Source: http://halakhah.com/yebamoth/yebamoth_17.html
Timestamp: 2019-04-18 18:19:38+00:00

Document:
R. Hamnuna sat before 'Ulla and was engaged in discussing a traditional law when the latter remarked,26 'What a man! And how much more important would he have been27 had not Harpania28 been his [native] town'! As the other was embarrassed, he said to him, 'Where do you pay poll tax'? — 'To Pum Nahara', the other replied. 'If so', 'Ulla said, 'You belong to Pum Nahara'.
Adiabene, a region between the rivers Caprus and Lycus in Assyria.
Ganzaka, identified with Shiz, S.E. of Urmia Lake, N.W. of Persia, v. ibid. n. 8.
Hamadan, the capital of Media, otherwise known as Ekbatana. V. Schrader, Keilinschriften, p. 378.
Nahawand, a town on the south of Ekbatana (v. previous note). V. ibid. n. 4.
[H], Others read, [H] (fort) in the construct, and connect it with the following nouns.
Or Kerak Moshki, the Fort of Moshki. The land of the Moshki lay on the southern side of Colchis.
A locality in Assyria, variously described as Hudki, Hirki, Hizki and Huski.
Rumki, Ruthki, or the Fort of Rumki in Media. On all these localities v. Kid., Sonc. ed. pp. 365ff notes.
Most of their inhabitants being deemed bastards, since the women had intermarried with the heathens, and their descendants, furthermore, married forbidden relatives.
This is the continuation of Rab Judah's statement.
R. Assi's ruling, supra 16b.
V. Deut. VII, 4 and Kid. 68b.
I.e., is regarded as a perfect heathen and his betrothal has no validity.
Of the ten tribes who married heathens.
V. infra 23a. The children of such unions, then, being deemed Israelites though unfit, should have the right of betrothal. How then could Samuel contend that they are deemed to be perfect heathens? (V. supra p. 91, n. 18).
[H] (root, [H] or [H]. [H], 'to tear', 'split'. Lit., 'they were split', i.e., an operation for sterilization was performed on them.
Of R. Assi's ruling supra 16b.
Being of tainted birth they contaminated many pure families in Israel by their intermarriages.
This explains the destruction and existence of the same city.
Lit., 'his strength' (BaH). Cur. edd., repeat 'what a man'.
Hipparenum, a wealthy industrial town in the Mesene district, inhabited by a Jewish community of tainted birth.
Of spurious or tainted descent who cannot obtain a wife anywhere else.
[H] a play upon the word [H], the Aleph in [H] taking the place of the waw in [H].
Mesene, the island territory lying between the Tigris, the Euphrates and the Royal Canal. Its inhabitants were of spurious descent (v. Kid. 71b) and Harpania was situated near it.
I.e., both measures are false. This saying is a metaphor for all sorts of people who in a minor or major degree are of spurious descent.
Tarmod being deeper and lower than Hell itself.
Harpania lying in the lowest depths of immorality and tainted descent.
V. Mishnah supra 2b top.
And thus found his deceased brother's widow subject to the marriage with his elder brother and forbidden to himself as 'the wife of his brother who was not his contemporary'.
Of the two elder brothers who was already a married man.
The widow of the first deceased brother who is now also the widow of the second brother.
From levirate marriage with the third brother.
Her rival, the widow of the second brother, who in ordinary circumstances would have been subject to levirate marriage with the third brother since he was a contemporary of her husband.
I.e., said to her in the presence of witnesses, 'Be thou betrothed unto me'.
Prior to the consummation of the marriage.
With the third brother. Since her husband's union with his deceased brother's widow was not consummated he never was her legal husband, and as she is consequently not her rival she cannot be exempt from the halizah.
Because the ma'amar that the husband of the second addressed to the first widow has partially attached that woman to him, and the second has, in consequence, become the partial rival of a forbidden relative and is, therefore, Rabbinically forbidden to enter into the levirate marriage.
In describing the widow of the first deceased brother.
Where [in the Scriptures] is [the prohibition of marrying] 'the wife of his brother who was not his contemporary' written? — Rab Judah replied in the name of Rab: Scripture states, If brethren dwell together,6 i.e., dwell in the world at the same time; the wife of one's brother who was not his contemporary is consequently excluded; 'together' implies who are together in respect of inheritance,7 a maternal brother is, therefore, excluded.
Let him rather deduce this 'brotherhood'8 from the 'brotherhood' of forbidden relatives!13 — Brethren8 may be deduced from brethren,9 but not brethren8 from thy brother.14 What practical difference is there [between the two expression]? Surely the School of R. Ishmael taught: And the priest shall return,15 and the priest shall come,16 'returning' and 'coming' are the same thing!17 — Such an analogy is drawn only18 where there is no other identical word; when, however, there occurs another word which is identical, the analogy is made only with that which is identical.
It was necessary for Scripture to write brethren,24 and it was also necessary to write together.24 For had the All Merciful written 'brethren' only, it might have been suggested that this 'brotherhood' should be deduced from the 'brotherhood' in the case of Lot. And were you to reply that [the analogous word],25 is not available for deduction,21 your statement would be negatived,26 [the analogous word] being indeed available; for whereas he could have written 'friends' and yet wrote 'brethren', the inference must be that the object was to render it available for analogous deduction; hence the All Merciful has written 'together', implying only those who are together in respect of inheritance.27 If, [on the other hand,] the All Merciful had only written 'together', it might have been said to refer to such as have the same father and mother; [hence both expressions were] required.
But how could you have arrived at such an opinion?28 The All Merciful has, surely, made29 the levirate marriage dependent on inheritance,30 and inheritance31 is derived from the father and not from the mother!32 -It33 was necessary. For it might have been assumed that whereas this34 is an anomaly,35 a forbidden relative36 having been permitted, the brotherhood must, therefore, be both paternal and maternal; [hence it was] necessary [to teach us that the law was not so].
R. Huna said in the name of Rab: If a woman awaiting the decision of the levir!37 died, [the levir] is permitted to marry her mother. This obviously shews that he!38 is of the opinion that no levirate bond39 exists40 let him then say, the halachah is in accordance with the view of him who said no levirate bond exists!41 — If he had said so, it might have been suggested that this applied only to the case of two42 but that in the case of one43 a levirate bond does exist. Then let him say, 'The halachah is in accordance with him who said no levirate bond exists even in the case of one levir'!44 — If he had said so it might have been assumed even where she45 is alive;46 hence he taught us that only after death and not when she is still alive, because it is forbidden to abolish the commandment of levirate marriages.
The second brother who was already a married man when he contracted the levirate marriage with her. V. supra p 94. n. 4.
Lit., 'are we not engaged on'.
In which case the widow was also the first to marry him.
The first marriage with her husband and the second with the levir.
I.e., entitled to inherit from one another.
The expression 'brethren' in Deut. xxv, 5' in relation to the levirate marriage.
the thy servants are twelve brethren (Gen. XLII, 13).
Since they were born from different mothers.
The nakedness of thy brother's wife (Lev. XVIII, 26) which includes (v. infra 55a) the wife of a maternal brother.
In the case of the levirate marriage (Deut. xxv, 5) as well as that of Jacob's sons (Gen. XLII, 13) the expression is [H] 'brethren'; In that of Lev. XVIII, 16 it is [H] 'thy brother'.
And an analogy between them may be drawn. Though in that case the expressions [H] and [H], are derived from different roots they are nevertheless, owing to their similarity in meaning. employed for the purposes of an analogy ('Er. 51a, Yoma 2b, Naz. 5a, Mak. 13b, Hor. 8b et a.l.), how much more so should an analogy be justified between the same nouns which differ only (v. supra p. 95' n. 14) in their suffixes!
The expression 'brethren' in Deut. xxv, 5 in relation to the levirate marriage.
Gen. Xlii, 8. Lot having been Abraham's nephew the deduction would establish a novel law of marriage with a deceased uncle's or nephew's widow.
Gen. XLII, 23. Cur. edd., read, in. stead of 'one man', 'our father', which occurs in v. 32. If the reference were to the latter verse 'thy servants' which does not occur there would have to be deleted here. Several MSS. support the reading here adopted.
Lit., 'to make it vacant.
In the case of Lot.
[H] (cf. Jast.) or [H] (cf. Levy). Contract. of [H] 'not it'. Aruk: derivation is from [H] + [G] 'not so my son'.
V. supra p. 95, n. 7.
Lit., 'and this, whence does it come', i.e., how could any one have assumed that the levirate marriage should only apply to brothers from the same father and mother?
What need then was there for the expression 'brethren'?
[H] a woman during the period between the death of her husband and the levirate marriage or halizah.
Between the widow of the deceased brother and the levir, prior to the levirate marriage. Had such a bond existed, her mother would have been forbidden to the levir as his mother-in. law.
Brothers. Since it is not known which of them will actually marry her, the levirate bond is necessarily weak.
Her mother is permitted to the levir. Consequently she would be exempted from halizah as 'his wife's daughter'.
Her mother, however, is equally permitted.
V. supra, p. 97' n. 11.
The prohibition to marry her mother prior to the levirate marriage as if she had already been his actual mother-in-law.
Between the widow of the deceased brother and the levir, before levirate marriage takes place.
Brother, who is the only one entitled to marry the widow, and may consequently be regarded as the actual husband.
v. supra p. 97' n. 16.
Between R. Judah and the Rabbis, infra 41a.
Brothers. How then could it possibly have been assumed that the halachah referred to the case of one brother only?
That the halachah was in accordance with the view of him who said that a levirate bond exists between the widow and the levir prior to the levirate marriage.

References: v. 
 V. 
 V. 
 v. 

V. 

V. 

V. 
 V. 
 v. 

V. 

V. 

v.