Yevamot 23b — the Talmud in English

And Rabbi Shimon indeed expounds the reason of the verse. It follows that the reason stated in the verse is superfluous, and from it he learns to include all the nations. MISHNA:

A.

One who betrothed one of two sisters,

for example, he gave both of them, or their joint agent, betrothal money, and said that he wished to betroth one of them, but did not specify which one.

Or he sent an agent to betroth a woman for him, and the agent betrothed one of the sisters,

and he does not know which of them he betrothed

and the conclusion of the Gemara is that it had been known whom he was betrothing, and the matter was forgotten].

He is forbidden to both of them, since each one of them is possibly the sister of the wife betrothed to him.

And therefore he

gives a bill of divorce to this one and a bill of divorce to that one,

in order to permit them to marry.

And if the one who betrothed one of the two sisters

dies, and

there was

to him

only

one brother—

That brother

performs halitza for both of them,

since both of them are possibly obligated in yibum. And if he performs halitza for one, he cannot perform yibum with the other, because the sister of one for whom he performed halitza is forbidden to him.

On the other hand, he cannot first perform yibum with one of them, because perhaps she is not the one who had been betrothed to his brother, but rather she is the other sister. And this one is forbidden to him, by the law of the sister of a woman subject to yibum, who is forbidden to the yavam like the sister of his wife.

And therefore he performs halitza for both of them, to permit them to the marketplace.

And if

he had two

brothers—

one

of them

performs halitza

first for one of the sisters.

And the second,

if he wishes, can

perform yibum

with the second sister.

For in either event, she is permitted to him:

If she is the one who had been betrothed to his brother, she is his yevama.

And if her sister had been betrothed to his brother, she is not subject to the prohibition of the sister of a woman subject to yibum, from the time the first brother performed halitza for the first sister.

And if the two brothers

preceded and married

the two sisters, before they consulted to clarify the halakha in court,

they do not remove

the sisters

from their possession.

For each one of them says that his yevama is the one who had been betrothed to his brother.

And even if the truth is that the brother who performed yibum first married the sister who had not been betrothed, and she was forbidden to him because she was the sister of the wife subject to his yibum, nevertheless, once the second brother performed yibum with her, her bond to the first brother was retroactively removed, and her sister became permitted to him.

B.

Two

men who are not related to one another,

who betrothed two sisters.

This one does not know which one he betrothed, and this one does not know which one he betrothed—

Both are forbidden to both of them, both because of the uncertainty of the sister of a wife and because of the uncertainty of a married woman.

And therefore

this one gives two bills of divorce, and this one gives two bills of divorce.

And if

the two men

who betrothed the two sisters die, and

this one had a brother and that one had a brother—

this one performs halitza for both of them, and this one performs halitza for both of them,

because they cannot perform yibum, since each one of them is possibly the sister of the woman subject to his bond.

And after the halitza of the first, she is forbidden to them because of the uncertainty of the “sister of a woman for whom he performed halitza

”. And if

this one had,

a

single brother, and that one had two

brothers.

The

single brother performs halitza for both of them,

because of the uncertainty, as above.

Whereas

the two,

the brothers of the second husband,

one performs halitza,

first for one of the sisters.

And

in either event

one performs yibum

permissibly.

For she is either his yevama, and he can perform yibum with her, or she is merely a woman, who is permitted to him.

For from the time his brother performed halitza for her sister, she is no longer forbidden to this brother by the law of the sister of a woman subject to his bond; and likewise she is not forbidden to him as the “sister of a woman for whom he performed halitza,” since he did not perform halitza for her, but rather his brother did.

And if

the two brothers of the one deceased preceded and married

the two sisters—

they do not remove them from their possession,

as above, because she was ultimately permitted through the yibum of his brother, and she is no longer the sister of the woman subject to his bond.

And if the two betrothers of the sisters who died had

two

brothers

and this one two

brothers—

this one’s brother,

of the man who betrothed one of them,

performs halitza for one

of the sisters.

And likewise

this one’s brother,

of the man who betrothed the second,

performs halitza for one

for the second sister.

And afterward,

this one’s brother,

the brother of the first betrother,

performs yibum

with

the woman for whom this one performed halitza,

the sister for whom the brother of the second betrother performed halitza.

For in either event she is permitted to him:

If she is his yevama, there is no prohibition in her, since his brother performed halitza not for her but for her sister.

And if indeed her sister is the one who had been betrothed to his brother, his brother removed her bond through his halitza, and this sister is no longer either the sister of a woman subject to his bond or the sister of a woman for whom he performed halitza.

And although she had been betrothed to the second brother, she is not a yevama to the marketplace, after the brother of the second betrother performed halitza for her.

And likewise

this one’s brother,

the second betrother,

performs yibum with the woman for whom this one performed halitza,

the sister of the brother of the first betrother.

And if

two

brothers of one of the betrothers preceded and performed halitza, because of the uncertainty, for both sisters—

the two brothers shall not perform yibum

the brothers of the second betrother, each with one of the sisters.

For the first one who performs yibum is forbidden because of the uncertainty, lest she be the sister of the woman subject to his bond.

Rather, one

of them

performs halitza

first for one of the sisters.

And

afterward

one,

the other one,

performs yibum

with the second sister.

For she is permitted in either event: if she is his yevama, she is not the sister of a woman subject to the bond, since she was permitted through the halitza of his first brother for her sister, or through the halitza performed for her by the brothers of the first betrother.

And if the brothers of the second betrother did not consult, and

preceded,

after the halitza of the first ones,

and married

each one one of the sisters,

they do not remove them from their possession.

For she was forbidden to the first only because of the uncertainty, lest she be the sister of the woman subject to his bond; and once his brother married her, her bond to him was removed, and his wife again became permitted to him.

GEMARA:

The Gemara infers from what we learned in our Mishna: One who betroths one of two sisters requires a bill of divorce or halitza in order to permit them—

infer from it that betrothals that are not given over for intercourse

since because of the uncertainty of the sister of his wife he is forbidden to have intercourse with either of them]—

are betrothals!

And this is an objection to Abaye and Rava, who disagreed concerning this halakha [in tractate Kiddushin 51a]!

And we reject this: There is no proof from here that betrothals not given over for intercourse are betrothals.

For

here, with what are we dealing? With a case where they were recognized,

so that at the time of the betrothal he knew which of them he was betrothing.

And therefore the betrothals took effect, since they were given over for intercourse at the time they were performed,

and

only

at the end,

afterward, they

became confused.

And now it is not known which of them he betrothed.

This is also precise,

to prove that the Mishna is speaking of such a case:

For it teaches, “and he does not know

which of them he betrothed.” The meaning of this expression is that now he does not know,

and it does not teach

the wording

“and it is not known”,

whose meaning would be that it was never known.

Infer from it

that it is speaking of a case where they were recognized and ultimately became confused.

And we object concerning our Mishna:

What does it teach us

that both require a bill of divorce in order to permit them?

This is obvious, since each one is uncertain whether she was betrothed!

And we explain: Because of the

latter clause

of the Mishna,

it was necessary for him.

For it teaches in the latter clause:

He died, and he had one brother—

he performs halitza for both of them.

If he had two, one—

performs halitza and one performs yibum.

And the novelty is that

specifically, performing halitza

the first brother

and afterward performing yibum

the second, for then she is permitted in either event, as explained in the Mishna.

But performing yibum first—

No!

because we are concerned

that he may encounter the sister of a woman subject to his bond.

We learned in the Mishna,

“Two who betrothed two sisters, etc.,”

And we infer: From the fact that they must release them through bills of divorce or halitza—

infer from it,

that although the

betrothals are not given over for intercourse,

since it is not known which one is betrothed to which one, nevertheless

they are betrothals!

And we explain as above, that

here too

it is speaking of a case

where they were recognized and ultimately became confused.

And likewise the proof from the Mishna:

This is also precise, for it teaches:

this

“does not know”

which of them he betrothed.

“and it does not say, ‘and it is not known.’

And it implies that now it is not known, although at the time of the betrothals they knew whom each one had betrothed for himself.

And what does it teach us,

for it is obvious that each one requires a bill of divorce from both of them because of the uncertainty?

The latter clause was necessary for him,

for we learned in it:

They died; this one had

a

single brother and that one two—

the single one performs halitza for both of them.

And

as for

the two, one performs halitza and one performs yibum.

And now the Gemara understood that the novelty is as above: specifically after one performs halitza can the second perform yibum.

And therefore we object:

It is obvious! This is the first clause!

And we explain:

You might have said,

in a case where there are two betrothers,

let us decree

concerning

the two

brothers of one of them, that neither should perform yibum, even though the second is permitted in either event, as explained.

And this decree is

because of the one,

the sole brother of the other, who has no permission to perform yibum with either of them, but performs halitza for both.

Therefore

it teaches us

the latter clause of the Mishna, that one performs halitza and one performs yibum.

And further, the latter clause teaches us

that specifically

in this order, that

the sole brother performs halitza

first,

and afterward one performs yibum

one of the two brothers of the other.

But performing yibum first

before the halitza of the sole brother,

not.

Since

he encounters a yevama to the marketplace!

For as long as the sole brother has not performed halitza, we are concerned that she had been betrothed to the second brother, and she is forbidden to them by the law of a yevama to the marketplace.

We learned in the Mishna,

“this one had two and that one had two, etc.,”

And we ask concerning it:

Why do I need this also?

Why do I need it to teach that this one’s brother performs yibum with the woman for whom that one performed halitza?

This is

the same thing

as in the first clause, concerning two brothers, one performing halitza and one performing yibum.

And likewise in the latter clause, in every case of two, one of them performs halitza and one performs yibum.

And we answer: The novelty in the latter clause is that one of the two performs yibum.

And it is necessary to teach this, because

you might have said that we should decree, lest one perform yibum

one of these two, and one of the other two,

without halitza,

and transgress the prohibition of a yevama to the marketplace or of the sister of a woman subject to the bond.

And therefore the tan nay came in the latter clause and

teaches us

that we do not fear this and did not decree it; rather, one performs halitza and one performs yibum.

And from the first clause we would not know that we do not decree.

For in the first clause the sole brother performs halitza, and consequently they remember that one of the two also must perform halitza. But in the latter clause, where ultimately both perform yibum with the brothers, it is necessary to teach that we do not fear this mistake, lest they perform yibum without halitza.

And we object concerning what we learned in the Mishna, that if they preceded and married them, they do not remove them from their possession:

What is different from that which we learned

below, 26a]:

Four brothers, two of them married two sisters, and those who were married to the sisters died—

these perform halitza and do not perform yibum.

And the end of the Mishna there states: If they preceded and married them, they remove them from their possession, since we are concerned that the first performed yibum with the sister of the woman subject to his bond, and what his second brother marries her sister does not help him, to remove her bond from the first in order to permit his wife to him.

And apparently here we learned that if he married her, he need not remove her, but relies on this permission.

And we answer:

Here, now!?

What comparison is this!?

For there is no comparison at all between the cases in the two Mishnayot!