Study Yevamot folio 30B with parallel Hebrew-English text, traditional commentary, and modern study tools. Free access to Babylonian Talmud online.
as a full-fledged acquisition. According to that opinion, the unrelated woman does not even require ḥalitza, since she is considered to be a rival wife of a forbidden relative. This Mishnah teaches us that the halakha is not in accordance with the opinion of Beit Shammai.
The Talmud raises a question from the opposite perspective: And according to Rav Naḥman, who deduced from the earlier Mishnah that the levirate bond is not substantial, the deduction of Rav Ashi that the levirate bond is substantial is difficult. And if you would try to resolve this in a similar ma
The Talmud states: This works out well if he holds in accordance with the opinion of R' Yirmeya, who said with regard to a seeming contradiction between this Mishnah and an earlier Mishnah (13a): The mishnayot are disjointed; he who taught this Mishnah did not teach that Mishnah. The earlier Mishnah
This dispute is based upon the following: This tanna from the earlier Mishnah holds that death determines her status when she happens before the brothers, i.e., the crucial moment for determining whether the prohibition relating to rival wives applies is the moment at which the brother dies. In othe
According to this opinion, it is indeed possible to state that the phrase this is comes to exclude the case where he married one woman and ultimately divorced the other. According to this Mishnah, in that case, the rival wives would be prohibited. However, if he holds in accordance with the opinion