Sunday, May 20, 2007

Shavuot; Daf Yomi Yevamot 17a: How Naomi Proposes Yibbum For אשת אחיו שלא היה בעולמו and אחין מן האם

With Shavuot coming up, in which we read megillat Ruth, and with daf Yomi learning through Yevamot, this is a timely post. We read in today's daf Yomi that Yibbum does not extend to a maternal (rather than paternal) brother, nor to a brother born after the death of the deceased. Indeed, since it does not extend, there is a prohibition of eshet ach in play. (Assuming I am reading the gemaras correctly.)

Citing my translation of the Rif:
{Yevamot 17a}
Gemara:
אשת אחיו שלא היה בעולמו היכא כתיבא
אמר רב יהודה אמר רב אמר קרא כי ישבו אחים אחים שהיתה להם ישיבה אחת בעולם פרט לאשת אחיו שלא היה בעולמו
יחדיו המיוחדין בנחלה פרט לאחין מן האם:
The wife of the brother who was not in his world, where is it written?
Rav Yehuda cited Rav: The verse stated {Devarim 25:5}
ה כִּי-יֵשְׁבוּ אַחִים יַחְדָּו, וּמֵת אַחַד מֵהֶם וּבֵן אֵין-לוֹ--לֹא-תִהְיֶה אֵשֶׁת-הַמֵּת הַחוּצָה, לְאִישׁ זָר: יְבָמָהּ יָבֹא עָלֶיהָ, וּלְקָחָהּ לוֹ לְאִשָּׁה וְיִבְּמָהּ. 5 If brethren dwell together, and one of them die, and have no child, the wife of the dead shall not be married abroad unto one not of his kin; her husband's brother shall go in unto her, and take her to him to wife, and perform the duty of a husband's brother unto her.
Brothers who have a single {shared} dwelling in the world, to the exclusion of the wife of the brother who was not in his world. {The next word:} יַחְדָּו - together - who are distinct in inheritance, to the exclusion of brothers from the mother.
As we learn in Yevamot 55, the maternal brother's wife is prohibited under eshet ach. (thus אלמא אחות אשתו בין מן האב בין מן האם אסורות.) And so should eshet ach shelo haya beOlamo, since there is no yibbum or chalitza.

However, we run into problems when considering megillat Ruth. Sefer Bereishit itself gives us problems, since Yehuda performs yibbum on his widowed daughter-in-law. One can say this was an extended yibbum in play before mattan Torah, such that the relationship of kallato did not present problems.

In megillat Ruth, it appears that yibbum is fulfilled by Boaz on Ruth, where he seems to be an extended relative, not a brother to Machlon or Kilyon. Ramban explains this as being customary yibbum, rather than yibbum as laid out by halacha and Torah law. There are other options, which I won't go into right now.

This is good for the Boaz relationship, but what Naomi suggests earlier to Ruth and Orpah is somewhat troubling. Naomi says {Ruth 1:11 - 13}

יא וַתֹּאמֶר נָעֳמִי שֹׁבְנָה בְנֹתַי, לָמָּה תֵלַכְנָה עִמִּי: הַעוֹד-לִי בָנִים בְּמֵעַי, וְהָיוּ לָכֶם לַאֲנָשִׁים. 11 And Naomi said: 'Turn back, my daughters; why will ye go with me? have I yet sons in my womb, that they may be your husbands?
יב שֹׁבְנָה בְנֹתַי לֵכְןָ, כִּי זָקַנְתִּי מִהְיוֹת לְאִישׁ: כִּי אָמַרְתִּי, יֶשׁ-לִי תִקְוָה--גַּם הָיִיתִי הַלַּיְלָה לְאִישׁ, וְגַם יָלַדְתִּי בָנִים. 12 Turn back, my daughters, go your way; for I am too old to have a husband. If I should say: I have hope, should I even have an husband to-night, and also bear sons;
יג הֲלָהֵן תְּשַׂבֵּרְנָה, עַד אֲשֶׁר יִגְדָּלוּ, הֲלָהֵן תֵּעָגֵנָה, לְבִלְתִּי הֱיוֹת לְאִישׁ; אַל בְּנֹתַי, כִּי-מַר-לִי מְאֹד מִכֶּם--כִּי-יָצְאָה בִי, יַד-יְהוָה. 13 would ye tarry for them till they were grown? would ye shut yourselves off for them and have no husbands? nay, my daughters; for it grieveth me much for your sakes, for the hand of the LORD is gone forth against me.'
She is saying that she has no more sons. She presents a hypothetical in which she would sleep with a man that night and have sons. If so, would they wait for those sons to grow up?

The problem here is that Machlon and Kilyon have already died. Any sons born to her would be brothers who were never in the world of the deceased. Can we then say this is customary yibbum? Well, we could, but what about the prohibition of eshet ach?!

Furthermore, any brother would be a maternal brother to Machlon and Kilyon, rather than a paternal brother, since he would not be the son of Elimelech. Yibbum does not hold in such a case, and it is difficult to ascribe this to customary yibbum, since there is the prohibition of eshet ach.

Some possibilities occur to me. I'm sure there are others. I should check out meforshim, or you are free to and post in the comments. :)
1) They understood the pesukim differently than Rav, and we do not have to have Biblical characters keep Pharisee halacha. This may be true even within the Pharisaic system of halacha. The bet Din of each generation learns its own derashot and can decide against a bet Din from an earlier generation.
2) Ruth coverted at this point, so eshet ach did not present such a halachic problem.
3) Naomi was not a yoetzet halacha, or a rabbanit. She was talking in anguish over the loss of her sons, and attempting to persuade her daughters-in-law to remain in Moav. Who says she knew the correct halacha?

I'm leaning towards the first one.

2 comments:

Beisrunner said...

I'm leaning towards the second.

Machlon and Kilyon married Moabites only after their father died - this makes me think that their father wouldn't have approved, thus the marriages were somehow illegitimate, presumably because there was no conversion.

If Ruth and Orpah were previously converted, would Naomi so easily tell them to return to Moav?

joshwaxman said...

perhaps. it certainly is a good reason.

on the other hand, recall that it was a big chessed that Ruth did, subjecting herself to a life of poverty and (quite likely) loneliness. Perhaps Naomi would have offered this advice despite its anti-halachic nature.

Also, perhaps the nature of conversion was not as structured as it eventually became. Perhaps there was no formal conversion, with tevillah, etc, intermarriage was only forbidden with the 7 nations, and going back to one's initial nation was doable. Just a thought.

LinkWithin

Blog Widget by LinkWithin