As discussed here, Reish Lakish is of the opinion (in Yevamos 10b) that one may not marry his sister-in-law with whom he did chalitzah. He derives it from the passuk of "lo yibaneh" - literally, he shall not build. Because he did Chalitzah, he may not marry her again.

Why is this not a normal arayos case? One may not marry his sister-in-law. Chiyuv yibbum suspends that issur. Once he's rejected that opportunity, she should return to the parshah of arayos. That would mean that A) the passuk of lo yibaneh is unnecessary, as he is already prohibited from marrying her, and B) it would be an issur kareis, which is contrary to the opinion of both R' Yochanan and Reish Lakish in the aforementioned Gemara in Yevamos. Why is this not so?

(Note that yibbum is one of the classic cases of asi aseh v'dachi lo sa'aseh - see Rashi to Shemos 20:8, as discussed here.)

  • 1
    How do you know chalitza is a permanent rejection of the opportunity? – Double AA Apr 6 '17 at 4:15
  • @DoubleAA That's Reish Lakish's derashah of lo yibaneh. I did specify that I'm asking only according to Reish Lakish. (Especially since I don't quite understand R' Yochanan's opinion.) – DonielF Apr 6 '17 at 13:32
  • Exactly. So then what's the question? – Double AA Apr 6 '17 at 13:35
  • Rashi Shemot 20:8 doesn't mention aseh doche lo taaseh. Did you mis-cite? – Double AA Apr 6 '17 at 13:36
  • @DoubleAA According to Reish Lakish, why is it not an issur kareis, and why is Lo yibaneh necessary? It should be the ordinary issue of eishes ach. – DonielF Apr 6 '17 at 13:36

This question seems to be asked by Tosfot. Tosfot says that the verse lo yivne moves the eshet ach from karet to lav. Without this verse, chalutsa was karet. This verse apply for Resh Lakish for the chalutsa only and for Rabbi Yochanan evenvto the tsara.

Tosfot 10b

איהו הוא דקאי בלא יבנה. אי לא הוה כתיב לא יבנה הוה אמינא דאפילו הוא על החלוצה בכרת והשתא אייתר לא יבנה לנתקה מכרת ללאו אבל אחין וצרה כדקיימי קיימי ולא קאי לא יבנה עלייהו ...

If there was not the verse "he should not build", I would have though that even the cholets is pynishable by caret for the chalutsa.. But know the supernumerary " he should not build" does move the chalutsa from the karet section to the lav section. For Resh lakish the verse addresses the cholets only, so, for his brothers, the chalutsa remains in the Karet section. {Perhaps Tosfot is saying that without lo yvne, we did already know that she is prohibited after chalitsa because the erva status came back, the OP called this normal arayit case }

ובפ' ד' אחין (לקמן דף לב.) דקאמר אי דמייבם והדר חליץ ה''נ אלא דלמא חליץ ברישא והדר מייבם וקם ליה בלא יבנה התם היינו אליבא דרבי יוחנן דמוקי לא יבנה נמי אצרה אבל לר''ל קם ליה בכרת:‏

| improve this answer | |
  • I don't understand. "A normal ervah has no exception" - yibbum is one of the classic cases of asi aseh v'dachi lo sa'aseh. Or look at Bnos Lot - they did the act for pure intentions and are congratulated for it. "This feature is acquired by chalitzah..." - And therefore what? Besides, I'm not sure that "acquired" is the right word to use here. She was always an ervah, but was allowed due to other circumstances. – DonielF Apr 6 '17 at 12:22
  • 1
    A womans sister is permitted to her husband after her death, an eishes ish is also permitted even during her husbands lifetime with a get, these Are ervas with exceptions, so too the torah permitted eishes och sheein lo bonim and by doing chalitza he now is only ossur as a regular lav like machazir gerushoso and the torah no longer forbids him to her with kareis – user15464 Oct 4 '17 at 11:45

You must log in to answer this question.

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged .