6: “The firstborn she will bear shall rise in the name of his dead brother.” This seems to imply that the child should be called X son of Y, where Y is not the biological father but the dead first husband.
The Babli, 24a, discusses the same verse in a different manner, based on Sifry Deut. #289., “the firstborn she will bear shall …”. How do we hold? If about the newborn, the verse should read “he should rise in the name of his dead father.¹⁶⁹The first hand in the ms. had יקוּם על שם אחיו המת which is exactly the biblical text and therefore cannot have been meant. The corrector changed this into יקוּם על שם אחיו המת as given in the text. Ms. A reads יקוּם על שם אחיו אביו המת “shall rise on the name of his dead brother-father” and this seems to be the superior reading; cf. Note 168.” But it must be that the newborn is a firstborn. In that case, even if he had children and they died before he died, his widow should not be a candidate for levirate! Then the verse should have said, “he never had children¹⁶⁴Since one of them might marry the sister of a candidate of levirate with him. But if they married without asking, one of them certainly executed a valid levirate and the other married an unrelated woman.”. But if it cannot refer to the newborn; let it refer to the levir, “the obligation of levirate is on the oldest.”