Yevamot 12b — the Talmud in English

Rava said: ![](pamud.bmp "

exact page location")

the halakha is: the rival wife of an ailonit is permitted.

And even if he recognized her

as an ailonit before her marriage, and this was not a mistaken transaction, but she was married to him according to Torah law.

And although the ailonit is forbidden as the ervat eshet ach for which there is no permission, her rival wife is not forbidden because of her being “the rival wife of the ervat eshet ach.” For it is not the prohibition of the ervat eshet ach that prevents the ailonit from yibbum, but her being an ailonit who does not give birth prevents it.

And since the ervat eshet ach does not prevent her yibbum, this ervah does not forbid her rival wife.

And even the rival wife of his ailonit daughter,

she too is permitted.

For since the ailonit is not included in the matter of yibbum, because she does not give birth, her rival wife is considered the rival wife of an ervah where there is no mitzva of yibbum, and therefore she is not forbidden.

And we raise an objection against Rava:

but that which it teaches

in our Mishna

that

the rival wife of an ailonit is permitted when

“they were found”

to be ailoniyot. And from this wording it is implied that they are permitted only because of the mistaken transaction [“they were found,”] and it is difficult:

For according to Rava, even if there had not been a mistaken transaction concerning them, their rival wives would be permitted!?

And we answer:

teach

in our Mishna, in place of “they were found to be ailoniyot” —

that they were

ailoniyot! Even if there had not been a mistaken transaction concerning them, their rival wives are permitted.

When he came,

when

Ravin

came from the Land of Israel to Babylonia,

he said

in the name of

Rabbi Yohanan:

Both the rival wife of

the

girl who refuses

through yibbum,

and the rival wife of an ailonit, and the rival wife of one who remarries his divorced wife

after she was married —

all of them are permitted! [And it should be noted that Rabbi Yohanan did not say, “The rival wife of his ailonit daughter is permitted”!]

And one should note that Rabbi Yohanan did not say, “The co-wife of his ailonit daughter is permitted”!]

Rav Bibi taught before Rav Nahman:

Three women

are permitted to

use a mukh,

which they place at the opening of their wombs, so that it remains in that place during intercourse, in order to prevent their pregnancy, and these are:

A minor, a pregnant woman, and a nursing woman.

A minor —

lest she become pregnant, and lest she die

as a result of her becoming pregnant, since she is a minor and cannot withstand the burden of the pregnancy.

A pregnant woman —

lest

she become pregnant with an additional fetus, and then

she make

her

fetus a “sandal”

, so that her fetus will be crushed like a sandal. For through the pressure of the additional fetus, one fetus presses against the other and emerges flattened, without the form of a face.

A nursing woman —

lest she wean her son,

so that she will be unable to nurse him when she becomes pregnant,

and he die,

her infant.

And which is a “minor

whose pregnancy is dangerous for her?”

From the age of eleven years and one day until twelve years and one day.

But

less than this,

than eleven years, she certainly will not become pregnant.

And furthermore,

older than twelve years, there is no danger in her pregnancy.

And therefore, then she

has intercourse in her usual manner and continues,

without a mukh.

For where there is no danger, she is forbidden to have intercourse with a mukh, because of the prohibition against destroying semen.

The words of Rabbi Meir.

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

all three women whom Rabbi Meir permitted are forbidden to have intercourse with a mukh.

Rather,

she has intercourse in her usual manner,

without a mukh,

and continues, and Heaven will have mercy

upon her.

Because it is stated [Psalms 116]:

Psalms 116]:

“The Lord protects the simple.”

And the Gemara infers:

since he says

about a minor

“lest she become pregnant, and lest she die”

and he did not say, “lest she become pregnant, and she will certainly die.”

By inference

you learn this,

that there is a minor who becomes pregnant

before the age of twelve

and does not die

from her pregnancy.

And

if so, we find “his mother-in-law”

who will

refuse.

For example, a minor who became pregnant and gave birth to a daughter while she was a minor.

And one brother betrothed this minor, through rabbinic betrothal, having received betrothal of her from her mother and her brothers.

And the second brother [who is now the yavam] came and betrothed her daughter who had been born.

And afterward the first brother died, and she falls before her brother, the mother of his wife [his mother-in-law].

And it is found that he has a minor mother-in-law, married through rabbinic marriage, who can still refuse.

And

if we

taught

in our Mishna:

“You cannot say

with regard to his mother-in-law, his mother-in-law’s mother, and his father-in-law’s mother, that ‘they were found to be ailoniyot’ or that ‘they refused’”!

And we answer:

say

that three women use a mukh: a minor,

lest she become pregnant, and

then certainly

die.

For Rabba bar Livai said: she has a limit,

the minor, with regard to her becoming pregnant:

Before this time,

before she is eleven years and one day old —

she does not become pregnant at all.

Within this time,

between eleven years and one day and twelve years and one day, she can become pregnant, but she cannot give birth to a living child, for if she becomes pregnant —

she dies, and her fetus dies.

After this time —

she lives and her fetus lives.

And therefore, there is no possibility of a minor mother-in-law, and consequently there is no possibility that his mother-in-law will refuse.

And we object:

Is that so?!

But Rabba bar Shemuel taught: You cannot say with regard to his mother-in-law, his mother-in-law’s mother, and his father-in-law’s mother, that they were found to be ailoniyot or that they refused —

because

they have already given birth!

And there is no refusal after childbirth.

And from the fact that the tannai [in the beraita brought by Rabba bar Shemuel] attributed the impossibility of refusing to the childbirth, and did not attribute it to the fact that if she gave birth to sons she is already an adult, it is proven that she is still a minor, and nevertheless she can give birth, and she will be his minor mother-in-law.

Rather, she cannot refuse because a minor who gave birth cannot refuse, since she gave birth.

And if so, this is difficult for Rabba bar Livai, who said that she has a limit, and before her adulthood she cannot give birth, for if she becomes pregnant while a minor, she will certainly die!?

And we answer:

Rather, in truth,

it should indeed be taught in the beraita that Rav Bibi taught before Rav Nahman: a minor uses a mukh, because

lest she become pregnant, and lest she die.

But it is possible for a minor to become pregnant and give birth.

But then this is difficult,

that which Rabba bar Livai taught, that she cannot give birth while a minor!

And we answer: once she gives birth, she is no longer a minor, but an adult. For:

Rav Safra said: sons —

they are like signs,

for the birth of sons is considered like the growth of two hairs as a sign of adulthood. Therefore, once she gives birth to a son, she can no longer refuse, even if she is a minor.

And some say: sons —

are superior to signs.

What practical difference is there

in this superiority?

For even according to Rabbi Judah, who said:

a minor who has grown two hairs can still refuse,

until

the

black

hair above the place of nakedness becomes abundant, so that many hairs are there.

Nevertheless,

in the

birth of

sons —

he concedes

that she can no longer refuse.