Citing my translation of the Rif:
{Yevamot 17a}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.
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}
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}
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:
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?
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.
Post a Comment