Yevamot 10b — the Talmud in English

But if

his mother was his father’s raped woman, and she married his paternal brother, and he died

—and now his mother and her rival wife fell before him—

this is his mother, who exempts her rival wife.

And even though the Sages taught in our Mishna, “Fifteen

women exempt their rival wives,”

we must add a sixteenth, such as this one,

his father’s raped woman.

Reish Lakish said to Rabbi Yohanan:

According to Levi, who says, “For if [a forbidden relation that is “after the fact,” such as his father’s raped woman]

a forbidden relation that is permitted only after the fact, such as his father’s rape victim,

is also taught

in our Mishna—

let it also teach

in our Mishna:

one who performs chalitza with his yevama,

who after the chalitza is not forbidden to him by a prohibition carrying karet, but only by a lav prohibition [“he shall not build”—since he did not build, he shall not build again],

and then betrothed her again [despite the lav prohibition, that is, after the fact; and the betrothal takes effect upon her, since she is forbidden to him only by a lav prohibition].

despite the prohibition—that is, after the fact; and the betrothal takes effect, since she is forbidden to him only by a prohibition.

And he died,

the brother who betrothed her,

without sons,

and she fell to yibbum together with her rival wife before the other brothers—she and her rival wife may not undergo yibbum.

For since,

because

she,

she herself,

is forbidden

to undergo yibbum with the other brothers, since she is forbidden to them by the karet of the forbidden relation of a brother’s wife [according to Reish Lakish, below]—

her rival wife is also forbidden

to undergo yibbum, like her, by the law of the rival wife of a forbidden relation of a brother’s wife!

He said to him

Rabbi Yohanan to Reish Lakish: The reason we did not teach her in our Mishna is

because she does not have a rival wife of a rival wife.

For the rival wife of the yevama with whom chalitza was performed is equally forbidden to all the brothers, and this rival wife cannot undergo yibbum with another brother and thereby also render her rival wife forbidden.

And the Gemara asks: Rabbi Yohanan himself disputes Reish Lakish and maintains below that the woman with whom chalitza was performed is not forbidden to the brothers by the karet prohibition of a brother’s wife, but only by a lav prohibition [“since he did not build, he shall not build again”].

And

if so,

let Rabbi Yohanan say to him

a different answer to Reish Lakish: The woman with whom chalitza was performed is, with regard to the brothers, only in the category of

“those liable for lav prohibitions.”

And those liable for lav prohibitions

are subject to chalitza and yibbum!

That is, the woman with whom chalitza was performed [who was then betrothed again and whose betrothed died] requires yibbum [even though in practice she does not undergo yibbum, as will be explained below; nevertheless, she is not released without chalitza], since those liable for lav prohibitions are not comparable to a wife’s sister, for there is no karet in their case.

And therefore the tanna did not teach her in the Mishna.

And we answer: Rabbi Yohanan

was speaking according to the words

of Reish Lakish,

he said to him

and this is what he said to him:

According to me—

the woman with whom chalitza was performed and her rival wife

are those liable for lav prohibitions.

And those liable for lav prohibitions are subject to chalitza and yibbum.

This is the reason that the Mishna does not teach the woman with whom chalitza was performed who was then betrothed again.

But according to you,

according to your method, that the woman with whom chalitza was performed and her rival wife are in the category of

“those liable for prohibitions carrying karet,”

I must reconcile the reason that they were not taught in the Mishna—

because they do not have a rival wife of a rival wife.

The Gemara now brings the source of the dispute between Rabbi Yohanan and Reish Lakish concerning the status of the woman with whom chalitza was performed:

It is stated in the section of yibbum [Deuteronomy 25:9], when the yavam refuses to perform yibbum with his yevama:

“Then his yevama shall approach him before the elders, remove his shoe from upon his foot, spit before him, and say: So shall be done to the man who will not build his brother’s house!”

“And his name shall be called in Israel, ‘The house of the one whose shoe was removed.’”

And we learn two teachings from these verses:

a. “He builds one house, but he does not build two houses.”

Or: Since he did not build, he shall not build again. b. “He removes the shoe from one house, but he does not remove the shoe from two houses.”

Therefore, if one brother was married to two women and died, and both yevamot fell before his brothers—one of them undergoes yibbum or chalitza through one of the brothers, whereas the other is permitted to marry outside without chalitza.

To the brother who performs chalitza himself, the yevama with whom chalitza was performed is forbidden only by this lav [since he did not build, he shall not build again]; there is no karet prohibition of a brother’s wife in her case.

However, Rabbi Yohanan and Reish Lakish disputed the status of the yevama with whom chalitza was performed with regard to the other brothers: whether they too are not liable for karet because of the yevama with whom chalitza was performed and are forbidden to her only by this lav, or whether she remains forbidden to them by the prohibition of a brother’s wife.

Likewise, they disputed the status of the rival wife of the yevama with whom chalitza was performed: whether she remains forbidden by the prohibition of a brother’s wife, or whether her status is like that of the woman with whom chalitza was performed, and she is forbidden only by a lav.

And this dispute applies both to the status of the brother who performs chalitza with her and to the status of the other brothers with regard to her.

It was stated: One who performs chalitza with his yevama, and then

the brother who performed chalitza himself

betrothed her—

Reish Lakish said: He,

the brother who performed chalitza himself,

is not

liable for karet because of the woman with whom chalitza was performed,

and therefore his betrothal takes effect upon her.

But

the other

brothers—

are liable for karet because of the woman with whom chalitza was performed.

Whereas

with regard to the rival wife

of the woman with whom chalitza was performed, who was released and permitted to marry outside through the chalitza of the other yevama—

both he and the brothers are liable for karet because of the rival wife

of a brother’s wife, a prohibition that remains upon her.

The reason for this will be explained below.

And Rabbi Yohanan said: Both he and the brothers—

are not liable, neither for karet because of the woman with whom chalitza was performed, nor for karet because of the rival wife.

The Gemara explains their dispute:

What is the reason of Reish Lakish?

The verse says [Deuteronomy 25]:

Deuteronomy 25:

“Who will not build.”

The verse teaches:

Since he did not build,

but performed chalitza—

he shall not build again!

Therefore, only

he,

the brother who performed chalitza,

is the one who stands with regard to “

since he did not build—again

he shall not build.”

For this is what the verse said: Since he performed chalitza with her, she is no longer forbidden to him by the punishment of karet for a brother’s wife, but only by the lav of “he shall not build.”

But his brothers,

who did not perform chalitza with her—

as they stood,

just as they had been forbidden to her before his chalitza, by the karet prohibition of a brother’s wife [if they did not perform yibbum with her and did not perform chalitza with her], so too

they stand

now, after his chalitza, with a karet prohibition.

And likewise, only

likewise, only

with regard to her

her,

is he the one who stands

the brother who performs chalitza

with “he shall not build.”

But

with regard to the

rival wife

of the woman with whom chalitza was performed—

as they stood,

the brother who performed chalitza and his brothers, with the karet prohibition of a brother’s wife,

they stand

henceforth, even after his chalitza.

And if

if

Rabbi Yohanan

holds:

Is there such a thing,

is there such a matter,

that initially,

when the two yevamot fell before all the brothers,

if this one wishes,

a brother,

he performs chalitza, and if this one wishes,

a brother,

he performs chalitza.

And if he wishes with this one,

yevama,

he performs chalitza, and if he wishes with this one,

yevama,

he performs chalitza.

And now,

after the chalitza—

he stands over her,

all the brothers should be forbidden to the woman with whom chalitza was performed and to her rival wife by karet, and the brother who performed chalitza himself should likewise be forbidden to the rival wife of the woman with whom chalitza was performed

by karet!

Rather,

it is necessarily the case that we must say that

he,

the brother who performs chalitza,

performs the agency of the brothers.

For he is like an agent of them all to perform chalitza, and from now on she is forbidden to all the brothers only by the lav: “Since he did not build, he shall not build again.”

And likewise the woman with whom chalitza was performed,

she—

performed the agency of the rival wife.

And it is as though chalitza had been performed with both of them.

Therefore, from now on, after the chalitza, she and her rival wife are forbidden to all the brothers only by a lav.

Rabbi Yohanan raised an objection to Reish Lakish

from a beraita that we learned:

One who performs chalitza with his yevama, and then

the brother who performed chalitza

betrothed her, and died—

she

requires chalitza from the brothers!

Granted, according to me, for I say

that the woman with whom chalitza was performed and her rival wife, both with regard to the brother who performs chalitza and with regard to the brothers, are in the category of

“those liable for lav prohibitions”

alone

they are—

this is why she requires

now, when the brother who performed chalitza betrothed her again and died,

chalitza from the brothers.

For his betrothal took effect upon her, and here there is a falling to yibbum of a yevama who is in the category of “those liable for lav prohibitions” with regard to the brothers.

But according to you,

that the woman with whom chalitza was performed is forbidden to the brothers by karet—

why does she require chalitza

from them!?

Yet although the betrothal of the brother who performed chalitza took effect upon her, she does not require chalitza from the brothers, for according to you she is forbidden to them by a karet prohibition!

Reish Lakish answered Rabbi Yohanan with a difficulty:

But according to your position,

according to your method, Rabbi Yohanan, that the brother who performs chalitza carried out the agency of the brothers, and from now on all of them are forbidden to her only by a lav—

say the latter clause

of that same beraita:

If one of the brothers

of the brother who performed chalitza

stood and betrothed her,

and died—

she has nothing whatsoever from him!

Because the brother’s betrothal did not take effect upon her! And Reish Lakish proves that the brother of the one who performed chalitza is forbidden to her by the punishment of karet, and therefore his betrothal did not take effect upon her. For:

And if

it were to be said according to your words, Rabbi Yohanan, that the prohibition of the women with whom chalitza was performed upon the brothers is only in the category of

“those liable for lav prohibitions”—

why does she have nothing

from the brother who betrothed and died,

from him?

Yet according to your words, that the woman with whom chalitza was performed is merely one liable for lav prohibitions with regard to all the brothers, betrothals take effect upon her with regard to all the brothers.

And since the brother’s betrothal took effect upon her, she falls from him to yibbum or chalitza; and how does she leave with nothing at all?!

Rav Sheshet said: The latter clause

of the beraita, which says that she does not require chalitza—

we arrive

they

at

according to the words of

Rabbi Akiva, who says: Betrothals do not take effect with those liable for lav prohibitions!

But the first clause is according to the Rabbis, who maintain that betrothals do take effect with those liable for lav prohibitions.

But according to both the Rabbis and Rabbi Akiva, she is only in the category of those liable for lav prohibitions, in accordance with Rabbi Yohanan’s view.

And we raise a difficulty: If the latter clause is only according to Rabbi Akiva, it should be difficult that the tanna should state this explicitly:

And let him teach: “According to Rabbi Akiva—

she has nothing whatsoever from him”!