Yevamot 13a (יג.) — the Talmud in English

And Rav Zevid said: There is no

birth of

children

possible

without

the emergence of

signs!

That is, according to Rav Zevid, the emergence of the signs of two hairs during her twelfth year, even before she has reached the age of twelve years and one day, is considered a sign of physical maturity. And every girl who gives birth during her twelfth year has the presumptive status that she had already brought forth two hairs, and she is therefore considered an adult; consequently, she can no longer perform mi'un.

And we challenge this:

Let us examine

now whether she has the signs of two hairs. Why, then, do we need to rely on the presumption that every girl who gives birth has brought forth the signs?!

And we answer: Even if we examine her now and find that she has no signs,

we are concerned that perhaps

she already had the signs, and they

fell out

afterward, which is why they are not visible now.

We rely on the presumption that every girl who gives birth to children has already brought forth the signs. Therefore, there is no point in examining her signs, since even if we do not find them, we will consider her an adult on the basis of this presumption, and she can no longer perform mi'un.

And we challenge this: The matter was disputed in tractate Niddah [46a]: If we examined her when she reached the age of twelve years and one day and did not find signs, are we concerned that perhaps she had signs and they fell out, or not? If so:

This works out well according to the one who says

that even if we examined her and did not find signs,

“we are concerned

that perhaps she had signs and they fell out.” It is therefore reasonable to say that every girl who gives birth has the presumptive status that she brought forth the signs. Even if we examine her and find that she has no signs, we are concerned that perhaps she had signs and they fell out.

But according to the one who says

that if they did not find signs in her,

we are not concerned

that perhaps they had been present and fell out—

what can be said?

Why should we not examine her now to see whether she has signs?

And we answer:

Even according to the one who says, “we are not concerned

because of the pain of childbirth,”

we

are concerned

that perhaps she had signs, and they fell out because of the pain of childbirth.

We learned in the Mishna:

How do they exempt their co-wives and

the co-wives of their co-wives?

And we inquire:

From where are these matters

that even the co-wife of a “co-wife of a forbidden relative” is forbidden?

Rav Yehuda said, as the verse states:

[Leviticus 18] “And you shall not take a woman in addition to her sister”

to vex her.

The verse could have stated latzor, but it states litzror—

the Torah thereby included many co-wives.

But

Rav Ashi said:

The co-wife of a “co-wife of a forbidden relative”

is logically

forbidden, and there is no need to derive this from a special verse.

For

a co-wife

of a forbidden relative,

why is she forbidden?

Because

she stands “in the place of a forbidden relative.”

The forbidden relative renders her co-wife forbidden, so that she is forbidden to undergo yibbum just as the forbidden relative herself is.

It follows that the basis of the law of a “co-wife of a forbidden relative” derives from the fact that, at the time of her first falling before yibbum, she stands in a “place” where there is a woman forbidden to the yavam.

Accordingly, if the “co-wife of the forbidden relative” underwent yibbum with another brother who was permitted to her, and that brother then died, so that she again falls before the yavam—the brother from whom she had already been exempted at the first falling because she was then the “co-wife of a forbidden relative”—she herself is now considered a “forbidden relative” with regard to the yavam.

She herself cannot undergo yibbum with him now, since she was forbidden to him when she first fell before him, and he is therefore never again permitted to her.

From this point onward, also

the co-wife

of the

co-wife,

the wife of the second brother who now falls together with her before the third brother,

likewise -

stands “in the place of a forbidden relative”!

For the wife of the second brother now falls together with the co-wife of the forbidden relative from the first brother; that co-wife is herself a forbidden relative with regard to the second falling, from the second brother.

It follows that the co-wife of a “co-wife of a forbidden relative” also stands “in the place of a forbidden relative.” For this reason she is exempt from yibbum and is perpetually forbidden to the yavam.

And if she undergoes yibbum with another brother and again falls before the brother from whom she had previously been exempted, because that earlier falling was in a “place of a forbidden relative,” she herself cannot undergo yibbum, since she became perpetually forbidden to him at her previous falling.

And since she herself is a forbidden relative with regard to the yavam, her co-wife, who falls together with her and stands “in the place of a forbidden relative,” also cannot undergo yibbum. And so on and so forth.

We learned in the Mishna:

How is it said that “if they die

[the forbidden relatives, before the death of the brother]—their co-wives are permitted”?

Since the tanna did not distinguish between a case in which the forbidden relative was married to the brother simultaneously with the co-wife, and a case in which each was married to him separately, at different times, it follows:

Even if he took in

[married] the co-wife while the forbidden relative was still married to him,

and

only

eventually,

after both had been married to him together,

divorced

the forbidden relative, nevertheless the co-wife is not considered a co-wife of a forbidden relative by virtue of having been married to him together with the forbidden relative.

And we raise a contradiction,

for a contradiction can be raised from the Mishna on page 30a, which states the opposite:

As we learned:

Three brothers,

who were

two of them married to two sisters, and one married a non-relative—

One of the husbands of the sisters divorced

his

wife.

And

after one of the husbands of the sisters divorced his wife,

the one married to the non-relative died.

And

then

took her in,

the brother

who divorced

his wife [who, as stated, was one of the two sisters].

It follows that the non-relative had not been married to him at the same time as the sister; rather, each had been married to him during a separate period.

And

afterward, the brother who had performed yibbum with the non-relative

died, and she fell before the brother who was married to the sister—

and

this brother is permitted to perform yibbum with her, since the non-relative had not been the co-wife of his wife’s sister, who was a forbidden relative. His brother had not been married to both women simultaneously; rather, each had been married to him separately.

This is what the Sages said,

that

if they die,

the forbidden relatives who had been married to the deceased brother before he married their co-wives,

or are divorced,

the forbidden relatives before the deceased brother married their co-wives—

their co-wives are permitted

to undergo yibbum.

And it is demonstrated from that Mishna:

The reason is that he divorced

the forbidden relative,

and

only

afterward took in

her co-wife; therefore, the co-wife did not become a “co-wife of a forbidden relative,” and she is permitted to undergo yibbum.

But

if he

took in

the co-wife of the forbidden relative while the forbidden relative was still married to him,

and afterward divorced

the forbidden relative,

she is not

permitted to undergo yibbum, since she is a co-wife of a forbidden relative.

By contrast, it is demonstrated from our Mishna that even if the forbidden relative was married to the deceased brother simultaneously with her co-wife, once the forbidden relative was divorced, the co-wife is no longer considered a co-wife of a forbidden relative and is permitted to undergo yibbum.

This is because a co-wife of a forbidden relative becomes forbidden only at the time of the falling before yibbum, when she falls together with the forbidden relative.

Rabbi Yirmeya said: It is a contradiction,

meaning that the two Mishnayot must be “broken apart,” distinguishing between them and saying that, necessarily:

the one

the tanna

who taught

the Mishna

this—

did not teach

the

other Mishna. Rather:

but rather:

This tanna

in our Mishna

held: The

death

of the husband is what

causes

the yevama to fall before yibbum; during his lifetime, his wives are not considered to be “falling before yibbum” in anticipation of his death.

Therefore, the forbidden relative renders her co-wife forbidden only at the time of the falling before yibbum, when the designation “co-wife of a forbidden relative” takes effect through the joint falling of the forbidden relative and her co-wife before yibbum.

And since the forbidden relative was divorced before the brother’s death, there is no longer a joint falling of the forbidden relative and her co-wife before yibbum; only the co-wife falls before yibbum.

And since at the time of the falling she does not receive the designation of a co-wife of a forbidden relative, she is permitted to undergo yibbum.

And

if

if

this tanna,

in the third chapter,

held: The first marriage

of the deceased brother is what

causes

his wives to fall before yibbum.

That is, the marriage through which a man takes a woman as his wife is not merely a marriage with regard to him, making her his wife during his lifetime; it is also the factor that causes her to fall before his brothers for yibbum, as a continuation of her marriage to him.

It follows that from the moment of the marriage, his wives are considered to be in the status of “falling before yibbum.”

Therefore, if he was married to a woman who is a forbidden relative to his brother, together with her co-wife, the co-wife becomes forbidden as a co-wife of a forbidden relative during the husband’s lifetime. Even if he subsequently divorces the forbidden relative, and at the time of his death only the co-wife falls before yibbum, she remains forbidden as a co-wife of a forbidden relative.

Rava said: In fact, it is one tanna who teaches both our Mishna and the Mishna in the third chapter. There is no contradiction between the Mishnayot.

Do not infer from the wording of the Mishna in the third chapter—“And this is what they said: If they die or are divorced, their co-wives are permitted”—that a forbidden relative renders her co-wife forbidden even during the husband’s lifetime.

Since

and

in the formulation of

“This, and it is unnecessary to state this,”

it teaches

both Mishnayot:

First, the tanna stated our Mishna as “this”: If the forbidden relative dies before the brother’s death, she does not render her co-wife forbidden even if the forbidden relative had been married to the brother together with the co-wife. This is because a co-wife of a forbidden relative becomes forbidden only if she had a joint falling at the time of the husband’s death, together with the forbidden relative.

Afterward, the tanna taught in the third chapter—and said, “it is unnecessary to state this”—that even if, during the deceased brother’s lifetime, the forbidden relative had not been married to him together with the co-wife, but the deceased brother first divorced the forbidden relative and only afterward married her co-wife, she is not called a co-wife of a forbidden relative and is permitted to undergo yibbum.

We learned in the Mishna:

And any woman who is able to perform mi'un

but did not perform mi'un, her co-wife performs halitza but not yibbum.

And we inquire:

Let her perform mi'un now!

The forbidden relative is able now to perform mi'un with regard to her marriage to the deceased husband, since she is bound to the yavam [by rabbinic law], and say: I do not want the marriage arranged for me by my brother and mother!

This would retroactively uproot the forbidden relative’s marriage, and it would become clear that her co-wife is not a co-wife of a forbidden relative;

and let her co-wife undergo yibbum!

Let us say that our Mishna supports

Rabbi Oshaya, since it did not mention this possibility—that she can perform mi'un after the husband’s death.

As Rabbi Oshaya said:

A minor who was betrothed by rabbinic ordinance through her mother and brother, whose husband died, and whose yavam performed ma'amar with her—a rabbinic betrothal instituted for every yavam, requiring him to betroth his yevama with money before having relations with her—

can perform mi'un

to

his ma'amar

and does not require a bill of divorce from him for his ma'amar. But if the yavam performed ma'amar with an adult yevama, she requires a bill of divorce for his ma'amar, and she does not leave him through halitza alone.

her

But she cannot perform mi'un with regard to his bond

to her.

This means that she cannot retroactively annul her betrothal to his deceased brother, annul her bond to the yavam, and leave without halitza.

And it is demonstrated from our Mishna in accordance with his statement: mi'un applies only to a husband, during his lifetime, and not to the bond to a yavam after the husband’s death. There is no possibility for the forbidden relative to uproot her marriage retroactively after the husband’s death through mi'un, thereby permitting her co-wife.

And the Gemara rejects this:

No!

Our Mishna does not support Rabbi Oshaya’s statement. In fact, she can perform mi'un even with regard to the yavam’s bond, thereby retroactively uprooting her marriage to his deceased brother.

But with regard to

a co-wife of a forbidden relative,

it is different.

Our Mishna, which is stringent and does not allow her to perform mi'un, thereby uprooting her marriage and permitting her co-wife to undergo yibbum, reflects a special stringency, so that people will not come to be lenient regarding a co-wife of a forbidden relative:

As Rami bar Yehezkel taught:

A minor who

performed mi'un with her husband

during his lifetime

is permitted to his father.

Since the retroactive uprooting of her marriage through mi'un permits her with regard to her husband’s relatives, she is now permitted to her father-in-law.

There is no reason to be concerned and decree that she should remain forbidden to him because she formerly appeared to be his daughter-in-law. Once she performed mi'un with her husband during his lifetime, people no longer regard her as the daughter-in-law of her former father-in-law.

But if she did not perform mi'un with her husband during his lifetime, and her husband died, and only then she

performed mi'un with the yavam—

she is forbidden to his father.

Although through her mi'un she uprooted her betrothal to his son, she nevertheless remains forbidden to him.

Apparently,

since she did not perform mi'un with her husband during his lifetime,

from the time of the falling

before yibbum [at the time of the son-brother’s death], since she falls before him by virtue of her brother’s marriage, she

appears

to people

as his daughter-in-law.

For as long as her husband is alive, it is apparent to all that the marriage of a minor, which is instituted by the Sages, is not a fully effective marriage.

Therefore, if she performs mi'un with him, the Sages did not see a need to be concerned and continue to forbid her to his relatives, since this would not lead to a mishap.

But if she did not perform mi'un with him, and her husband died, and by virtue of her marriage she became bound to the yavam, she then appears in people’s eyes as though she had been fully married to her husband.

Therefore, if we permit her to his relatives on the basis of her mi'un, there is concern that people will come to be lenient regarding the prohibition against the husband’s relatives in the case of a yevama.

For even if she performs mi'un and retroactively uproots her betrothal, in the eyes of the public she appeared at the time of the son-brother’s death as the yavam’s daughter-in-law. Therefore, the Sages decreed that she remains forbidden to her father-in-law even if she performs mi'un.

Here too,

with regard to a co-wife of a forbidden relative,

from the time of the falling

when the forbidden relative became bound to the yavam, she

appears

as the co-wife

of his daughter.

Therefore, the Sages said that the forbidden relative should not perform mi'un and thereby permit her co-wife. After the husband’s death and the falling before yibbum, the daughter’s marriage appears to be a fully effective marriage. If the daughter performs mi'un and we permit her co-wife to the yavam, people will come to permit the co-wife of a daughter to undergo yibbum.

Mishna:

a. We learned in the Mishna at the beginning of the tractate the fifteen forbidden relatives who exempt their co-wives from both halitza and yibbum when they fall before yibbum together with them.

Here the Mishna states that there are

six forbidden relatives “more stringent” than these

fifteen. Their stringency is that there is no possibility that they should fall together with their co-wives before yibbum from one of the brothers,

because they are always

married only

to

other

men, and are not married to the brothers of the yavam.

And since they are forbidden to all the brothers equally, and it is impossible for one brother to marry such a woman permissibly and for her to fall before another brother for yibbum while forbidden to him—therefore

their co-wives,

who were married together with them

to other men,

are permitted!

This is because the prohibition of a “co-wife of a forbidden relative” applies only in a context of yibbum, where the Torah prevented the yibbum of the forbidden relative’s co-wife, leaving her perpetually subject to the prohibition of a brother’s wife who cannot become permitted through yibbum, like the wife of a brother who has children.

But the Torah did not prohibit a “co-wife of a forbidden relative” as an independent prohibition, nor did the Torah state that every forbidden relative renders her co-wife forbidden merely because they had been married together in one household.

And these are the six more stringent forbidden relatives, who are forbidden equally to all the brothers and therefore cannot fall before one brother for yibbum after another; consequently, the prohibition of a co-wife of a forbidden relative does not apply to them.

who had been married together with them

to other men, are permitted!

This is because the prohibition of the co-wife of a forbidden woman applies only in the context of levirate marriage, where the Torah prevented the co-wife of the forbidden woman from entering into levirate marriage. As a result, she remains permanently prohibited under the prohibition of the wife of a brother whose marriage cannot become permitted through levirate marriage, and she is like the wife of a brother who has children.

But the Torah did not prohibit the co-wife of a forbidden woman as an independent new prohibition, nor did the Torah state that every forbidden woman prohibits her co-wife merely because they had been married together in one household.

These are the six women forbidden by the more severe familial prohibitions. They are prohibited to all the brothers equally, and therefore none of them can fall for levirate marriage from one brother to another. Consequently, the prohibition of the co-wife of a forbidden woman does not apply to them.

His mother, his father's wife, his paternal aunt, his sister from his father, his paternal uncle's wife, and his paternal half-brother's wife.

b.

Beit Shammai permit the co-wives

of the fifteen forbidden relations

to the brothers,

as they do not have the prohibition of a co-wife of an erva, even in a case of yibbum, because they do not expound “to distress” as referring to the co-wife of an erva.

And Beit Hillel prohibit

the co-wives of the forbidden relations to the brothers.