Yevamot 27a — the Talmud in English

He performed chalitza with the sisters; their co-wives were not released.

There were two sisters married to two brothers, and each of them had a co-wife. Shmuel said that the law is: if he performed chalitza with the sisters, he did not thereby release their co-wives, because the chalitza that he performed with the sisters is an inferior chalitza, since he could not perform yibbum with them, as we learned in the Mishna at the beginning of the chapter. And if so, such an inferior chalitza does not help to release their co-wives.

But if he performed chalitza with the co-wives of the sisters, he did thereby release the sisters

even though he also could not perform yibbum with them, since they are co-wives of a forbidden relation, and the sisters are exempt and also exempt their co-wives from yibbum. Nevertheless, their prohibition is lighter than that of the sisters themselves, and therefore they can release the sisters, as will be explained shortly.

And since Shmuel holds that a proper and not an inferior chalitza is required, why does he say that when three sisters fell before two brothers, one performs chalitza with all of them

How is it possible that

where Shimon’s chalitza stands as a valid chalitza,

since there is a possibility that Shimon could perform chalitza with her, whose chalitza is valid—

Reuven performed an invalid chalitza with her!?

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

And we answer:

What does he mean by “one performs chalitza with all of them,” also, as he says,

what Shmuel intended when he said, “one performs chalitza with all of them”—

with the middle one!

That is, one of them performs chalitza with the third one [and she is called “the middle one” because she is forbidden to the two brothers who had already performed chalitza with her two sisters]. For Shmuel holds that an invalid chalitza does not require chalitza from both of them, and he disagrees with Rav, who holds that it requires chalitza from all the brothers.

And the Gemara wonders:

But he said “all of them”!

For we said, “one performs chalitza with all of them,” and not only with one!?

And the Gemara answers:

Since the majority are with him—

he calls it “all of them.”

Since that one who performs chalitza with her performs chalitza with the majority of the sisters [two out of three], Shmuel therefore said “with all of them,” even though he intended only the third one.

And if you wish, say:

The Gemara gives another answer to the question of why, according to Shmuel, one performs chalitza with all of them, since his chalitza is inferior with regard to the brother who has not yet performed chalitza.

When Shmuel said

that

we require a superior chalitza,

what we proved above from “he performed chalitza with the sisters; he did not release the co-wives,” namely, that Shmuel holds that only a superior chalitza releases—

that applies to releasing her co-wife. But to release herself—

it releases her!

That is, an inferior chalitza is ineffective only with regard to releasing her co-wife. But here one performs chalitza with each of the women, and there is no need here to release co-wives.

The body of the matter: Shmuel said:

a.

He performed chalitza with the sisters—

the co-wives were not released,

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

However, if he performed chalitza

with the co-wives—

the sisters were released.

And this will be explained below.

b.

He performed chalitza with the one who received the bill of divorce—

the co-wife was not released.

If he gave a bill of divorce to one of two yevamot, her chalitza does not help to release her co-wife, because once he gave her a bill of divorce, her chalitza is not a superior chalitza, since she is forbidden to him for yibbum [by rabbinic law, for according to Torah law a bill of divorce does not take effect with a yevama; only chalitza does].

But if he performed chalitza with the co-wife—

the one who received the bill of divorce was released!

Because the co-wife is fit for complete yibbum, and her chalitza is a superior chalitza.

c.

He performed chalitza with the one with whom he had performed maamar—

the co-wife was not released.

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

But if he performed chalitza

with the co-wife—

the one with whom he had performed maamar was released,

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

And now the Gemara comes to discuss the distinction that Shmuel makes between the chalitza of the sisters and the chalitza of the sisters’ co-wives:

What is different

about one who performs chalitza with the

sisters, so that the co-wives are not released

through their chalitza, since

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

and therefore he cannot perform yibbum with her, and consequently her chalitza is not superior?

If he performed chalitza with the co-wives as well, the sisters should not be released, since they become for them “co-wives of the sister of a wife through a bond.”

For just as the bond renders the sister of a wife a forbidden relation through a bond, so the co-wives of the sister of a wife are considered “co-wives of a forbidden relation through a bond.”

And every co-wife of a forbidden relation stands “in the place of the forbidden relation” [the language of Rashi], and just as the forbidden relation herself may not undergo yibbum, so her co-wife may not undergo yibbum. And if she may not undergo yibbum, then her chalitza is not a superior chalitza. If so, what is the difference between the chalitza of the sister and the chalitza of her co-wife!?

And we answer:

Shmuel holds that there is no bond,

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

And we refute:

But Shmuel said

above, in the second chapter,

“There is a bond”!

And we answer: What Shmuel said, his distinction between the chalitza of the sisters and the chalitza of their co-wives—

he said according to the view of the one who says there is no bond.

But he himself holds that there is a bond, and there is no place for this distinction.

And we refute:

If so,

that Shmuel stated his distinction only according to the view of the one who says there is no bond:

If he performed chalitza with the sisters—

why were the co-wives not released!?

Granted, Rachel’s co-wife

the one who undergoes chalitza second,

should not be released, because once he performed chalitza with Leah

first,

and afterward performed chalitza with Rachel, Rachel’s chalitza becomes an invalid chalitza,

for Rachel had already become the sister of a woman with whom he performed chalitza.

But Leah’s co-wife should be released!

For Leah’s chalitza, which was performed first, is a superior chalitza, according to the one who says there is no bond, and she is not the sister of his yevama,

And we answer:

What does he also mean by “the co-wives were not released,”

as Shmuel said,

the co-wife of Rachel.

And we refute:

But “co-wives”

is in the plural

that he said,

Shmuel!? And we answer: Shmuel’s intention is

“co-wives” in general.

That is, wherever such a matter occurs, all the co-wives of Rachel in all these places were not released through the chalitza of the sister.

And we refute:

If so,

that the co-wives mentioned in Shmuel’s statement are only Rachel’s co-wives everywhere, and not Leah’s co-wives—

what Shmuel said:

“If he performed chalitza with the co-wives, the sisters were released,”

how is this possible!?

And Rachel’s co-wife,

that is, through the chalitza of Rachel’s co-wife—

is Rachel released

!?

But we learned: A person is forbidden with the co-wife of “the relative of the woman with whom he performed chalitza.”

And this is a prohibition in its own right, not the ordinary co-wife of a forbidden relation that occurs through falling for yibbum. Rather, the Sages decreed, for the reason that will be explained below, that the relatives of the co-wife of a woman with whom he performed chalitza are forbidden, so that even if the relative of the woman with whom he performed chalitza married a stranger, and he has another wife, that woman, who is the co-wife of “the relative of the woman with whom he performed chalitza,” is forbidden to the one who performed chalitza.

And Rachel is the relative of Leah, with whom he performed chalitza, and she is therefore “the relative of the woman with whom he performed chalitza”; consequently, Rachel’s co-wife is the co-wife of “the relative of the woman with whom he performed chalitza.”

And since she is forbidden for yibbum, her chalitza is not a superior chalitza. Why, then, did Shmuel distinguish and say that the chalitza of Rachel’s co-wife does release Rachel!?

And we answer:

Shmuel also is saying, “he began, and he did not begin,”

and this is what he is saying:

If he began

to perform chalitza

with the sisters,

such that he first performed chalitza with Leah—

he should not complete it with the co-wives!

From now on he cannot perform chalitza with Rachel’s co-wife and thereby release Rachel. For he cannot perform yibbum with Rachel’s co-wife, and so

as we learned: A person is forbidden with the co-wife of the relative of the woman with whom he performed chalitza.

But if he

began

to perform chalitza

with the co-wives,

for example, he first performed chalitza with Leah’s co-wife and released Leah—

he may complete it even with the sisters.

For now he can perform chalitza with Rachel and also release her co-wife, since Rachel did not become forbidden through the chalitza of Leah’s co-wife,

as we learned: A person is permitted with the relative of the co-wife of the woman with whom he performed chalitza.

Rav Ashi said: In fact, it is as you said

at first: the chalitza of the sisters is not a proper chalitza, since each one of them is the sister of his yevama, and she is forbidden according to Shmuel, who holds that there is a bond.

And concerning what we asked, that if so, the co-wives are also forbidden, since the co-wife is like the forbidden relation, and why is the chalitza of the co-wives preferable to the chalitza of the sisters, one must distinguish:

And because the bond is not strong enough to make the co-wife like a forbidden relation.

The bond does not have the power to establish the co-wife as a forbidden relation and to forbid the co-wife for yibbum like the forbidden relation.

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

If he performed chalitza with the sisters—

the co-wives were not released!

And we must infer:

This

if he performed chalitza

with the co-wives,

then

the sisters were released

through the chalitza of the co-wives.

What is the reason? Is it not because he holds

the tanna of the beraita

that there is a bond,

and therefore the sisters are forbidden for yibbum, and their chalitza is not superior, and therefore if he performed chalitza with them, the co-wives were not released?

And the bond is not strong enough to make the co-wife like a forbidden relation.

Therefore the co-wives are not forbidden for yibbum, and if he performed chalitza with them, the sisters were released.

And this proves in accordance with Rav Ashi.

Rabbi Abba bar Memel said:

This beraita is not proof for Rav Ashi.

For

this

beraita

who is it? It is Beit Shammai!

who permit even the co-wives of a forbidden relation by Torah law.

As we learned [above, 13a]:

above, on page 13a:

Beit Shammai permit the co-wives to the brothers!

And we refute: If this beraita follows the view of Beit Shammai, who do not prohibit the co-wife of a forbidden relation at all—

If so,

why does her co-wife only undergo chalitza?

She should also undergo yibbum!

And we answer: The tanna of this beraita holds

in accordance with Rabbi Yohanan ben Nuri, who said: “Come, let us institute for them concerning the co-wives that they should undergo chalitza but not yibbum,”

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

And we ask: But the Master said [above, 15a]:

“They did not manage to complete the matter before the moment was disrupted.”

And we answer:

Rav Nahman bar Yitzhak said: Afterward, they returned and instituted

not to marry the co-wife of a forbidden relation even according to Beit Shammai.