Yevamot 13a — the Talmud in English

And Rav Zevid said: There is no

birth of

children

possible

without

bringing

signs!

That is, the appearance of the signs of two hairs in her twelfth year, even before she has completed twelve years and one day, is considered, according to Rav Zevid, a sign of maturity. And every woman who gives birth within her twelfth year is presumed to have already produced two hairs, and she is therefore considered an adult; consequently, she can no longer perform mi'un.

And we object:

Let us examine

now whether she has the signs of two hairs, and why do we need to rely upon the presumption that every woman who gives birth has produced signs?!

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

we are concerned lest

she already had signs, and

they fell out

afterward, and therefore they are not now seen.

And we rely upon the fact that every woman who gives birth to children is presumed to have already produced signs. Therefore, there is no point in examining her signs, for 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 object: They disputed this matter in tractate Niddah [46a]: If we examined her when she completed twelve years and one day, and no signs were found in her, are we concerned lest she had signs and they fell out, or not? And if so:

This works out well according to the one who says

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

“we are concerned

lest she had signs and they fell out”; it is properly said that every woman who gives birth is presumed to have produced signs, and even if we examine her and find that she has no signs, we are concerned lest she had signs and they fell out.

But according to the one who says

that if no signs were found in her,

we are not concerned

lest they existed and fell out —

what is there to say?

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,”

so

we are concerned,

for 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 raised the matter:

From where are these words

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

Rav Yehuda said, for the verse says: [Leviticus 18] “And a woman to her sister you shall not take

“And you shall not take a woman together with her sister” (Leviticus 18:18)—

to vex.”

The verse could have said “to vex,” and it said “to vex greatly”

— the Torah 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 the forbidden relative.”

For the forbidden relative forbids her co-wife, so that she is forbidden to undergo yibbum just as the forbidden relative is.

And it follows that the basis of the law of the “co-wife of a forbidden relative” derives from the fact that at the time of her first falling to yibbum, she stands in a “place” in which there is a forbidden relative for yibbum.

And if so, if the “co-wife of the forbidden relative” underwent yibbum with another brother, to whom she is permitted, and that brother died, and she again falls before the yavam [from whom she was already exempted at the first falling because at that time she was the “co-wife of a forbidden relative”], she herself, who may not undergo yibbum, is now considered a “forbidden relative to the yavam.”

And she herself may not undergo yibbum now, since, because the first time she fell before him she was forbidden to him, he no longer has permission regarding her, forever.

And from now, also

the co-wife

of the

co-wife,

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

also —

stands “in the place of the forbidden relative”!

For the wife of the second brother now falls together with the co-wife of the forbidden relative from the first brother, who is herself a forbidden relative at the second falling, from the second brother.

And it follows that the co-wife of a “co-wife of a forbidden relative” also stands “in the place of the forbidden relative,” and by virtue of this she is exempted from yibbum and forbidden to the yavam forever.

And if she undergoes yibbum through another brother and again falls before the brother from whom she had previously emerged because that was a falling “in the place of a forbidden relative,” she herself may not undergo yibbum, since she became forbidden to him forever through her previous falling.

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

We learned in the Mishna:

How is it that “if they die

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

And since the tanna did not distinguish between whether the forbidden relative was married at one time together with the co-wife, and whether she was married to him separately, each one during a different period of time, it follows:

And even if he took

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

and

only

at the end,

after both of them had been married to him together, he

divorced

the forbidden relative, nevertheless she is not considered the 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 one may object with a contradiction from the Mishna on page 30a, which says the opposite:

For 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 he

took her, the brother

performed yibbum with the non-relative,

who had divorced

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

And it follows that the non-relative had not been married to him together with the sister; rather, each one 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 —

It is permitted for this brother to perform yibbum with her, because the non-relative was not the co-wife of the forbidden relative, the sister of his wife, since his brother had not been married to both of them at the same time; rather, each one was married separately.

This is what the Sages said:

“This is what they said”

the Sages,

that if they die

the forbidden relatives who were 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

for yibbum.

And it is proven from that Mishna:

The reason is that he divorced

the forbidden relative

and

only

afterward took

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

But

if he

took

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

and afterward divorced

the forbidden relative,

not

was the co-wife permitted for yibbum, since she is the co-wife of a forbidden relative.

Whereas from our Mishna it is proven that even if the forbidden relative was married to the deceased brother together with her co-wife at the same time, once the forbidden relative was divorced, the co-wife is no longer considered the co-wife of a forbidden relative, and she is permitted to undergo yibbum.

Since the co-wife of a forbidden relative is forbidden only at the time of falling to yibbum, when she falls together with the forbidden relative.

Rabbi Yirmeya said: It is broken,

there is a need to “break,” to distinguish between the two Mishnayot, and to say that necessarily:

the one

the tanna

who taught

Mishna

this —

did not teach

Mishna

this, the other one. Rather:

This tanna

in our Mishna

held:

The

death

of the husband is what

causes

the yevama to fall to yibbum, but during his lifetime his wives are not considered “falling to yibbum” if he should die.

And therefore, the forbidden relative forbids her co-wife only at the time of falling to yibbum, when the designation “co-wife of a forbidden relative” takes effect upon her, in the joint falling of the forbidden relative and herself for yibbum.

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

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

And

if

this tanna

in the third chapter

held: The first marriage

of the deceased brother is what

causes

his wives to fall for yibbum.

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

And it follows that from the time of the marriage, his wives are considered to be in the status of “falling to yibbum.”

And therefore, if he was married to a woman who is a forbidden relative to his brother, together with her co-wife, the co-wife is forbidden with the prohibition of the co-wife of a forbidden relative during his lifetime. And even if afterward he divorces the forbidden relative, and at the time of his death only the co-wife falls for yibbum, she remains forbidden with the prohibition of the co-wife of a forbidden relative.

Rava said: It is always one tanna who teaches our Mishna and the Mishna in the third chapter. There is no contradiction between the Mishnayot. And 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 the forbidden relative forbids her co-wife even during her lifetime.

Because

and

in the formulation of

“this, and it is not necessary to say this,”

it teaches

for both Mishnayot:

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

And afterward the tanna taught in the third chapter and said, “it is not necessary to say this”: If even during the lifetime of the deceased brother the forbidden relative was not 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 the co-wife of a forbidden relative and is permitted to undergo yibbum.

We learned in the Mishna:

And every one who can perform mi'un

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

And we raised the matter:

Then let her perform mi'un now!

For the forbidden relative can now perform mi'un with regard to the marriage of her deceased husband, since she requires yibbum [by rabbinic law], and say: “I do not want the marriage with which my brother and mother married me”!

And through this the marriage of the forbidden relative would be uprooted retroactively, and it would become clear that her co-wife is not the co-wife of a forbidden relative,

and let her undergo yibbum

her co-wife!

Let us say, it supports him,

from our Mishna, which did not state this possibility, of mi'un after death,

for Rabbi Oshaya.

For Rabbi Oshaya said: A minor who was betrothed by rabbinic enactment through her mother and brother, and her husband died, and her yavam performed maamar with her, which is the betrothal that the Sages instituted for every yavam, that he should betroth his wife with a monetary betrothal before having relations with her —

she performs mi'un

to

his maamar

and does not require from him a bill of divorce for his maamar.

[But if the yavam performed maamar with an adult yevama, she requires a bill of divorce for his maamar, and she does not leave him through halitza alone.]

And she does not perform mi'un with regard to his bond

to her

the yavam.

To nullify retroactively her betrothal to his deceased brother, and to nullify her bond to the yavam, and to leave without halitza.

And it is proven from our Mishna in accordance with his words: that mi'un exists only with a husband, during his lifetime, and not with a bond to a yavam, after death. And there is no possibility for the forbidden relative to uproot her marriage retroactively after the husband’s death by means of mi'un, thereby permitting her co-wife.

And the Gemara rejects:

No!

There is no support from our Mishna for Rabbi Oshaya’s words. For in fact she does perform mi'un even with regard to the yavam’s bond, and at that time she even retroactively uproots her marriage to his deceased brother.

And

the co-wife of a forbidden relative —

is different.

And our Mishna, in which we are stringent with her, that she should not perform mi'un, so that she should not uproot her marriage and her co-wife undergo yibbum, is a special stringency, so that people should not come to be lenient regarding the co-wife of a forbidden relative:

For Rami bar Ezekiel 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 the husband’s female relatives, from now she is permitted to her father-in-law.

And we have no reason to be concerned and decree that she should be forbidden to him because she formerly appeared as his daughter-in-law. For from now, after she performed mi'un with her husband during his lifetime, she is no longer considered in people’s eyes to be 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

performed mi'un with the yavam —

she is forbidden to his father.

And even though through her mi'un she uprooted her betrothal to his son, she is nevertheless forbidden to him.

Evidently,

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

from the time of falling

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

appears

to people

as his daughter-in-law.

For as long as her husband is alive, her marriage as a minor, which is from the enactment of the Sages, appears to everyone to be an incomplete marriage.

And therefore, if she performed mi'un with him, the Sages did not see that there was reason to fear and continue forbidding her to his relatives, for the matter 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 a yavam, she then appears in people’s eyes as though she had been fully married to her husband.

And therefore, if we come to permit her to her husband’s relatives as a result of the mi'un, there is reason to fear that people will come to be lenient regarding the prohibition of the husband’s relatives in the case of a yevama.

For even if she performs mi'un and retroactively uproots her betrothal, with regard to people she appeared at the time of the son-brother’s death as the yavam’s daughter-in-law. Therefore, they decreed that she should be forbidden to her father-in-law even if she performed mi'un.

Here too, with regard to the co-wife of a forbidden relative,

from the time of falling

when the forbidden relative became bound to the yavam,

the co-wife of the forbidden relative appears

as the co-wife of his daughter.

And therefore the Sages said that the forbidden relative should not perform mi'un and permit her co-wife. For after the husband’s death and the falling for yibbum, her daughter’s marriage appears to be a complete marriage. And 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 halitza and from yibbum, when they fall together with them for yibbum.

And here the Mishna says that there are

six forbidden relatives “more severe than these”

the fifteen, and their severity is that in their case there is no possibility that they should fall together with their co-wives for 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 that one of the brothers should marry her permissibly and she should fall for yibbum before another brother under a prohibition — therefore

their co-wives,

who were married together with them to other men,

are permitted!

For the prohibition of the co-wife of a forbidden relative was stated only in the context of yibbum, where the Torah prevented the yibbum of the forbidden relative’s co-wife, and thereby she remains forever under the prohibition of a forbidden relative, that of a brother’s wife who was not permitted for yibbum, and she is like the nakedness of a brother’s wife who has children.

But the Torah did not forbid the “co-wife of a forbidden relative” as a new prohibition, and the Torah did not say that every forbidden relative forbids her co-wife because she was married together with her in one house.

And these are the six more severe forbidden relatives, who are forbidden to all the brothers equally, and therefore there is no falling for yibbum from one brother to another, and consequently there is no prohibition of the co-wife of a forbidden relative.

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 father's sister, his paternal sister, his father's brother's wife, and his paternal brother's wife.

b.

Beit Shammai permit the co-wives

of the fifteen forbidden relations

to the brothers,

for they do not expound “to distress” with regard to the co-wife of a forbidden relation, even in a case of yibbum.

And Beit Hillel prohibit

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