Yevamot 11b — the Talmud in English

And if he died

and she falls before his brother for yibbum, she

performs halitza! ![](pamud.bmp "

Exact page-column location")

and does not undergo yibbum!

But according to Rav, she does not require halitza, for she is forbidden by Torah law to her husband because of the doubt, lest she committed adultery, and concerning a woman who committed adultery the law of impurity was stated, as concerning forbidden relations.

Rav can say to you: I said to you:

I told you the law concerning a

definite sota,

who is a woman who committed adultery

with certainty,

that she does not perform halitza and does not undergo yibbum, because impurity was stated concerning her, as concerning forbidden relations.

And you said to me:

but you challenge me from the law of a

doubtful sota,

for since it is not certain that she had intercourse, she is not “impure” like a forbidden relation, and therefore she is not exempt from halitza!

The Gemara challenges Rav’s distinction:

And what is different about a definite sota,

which according to Rav is like a forbidden relation and is exempt from halitza and yibbum,

because “impurity” is written concerning her

as concerning forbidden relations? And therefore her law is like that of a forbidden relation.

But

a “doubtful sota,” also—

“impurity” is written concerning her!

As the Gemara will explain immediately.

And according to Rav, everywhere that “impurity” was written, its law is like that of forbidden relations, and it should follow that she and her co-wife are exempt from halitza and yibbum.

And the proof of this is from that

which was taught:

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

A. “When a man takes a wife … and it comes to pass that she does not find favor in his eyes, and he writes her a document of severance, and gives it into her hand, and sends her from his house.”

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

C. “And the latter man hates her, and writes her a document of severance, and gives it into her hand, and sends her from his house; or if the latter man who took her as a wife dies.”

D. “Her first husband, who sent her away, may not again take her to be his wife, after she has become impure.”

“For she is an abomination before the Lord”!

Rabbi Yosei ben Kippar says in the name of Rabbi Elazar: One who remarries his divorced wife—

if he remarries her

after marriage,

meaning that the divorcee had already married another man—

she is forbidden

to return to him.

But if he remarries her

after betrothal,

meaning that she was only betrothed to another husband, but had not yet married him and had not 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 become impure”!

And only if she had intercourse with the second husband can it be called concerning her, “after she has become impure.”

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

whether she married or whether she was betrothed,

she is forbidden

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

Rather, how do I uphold “after

she

has become impure”?

But in the case of a betrothed woman, with whom the second husband did not have intercourse, I cannot call concerning her “after she has become impure,” and nevertheless she is forbidden to return to her husband, according to the Sages!

Rather, according to the Sages, the words “after she has become impure” do not concern one who remarries his divorced wife; rather, they were written concerning 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 will be forbidden to her husband by a prohibition!

That is, the law of a sota woman who secluded herself with a stranger, called a “doubtful sota,” will be like the law of a woman who committed adultery, who certainly had intercourse with a stranger, and she will be forbidden to her husband by a prohibition.

And if so, the words of the Rabbis are difficult against Rav.

Since we find that according to them, even concerning a doubtful sota, I call her by the expression “impurity.” But according to Rav, everywhere that impurity is stated, its law is like that of a place of forbidden relations, and she and her co-wife should be exempt from halitza and yibbum, like a forbidden relation.

Whereas the Mishna at the beginning of Tractate Sota [above] says that a doubtful sota performs halitza! And we answer:

What

is the intention of the beraita that says, “to include a sota who

secluded herself”—to include a sota who

secluded herself and

had intercourse!

For impurity was stated concerning her, and concerning her Rav indeed stated his law, that she is exempt from halitza and yibbum.

And why did he call it

the tanna in the beraita

“secluded herself”?

But he is speaking specifically of a woman who had intercourse!—Since

he used an “elevated expression”,

the tanna did so; such language is elevated in its cleanliness.

And we raise an objection: How can you say that the tanna came to teach that a definite adulteress, who had intercourse while married, is forbidden to her husband because of the words “after she has become impure,” which are stated in the passage concerning one who remarries his divorced wife, and since they are not an “affair” there, they come to teach concerning a sota who had intercourse?

But a woman who

had intercourse

while married—

“impurity” is explicitly

written,

explicitly concerning her!

For it is stated in the passage concerning a sota, concerning a woman who certainly committed adultery while married [Numbers 5]:

“And she secluded herself—

and she became impure”!

And if so, it is impossible to say that the words “after she has become impure” concern a sota who had intercourse.

Necessarily, they come to state concerning a sota who secluded herself that there is also an aspect of impurity in her. And if so, this is difficult for Rav: since the expression of impurity was stated concerning a doubtful sota, she should be like a forbidden relation who does not perform halitza. Whereas the Mishna at the beginning of Tractate Sota says that a doubtful sota is obligated in halitza!?

And we answer: In reality, the words “after she has become impure” do indeed speak of a sota who had intercourse, and they came in order

to impose upon her a 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, and it is not a negative prohibition. Therefore the verse “after she has become impure,” stated within the passage of the negative prohibition against one who remarries his divorced wife, comes to teach of a negative prohibition concerning a sota who had intercourse, that she is forbidden to her husband by a negative prohibition.

And

whereas

Rabbi Yosei ben Kippar,

who disagrees with the Sages and holds that “after she has not become impure” comes to teach that one may remarry his divorced wife only if she married and had intercourse, but not if she was betrothed and did not have intercourse—and according to him the entire passage deals only with one who remarries his divorced wife, and according to his view—

he has no prohibition concerning a sota.

And even if she committed adultery,

she certainly committed adultery while married—

also

there is no prohibition concerning her.

What is the reason?

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

The Gemara explains his reason:

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 husband in the passage of one who remarries his divorced wife, it is stated, “and she becomes another man’s wife,” and it is likewise stated concerning her, “or if the latter man who took her as a wife dies.”

And it implies that it is only 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, and not when she commits adultery with the first husband.

And now the Gemara brings Rav Yehuda’s uncertainty: what is the law of the co-wife of one who remarries his divorced wife? [

And the law of one who remarries his divorced wife herself is explained in the note.]

And the Gemara brings this uncertainty in two different formulations:

The first formulation:

Rav Yehuda asked Rav Sheshet: One who remarries his divorced wife after she was married, and he died—

her co-wife—

what

is her law?

According to Rabbi Yosei ben Kippar—

you need not ask!

Since Rabbi Yosei ben Kippar says: “impurity”

“who has not become impure”

is written concerning one who remarries his divorced wife,

and not concerning a woman who commits adultery while married, it is certain that

her co-wife

is

like her,

as with every co-wife of a forbidden relation.

And if it is because it is written concerning her,

concerning one who remarries his divorced wife,

“she is an abomination”—

and “she” is an exclusion, and it could have been said that “she” comes to exclude the co-wife, so that the co-wife would not be called an “abomination” for yibbum like her—

That is not what Scripture comes to exclude.

Rather, it comes to exclude that the daughter born from this woman [whom he divorced and took back after she became impure through the second husband] is disqualified from marrying a koen.

And this is how we expound “she”:

She

herself, with regard to her first husband, is considered

“an abomination.”

But her sons

from him are not

“abominations,”

rather they are fit to marry into the priesthood.

Here, her co-wife,

the co-wife of one who remarries his divorced wife, who was not excluded from the verse, is

an abomination

for the levir, like her!

And therefore there is no difficulty for us according to Rabbi Yosei ben Kippar, and it is clear to us that the co-wife of one who remarries his divorced wife has the same law as one who remarries his divorced wife herself.

When you need to ask—

according to the Sages.

For

although the Sages said

that

“impurity”

stated in the passage concerning one who remarries his divorced wife [“after she has become impure”] does not concern one who remarries his divorced wife—for according to them she is forbidden to return to her husband from the moment she was betrothed to the other husband, even though she did not have intercourse with him, and I cannot call concerning her “after she has become impure”—rather,

concerning

the matter of a

sota

who commits adultery while married

it is written,

“impurity.”

Nevertheless,

a verse does not depart from its plain meaning,

and this verse speaks of one who remarries his divorced wife both after betrothal and after marriage. And if he took her back after marriage, it can be called concerning her, “after she has become impure.”

Or perhaps, since it was uprooted,

since the expression of impurity stated in the verse was uprooted from one who remarries his divorced wife and assigned to a sota [since the expression of impurity is not possible concerning one who remarries his divorced wife after betrothal, for she did not have intercourse with the second husband]—

it was uprooted

entirely!

And since the expression of impurity does not apply at all to one who remarries his divorced wife, her co-wife is not considered the co-wife of a forbidden relation.

There are those who say

that the uncertainty is different:

According to the Sages, you need not ask.

For

since it was uprooted

the expression of impurity from one who remarries his divorced wife [because it does not apply to one who remarries his divorced wife after betrothal]—

it was uprooted

entirely. And since there is no expression of impurity concerning one who remarries his divorced wife, his co-wife is not like him.

When you need to ask, according to Rabbi Yosei ben Kippar,

who holds that the expression of impurity was stated concerning one who remarries his divorced wife—

what,

what is the law of the co-wife of one who remarries his divorced wife?

Is it that

although Rabbi Yosei ben Kippar said

that the expression of

“impurity”,

is written concerning one who remarries his divorced wife,

nevertheless his co-wife is not forbidden, since

the Merciful One excluded

her

by saying,

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

“she”

herself [one who remarries his divorced wife] is

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

rather she is fit for yibbum.

Or perhaps

this is how we expound:

Only

she

herself is

an abomination—

but her sons are not abominations.

Here, her co-wife—

is an abomination

like her!

He said to him,

Rav Sheshet to Rav Yehuda:

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

For we learned: One before whom two yevama women from one brother fell, and

one was

of the yevama women

“fit,”

and one “unfit”

[the fit and unfit cases will be explained below].

Thus,

if the

levir

performs halitza—

he performs halitza with the “unfit.”

And if he performs yibbum—

he performs yibbum with the “fit.”

And we inquire about it:

What does “fit” mean, and what does “unfit” mean?

If you say,

a yevama who is

“fit”—

that she is

fit for everyone,

to marry any man, including a koen.

Whereas a yevama who is

“unfit”—

that she is

unfit for everyone,

for example, she is divorced, so she is not fit for a koen, but the levir himself is not a koen, and she is fit for him.

This is not possible. For:

Since for him,

for the levir himself,

she is fit,

she is fit for yibbum—

what difference does it make to him,

what relevance is it to him whether she is fit or unfit for everyone, and why is he not permitted to perform yibbum with the one unfit for everyone and to perform halitza with the one fit for everyone!?

Rather, is it not

that the Mishna is speaking of a yevama who is

fit—

that she is

fit for him.

And of a yevama who is

unfit—

unfit for him!

But she is fit for everyone.

And who is she?

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

Suppose you say that the Mishna is speaking of two yevamot, one of whom is subject to a prohibition of a negative commandment for him, while the other is permitted to him—what novelty is there in this, that he performs yibum with the one fit for him and performs chalitza with the one unfit for him?

And necessarily, the Mishna is speaking of

one who remarries his divorced wife, whose deceased brother remarried his divorced wife after she had married, and died, and she fell before the yavam, and she is forbidden to him because she had been forbidden to his deceased brother, and she has a co-wife, who is permitted to undergo yibum.

meaning that his deceased brother remarried his divorced wife after she had married another man, and then died. She consequently came before the surviving brother for levirate marriage, but she is forbidden to him because she had been forbidden to his deceased brother. She has a co-wife, who is permitted to enter into levirate marriage.

And there is a novelty in this: that her co-wife is not rendered forbidden, even though with regard to one who remarries his divorced wife the Torah wrote an expression of impurity, because the verse excluded her by stating, “It is an abomination”: she herself is an abomination, but her co-wife is not an abomination, and the Torah permitted her to undergo yibum!

And it teaches: And if he was performing yibum—

he performs yibum with the fit one!

And it is proven from here that the co-wife of one who remarries his divorced wife undergoes yibum.

And we reject this:

No,

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

Rather,

always,

it is speaking of a yevama

fit—

who is

fit for everyone.

And of a yevama

unfit—

who is

unfit for everyone, such as a divorcee, who is unfit for the priesthood.

such as a divorcee, who is disqualified from marrying a kohen, a member of the priestly family who served in the Temple.

And there is no proof from this Mishna concerning the law 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 of ours, where one is required to perform yibum with the one fit for everyone and to perform chalitza with the one unfit for everyone,

in this Mishna, which requires him to perform levirate marriage with the woman who is fit to marry anyone and to perform chalitza with the woman who is unfit to marry anyone,

Rabbi taught

the following principle:

A person should not spill the water of his cistern,

even if he does not need it,

when others need it.

And therefore he should not perform chalitza with the unfit one, so that she not become unfit for a priest, who is forbidden to a woman who has undergone chalitza.

Ta shma

from a beraita, in which we learned:

One who remarries his divorced wife after she married—

she and her co-wife undergo chalitza.

And we raised the matter: Is it conceivable that both

she and

also

her co-wife

undergo chalitza—

could this enter your mind!?

But chalitza is performed with only one of the yevamot!

Rather, say: Either she or her co-wife

undergoes chalitza.

And it is proven that the co-wife of one who remarries his divorced wife undergoes chalitza!

And we reject this:

But

when

you have explained it away,

by correcting the wording of the beraita!

If so,

correct

and likewise amend

in this way

the wording of the beraita:

She,

the one who remarries his divorced wife—

undergoes chalitza.

Her co-wife—

either undergoes chalitza or undergoes yibum.

And now the Gemara presents the question of what the status of the co-wife of one who remarries his divorced wife is in a different manner, and in the names of other amoraim:

Rabbi Hiyya bar Abba said: Rabbi Yohanan inquired:

One who remarries his divorced wife after she married—

what is the status of her co-wife?

Rabbi Ami said to him,

to Rabbi Yohanan:

But you should inquire concerning her,

the one who remarries his divorced wife,

herself,

what is her status!

He said to him:

She herself—

I have no question

that she does not undergo yibum, because

we say a kal va-chomer:

If

the

deceased husband, who was

permitted to her,

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

forbidden

after he divorced her and she married another.

The

yavam, who was

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!

And therefore,

when I have a question, it is concerning her co-wife,

of one who remarries his divorced wife—

what

is her status?

Is the kal va-chomer powerful enough [“

when she was permitted to him, she is forbidden; when she was forbidden to him, all the more so”]

to reject the co-wife

from yibum?

Or not,

is this kal va-chomer not powerful enough to forbid her co-wife from undergoing yibum?

But

Rav Naḥman bar Yitzḥak taught it in this manner

the question of Rabbi Yohanan:

Rabbi Hiyya bar Abba said: Rabbi Yohanan inquired: One who remarries his divorced wife after she married,

she herself—

what is it

for her to undergo yibum?

Rav Ami said to Rabbi Hiyya bar Abba:

to Rabbi Hiyya bar Abba:

But you should inquire

also concerning

her co-wife,

if she undergoes yibum!

He said to him:

I have no question concerning her co-wife, for

it is obvious that she undergoes yibum, since

the kal va-chomer is not powerful enough

of one who remarries his divorced wife

to reject the co-wife

of one who remarries his divorced wife from yibum.

Rather, when I have a question—

she herself, what

is her status?

Is the kal va-chomer powerful enough

even

where there is a mitzva,

and she is forbidden to undergo yibum?

Or

perhaps

not,

the kal va-chomer is not powerful enough to prevent her from the mitzva of yibum?