Yevamot 11b (יא:) — the Talmud in English

And if he dies

and she falls before his brother for yibbum, she

must perform halitza

and may not undergo yibbum!

But according to Rav, she does not require halitza, since by Torah law she is forbidden to her husband due to the uncertainty that perhaps she committed adultery, and with regard to a woman who committed adultery, the law of impurity was stated, as with forbidden relations.

Rav could say to you: I told you that

I told you the law concerning a

sota,

who is

certainly an adulteress,

that she neither performs halitza nor undergoes yibbum, because impurity was stated with regard to her, as with forbidden relations.

And you told me about

the law of

a sota of uncertain status,

but you challenge me from that case: since it is not certain that she had intercourse, she is not “impure” like a woman forbidden as a close relative, and therefore she is not exempt from halitza!

The Gemara challenges Rav’s distinction:

And in what way is a certain sota different,

that according to Rav she is like a woman forbidden as a close relative and is exempt from halitza and yibbum,

because “impurity” is written with regard to her

as it is with regard to forbidden relations? Therefore her status is that of a woman forbidden as a close relative.

But

a “sota of uncertain status,” too—

“impurity” is written with regard to her!

As the Gemara will explain immediately.

According to Rav, wherever “impurity” is written, the case has the status of forbidden relations, and it should follow that she and her co-wife are exempt from halitza and yibbum.

The proof for this is from the following

beraita:

One who divorced his wife, and she went and became the wife of another man, is forbidden to take her back after she leaves her second husband, as it is stated [Deuteronomy 24]:

1. “When a man takes a wife … and she finds no favor in his eyes, and he writes her a bill of divorce, places it in her hand, and sends her from his house.”

2. “And she leaves his house, and goes and becomes another man’s.”

3. “And the latter man hates her, and writes her a bill of divorce, places it in her hand, and sends her from his house; or if the latter man who took her as a wife dies.”

4. “Her first husband, who sent her away, may not again take her to be his wife, after she has been defiled.”

“For that is an abomination before the Lord”!

Rabbi Yosei ben Kippur says in the name of Rabbi Elazar: One who takes back his divorced wife—

if he takes her back

after marriage,

meaning that the divorcee had already married another man—she is

forbidden

to return to him.

But if he takes her back

after betrothal,

meaning that she had only become betrothed to another husband, but had not yet married him or had intercourse with him, and her second husband divorced her or died—she is

permitted

to return to her first husband.

Because it is stated: “After she has been defiled”!

Only if she had intercourse with the second husband can the phrase “after she has been defiled” apply to her.

And the Sages say: Both this one and that one,

whether she married or became betrothed, she is

forbidden

to return to her husband, since it is stated in the verse, “and she becomes another man’s,” and “becomes” another man’s means betrothal alone, even if there was not yet marriage.

Rather, how do I apply “after she

has

been defiled”?

In the case of a betrothed woman, who did not have intercourse with her second husband, I cannot apply the phrase “after she has been defiled” to her, and nevertheless, according to the Sages, she is forbidden to return to her husband!

Rather, according to the Sages, the words “after she has been defiled” do not refer to one who takes back his divorced wife. Instead, they were written with regard to the impurity of a woman who did not leave her husband at all, and they come

to include

the

sota who secluded herself

with a stranger, so that she should be forbidden to her husband by a prohibition!

That is, the status of a sota who secluded herself with a stranger, who is called “a sota of uncertain status,” will be like that of a woman who is an adulteress, who certainly had intercourse with a stranger, and she will be forbidden to her husband by a prohibition.

If so, the words of the Rabbis present a difficulty to Rav.

Since we find that according to them, even with regard to a sota of uncertain status, the expression “impurity” applies. According to Rav, wherever impurity is stated, the case has the status of forbidden relations, and she and her co-wife should be exempt from halitza and yibbum, as in the case of forbidden relations.

But the Mishna at the beginning of tractate Sota [above] says that a sota of uncertain status performs halitza!? And we answer:

What

is the meaning of the beraita that says “to include the sota who

secluded herself”? It means to include the sota who

had

intercourse!

It is with regard to her that impurity was stated, and it is with regard to her that Rav indeed stated his ruling: she is exempt from halitza and yibbum.

And why did he call her

the tanna

“one who secluded herself”?

After all, he is speaking specifically of a woman who had intercourse! Because

the tanna used a refined expression.

Such language is considered superior in its cleanliness.

We object: How can you say that the tanna came to teach that a certain adulteress who had intercourse while married is forbidden to her husband on account of the words “after she has been defiled,” which are stated in the passage concerning one who takes back his divorced wife, and that since those words do not belong there, they come to teach about a sota who had intercourse?

But a woman who

had intercourse

while married—

“impurity” is explicitly

and expressly

written with regard to her!

As stated in the passage concerning a woman who certainly committed adultery while married [Numbers 5]:

“And she secluded herself”—

“and she became impure”!

If so, it is impossible to say that the words “after she has been defiled” refer to a sota who had intercourse.

It must be that they come to teach with regard to a sota who secluded herself, that the concept of impurity applies to her as well. If so, this presents a difficulty to Rav: since the expression impurity is stated with regard to a sota of uncertain status, she should have the status of a woman forbidden as a close relative, who does not perform halitza. Yet the Mishna at the beginning of tractate Sota says that a sota of uncertain status is obligated to perform halitza!?

And we answer: Actually, the words “after she has been defiled” do refer to a sota who had intercourse, and they come

to establish an additional prohibition

in addition to the positive prohibition.

For the expression of impurity stated in the passage of Naso, concerning a sota who had intercourse, is only “and she became impure,” whose meaning is a positive prohibition, not a negative prohibition. Therefore the verse “after she has been defiled,” which is stated within the passage of the prohibition against taking back one’s divorced wife, teaches that a sota who had intercourse is subject to a negative prohibition and is forbidden to her husband by a negative prohibition.

But

if

Rabbi Yosei ben Kippur,

who disagrees with the Sages and maintains that “after she has been defiled” teaches that taking back one’s divorced wife is forbidden only if she married and had intercourse, but not if she became betrothed and did not have intercourse—and according to him the entire passage deals only with one who takes back his divorced wife—then

he has no negative prohibition with regard to a sota.

And even if she committed adultery

and certainly committed adultery while married,

also,

there is no negative prohibition applicable to her.

What is the reason?

That is, from where does he derive this interpretation, rather than interpreting the verse according to the Sages, as referring to a negative prohibition against an adulteress who had intercourse while married!?

The Gemara explains his reasoning:

This passage does not concern a woman who commits adultery while married, since

“becoming” and “marriage” are written in it

in this passage.

That is, concerning this woman, whom Scripture forbids to her first husband in the passage of one who takes back his divorced wife, it is stated, “and she becomes another man’s,” and it is likewise stated, “or if the latter man who took her as a wife dies.”

This indicates that it is specifically because she became the wife of the other husband through betrothal and marriage, after her first husband divorced her, that she is forbidden to her first husband; not when she commits adultery with another man while remaining under her first husband.

The Gemara now presents Rav Yehuda’s uncertainty concerning the status of the co-wife of one who takes back his divorced wife.

The law concerning the woman herself who is taken back by her first husband is explained in the note.

The Gemara presents this uncertainty in two different versions:

The first version:

Rav Yehuda asked Rav Sheshet: In the case of one who takes back his divorced wife after she married, and he dies—

her co-wife—

what

is her status?

According to Rabbi Yosei ben Kippur—

you need not ask!

Since Rabbi Yosei ben Kippur said: “Impurity” [“

who has not been defiled”]

is written with regard to one who takes back his divorced wife,

and not with regard to a woman who certainly commits adultery while married, it is certain that

her co-wife

is

like her,

as is the case with every co-wife of a woman forbidden as a close relative.

And if you might object on the basis of what is written with regard to her,

one who takes back his divorced wife,

“she is an abomination”—

and “she” is an exclusion, so one might say that “she” comes to exclude the co-wife, so that the co-wife should not be called an “abomination” for yibbum like her—

that is not what the verse comes to exclude.

Rather, it comes to exclude the daughter born from this woman [whom he divorced and took back after she had been defiled by her second husband], so that she is not disqualified from marrying a koen.

This is how we expound the word “she”:

She

herself, with regard to her first husband, is considered

“an abomination.”

But her sons

from him are not

“abominations,”

but are fit to marry into the priesthood.

Therefore, her co-wife,

the co-wife of one who takes back his divorced wife, who was not excluded by the verse, is

an abomination

for yibbum, like her!

Therefore, according to Rabbi Yosei ben Kippur there is no difficulty, and it is clear to us that the co-wife of one who takes back his divorced wife has the same status as the woman herself.

The question arises for you—

according to the Sages.

For

although the Sages said

that

“impurity”

stated in the passage concerning one who takes back his divorced wife [“after she has been defiled”] does not refer to one who takes back his divorced wife—for according to them she is forbidden to return to her husband from the moment she becomes betrothed to the other husband, even though she did not have intercourse with him, and I cannot apply the phrase “after she has been defiled” to her—rather,

with regard to

the

sota

who commits adultery while married,

is “impurity” written

there.

Nevertheless,

a biblical text cannot depart from its plain meaning,

and this verse speaks about one who takes back his divorced wife both after betrothal and after marriage. If he took her back after marriage, the phrase “after she has been defiled” can apply to her.

Or perhaps, since it was uprooted,

meaning that the expression of impurity stated in the verse was uprooted from the case of one who takes back his divorced wife and assigned to the sota [since the expression of impurity cannot apply to one who takes back his divorced wife after betrothal, because she did not have intercourse with the second husband]—it was

uprooted

completely!

Since the expression of impurity does not apply at all to one who takes back his divorced wife, her co-wife is not considered the co-wife of a woman forbidden as a close relative.

There are those who say

that the question is different:

According to the Sages, you need not ask.

For

since the expression

of impurity was uprooted from the case of one who takes back his divorced wife [because it cannot apply to one who takes back his divorced wife after betrothal]—it was

uprooted

completely. Since the expression of impurity does not apply to one who takes back his divorced wife, her co-wife is not like her.

The question arises for you according to Rabbi Yosei ben Kippur,

who holds that the expression of impurity applies to one who takes back his divorced wife—

what

is the status of the co-wife of one who takes back his divorced wife?

Is it the case that

although Rabbi Yosei ben Kippur said

that the expression of

“impurity”

is written with regard to one who takes back his divorced wife, nevertheless her co-wife is not forbidden, since

even so her rival wife is not forbidden, since

the Merciful One excluded

her

by

saying “she is an abomination,” and we expound: only

“she”

herself [the woman taken back by her first husband] is

an abomination, but her co-wife is not an abomination,

rather she is fit for yibbum.

Or perhaps

this is what we expound:

Only

she

herself is

an abomination—

but her sons are not abominations.

Therefore, her co-wife

is

an abomination

He said to him,

Rav Sheshet to Rav Yehuda:

You have learned its resolution; we learned the solution to this uncertainty in a Mishna [below, 44a].

As we learned: In the case of one before whom two yevamot from one brother fell for yibbum, and

one was

of the yevamot

“fit”

and one “unfit”

[the meaning of fit and unfit will be explained below].

Thus,

if

the yavam

performs halitza, he

performs halitza with the “unfit” one.

And if he performs yibbum, he

performs yibbum with the “fit” one.

And we examine this:

What is the meaning of “fit,” and what is the meaning of “unfit”?

If you say that a yevama who is

a yevama who is

“fit” is one

that she is

fit for everyone,

fit to marry anyone, including a koen,

whereas a yevama who is

“unfit” is one

that she is

unfit for everyone,

such as a divorcee, who is not fit to marry a koen, but whose yavam is not a koen and who is fit for him—

this is impossible. For:

Since with regard to him,

the yavam himself,

she is fit,

she is fit for yibbum—

what difference does it make to him,

what bearing does it have on him whether she is fit or unfit for everyone else, and why may he not perform yibbum with the one who is unfit for everyone else and perform halitza with the one who is fit for everyone else!?

Rather, is it not that the Mishna is speaking of a yevama who is

that the Mishna is speaking of a yevama who is

fit—

one who is

fit for him.

And of a yevama who is

unfit—

unfit for him!

But she is fit for everyone else.

And who is that?

Who is the yevama concerning whom the tanna came to teach that if she is unfit for him, he may not perform yibbum with her, but must perform yibbum with her co-wife, who is fit for him?

Perhaps you will say that the Mishna is speaking of two yevamot, one of whom is subject to a prohibition of a negative commandment with regard to him, while the other is permitted to him—in what way is it novel that he performs yibbum with the one fit for him and performs halitza with the one unfit for him?

It must be that the Mishna is speaking of a case of

one who remarries his divorced wife,

where the deceased brother remarried his divorced wife after she had married another man, and then died, and she fell before the yavam; she is forbidden to him because she had been forbidden to his deceased brother, and she has a co-wife who is permitted to enter into yibbum.

And there is a novel element in this: her co-wife does not become forbidden, despite the fact that the passage concerning one who remarries his divorced wife uses the language of impurity, because the verse excluded her by stating, “She is an abomination”: she herself is an abomination, but her co-wife is not an abomination, and the verse permitted her to enter into yibbum!

And it teaches: And if he performed yibbum—

he performs yibbum with the fit one!

This proves that the co-wife of one who remarries his divorced wife may enter into yibbum.

And we reject this:

No,

the Mishna is not speaking of one who remarries his divorced wife.

Rather,

actually,

it is speaking of a yevama

fit—

who is

fit for everyone.

And the yevama

unfit—

who is

unfit for everyone,

such as a divorcee, who is unfit to marry a kohen.

Thus, no proof can be brought from this Mishna concerning the halakha of the co-wife of one who remarries his divorced wife.

And as for what you said:

Since she is fit for him, what difference does it make to him?

Your answer is:

Because of Rav Yosef!

For Rav Yosef said: Here,

in this Mishna, which requires him to perform yibbum with the one who is fit for everyone and to perform halitza with the one who is unfit for everyone,

Rabbi taught

the following principle:

A person should not pour out the water of his cistern,

even if he does not need it,

when others need it.

Therefore, he should not perform halitza with the one unfit for him, so that she should not become disqualified from marrying a kohen, who is forbidden to marry a woman who has undergone halitza.

Ta shma

from a beraita, in which we learned:

One who remarries his divorced wife after she had married another man—

she and her co-wife perform halitza.

And we raised a difficulty concerning this: Is it conceivable that both

she and

also

her co-wife

perform halitza—

could this enter your mind!?

After all, halitza is performed with only one of the yevamot!

Rather, say: Either she or her co-wife

performs halitza.

This proves that the co-wife of one who remarries his divorced wife performs halitza!

And we reject this:

And

when

you are not resolving it,

by correcting the wording of the beraita—

if so,

resolve

and likewise correct

in this manner

the wording of the beraita:

She,

the one who remarries his divorced wife—

performs halitza.

Her co-wife—

either performs halitza or enters into yibbum.

The Gemara now presents the question of the status of the co-wife of one who remarries his divorced wife in another formulation, and in the names of other amoraim:

Rabbi Hiyya bar Abba said: Rabbi Yohanan raised the following question:

One who remarries his divorced wife after she had married another man—

what is the status of her co-wife?

Rabbi Ami said to him,

to Rabbi Yohanan:

And should you not raise the question concerning her,

the one who remarries his divorced wife,

herself,

what is her status?

He said to him:

As for her herself—

I have no question

that she may not enter into yibbum, because

we apply a kal va-homer:

If

the

deceased husband, who had been

permitted to her

before he divorced her and she married another man, she is now

forbidden

to him after he divorced her and she married another man—

the

yavam, who had been

forbidden to her

before her husband’s death, because he was her husband’s brother—

all the more so

she should be forbidden to him after she became forbidden to his deceased brother while he was alive!

Therefore,

when I raise the question, it is concerning her co-wife,

of the one who remarries his divorced wife—

what

is her status?

Is the kal va-chomer sufficiently powerful [“

if she is forbidden to the one to whom she was permitted, then all the more so she is forbidden to the one to whom she was forbidden”]

to exclude the co-wife

from yibbum?

Or not—perhaps this kal va-chomer is not sufficiently powerful to prohibit her co-wife from entering into yibbum.

And

whereas

Rav Naḥman bar Yitzḥak taught the question in this manner,

the question of Rabbi Yohanan:

Rabbi Hiyya bar Abba said: Rabbi Yohanan raised the following question: One who remarries his divorced wife after she had married another man,

as for

herself,

may she enter into yibbum?

Rav Ami said to him,

to Rabbi Hiyya bar Abba:

And should you not raise the question concerning

also

her co-wife,

if she is permitted to enter into yibbum?

He said to him:

I have no question concerning her co-wife, for

it is obvious that she may enter into yibbum, since

the kal va-chomer

of one who remarries his divorced wife

is not sufficiently powerful to exclude the co-wife

of one who remarries his divorced wife from yibbum.

Rather, when I raise the question—

as for her herself, what

is her status?

Is the kal va-chomer sufficiently powerful

even

in a situation involving a mitzva,

so that she is forbidden to enter into yibbum?

Or

perhaps

not

is the kal va-chomer sufficiently powerful to prevent her from fulfilling the mitzva of yibbum?