Ask A Question about the Daf

Previous daf

Yevamos, 17

17b

QUESTION: The Gemara discusses the source for the Halachah that Yibum is practiced only between brothers who share the same father. The Gemara brings two sources. First, the verse of Yibum says, "When brothers dwell *together* (Yachdav)" (Devarim 25:5), which teaches that they must be "Meyuchadin b'Nachalah" -- "together in the inheritance." Second, the verse of Yibum says, "When *brothers* (Achim) dwell together" (ibid.), which teaches a Gezeirah Shavah to the word "Achim" mentioned with regard to the sons of Yakov (Bereishis 42:13): just like the sons of Yakov had the same father but had different mothers, so, too, the obligation of Yibum applies only to brothers who have the same father.

RASHI explains that "Meyuchadin b'Nachalah" means that the brothers must be able to inherit each other if the other one dies.

However, at the end of the Sugya, the Gemara says that if we only were taught the word "Achim," we would have thought that the obligation of Yibum applies even to an uncle and a nephew (such as when the uncle dies childless, the nephew would be obligated to do Yibum with his uncle's wife), because they are also referred to as "Achim," as Avraham told Lot, "... for we are brothers (Achim)" (Bereishis 13:8). Hence, the verse adds the word "Yachdav" to teach that only actual brothers are obligated in Yibum, since brothers are "Meyuchadin b'Nachalah" and not an uncle and a nephew.

There, Rashi explains that "Meyuchadin b'Nachalah" means that they share the inheritance together when there father dies. This is a different explanation for "Meyuchadin b'Nachalah" than that which Rashi gave earlier! Why does Rashi change his explanation? (RASHBA)

ANSWER: The RITVA answers that "Meyuchadin b'Nachalah" means that they share an inheritance in *all* ways; they are able to split an inheritance that they receive from someone else, and they are able to inherit each other.

He explains that both meanings of the verse are implicit in our Sugya, and Rashi gives these varying explanations because he is following the train of thought of the Gemara. When the Gemara first mentions that the brothers must be "Meyuchadin b'Nachalah" in order to do Yibum, the Gemara is excluding brothers from the same mother (and from different fathers). Such brothers *do* split an inheritance together if their mother leaves behind possessions when she dies. However, they can never inherit each other's property, because when one brother dies, his property goes to his father and then to his father's heirs. Thus, "Meyuchadin b'Nachalah" means that they must be able to inherit *each other*, and hence it excludes brothers who share the same mother and not the same father.

However, in the case of an uncle and a nephew (such as Avraham and Lot), they *could* inherit each other if they have no other close relatives, and thus they do qualify for the first definition of "Meyuchadin b'Nachalah." The inheritance could go from the uncle to the nephew (via the nephew's father, being the uncle's brother), as well as from the nephew to the uncle.

In the case of an uncle and nephew, though, they cannot share one inheritance that they receive from any single person (if the uncle's father dies, the uncle splits with his brother. Even if that brother is dead and the inheritance goes to the nephew, he is not really splitting it with his uncle, but rather his *father* split it with his uncle, and he inherits his father.)

QUESTION: The Gemara discusses the source for the Halachah that Yibum is practiced only between brothers who share the same father. One of the sources that the Gemara brings is the verse, "When *brothers* (Achim) dwell together" (Devarim 25:5), and we learn a Gezeirah Shavah to the word "Achim" mentioned with regard to the sons of Yakov (Bereishis 42:13): just like the sons of Yakov had the same father but had different mothers, so, too, the obligation of Yibum applies only to brothers who have the same father.

The Gemara asks, though, that the verse also says "Achim" with regard to Avraham and Lot (Bereishis 13:8), and perhaps we should learn from there that an uncle and nephew also have an obligation of Yibum. It concludes that we learn the Gezeirah Shavah only from the sons of Yakov, because the word "Achim" there is Mufneh (open and available to be used for a Derashah and is not used for any other teaching), while the word "Achim" in the verse discussing Avraham and Lot is not Mufneh.

The Gemara, at the end of the Sugya, concludes that both the phrase "Achim" and the phrase "Yachdav" (see previous Insight) in the verse of Yibum are necessary in order to teach us that Yibum applies only to brothers from the same father, and "Achim" alone does not suffice. The Gemara says that had the verse not said "Yachdav," we would have learned the Gezeirah Shavah of "Achim" from Avraham and Lot, because the word "Achim" there is Mufneh since it should have said Re'im instead of Achim.

What does the Gemara mean? The Gemara just said that the word "Achim" in the verse of Lot is *not* Mufneh, and now the Gemara is saying that it *is* Mufneh! Second, if -- as the Gemara now says -- "Achim" in the verse of Lot is Mufneh, then the Gemara should have explained what we *do* learn from that verse once we learn from "Yachdav" and from the sons of Yakov that only brothers, and not an uncle and nephew, have an obligation of Yibum! The word "Achim" in the verse of Lot is left Mufneh and is not used! (MAHARSHA)

ANSWERS:

(a) The Rishonim discuss this question. The RITVA answers that the truth is that "Achim" in the verse of Lot is not Mufneh, like the Gemara originally said. The verse could not have said "Re'im," because Avraham was emphasizing that he and Lot were more than friends -- they were as close as brothers. (The Maharsha says that the verse had to say "Achim" instead of "Re'im" to teach that one's grandchildren have a status of his children.) When the Gemara says that without the word "Yachdav" we would have thought that "Achim" of Lot is Mufneh, it means that we would have made a mistake and *thought* that it was Mufneh and that it was written only in order to teach a Halachah in Yibum. Hence, "Yachdav" teaches that "Achim" of Lot does not teach anything about Yibum, and is not Mufneh altogether.

(b) The RAMBAN and RASHBA answer that even when the Gemara says that "Achim" in the verse of Lot is Mufneh, it does not mean that it is really Mufneh. The Gemara knows that the word "Achim" is needed to teach that Avraham felt with Lot as close as brothers. Rather, when the Gemara says that it is Mufneh, it means that when the Torah says "Achim" in the verse of Yibum, the Torah is teaching not to compare these brothers to any specific Achim mentioned elsewhere in the veres, but that Yibum applies to *any* relatives to whom the verse refers with the word "Achim." If we find the word "Achim" referring to an uncle and nephew, then that reveals that the word "Achim" in the verse of Yibum also includes that relationship (of uncle and nephew) for Yibum as well (it is a "Giluy Milsa").

This is what the Gemara means when it says that the verse of Lot should have said "Re'im," which is the intention of the verse. From the fact that it says instead "Achim" we could learn from there that the word "Achim" in the verse of Yibum describes a relationship of uncle and nephew as well. "Yachdav" teaches us that the word "Achim" in the verse of Yibum refers only to a specific type of Achim; -- actual brothers who share the same father.