Yevamot 27a (כז.) — the Talmud in English

He performed halitza with the sisters; their co-wives were not exempted.

There were two sisters married to two brothers, and each of them had a co-wife. Shmuel said that the halakha is that if he performed halitza with the sisters, he did not thereby exempt their co-wives, because the halitza he performed with the sisters is an inferior halitza, since he could not perform yibbum with them, as we learned in the Mishna at the beginning of the chapter. Therefore, such an inferior halitza is ineffective to exempt their co-wives.

But if he performed halitza with the co-wives of the sisters, he did thereby exempt the sisters.

Even though he likewise could not perform yibbum with the co-wives, since they are co-wives of an erva, and the sisters are exempt and exempt their co-wives from yibbum, nevertheless, their prohibition is less severe than that of the sisters themselves. Therefore, they can exempt the sisters, as will be explained shortly.

And since Shmuel maintains that a proper halitza, and not an inferior one, is required, why does he say that when three sisters fall before two brothers, one of them performs halitza with all of them?! How is it possible that

when there is a valid halitza that Shimon can perform,

Reuven performs an invalid halitza with her?!

There is a possibility that Shimon can perform halitza with her, and his halitza would be valid—

why, then, should Reuven perform an invalid halitza with her?!

Why does Reuven perform halitza with all of them, even though his halitza with the second one is an inferior halitza, since he has already performed halitza with her sister, and she is the sister of the woman with whom he performed halitza, whereas Shimon should perform halitza with her, as his halitza is proper, since she is not prohibited to him as the sister of a woman with whom he performed halitza?!

And we answer:

What does he mean by “one performs halitza with all of them,” as well?

What Shmuel intended when he said, “One performs halitza with all of them”

was: with the middle one!

That is, one of them performs halitza with the third sister. She is called “the middle one” because she is prohibited to both brothers who had already performed halitza with her two sisters. Shmuel maintains that an invalid halitza does not require halitza from both of them, and he disagrees with Rav, who maintains that halitza is required from all the brothers.

The Gemara raises an objection:

But he said “all of them”?!

We said that he stated, “One performs halitza with all of them,” and not merely with one of them?!

The Gemara answers:

Since most of them are with him,

he calls them all of them.

Since the one who performs halitza with her performs halitza with the majority of the sisters—two out of three—Shmuel said “all of them,” even though he meant only the third one.

Alternatively,

the Gemara offers another answer to the question of why, according to Shmuel, one performs halitza with all of them, despite the fact that his halitza is inferior with regard to the brother who has not yet performed halitza:

When Shmuel says

that

we require a superior halitza,

as we proved above from the statement that performing halitza with the sisters does not exempt the co-wives—namely, that Shmuel maintains that only a superior halitza exempts—

that applies to exempting her co-wife. But as for exempting herself,

it exempts her!

That is, an inferior halitza is ineffective only with regard to exempting her co-wife. Here, however, one performs halitza with each of the women, and there is no need to exempt co-wives.

The substance of the matter: Shmuel said: A.

a.

If he performed halitza with the sisters,

the co-wives were not exempted,

because the halitza of the sisters is not a proper halitza, since they are prohibited to him by the prohibition of the sister of a woman with whom he performed halitza.

But if he performed halitza

with the co-wives,

the sisters were exempted.

This will be explained below. B.

b.

If he performed halitza with the recipient of a bill of divorce,

the co-wife was not exempted.

If he gave a bill of divorce to one of two yevamot, her halitza is ineffective to exempt her co-wife, because once he gave her a bill of divorce, her halitza is not a superior halitza, since she is prohibited to him for yibbum by rabbinic law. By Torah law, a bill of divorce has no effect with regard to a yevama; only halitza does.

But if he performed halitza with the co-wife,

the recipient of the bill of divorce was exempted!

This is because the co-wife is fit for complete yibbum, and her halitza is a superior halitza. C.

c.

If he performed halitza with the recipient of a maamar,

the co-wife was not exempted.

If he performed a maamar—that is, betrothal, by money or by a document—with one of them, halitza with her alone does not completely release her to the public, since she still requires another bill of divorce by rabbinic law in order to sever the betrothal of the maamar from her. Therefore, her halitza does not exempt her co-wife.

But if he performed halitza

with the co-wife,

the recipient of the maamar was exempted,

since the halitza of the co-wife is a superior halitza.

Now the Gemara discusses the distinction Shmuel makes between halitza with the sisters and halitza with the sisters’ co-wives:

What is different

with regard to one who performs halitza with the

sisters, that the co-wives are not exempted

by their halitza, because

she becomes for him “the sister of a wife subject to the bond,”

and therefore he cannot perform yibbum with her, so her halitza is not a superior halitza?

If he performs halitza with the co-wives as well, the sisters should likewise not be exempted, since they become for them “co-wives of the sister of a wife subject to the bond.”

For just as the bond renders the sister of a wife subject to the bond an erva, so the co-wives of the sister of a wife are considered “co-wives of an erva subject to the bond.”

And every co-wife of an erva stands “in the place of the erva”—this is Rashi’s wording. Just as the erva herself cannot enter into yibbum, so her co-wife cannot enter into yibbum. And if she cannot enter into yibbum, her halitza is not a superior halitza. If so, what is the difference between halitza with the sister and halitza with her co-wife?!

And we answer:

Shmuel maintains that there is no bond,

and there is no concept of the prohibition of “the co-wife of the sister of a wife subject to the bond,” because there is no concept of the prohibition of “the sister of a wife subject to the bond.”

And we challenge this:

But Shmuel said

earlier, in the second chapter,

“There is a bond”!

And we answer: What Shmuel said in making his distinction between halitza with the sisters and halitza with their co-wives

he said in accordance with the view of the one who says that there is no bond.

But he himself maintains that there is a bond, and this distinction has no place according to his own view.

And we challenge this:

If so,

if Shmuel stated his distinction only in accordance with the view that there is no bond:

If he performed halitza with the sisters,

why were the co-wives not exempted?!

Granted, the co-wife of Rachel,

the one with whom halitza is performed second,

should not be exempted, since once he performed halitza with Leah

first,

and then performed halitza with Rachel, Rachel’s halitza is an invalid halitza,

since Rachel has already become the sister of a woman with whom he performed halitza.

But the co-wife of Leah should be exempted!

After all, Leah’s halitza, which was performed first, is a superior halitza, according to the view that there is no bond, since she is not the sister of a woman subject to the bond.

And we answer:

What does Shmuel also mean when he says “the co-wives were not exempted,”

when

the co-wife of Rachel.

And we challenge this:

But “co-wives,”

in the plural,

he said,

did Shmuel?! And we answer: Shmuel’s intention was

“co-wives” in general.

That is, wherever such a case occurs, all the co-wives of Rachel in all such places are not exempted by the halitza with the sister.

And we challenge this:

If so,

if the co-wives mentioned in Shmuel’s statement are only the co-wives of Rachel in every such case, and not Leah’s co-wives—

What did Shmuel mean when he said:

“If he performed halitza with the co-wives, the sisters were exempted,”

how is this possible?!

And as for the co-wife of Rachel,

that is, when he performs halitza with Rachel’s co-wife—

is Rachel exempted

by this?!

But we learned: A man is prohibited to the co-wife of the close relative of a woman with whom he performed halitza.

This is an independent prohibition. It is not the ordinary prohibition of the co-wife of an erva that arose through the fall to yibbum; rather, the Sages decreed—for the reason that will be explained below—that the close relatives of a woman with whom he performed halitza are prohibited. Even if the close relative of the woman with whom he performed halitza married an unrelated man, and that man has another wife, that other wife, who is the co-wife of the close relative of the woman with whom he performed halitza, is prohibited to the man who performed halitza.

Rachel is the close relative of Leah, with whom he performed halitza, and thus she is “the close relative of a woman with whom he performed halitza.” Consequently, Rachel’s co-wife is the co-wife of “the close relative of a woman with whom he performed halitza.”

And since she is prohibited for yibbum, her halitza is not a superior halitza. Why, then, did Shmuel distinguish between them and say that the halitza of Rachel’s co-wife does exempt Rachel?!

And we answer:

Shmuel likewise was saying, “He began, and he did not begin,”

and this is what he meant:

If he began

to perform halitza

with the sisters,

and he first performed halitza with Leah—

he may not complete it with the co-wives!

From that point onward, he cannot perform halitza with Rachel’s co-wife and thereby exempt Rachel, because he cannot perform yibbum with Rachel’s co-wife, as

we learned: A man is prohibited to the co-wife of the close relative of a woman with whom he performed halitza.

But if he

began

to perform halitza

with the co-wives,

for example, he first performed halitza with Leah’s co-wife and thereby exempted Leah—

he may complete it even with the sisters.

Now he can perform halitza with Rachel and thereby also exempt her co-wife, since Rachel did not become prohibited through the halitza with Leah’s co-wife,

as we learned: A man is permitted to the close relative of the co-wife of a woman with whom he performed halitza.

Rav Ashi said: Actually, it is as you said,

initially: halitza with the sisters is not a proper halitza, because each of them is the sister of a woman subject to the bond, and she is prohibited according to Shmuel, who maintains that there is a bond.

And as for our difficulty that the co-wives should likewise be prohibited, since the co-wife is like the erva, and why should halitza with the co-wives be preferable to halitza with the sisters, the distinction is as follows:

And because the bond is not sufficiently powerful to render the co-wife like an erva.

The bond does not have the power to establish the co-wife as an erva and prohibit the co-wife from yibbum like the erva herself.

It was taught in a beraita in accordance with Rav Ashi:

If he performed halitza with the sisters,

the co-wives were not exempted!

And we may infer:

If

he performed halitza

with the co-wives,

then

the sisters were exempted

by the halitza with the co-wives.

What is the reason? Is it not because the tanna

of the beraita

maintains that there is a bond,

and therefore the sisters are prohibited for yibbum, and their halitza is not a superior halitza; consequently, if he performed halitza with them, the co-wives were not exempted?

And the bond is not sufficiently powerful to render the co-wife like an erva.

Therefore, the co-wives are not prohibited for yibbum, and if he performed halitza with them, the sisters were exempted.

This is proof in accordance with Rav Ashi.

Rabbi Abba bar Memel said:

This beraita is not proof for Rav Ashi.

Because

who is the author of this

beraita?

It is Beit Shammai!

They permit even the co-wives of an erva by Torah law.

As we learned

above, on 13a:

Beit Shammai permit the co-wives to the brothers!

And we challenge this: If this beraita is in accordance with the opinion of Beit Shammai, who do not prohibit the co-wife of an erva at all—

If so,

why does her co-wife only perform halitza?

She should also enter into yibbum!

And we answer: The tanna of this beraita holds

in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yohanan ben Nuri, who said: “Come, let us institute a remedy for the co-wives, that they should perform halitza but not enter into yibbum,”

so that they would not come to a mishap, since Beit Hillel regard the co-wives of an erva as an erva, and regard their offspring as mamzerim.

And we ask: But didn’t the Master say [above, on 15a]:

“They did not manage to complete the matter before the opportunity was lost”?

And we answer:

Rav Naḥman bar Yitzḥak said: After him, they returned and instituted

not to marry the co-wife of an erva, even according to Beit Shammai.