Yevamot 111b — the Talmud in English

He did not disqualify the first one.

For both of them were equally married by rabbinic enactment. And in the framework of marriage by rabbinic enactment, these marriages are defined as “marriages of uncertainty.” Therefore, the levirate marriage of the levir is also rabbinic, and is in the category of a levirate marriage of uncertainty, and his intercourse with both of them is equal.

And therefore, according to the possibility that she is betrothed, and the levirate marriage of the first one is considered levirate marriage, and she is acquired by him, she alone is his wife. And if the levir, or his brother, returns and has intercourse with the second minor girl, the matter will be considered mere promiscuous intercourse, and the first one will not become forbidden to him by virtue of “he builds one house and does not build two houses.”

And according to the possibility that the minor girl is not considered acquired, both minor girls are considered foreign women in relation to him, and he may take them as he wishes.

Therefore, he maintains under him the minor girl with whom he had intercourse first, for she is permitted to him from either perspective. But he cannot maintain the second one, because according to the possibility that the minor girl is indeed acquired by him, once he had intercourse with the first one, the second one was thereby disqualified by virtue of “he builds one house and does not build two houses.”

And so

the same law applies to one who was married to

two deaf women,

whose acquisition is rabbinic, and the acquisition of both of them is equal.

b. One who was married to

a minor girl and a deaf woman,

and died.

The levir had intercourse with the minor girl and then returned and had intercourse with the deaf woman

or his brother had intercourse with the deaf woman—

he disqualified

thereby

the minor girl.

That is, according to the fundamental law, the intercourse with the minor girl was effective to acquire her, for from either perspective she is permitted: if she is completely acquired, then she is acquired through his intercourse; and if she is not acquired at all, then she is a foreign woman.

But they decreed concerning her that she should be forbidden, lest the levir exchange the order and have intercourse first with the deaf woman and afterward with the minor girl, in which case the residual acquisition of the deaf woman would interfere with the acquisition of the minor girl.

And if

the levir had intercourse with the deaf woman and then returned and had intercourse with the minor girl,

or his brother had intercourse with the minor girl—

he disqualified the deaf woman,

since it is possible that the intercourse with the minor girl acquires her completely, and she interferes with the acquisition of the deaf woman, which is an acquisition in part.

c. One who was married to

a mentally competent woman and a deaf woman,

and died—

the levir had intercourse with the mentally competent woman and then returned and had intercourse with the deaf woman

or his brother had intercourse with the deaf woman—

he did not disqualify the mentally competent woman,

for her acquisition is complete by Torah law, and nothing follows a valid intercourse.

And if

the levir

first

had intercourse with the deaf woman and then returned and had intercourse with the mentally competent woman,

or his brother had intercourse with the mentally competent woman—

he disqualified the deaf woman,

because the intercourse with the mentally competent woman, which is by Torah law, interferes with the intercourse with the deaf woman, which is rabbinic, even if the intercourse with the deaf woman was first.

d. One who was married to

an adult woman and a minor girl—

If

the levir had intercourse with the adult woman and then returned and had intercourse with the minor girl,

or his brother had intercourse with the minor girl—

he did not disqualify the adult woman,

who is completely acquired by Torah law.

And if

the levir had intercourse with the minor girl

first,

and then returned and had intercourse with the adult woman,

or his brother had intercourse with the adult woman—

he disqualified

through the intercourse with the adult woman, which is by Torah law,

the minor girl.

Rabbi Elazar says: They instruct the minor girl to refuse him,

and thereby uproot her marriage with him, and he maintains the adult woman.

Gemara:

Rav Yehuda said in the name of Shmuel: The halakha is in accordance with Rabbi Elazar,

that they instruct the minor girl to refuse her marriage with him.

And Rabbi Elazar said likewise,

son of Pedat, the amora, that

the halakha is in accordance with Rabbi Elazar

son of Shamua, the tanna [in our Mishna].

And concerning the preceding Mishna as well, which deals with two sisters, one married to him through the betrothal of a minor girl by rabbinic enactment, and the other an adult woman who falls to him for levirate marriage from his brother, in which Rabbi Eliezer [and not Rabbi Elazar!] said that they instruct the minor girl to refuse, Rav Yehuda said in the name of Shmuel and Rabbi Elazar son of Pedat [the amora] that the halakha is in accordance with Rabbi Eliezer, that they instruct the minor girl to refuse.

And the Gemara explains:

And it is necessary,

they needed to inform us of this concerning both Mishnayot.

For if it were stated

only

with regard to the first one,

I would say that only

with regard to that one did Shmuel say that the halakha is in accordance with Rabbi Eliezer, because he did not fulfill the mitzva of levirate marriage,

and they instruct her to refuse, and through this he can fulfill the mitzva of levirate marriage with her sister, who falls before him for levirate marriage by Torah law.

But

here, in our Mishna,

where he fulfilled the mitzva of levirate marriage

with both of them, [with the adult woman by Torah law and with the minor girl by rabbinic enactment],

say that both of them should leave through a bill of divorce,

that both should leave through a bill of divorce, and we should not instruct the minor girl to refuse.

And if he had informed us

only

with regard to this one,

here, I would say that specifically here they instruct the minor girl to refuse,

because the adult woman is lying before him,

falling before him for levirate marriage by Torah law, and therefore the minor girl refuses so that the adult woman may undergo levirate marriage.

But the other one,

above, where the adult woman is his wife’s sister, and if his wife grows up and he acquires her by Torah law, her sister will not be subject to levirate marriage at all, but will go out to the marketplace according to the law of the nakedness of a wife’s sister—

not

will they instruct the minor girl there to refuse.

Therefore

it is necessary

to inform us of this in both places.

Mishna:

In this Mishna the law of a minor levir and a minor yevama is explained.

The minor yevama may undergo levirate marriage even though she is not presently fit for intercourse that establishes a name for her deceased husband, for a minor girl does not give birth, since she can continue to be the wife of the levir until she grows up, and then she will be fit for intercourse that establishes a name for her deceased husband.

And this is the wording of Rashi [above, 61b, s.v. “and she does not perform halitza”]: A minor girl undergoes levirate marriage, and she grows up with him, and the mitzva of levirate marriage is fulfilled.

And the later authorities discussed these words of Rashi: whether his intention is to say that as long as she is a minor, the mitzva of levirate marriage has not been fulfilled with her, but she is only acquired by him, and when she grows up, he must have intercourse with her in order to fulfill the mitzva of levirate marriage; and until then she does not leave through a bill of divorce alone, but also requires halitza.

Or whether her levirate marriage was complete levirate marriage while she was a minor, and she leaves him through a bill of divorce, except that he has an additional mitzva to have intercourse with her when she grows up, so that there should be with her intercourse fit to establish a name for his brother. [Ong Yom Tov, section 179; Imrei Moshe, section 6; Or Sameah, Levirate Marriage 1:17].

Concerning a minor levir, whose intercourse is intercourse from the age of nine years and one day, the early authorities discussed whether he acquires her by Torah law, or whether the yevama is only permitted to him by Torah law, but he does not acquire her as a wife.

This Mishna is divided into four parts.

In the first part, the law of a minor levir who had intercourse with a minor yevama is explained.

In the second part, the law of a minor levir who had intercourse with an adult yevama is explained.

In the third part, it is explained when the yevama is believed to say that the levir did not have intercourse with her, so that the court may compel the levir to perform halitza for her.

And in the fourth part, the law of a woman who vows benefit from her levir is explained.

a.

A minor levir,

nine years and one day old, whose intercourse is intercourse,

who had intercourse with a minor yevama,

and the minor acquires her through his intercourse [by Torah law or by rabbinic enactment]—

They shall grow up together.

Since the intercourse of the minor is considered to acquire his yevama as though an adult had performed maamar with her, she is acquired by him, and they may continue to be together as husband and wife; but he cannot divorce her, since a minor cannot divorce.

b. And if

he had intercourse

the minor levir

with an adult yevama—

she shall raise him.

He cannot divorce her because he is a minor, but she is permitted to have intercourse through him, since she falls before him for levirate marriage.

And in the Gemara it will be explained how she is permitted to him, despite the fact that the intercourse of a minor is not intercourse fit to establish a name for his brother, since a minor cannot father children, and the Torah permitted a brother’s wife for the establishment of a name for his brother.

c.

The yevama who said within thirty days

from the time that the levir brought her into his home,

“I have not had intercourse,”

and she has a levirate bill of divorce in her hand—

they compel him

the court

to perform halitza for her,

and they do not believe him that he had intercourse with her, and the bill of divorce that she has in her hand, which she received from him, suffices for her. For until thirty days she is believed to claim that he did not have intercourse with her, since a man can refrain and not have intercourse with his yevama for thirty days from the time that he brought her into the bridal canopy.

But if she came

after thirty days,

and claims that she still has not had intercourse through the levir, she is not believed, since beyond thirty days a man does not restrain himself from having intercourse.

And therefore only

they request from him that he perform halitza for her,

but they do not compel him to do so.

And when he admits

that he did not have intercourse with her—

even after twelve months they compel him to perform halitza for her.

d.

The woman who vows benefit from her levir during her husband’s lifetime,

because she was angry with him, and did not intend to forbid herself to him so that, if her husband died, she would be released from him, and her husband died—

they compel him to perform halitza for her.

But if she vowed benefit from her levir

after her husband’s death,

we assume that she did this in order to free herself from his levirate marriage, and therefore they do not compel him to perform halitza for her, but only

they request from him that he perform halitza for her.

And if she intended

through her vow

for that,

to free herself from the levir, then

even

if the vow was

during her husband’s lifetime—

only

they request from him that he perform halitza for her,

but they do not compel him to do so.

Gemara:

And we raise an objection concerning it:

Shall we say that our Mishna,

which says that a minor who has intercourse with a minor girl or with an adult woman shall grow up together with her—

is not in accordance with Rabbi Meir!?

For

it is

taught: A minor and a minor girl—

neither perform halitza nor undergo levirate marriage, the words of Rabbi Meir!

Because Rabbi Meir is concerned for the minority of levirs who are eunuchs and the minority of yevamot who are sterile, in whose cases the mitzva of levirate marriage does not apply, and they are forbidden to the levir because of the nakedness of a brother’s wife when there is no mitzva of levirate marriage.

And the Gemara answers:

Even say,

it is always possible to establish our Mishna also according to

Rabbi Meir.

Since

when Rabbi Meir said

that a minor or a minor girl may not undergo levirate marriage, this is only in a case where one of them transgresses a Torah prohibition, because one is an adult and the other is a minor. For example, an

adult yevama to a

levir

who is a minor, and a

yevama

who is a minor to a

levir

who is an adult—

for the intercourse of one of them is intercourse of prohibition.

The adult man or the adult woman transgresses the prohibition of intercourse with the nakedness of a brother’s wife if one of them is unfit for levirate marriage [if he is a eunuch, or if she is sterile].

But a minor who has intercourse with a minor girl, since both of them,

both of them, the levir and the yevama,

are alike,

they are equal in that both are minors and are not subject to obligation—

he did not say

that Rabbi Meir said that they should not undergo levirate marriage when both of them are minors.

This follows the principle that says, “A minor who eats forbidden foods—the court is not commanded to separate him from eating them.” The same law applies here: we do not have to prevent them from being together, even if there is in this an act of transgression, namely, that he is a eunuch or she is sterile, and she is a brother’s wife outside the place of a mitzva.

And the Gemara asks: How can it answer in this way?

But it teaches

in our Mishna explicitly, “A minor levir who

had intercourse with an adult yevama”—

she shall raise him!”

It is necessarily the case that our Mishna is not in accordance with Rabbi Meir, for it also speaks of an adult woman, whom the court must intervene and separate from committing a transgression.

And according to Rabbi Meir, who is concerned in the case of a minor lest he be found to be a eunuch, here too we must be concerned lest the minor who had intercourse with her is a eunuch, in which case she is now transgressing the prohibition of the nakedness of a brother’s wife outside the place of a mitzva.

And we answer:

Rabbi Hanina of Hozאה said: Had intercourse—

that is different!

That is, the matter does not concern practical halakha, since he already had intercourse with her without the minor levir and the adult yevama asking whether they were permitted to do so. For if they had asked, they would have known that according to Rabbi Meir they were forbidden to do so, because perhaps the minor is a eunuch.

And the intention of the Mishna is to say: Since he had intercourse with her, from now on she does not leave him either through a bill of divorce or through halitza, but she shall raise him, and when he grows up she can leave him through a bill of divorce.

But the Gemara rejects this understanding in explaining the Mishna:

But “she shall raise him,” he says,

the tanna, and the wording implies that she will continue to be with him as husband and wife, and

each and every intercourse

that he has with her is intercourse

of prohibition

[if he is a eunuch, and according to Rabbi Meir one must be concerned for the minority of eunuchs]!

And therefore the Gemara returns to the first conclusion—

Rather,

necessarily,

it is clear,

it is clear and evident that

our Mishna,

our Mishna—

is not in accordance with Rabbi Meir

.

And now the Gemara discusses how the levirate marriage of the minor takes effect with her, and how the prohibition of a brother’s wife was permitted with her.

Read here,

for one must read here, in order to permit a brother’s wife where there is a mitzva of levirate marriage,

“to establish a name for his brother

in Israel.”

And this

minor, who cannot father a child through this intercourse—

is not fit for this!

For he is not presently fit to establish a name for his brother through his intercourse. If so, how is it permitted for her to maintain him with her!?

Abaye said: The verse says, “The yevama shall have intercourse with him,”

whose meaning is, even a levir

of any sort,

even a minor levir who is not presently fit to establish a name, also concerning him I read, “The yevama shall have intercourse with him,” and the yevama is not forbidden because of the prohibition of a brother’s wife outside the place of a mitzva. Therefore, it is permitted for the adult yevama to maintain the minor levir with her.

Rava said: Even without this,

without this derivation from the verse,

also,

even,

not

so

can you say,

you cannot say that the adult yevama will be forbidden to the minor levir, because—

Is there such a thing,

is such a matter possible,

that now,

now, at the time of her falling for levirate marriage, the yevama will be

forbidden

to the levir because he is a minor,

and afterward

after some time, when the minor grows up,

permitted,

she will be permitted to him?

But Rav Yehuda said in the name of Rav: Any yevama concerning whom I cannot say at the time of her falling, “The yevama shall have intercourse with him”—

she is like a brother’s wife who has children, and is forbidden

forever.

Rather, it is necessarily the case that she is permitted to him even while he is a minor and has no possibility of establishing a name for his brother.

But the Gemara asks: How does Rava prove from the fact that she is not forbidden to him forever that she is permitted to him even while he is a minor?

And say that this too is so,

that every yevama who falls before a minor levir, who is not fit to establish a name, becomes forbidden to him forever, since at the time of her falling I cannot say concerning her, “The yevama shall have intercourse with him,” for this verse was stated only when the levir is fit to establish a name for his brother.

And we answer:

The verse says

in the passage of yibbum:

“When brothers dwell together,”

the verse teaches that

even

a yavam who is

one day old

is nevertheless considered a “yavam” who is fit for the mitzva of yibbum. I do not say that, since he is not presently fit to establish a name, the yevama is permanently forbidden to him.

We learned in the Mishna:

A yevama who said within thirty days

that I have not had intercourse, they compel him to perform ḥalitza with her.

And we raised a difficulty concerning it:

Who is the tanna,

who is the tanna who holds

that until thirty days

that until thirty days,

a person restrains himself,

a person restrains himself from having intercourse until then—

And we answer:

Rabbi Yoḥanan said:

Our Mishna is in accordance with the method of

Rabbi Meir.

For it was taught:

The credibility of a husband who married a woman to come to the court and assert

a claim of virginity,

that he took her on the presumption that she was a virgin, had intercourse with her, found that she had already had intercourse, and claims that she committed adultery while under him, between the time of the betrothal and the time of the marriage [when she was then in her father’s house]—and he is believed to deprive her of her ketuba—

is

for the entire thirty days

from the time that he married her,

the words of Rabbi Meir.

Until thirty days he can claim that he restrained himself from having intercourse until now, and when he had intercourse he found that she had already had intercourse; therefore, he comes only now to the court to assert a claim of virginity, and it is possible to believe him for thirty days that he restrained himself and did not have intercourse with her until now.

But if he comes to make the claim after thirty days, he is not believed. Rather, we attribute it to the fact that he had intercourse with her within thirty days and found her to be a virgin, and now he became angry with her and came to deprive her of her ketuba unlawfully.

Rabbi Yose says:

If she

was secluded

with him, he is believed to claim that he did not find her to be a virgin only if he comes

immediately,

immediately after the seclusion, for we are certain that as soon as he was with her in a secluded place he had intercourse with her, and he is not believed throughout the entire thirty days.

But if it happened that after the marriage she

was not secluded

with him, and he could not have intercourse with her openly—

even after several years

he can assert a claim of virginity.

Rabba said: You may even say

that you can say that our Mishna is even in accordance with the method of

Rabbi Yose.

For

Rabbi Yose said this only there,

that he cannot make the claim during the thirty days, but only immediately, from the time of the seclusion,

but concerning his betrothed, with whom he is familiar.

For he is accustomed to her and is not embarrassed before her; therefore, he has intercourse with her immediately and cannot restrain himself.