In yevomos, daf 17b near the top, the gemara makes a limud from yachdav to exclude achim min ha'em from yibum. What is the limud? I.e. what does yachdav have to do with nachla such that one can get myuchadim lnachla from yachdav?
Yaakov Saibil
The Gemara already established that the Pasuk is talking about brothers who are alive together. What is "Yachdav" -- "together" telling us if they were already established to be living at the same time? It must be that they have something else that happens to them at the same time. The Gemara therefore says that the Pasuk must be teaching us that this only applies to brothers who inherit their father together (like Rashi's explanation in the second DH "ha'Meyuchadim," see Rashba regarding Rashi's seemingly two different explanations of this teaching).
All the best,
Yaakov Montrose
Thank you for your response.
My question is, how does the gemara know that it is something which happens to them at the same time? Why doesn't yachdav mean, for e.g., that they must have been living in the same city or country?
YS
When the Gemara makes Derashos from extra words, it generally does so in a way that is relative to the topic. The fact that they are alive at the same time is clearly relative, as if they are not alive at the same time it is clear that the Torah does not intend to forbid her to remarry. Indeed, many Rishonim here (i.e. Tofos, Ritva) explain that the real teaching from "Yachdav" is that even if her mother-in-law is pregnant she does not have to wait to see if the baby will be a boy. The Rishonim imply that even without the Pasuk it would be clear that she would be permitted to remarry if her mother-in-law is not pregnant because of "Derachehah Darchei No'am." Accordingly, it is more understandable that the extra Pasuk would deal with a situation which is borderline within Yibum, such as her mother-in-law being pregnant, than to say that the word Yachdav refers to some new parameters that the Torah is making regarding Yibum.
Kol Tuv,
Yaakov Montrose
Again, thank you very much for your response.
I think I understand what you are saying, but does not the gemara use such a limud to exclude ALL cases of achim min ha'eim (i.e. including cases in which the child was already born)? Why not just use the limud then to exclude the borderline case of a mother-in-law being pregnant?
YS
It is not uncommon that the Gemara will make what appears to be a general teaching and the Rishonim wil explain that the teaching was actually more specific than appears from the terminology of the Gemara. The Yerushalmi here (quoted by the Ramban) explicitly states that it is impossible that the teaching is general, and must be referring to this borderline case. It is possible the Gemara left it as a general teaching because, truthfully, this is another implication that the brothers must be alive together, although it is clearly not the reason that the extra word "Yachdav" was stated.
All the best,
Yaakov Montrose
Thank you very much for your response.
Sorry if I am missing something obvious, but if indeed the drashah of 'yachdav,' does exclude only the borderline case, as the Ramban maintains, what then is the makor for the regular case of achim min ha'eim being excluded from yibum?
YS
I'm sorry that I jumped (two answers ago) from one to the other Derashah without noticing. The following combination of excerpts and new statements are the answer to your question:
Excerpts: "The Gemara already established that the Pasuk is talking about brothers who are alive together. What is "Yachdav" -- "together" telling us if they were already established to be living at the same time? It must be that they have something else that happens to them at the same time. The Gemara therefore says that the Pasuk must be teaching us that this only applies to brothers who inherit their father together (like Rashi's explanation in the second DH "ha'Meyuchadim," see Rashba regarding Rashi's seemingly two different explanations of this teaching). When the Gemara makes Derashos from extra words, it generally does so in a way that is relative to the topic."
New: It does not make sense to say that the Torah is creating new parameters, such as living in the same city or country, as that would have to be indicated by stating something about location. The fact that the Torah merely says that they are alive together implies that there is a common denominator that they have just by being alive. This must be that they inherit their father together. I would also venture to say that this is relative to the topic because the topic is the taking over of a wife and the possessions of a dead brother. Being that they have this bond that they are inheriting their father together, they also can perform Yibum for each other (if one of them dies without children). This is how we know the Pasuk means that they are inheriting their father together. [The Ramban and other Rishonim that I quoted above are focusing on the usage of "Yachdav" in regards to the first Derashah, not the second Derashah of Achim Min ha'Eim.]
Hope this helps,
Yaakov Montrose