Yevamot 12a — the Talmud in English

He said to him:

Rabbi Ami, and he resolved his problem for him according to both formulations:

You have learned it:

We learned this law below in the Mishna [44a]:

If one

of the yevamot

was fit, and one

of the yevamot

was unfit,

If he performed halitza —

he performs halitza with the unfit one,

And if he performed yibbum —

he performs yibbum with the fit one.

And we raised a difficulty concerning it:

What is “

yevama

fit,” and

what is “

yevama

unfit”?

If you say that the yevama who is

the

“fit” one —

she is

fit for everyone,

as she is fit to marry any man.

And the yevama who is the

“unfit” one —

she is

unfit for everyone,

as she is unfit to marry any man, such as a divorcee, who is unfit to marry a koen.

But the yavam himself is not a koen, and the disqualification of a divorcee for a koen does not concern him.

If so,

since for him,

for this yavam,

she is fit,

she is fit for him, whether for yibbum or for halitza —

what difference is it to him,

what does it concern him which one he must take in yibbum and which one he must take in halitza!? Both are equally permitted to him, so why should he perform halitza specifically with the divorcee, and perform yibbum only with the one who is not a divorcee!?

Rather, is it not that the case is that the yevama who is the

the

“fit” one —

was

fit for him, for the yavam himself. And the yevama who is the

the

“unfit” one —

was

unfit for him,

for the yavam himself.

And what is it? —

And what is that?—

One who remarries his divorcee.

She was forbidden to his brother, and she is also forbidden to the yavam.

And it must be established as referring to one who remarries his divorcee, and not to the other cases of those subject to negative commandments, because with the other cases of those subject to negative commandments there is no novelty in that the tzara may undergo yibbum.

Rather, the entire novelty is in one who remarries his divorcee, because “impurity” is written concerning her, as concerning those liable for karet, and it might have been said that her tzara is like her and may not undergo yibbum.

And it teaches: If he performed yibbum —

he performs yibbum with the fit one.

And it is proven that she is forbidden and her tzara may undergo yibbum.

And by this the problem is resolved according to both formulations.

And we reject this:

No,

the Mishna there is not speaking of the tzara of one who remarries his divorcee.

Rather, it is speaking of a case in which one yevama was

fit for everyone,

fit to marry any man, and one yevama was

unfit for everyone,

such as one who was a divorcee and could not marry a koen.

And as for what you said, since for him,

for the yavam,

she is fit,

she is fit —

what difference is it to him,

what does it concern the yavam which one he performs halitza with and which one he takes in yibbum?

Your answer is:

because of Rav Yosef.

For Rav Yosef said: Here

in our Mishna

Rabbi taught: A person should not pour out the water of his well when others need it.

And therefore, he should perform halitza specifically with the divorcee, and not with the other one.

For if he performs halitza with the one who is not a divorcee, she becomes disqualified through her halitza from marrying a koen.

Come and hear

from what we learned in a beraita:

One who remarries his divorcee after she was married —

she and her tzara perform halitza.

And we infer: Is it possible that

she and her tzara

perform halitza

— could it enter your mind!?

After all, only one performs halitza!

Rather, say: Either she or her tzara!

And it implies that there is here only the possibility of halitza, and that her tzara also may not undergo yibbum!

And we reject this:

But are you not correcting it?

Are you not amending the wording of the beraita? And if so,

amend

also

thus:

She,

the divorcee whom he remarried after she was married,

performs halitza.

Her tzara —

either performs halitza or undergoes yibbum.

Rav Lili bar Mamal said that Mar Ukva said that

Shmuel:

If two women fell before one man from one brother, one an adult and the other a minor [whom her mother and brother married off through a rabbinic betrothal], and the minor performed mi'un with the yavam and may not undergo yibbum with him, and the adult tzara remained, then:

The tzara of one who performs mi'un —

is forbidden.

And we raised a difficulty concerning it:

To whom

is she forbidden?

If you say, to the brothers —

this cannot be said.

For

now,

after all,

she herself,

the one who performed mi'un,

is permitted

to the brothers, and they are permitted to perform yibbum with her, since she performed mi'un not with them, but only with this brother.

And as

Shmuel said:

A minor who

performed mi'un with

a

certain yavam —

she is

permitted to

that

yavam!

And if so,

her tzara

of the one who performed mi'un —

is it necessary to say so!?

Is it necessary to say that she is permitted to the brothers?

Rather, necessarily, the tzara of one who performed mi'un is forbidden

to him,

to the yavam with whom she performed mi'un, but she is permitted to his brothers.

And the reason that she is forbidden to the one with whom she performed mi'un, even though through her mi'un with him she is considered to have uprooted the marriage of his deceased brother and is not considered, with regard to him, a brother’s wife — is because at the time of the fall, when she had not yet performed mi'un, she appeared as a brother’s wife. And the mi'un uproots the bond, but if he takes her after she performed mi'un with him, the matter will appear as though he is taking a brother’s wife with whom he has no bond of yibbum.

And we raised a difficulty concerning it:

And what is different about the one who performs mi'un

herself

that she is permitted to the brothers,

because

she did not perform an act with them,

of mi'un.

If so,

the tzara also

should be permitted to all the brothers, even to that brother with whom the other yevama, the minor, performed mi'un, because

she did not perform an act with them,

since the tzara performed no act at all!

And we answer: The Sages forbade every tzara of one who performs mi'un,

as a decree because of the tzara of his daughter who performs mi'un.

And we challenge this:

And the tzara of his daughter who performs mi'un —

is she forbidden!?

But we learned: And all of them,

all the forbidden relations,

if they died

before the death of the brother,

or performed mi'un —

their tzarot are permitted.

And we must clarify with whom the one who performs mi'un performed it:

Who performed mi'un —

with whom?

If you say that she performed mi'un with the husband —

that is a divorcee!

And there is no need to state “one who performs mi'un.”

Rather, is it not that she performed mi'un

with the yavam!

And it is proven from the Mishna that the tzara of one who performs mi'un is permitted, whereas Shmuel said that she is forbidden!?

And we reject this:

No,

the Mishna is not speaking of one who performed mi'un with the yavam, because in that case her tzara is forbidden.

Rather,

actually,

it is speaking of one who performed mi'un

with the husband.

And

the tanna stated

two forms of divorce, ordinary divorce and mi'un.

And we raised the following question about it:

And we raised a difficulty concerning it:

And what is different when she performed mi'un with the husband,

so that her tzara is permitted, because

when

she performed mi'un with her husband

she uprooted her marriage,

and it follows that at the time her husband died she did not fall from him for yibbum, and her tzara was not the tzara of a forbidden relation at the time of the fall for yibbum, and therefore she is not forbidden.

When she performed mi'un with the yavam also —

after all, the

marriage

of the first

of her deceased husband

she is uprooting!

And it follows retroactively that she did not fall for yibbum, and if so, her tzara is not considered the tzara of a forbidden relation at the time of the fall, so why is she forbidden, according to Shmuel!?

And we answer: The fact that Shmuel forbade the tzara of one who performs mi'un is

because of what Rami bar Yehezkel taught.

For Rami bar Yehezkel taught:

A minor who

performed mi'un with the husband —

is permitted to his father,

since her marriage to his son was uprooted retroactively, and it is as though she had never been his daughter-in-law.

But if she performed mi'un

with the yavam —

she is forbidden to his father.

Apparently,

since

from the time of the fall

she

“appears” as his daughter-in-law, even if she performs mi'un and uproots her marriage retroactively, there is concern because of those who see, who do not know of her mi'un and will think that he is marrying his daughter-in-law.

even if she subsequently performs refusal and retroactively uproots her marriage, there is concern about those who see the matter, who do not know of her refusal and will think that he is marrying his daughter-in-law.

Here also, from the time of the fall —

she “appears” as the tzara of his daughter.

And therefore, even if the minor performs mi'un, her tzara is forbidden, since she appears as the tzara of his daughter. And the Sages came and decreed that every tzara of one who performs mi'un should be forbidden, because of the tzara of his daughter who performs mi'un.

Rav Asi said: The tzara of an ailonit is forbidden

for yibbum.

As it is stated: [Deuteronomy 25]

“And it shall be that the firstborn whom she bears” —

excluding an ailonit, who does not give birth.

And since she herself may not undergo yibbum, she is like a brother’s wife who has children, and she is forbidden to the yavam by karet, and her tzara is the tzara of the forbidden relation of a brother’s wife subject to karet, and therefore she too is exempt from halitza and from yibbum.

Rav Sheshet challenges

Rav Asi from what we learned below in the Mishna [31b]:

Three brothers

who were

married to three unrelated women, and one of them died, and he performed with her

the

second brother “maamar”,

which is a rabbinic betrothal, for the Sages ordained that the yevama be betrothed before he has intercourse with her,

and

the brother who performed maamar with her died.

And now the wife of the first brother falls before the third brother from both brothers:

From the first, she continues in her fall by Torah law, and she is still “bound” to him by virtue of the first, since by Torah law she requires halitza or yibbum in order to release her bond to him, and this was not done with her.

And from the second, who performed maamar with her, she falls by rabbinic law.

Whereas the wife of the second falls only from the second brother to the third brother by Torah law.

These perform halitza, and do not undergo yibbum!

The wife of the first does not undergo yibbum, because

it is stated [Deuteronomy 25]: “For when brothers dwell together

and

one of them dies ...

her yavam shall have intercourse with her.”

Only with

one upon whom there is “the bond of one yavam”,

who falls from one yavam, do I apply to her “her yavam shall have intercourse with her.”

But not with one upon whom there is

“the bond of two yevamim”,

who falls to him from two brothers.

And this is the case here, in which her fall to the third brother is by virtue of two brothers, and he has a double bond with her: a bond from her fall from the first brother [by Torah law], and a bond from her fall from the second brother, while she remained bound to the first brother.

Since the second brother neither performed yibbum with her nor released her bond, but only performed maamar with her [by rabbinic law].

And since she has a double bond, she does not undergo yibbum, but only performs halitza.

And the wife of the second brother became the [rabbinic] tzara of the wife of the first brother, as a result of the maamar that her husband performed with the wife of the first deceased man.

And she too performs halitza and does not undergo yibbum, since she now falls from the second brother together with the wife of the first brother [by virtue of his maamar], like the tzara of a forbidden relation.

That is, since the wife of the first brother, with whom the second brother performed maamar, does not undergo yibbum [because of the restriction of “the bond of two yevamim”], the wife of the second brother becomes the tzara of the forbidden relation of a “brother’s wife” who was not permitted for yibbum [by rabbinic law].

And therefore she too performs halitza and does not undergo yibbum, like the “forbidden relation.”

And obviously, the derivation from the verse is only in the category of an asmachta, since the betrothal of maamar, through which the situation of “the bond of two yevamim” was created, is only a rabbinic betrothal!

And it teaches concerning this, Rav Yosef said: This is the “tzara of a brother’s wife from the father”

a novel case:

that “the prohibition of the fall” caused her,

the “brother’s wife from the father,” not to undergo yibbum, and by virtue of this she also forbids her tzara for yibbum, as though she were a biblical forbidden relation of a brother’s wife.

For only by virtue of the double fall, when she fell a second time [by rabbinic law] for yibbum while she was still bound, is she forbidden [by rabbinic law] as a brother’s wife who has children, and her tzara too is forbidden to undergo yibbum as the “tzara of the forbidden relation of a brother’s wife.”

For we have not found anything like this in the entire Torah!

For a double bond cannot exist by Torah law, since the betrothal of maamar does not take effect by Torah law, and as long as she has not undergone yibbum or halitza she cannot be betrothed to one of the brothers, while once one of the brothers performs yibbum with her or performs halitza with her, she has no bond.

And here a law was newly established that does not apply elsewhere:

That the status of a brother’s wife which does not prevent yibbum, but rather results from the prevention of the fall for yibbum — nevertheless forbids her tzara for yibbum as the “tzara of a forbidden relation”!

For here, the fact that she has the status of a forbidden relation of a brother’s wife is not the reason preventing yibbum; rather, the restriction stated by the Torah, not to perform yibbum with one upon whom there is the bond of two yevamim, causes her to be forbidden as a brother’s wife.

And nevertheless it was newly established here that her tzara does not undergo yibbum, since she is the tzara of the forbidden relation of a brother’s wife!

And Rav Sheshet asks: What Rav Yosef said:

This is “

the tzara of the forbidden relation of a brother’s wife” —

to exclude what?

Is it not that his intention is

that he means

to exclude the tzara of an ailonit,

which is the tzara of the forbidden relation of a brother’s wife, where the forbidden status of the brother’s wife does not prevent yibbum, but rather her being an ailonit prevents it,

which is permitted

for her tzara to undergo yibbum, despite her being the tzara of a brother’s wife who does not undergo yibbum!? And the Gemara rejects this:

No.

Rav Yosef’s intention was

to exclude the tzara of an ailonit,

and to say

that she is forbidden!

And what is “this is”?

This is,

the one upon whom there is the bond of two yevamim,

that the prohibition of the fall,

from the two brothers,

caused her

not to undergo yibbum —

her tzara requires halitza.

But

an ailonit —

even halitza does not require

her tzara.

What is the reason?

This one,

the tzara of an ailonit, by

Torah law does not undergo yibbum because she is the tzara of the forbidden relation of a brother’s wife, and her exemption from yibbum by Torah law exempts her also from halitza.

But

this one, the “bond of two yevamim,” is only a restriction

by rabbinic law,

since maamar acquires her only by rabbinic law, and the prohibition of the brother’s wife is only by rabbinic law, and therefore she and her tzara are obligated in halitza.

And the Gemara challenges Rav Asi from our Mishna:

We learned: And all of them —

all fifteen women, forbidden as forbidden relations, who exempt their tzarot from halitza and from yibbum —

If they died

the forbidden women before the brother died,

or performed mi'un

with him,

or were divorced

from him,

or were found

to be

ailonit —

their tzarot are permitted!

And the Gemara assumed that she was found to be an ailonit before her betrothal, and it is proven that the tzara of an ailonit is permitted.

And we answer:

It is not difficult:

Here,

the statement of Rav Asi that an ailonit exempts her tzara refers to a case in which

he knew about her,

the deceased brother knew that she was an ailonit, and her betrothal took effect, and at the time of his death she had the status of the forbidden relation of a brother’s wife and exempted her tzara.

Here,

our Mishna speaks of a case such as one in which

he did not know about her

that she was an ailonit, and his acquisition was a mistaken transaction, and the betrothal of the deceased brother did not take effect with her, and therefore her tzara is not the tzara of a forbidden relation.

It is also precise,

it may also be inferred from the wording of our Mishna that it concerns an ailonit whose betrothal was a mistaken transaction,

for it teaches that they “were found”

to be ailonit, implying that after her marriage it was discovered that she was an ailonit. And only therefore is the tzara of the ailonit permitted.

And it does not teach that they “were”

ailonit, and that he knew about her at the time of betrothal, for then it would have implied from here that the tzara of an ailonit is permitted.

And we conclude:

Conclude from it.