Yevamot 12b (יב:) — the Talmud in English

Rava said:

The halakha is: the co-wife of an ailonit is permitted.

And even if he knew about her

that she was an ailonit before their marriage, so that this was not a mistaken transaction, but rather she was married to him according to Torah law.

And despite the fact that the ailonit is forbidden as the erva of a brother’s wife, for whom there is no possibility of levirate marriage, her co-wife is not forbidden as the “co-wife of the erva of a brother’s wife.” For it is not the prohibition of the erva of a brother’s wife that prevents the ailonit from undergoing levirate marriage; rather, it is her being an ailonit, who cannot give birth, that prevents it.

And since the erva of a brother’s wife does not prevent her from undergoing levirate marriage, this erva does not render her co-wife forbidden.

And even the co-wife of his ailonit daughter,

she too is permitted.

For since the ailonit is not subject to the passage concerning levirate marriage, because she cannot give birth, her co-wife is considered the co-wife of an erva in a case where there is no mitzva of levirate marriage, and therefore she is not forbidden.

And we challenge Rava:

But that which it teaches

in our Mishna,

that

the co-wife of an ailonit is permitted when

“they were found to be”

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

After all, according to Rava, even if there had been no mistaken transaction concerning them, their co-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 been no mistaken transaction concerning them, their co-wives are permitted.

When

Rabbin

came

from Eretz Yisrael to Babylonia, he

said

in the name of

Rabbi Yohanan:

Both the co-wife of

the

minor who refuses

the yavam,

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

after she has married another man—

all of them are 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 Naḥman:

Three women

are permitted to

use a wad,

which they place at the opening of the womb, so that it remains there during intercourse, in order to prevent them from becoming pregnant, and they 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 pregnancy, since she is a minor and cannot withstand the burden of 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 because of 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,

as she will be unable to nurse him once she becomes pregnant,

and he will die,

her infant.

And who is a “minor”

whose pregnancy is dangerous for her?

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

But

before this,

before the age of eleven, she certainly cannot become pregnant.

And furthermore,

after the age of twelve, pregnancy is not dangerous for her.

Therefore, at that point she

engages in intercourse in the ordinary manner and continues,

without a wad.

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

These are the words of Rabbi Meir.

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

all three of the women whom Rabbi Meir permitted are forbidden to engage in intercourse with a wad.

Rather,

she engages in intercourse in the ordinary manner,

without a wad,

and continues, and Heaven will have mercy

on her.

Because it is stated [

Psalms 116]:

“The Lord protects the simple.”

And the Gemara infers:

From the fact that it says

with regard to a minor,

“lest she become pregnant, and lest she die,”

and it did not say, “lest she become pregnant, and she will die,” as a certainty.

By inference,

you learn from 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 a “mother-in-law”

who is

a minor who refuses.

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

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

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

Afterward, the first brother died, and she falls before his brother as his wife’s mother [his mother-in-law].

Thus, he has a minor mother-in-law who is married through a rabbinic marriage and can still exercise refusal.

And

if we

teach

in our Mishna:

“You cannot say

with regard to his mother-in-law, his mother-in-law’s mother, or 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 wad: a minor,

lest she become pregnant, and

then certainly

she will die.

For Rabba bar Livai said: A minor has a limit

with regard to becoming pregnant:

Before this time,

before she is eleven years and one day old—

she cannot become pregnant at all.

During this period,

between the age of eleven years and one day and the age of twelve years and one day, she can become pregnant, but she cannot give birth to a live child, for if she becomes pregnant,

she dies, and her fetus dies.

After this period—

she lives, and her fetus lives.

Therefore, there is no possibility of a minor mother-in-law, and consequently there is no possibility that his mother-in-law could exercise refusal.

And we challenge this:

Is that so?

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

because

they had already given birth!

And there is no refusal after childbirth.

And from the fact that the tanna [in the beraita cited by Rabba bar Shmuel] attributed the impossibility of exercising refusal to childbirth, and did not attribute it to the fact that if she gave birth to sons she would already be an adult, it is evident that she is still a minor, and nevertheless she can give birth, so that there could be a minor mother-in-law.

Rather, she cannot exercise refusal because a minor who has given birth cannot exercise refusal, since she has given birth.

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

And we answer:

Rather, in fact,

one must indeed revise the beraita that Rav Bibi taught before Rav Naḥman: a minor uses a wad 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 other statement is difficult,

the one taught by Rabba bar Livai, that she cannot give birth while still a minor!

And we answer: Once she has given birth, she is no longer a minor, but an adult. For:

Rav Safra said: Sons—

they are equivalent to signs,

as the birth of sons is considered like the appearance of two pubic hairs as a sign of maturity. Therefore, once she has given birth to a son, she can no longer exercise refusal, even if she is a minor.

And some say: Sons—

are superior to signs.

What practical difference does it make

that they are superior?

For even according to Rabbi Yehuda, who says:

a minor who developed two pubic hairs can still exercise refusal,

until

the

black

hair above the pubic area becomes abundant, so that there are many hairs there,

nevertheless,

with

the birth of

sons—he

concedes

that she can no longer exercise refusal.