Yevamot 28a — the Talmud in English

And the Gemara answers:

“They perform halitza” ![](pamud.bmp "

exact page location")

It teaches [this] as the initial course.

And it implies that this is always the law, and there is no way in which levirate marriage is possible.

The Gemara further objects:

And let Rabbi Yohanan say to him,

to explain: The reason that our Mishna initially forbade both of them to enter into levirate marriage is that it is a

decree

—

lest he perform halitza with the first one first,

and they will come to perform levirate marriage with the second one, even though she had been forbidden at the time of her falling before the levir, since people do not pay attention to the distinction between the first and the second.

But if it happened that he indeed performed halitza with the second one before the first, it would be permitted for the first one to enter into levirate marriage, since people would see that he performs halitza with the second one before entering into levirate marriage with the first, and would pay attention to understand that it is permitted only in this manner, and not if he performs halitza first with the first one, in which case it is forbidden to enter into levirate marriage with the second.

And we answer:

“And they do not enter into levirate marriage,” it teaches

in our Mishna, and it implies

that there is no law of levirate marriage here at all,

in every circumstance.

The Gemara further objects:

And let

Rabbi Yohanan say to him: The tanna of the Mishna who forbade entering into levirate marriage with both of them disagrees with me as to his reason.

For I maintain that the two sisters do not enter into levirate marriage because there is zika, and each one of them is the sister of his levirate bond; therefore, if the second one dies, and her levirate bond thereby lapses, the first one is permitted. And the law of “forbidden” does not apply to her, since she was not forbidden at the time of the falling before the levir, but only when her sister fell.

But the tanna of our Mishna maintains that there is no zika, and that the levirate wives who are sisters are not forbidden because of the sister of one’s levirate bond. Rather, the reason that both of them do not enter into levirate marriage is only because of a

decree,

that if one brother enters into levirate marriage with one sister, there is concern

lest the second one die

before entering into levirate marriage with the second sister; then the first brother would be unable to enter into levirate marriage with her and unable even to perform halitza with her, since she would be the forbidden relation of his wife’s sister, and she would leave him without halitza,

and it is forbidden to nullify the mitzva of levirate marriage!

Therefore they instituted that they be accustomed not to enter into levirate marriage at all, so that if the second brother dies, the first brother will be able to return and perform halitza also with the second one, and the mitzva of levirate marriage will thereby be fulfilled.

But with regard to what I said—that in the case of two sisters who fell before one levir, if the second one dies, the first is permitted—this decree does not apply.

And we answer:

Rabbi Yohanan

did not wish to establish the reasoning of the tanna of the Mishna in this manner, since

with regard to death

he

does not have concern,

and he did not wish to establish the view of the tanna in the Mishna on a matter about which he himself maintains that there is no concern.

We further object:

And let

Rabbi Yohanan say to him: Our Mishna is according to

Rabbi Eliezer, who said

that marriages cause the falling before the levir [below, 109a], and if a brother divorced his wife and then took her back, she is forbidden to enter into levirate marriage,

since she stood before him for one moment in a state of prohibition,

at the time his brother divorced her, when she was forbidden as the wife of a brother who has no permitted way to her, she

became forbidden to him

from then

forever!

And Rabbi Eliezer does not maintain that a levirate wife who was permitted, became forbidden, and then became permitted again returns to her original permission.

Therefore here, when the first one became forbidden to enter into levirate marriage through the falling of the second one, she became forbidden forever, and does not return to her original permission, even when the second brother performs halitza with the second one and thereby removes from the first one the prohibition of the sister of his levirate bond.

And we answer:

Since the latter part

of our Mishna is

Rabbi Eliezer’s,

for we learned afterward the words of Rabbi Eliezer when he transmits the words of Beit Shammai and Beit Hillel—

the first part is not Rabbi Eliezer’s

!

And we further object:

And let him say to them

that our Mishna is dealing with a case

where they fell

—the two sisters—

at one time,

and became forbidden at the same time, so there is no levirate wife who fell first and was permitted at the time of the falling,

and

according to

Rabbi Yose the Galilean, who said: It is possible to determine precisely,

that two things occur at one time within a precisely limited period. Here too, it is speaking of a case in which the two brothers died at exactly the same time; therefore there is no levirate wife who was first permitted.

And we answer:

The tanna did not state an anonymous Mishna in accordance with Rabbi Yose the Galilean!

We further object:

And let him say to him

that our Mishna is speaking of a case

where we do not know which

of the sisters

fell first.

Therefore, it is impossible to say to one of them, “Perform halitza with the second one,” in order to permit the first one to enter into levirate marriage!?

And we answer:

If so,

if we establish it as a case in which it is not known who fell first, how will we explain

that is why it teaches, “They went ahead and entered into levirate marriage”—

“They shall remove her”!?

But

granted

that the one whom they took

first,

it is well that she must leave, because

we say to him,

to the levir who took the first one: This one—

who permitted you to take her!?

For even if she is indeed the one who fell first, she is forbidden to you because of the sister of your levirate bond, and which of your brothers performed halitza with the levirate wife so that this one’s sister would become permitted to you!?

But

the one whom they took

second,

why should she leave? For

her husband said,

the one who took her second: Since it is not known which of them fell first, it is possible that

my fellow

who took the one

second

was the one who

entered into levirate marriage with her.

And it turns out that

I—

the one who fell

first—

am

entering into levirate marriage!

And she is entirely permitted, since at the time of the falling she was permitted, and now too, once my brother entered into levirate marriage with her sister, her sister’s levirate bond has lapsed, and she is no longer the sister of a levirate bond.

And in a place where there is uncertainty whether she is the sister of a levirate bond, if they went ahead and took them in levirate marriage, they do not remove them from their possession, as we learned above [24a].

And since it is impossible to explain our Mishna,

that is why he says to him

Rabbi Yohanan: This Mishna of

“sisters”,

is not a Mishna, and

I do not know who taught it!

And now the Gemara comes to raise a difficulty from the continuation of the Mishna, both according to Rav and according to Rabbi Yohanan:

We learned

in our Mishna:

If one of them

of the two sisters

was forbidden to

one

brother by a forbidden relation—

he

is forbidden to her, and permitted to her sister,

since she is not the sister of a levirate bond, for her sister is a forbidden relation to him.

And

the

second brother is forbidden to both of them.

For each one of them is the sister of his levirate bond.

It might enter your mind,

the Gemara posited, that our Mishna is speaking of a case

where

the sister who was

his mother-in-law fell first,

and her sister fell second.

And the Gemara used “his mother-in-law” as an example of a forbidden relation, and the same law applies to the other forbidden relations.

And

according to this it is difficult:

why,

why is the second brother forbidden to both of them?

Let the son-in-law arise,

let the brother who is the mother-in-law’s son-in-law arise, and

enter into levirate marriage with this one,

with his mother-in-law’s sister,

who is not his mother-in-law, first,

at the outset, for she is permitted to him, since she is not forbidden to him as the sister of his levirate bond.

And once one of the levirate wives has entered into levirate marriage, her sister is no longer forbidden by the prohibition of the sister of a levirate bond, for the levirate bond of the one who entered into levirate marriage has already lapsed.

And let

the sister who remained awaiting levirate marriage, who is

his mother-in-law,

and she is the one who fell first,

from this point onward be,

with regard to the other one,

his brother, to whom she was permitted at the time of her falling—

like a levirate wife who was permitted,

when she fell at the outset,

and became forbidden,

because of the sister of a levirate bond when her second sister fell afterward,

and then became permitted again,

when her brother entered into levirate marriage with the sister who fell second.

And why should she not

return to her original permission!

And why should his brother be forbidden to both of them!?

Rav Pappa said:

The Mishna must be established as a case

where this one fell,

the sister

who is not his mother-in-law, first,

and his mother-in-law fell after her.

Thus, even if the brother who is the mother-in-law’s son-in-law enters into levirate marriage with his mother-in-law’s sister, who fell first, and the mother-in-law is no longer forbidden to his brother on account of the sister of a levirate bond, she may not be permitted to him.

For at the time of her falling, which was after her sister’s falling, she was forbidden by the prohibition of the sister of a levirate bond, and she became forbidden then forever.

We learned in the Mishna: Rabbi Eliezer says: Beit Shammai say: They may remain.

It was taught: Rabbi Eliezer says: Beit Shammai say: They may remain.

And Beit Hillel say: They shall remove them.

Rabbi Shimon says: They may remain.

Abba Shaul

disagrees and

says: It was easy for Beit Hillel in this matter.

That is, the version must be reversed, and the words of Beit Hillel must be stated in place of the words of Beit Shammai, so that Beit Hillel are lenient:

For Beit Shammai say: They shall remove them.

And Beit Hillel: They may remain.

And we examine it:

Rabbi Shimon,

who said “They may remain”—

in accordance with whom

does he hold?

For he is not an independent position, since he is not their disputant.

If [he holds] like Beit Shammai—

that is Rabbi Eliezer,

who said this in accordance with their position; and what did Rabbi Shimon innovate?

If [he holds] like Beit Hillel—

that is Abba Shaul,

who said this in accordance with their position!

And we answer: Rabbi Shimon

is saying this: Beit Shammai and Beit Hillel did not disagree about this matter,

but everyone agrees that they may remain!

We learned in the Mishna:

If one of them

was forbidden to one by a forbidden relation, he is forbidden to her and permitted to her sister.

And we object:

This

was already

taught

to this

one time [

above 20a]:

Her sister, when she is his levirate wife—

either performs halitza or enters into levirate marriage!

And we answer:

It is necessary

to repeat and teach it here as well.

For if it had informed us

only

there,

one could say that only there, when she falls before only one brother, is she permitted

because there is no basis for decreeing on account of

a

second brother.

But here,

where she falls before two brothers,

where there is basis for decreeing

not to permit this brother the sister of the forbidden relation,

on account of

his

second brother, so that he should not err and he too come to enter into levirate marriage, while with regard to him she is forbidden as the sister of his levirate bond—

brother, so that he will not err and also enter into levirate marriage with her, although she is forbidden to him as the sister of a woman bound to his levirate bond—

say: No,

let us not permit the brother to whom one of the sisters who is a forbidden relation falls.

And if it had informed us here,

I would say that only here is she permitted,

because there is

a

second brother

who does not enter into levirate marriage,

which demonstrates

the prohibition of the sister of a levirate bond.

But there, where there is no second brother,

and there it is not demonstrated that there is a prohibition of the sister of a levirate bond,

say: No,

he should not enter into levirate marriage with her sister, so that people will not come to err and permit the sister of a levirate bond.

Therefore

it is necessary

to teach both.

We learned in the Mishna: One of them was forbidden to him

by a mitzva prohibition

or by a sanctity prohibition; she performs halitza but does not enter into levirate marriage.

And we examine it:

This too was taught [

above 20a]: