Yevamot 111b (קיא:) — the Talmud in English

He did not disqualify the first one.

For both were equally married to him by rabbinic law. And with regard to marriage by rabbinic law, these marriages are defined as “doubtful marriages.” Therefore, the levirate bond of the yavam is also rabbinic and has the status of a doubtful levirate bond, and his intercourse with both of them is equivalent.

Consequently, according to the possibility that the first minor was betrothed and her levirate bond is considered a valid yibbum, so that she is acquired by him, she alone is his wife. If the yavam, or his brother, were to have intercourse with the second minor, this would be considered mere licentious intercourse, and the first would not thereby become forbidden to him by virtue of the principle: “He builds one house and does not build two houses.”

And according to the possibility that the minor is not considered acquired by him, both minors are considered unrelated women with regard to him, and he may take either of them as he wishes.

Therefore, he retains as his wife the minor with whom he had intercourse first, for she is permitted to him under either possibility. But he cannot retain the second one, because according to the possibility that the minor is indeed acquired by him, once he had intercourse with the first, the second was disqualified by virtue of the principle: “He builds one house and does not build two houses.”

And likewise

the same law applies to one who was married to

two deaf-mute women,

whose acquisition is rabbinic, and the acquisition of both is equivalent.

b. One who was married to

a minor and a deaf-mute woman,

and died—

If the yavam had intercourse with the minor and then again had intercourse with the deaf-mute woman

or if his brother had intercourse with the deaf-mute woman—

he disqualified

thereby

the minor.

That is, according to the fundamental law, the intercourse with the minor was effective to acquire her, for under either possibility she is permitted: If she is fully acquired, she is acquired through intercourse; and if she is not acquired at all, she is an unrelated woman.

However, the Sages decreed that she should be forbidden, lest the yavam err and have intercourse first with the deaf-mute woman and afterward with the minor, in which case the partial acquisition of the deaf-mute woman would interfere with the acquisition of the minor.

And if

the yavam had intercourse with the deaf-mute woman and then again had intercourse with the minor

or if his brother had intercourse with the minor—

he disqualified the deaf-mute woman,

because it is possible that intercourse with the minor effects full acquisition, and she interferes with the acquisition of the deaf-mute woman, whose acquisition is only partial.

c. One who was married to

a woman of sound mind and a deaf-mute woman,

and died—

If the yavam had intercourse with the woman of sound mind and then again had intercourse with the deaf-mute woman

or if his brother had intercourse with the deaf-mute woman—

he did not disqualify the woman of sound mind,

for her acquisition is complete by Torah law, and nothing can override valid intercourse.

And if

the yavam

first

had intercourse with the deaf-mute woman and then again had intercourse with the woman of sound mind,

or if his brother had intercourse with the woman of sound mind—

he disqualified the deaf-mute woman,

because the intercourse with the woman of sound mind, which is valid by Torah law, interferes with the intercourse with the deaf-mute woman, which is valid only by rabbinic law, even if the intercourse with the deaf-mute woman occurred first.

d. One who was married to

an adult woman and a minor—

If

the yavam had intercourse with the adult woman and then again had intercourse with the minor

or if his brother had intercourse with the minor—

he did not disqualify the adult woman,

who is completely acquired by Torah law.

And if

the yavam had intercourse with the minor

first,

and then again had intercourse with the adult woman,

or if his brother had intercourse with the adult woman—

he disqualified

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

the minor.

Rabbi Elazar says: We instruct the minor to refuse him,

thereby uprooting her marriage to him, and he retains the adult woman.

Gemara:

Rav Yehuda said that Shmuel said: The halakha is in accordance with Rabbi Elazar,

that we instruct the minor to refuse her marriage to him.

And Rabbi Elazar likewise said,

ben Pedat, the amora, that

the halakha is in accordance with Rabbi Elazar

ben Shamua, the tanna [of our Mishna].

With regard to the preceding Mishna as well, which deals with two sisters, one of whom is married to him through the rabbinic betrothal of a minor, while the other is an adult woman who falls before him for yibbum from his brother, in which Rabbi Eliezer [and not Rabbi Elazar!] said that we instruct the minor to refuse him, Rav Yehuda said that Shmuel said, and Rabbi Elazar ben Pedat [the amora] said, that the halakha is in accordance with Rabbi Eliezer, that we instruct the minor to refuse him.

And the Gemara explains:

It is necessary,

as it was necessary to state this with regard to both Mishnayot.

For if it were stated

only

with regard to the first case,

I would say that only

in that case did Shmuel say that the halakha is in accordance with Rabbi Eliezer, because he did not fulfill the mitzva of yibbum,

and therefore we instruct her to refuse him, enabling him to fulfill the mitzva of yibbum with her sister, who falls before him for yibbum by Torah law.

But

here, in our Mishna,

where he fulfilled the mitzva of yibbum

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

say that both must leave through a bill of divorce,

so that both of them leave through a bill of divorce, and we would not instruct the minor to refuse him.

And if he had informed us

only

of this case,

here, I would say that specifically here we instruct the minor to refuse him

because the adult woman is assigned to him,

as she falls before him for yibbum by Torah law; therefore, the minor should refuse him so that the adult woman may undergo yibbum.

But the other case,

above, in which 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 yibbum at all, but will go out into the world in accordance with the law governing the forbidden relationship of a wife’s sister—

not

would they instruct the minor there to refuse him.

Therefore

it is necessary

to inform us of this in both cases.

Mishna:

This Mishna explains the law of a minor yavam and a minor yevama.

The minor yevama may undergo yibbum even though she is not presently capable of intercourse that establishes a name for her deceased husband, since a minor cannot give birth. Nevertheless, she can continue to be the yavam’s wife until she comes of age, at which point she will be capable of intercourse that establishes a name for her deceased husband.

And this is Rashi’s wording [above, 61b, s.v. ve-eina holtzet]: “A minor undergoes yibbum, and she comes of age with him, and the mitzva of yibbum is fulfilled.”

The later authorities discussed Rashi’s words: Did he mean that so long as she is a minor, the mitzva of yibbum has not been fulfilled with regard to her, but she is merely acquired by him, and when she comes of age he must have intercourse with her in order to fulfill the mitzva of yibbum? Until then, does she not leave him through a bill of divorce alone, but also requires chalitza?

Or was her yibbum a complete yibbum while she was a minor, so that she leaves him through a bill of divorce, although he has an additional mitzva to have intercourse with her once she comes of age, so that the intercourse will be capable of establishing a name for his brother? [Oneg Yom Tov, section 179; Imrei Moshe, section 6; Or Sameaḥ, Yibbum 1:17].

With regard to a minor yavam, whose intercourse is considered 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 merely permitted to him by Torah law, while he does not acquire her as a wife.

This Mishna is divided into four sections.

The first section explains the law of a minor yavam who has intercourse with a minor yevama.

The second section explains the law of a minor yavam who has intercourse with an adult yevama.

The third section explains when the yevama is trusted to say that the yavam did not have intercourse with her, so that the court can compel the yavam to perform chalitza for her.

The fourth section explains the law of a woman who makes a vow forbidding herself to receive benefit from her yavam.

a.

A minor yavam,

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

who has intercourse with a minor yevama,

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

They shall come of age together.

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

b. And if

the minor yavam

has intercourse

with an adult yevama—

she shall raise him.

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

The Gemara will explain how she is permitted to him even though the intercourse of a minor is not intercourse capable of establishing a name for his brother, since a minor cannot father a child, and the Torah permitted the wife of one’s brother for the purpose of establishing a name for his brother.

c.

The yevama who says within thirty days

from the time the yavam took her in

“I have not had intercourse”,

and she has a bill of divorce from the yavam in her possession—

we compel him

the court

to perform chalitza for her,

and we do not believe him when he says that he had intercourse with her; the bill of divorce in her possession, which she received from him, is sufficient for her. Until thirty days, she is trusted to claim that he did not have intercourse with her, since a man can restrain himself and refrain from having intercourse with his yevama for thirty days from the time he takes her into his home.

But if she comes

after thirty days,

and claims that she still has not had intercourse with the yavam, she is not trusted, since beyond thirty days a man cannot restrain himself from having intercourse.

Therefore, only

do we request of him that he perform chalitza for her,

but we do not compel him to do so.

And when he admits

that he did not have intercourse with her—

even after twelve months, we compel him to perform chalitza for her.

d.

A woman who makes a vow forbidding herself to receive benefit from her yavam 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—

we compel him to perform chalitza for her.

But if she made a vow forbidding herself to receive benefit from her yavam

after her husband’s death,

we presume that she did so in order to free herself from his yibbum; therefore, we do not compel him to perform chalitza for her, but only

request of him that he perform chalitza for her.

And if she intended

through her vow

that,

to free herself from the yavam, then

even

if the vow was made

during her husband’s lifetime—

only

do we request of him that he perform chalitza for her,

but we do not compel him to do so.

Gemara:

And we raised a difficulty concerning it:

Shall we say that our Mishna,

which states that when a minor has intercourse with either a minor or an adult, they shall come of age together—

is not in accordance with Rabbi Meir!?

For

it is

taught in a beraita: A minor and a minor woman—

they may neither perform chalitza nor undergo yibbum; this is the statement of Rabbi Meir!

This is because Rabbi Meir is concerned about the minority of yevamim who are eunuchs and the minority of yevamot who are incapable of bearing children. In those cases, the mitzva of yibbum does not apply, and they are forbidden to the yavam under the prohibition of the forbidden relationship of a brother’s wife when there is no mitzva of yibbum.

And the Gemara answers:

You may even say,

it is possible to establish our Mishna also according to

Rabbi Meir.

Since

when Rabbi Meir said

that a minor or a minor woman may not undergo yibbum, that applies only where one of them would transgress a Torah prohibition, because one is an adult and the other is a minor. For example,

an adult yevama to a

minor

yavam, or a

yevama who is a

minor to a

yavam who is an

adult—

for in one of the two cases, the intercourse is prohibited.

The adult man or woman would engage in intercourse involving the prohibition of the forbidden relationship of a brother’s wife if one of them is unfit for yibbum [if he is a eunuch or she is incapable of bearing children].

But in the case of a minor having intercourse with a minor woman, since both of them,

the yavam and the yevama,

are alike,

as both are minors and not subject to obligation—

he did not say

that Rabbi Meir prohibits them from undergoing yibbum while both are minors.

This follows the principle that “a minor who eats unslaughtered carcasses—the court is not commanded to separate him from eating them.” The same applies here: We need not prevent them from remaining together, even if this involves a prohibited act, namely, if he is a eunuch or she is incapable of bearing children, in which case she is the wife of his brother without a mitzva of yibbum.

The Gemara challenges this: How can the matter be explained in this way?

But it explicitly teaches

in our Mishna: “A minor yavam who

has intercourse with an adult yevama”—

she shall raise him!

Necessarily, our Mishna is not in accordance with Rabbi Meir, since it also discusses an adult woman, whom the court must intervene to prevent from transgressing.

And according to Rabbi Meir, who is concerned that a minor may prove to be a eunuch, we must be concerned here that the minor who had intercourse with her is a eunuch, in which case she is currently transgressing the prohibition of the forbidden relationship of a brother’s wife without a mitzva of yibbum.

And we answer:

Rabbi Ḥanina of Ḥozאה said: “Has intercourse”—

that is different!

That is, this matter does not concern a practical prohibition, since he has already had intercourse with her without the minor yavam and the adult yevama asking whether they were permitted to do so. Had they asked, they would have learned that according to Rabbi Meir they were forbidden to do so, as perhaps the minor is a eunuch.

The intention of the Mishna is to say that once he has had intercourse with her, she no longer leaves him either through a bill of divorce or through chalitza. Rather, she should raise him, and when he comes of age, she can leave him through a bill of divorce.

But the Gemara rejects this interpretation of the Mishna:

But the tanna said, “she shall raise him,”

and this wording implies that she will continue to live with him as husband and wife, and

each and every act of intercourse

that he has with her is

prohibited intercourse [

if he is in fact a eunuch, and according to Rabbi Meir we must be concerned about the minority of eunuchs]!

Therefore, the Gemara returns to its initial conclusion—

Rather,

necessarily,

it is clear,

it is evident that

our Mishna,

our Mishna,

is not in accordance with Rabbi Meir

.

The Gemara now discusses how the yibbum of the minor takes effect with regard to her, and how the prohibition of a brother’s wife is permitted in her case.

Read here,

for one should read here, in order to permit the wife of one’s brother where there is a mitzva of yibbum,

“to establish a name for his brother

among Israel.”

But this

minor, who cannot father a child through this intercourse—

is he capable of that?

He is not presently fit to establish a name for his brother through his intercourse. If so, how is she permitted to remain with him!?

Abaye said: The verse states, “A yevama shall be taken by him,”

which means that even

any yavam whatsoever

including a minor who is not presently fit to establish a name for his brother—can be included in the expression “a yevama shall be taken by him.” The yevama is therefore not forbidden to him as the wife of his brother without a mitzva of yibbum. Consequently, the adult yevama is permitted to remain with the minor yavam.

Rava said: Without this,

without this derivation from the verse,

also

even

not

so

can you say,

you cannot say that the adult yevama is forbidden to the minor yavam, because—

Can there be such a thing,

is it possible

that now,

at the time she falls for yibbum, the yevama should be

forbidden

to the yavam because he is a minor,

and later,

after some time, when the minor comes of age,

permitted,

she should become permitted to him?

But Rav Yehuda said that Rav said: Any yevama with whom I cannot say at the time she falls, “A yevama shall be taken by him”—

she is like the wife of a brother who has children, and she is forbidden

forever.

Rather, necessarily she is permitted to him even when he is a minor and has no ability to establish 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 any yevama who falls before a minor yavam who is unfit to establish a name is forbidden to him forever, since at the time she falls before him we cannot say of her, “A yevama shall be taken by him,” as this verse is stated only when the yavam is fit to establish a name for his brother.

any yevama who falls before a minor levir, who is not capable of establishing a name, should become forbidden to him forever, since at the time she falls before him one cannot apply to her the phrase “the yevama’s levir shall have intercourse with her.” This verse was stated only where the levir is capable of establishing a name for his brother.

And we answer:

The verse says

in the passage concerning yibbum:

“When brothers dwell together,”

the verse teaches that

even

a yavam

who is one day old

is considered a yavam fit for the mitzva of yibbum. I do not say that, since he is not currently fit to establish a name, the yevama becomes forbidden to him forever.

We learned in the Mishna:

A yevama who said within thirty days

that she had not had relations, we compel him to perform halitza with her.

And we inquire into it:

Who is the tanna,

who holds

that until thirty days

a person can restrain himself until then

from having relations,

that a man restrains himself from having relations until that point—

And we answer:

Rabbi Yohanan said:

Our Mishna is in accordance with the view of

Rabbi Meir.

As it was taught:

The husband’s credibility when he married a woman and came to the court to claim

a claim of virginity

—that he married her on the presumption that she was a virgin, had relations with her, found that she had already had relations, and claimed that she had committed adultery while married to him, between the time of the betrothal and the time of the marriage [when she was still in her father’s home], and he is believed to cause her ketובה to be forfeited—

is

for the entire thirty days

from the time he married her,

the words of Rabbi Meir.

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

But if he comes to make the claim after thirty days, he is not believed. Rather, we presume that he had relations with her within the thirty days and found her to be a virgin, and that now he became angry with her and came to cause her ketובה to be forfeited unlawfully.

Rabbi Yosei 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

after the seclusion, because we are certain that as soon as he was with her in a secluded place he had relations with her; and he is not believed throughout the thirty days.

But if it happened that after the marriage she

was not secluded

with him, and he could not have relations with her openly,

even after several years

he can make a claim of virginity.

Rabba said: You may even say

that our Mishna can be in accordance even with the view of

Rabbi Yosei.

For

Rabbi Yosei stated that only in that case

is he unable to make the claim throughout the thirty days, but only immediately, from the time of the seclusion,

but with regard to his betrothed, with whom he is familiar.

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