Yevamot 28a (כח.) — the Talmud in English

The Gemara answers:

They perform ḥalitza

It teaches this as the initial ruling.

And it follows that this is always the law, and that there is no circumstance in which it is possible to perform yibbum.

The Gemara raises another difficulty:

Let Rabbi Yoḥanan say to him:

The reason why the tanna prohibited both of them from performing yibbum initially is

a decree

:

Perhaps he will perform ḥalitza with the first one before the second, and they will then perform yibbum with the second, even though she was prohibited at the time she fell before them, since people do not pay attention to the distinction between the first and the second.

and then enter into levirate marriage with the second one, even though she was forbidden when she became subject to levirate obligation, since people do not pay attention to the distinction between the first and the second.

But if it happened that he did in fact perform ḥalitza with the second before the first, it should be permitted for the first to undergo yibbum, since people will see that he performs ḥalitza with the second before performing yibbum with the first, and they will understand that it is permitted only in this manner, but not if he first performs ḥalitza with the first, in which case it is prohibited to perform yibbum with the second.

And we answer:

It teaches: “and they do not undergo yibbum”

in our Mishna, and it follows

that there is no law of yibbum here at all,

under any circumstances.

The Gemara raises another difficulty:

Let Rabbi Yoḥanan say to him:

The tanna of the Mishna, who prohibited performing yibbum with both of them, disagrees with me as to the reason.

I maintain that the two sisters cannot undergo yibbum because there is a bond (zika), and each of them is the sister of his bound yevama. Therefore, if the second one dies, thereby terminating her bond, the first becomes permitted. The principle of “once prohibited” does not apply to her, since she was not prohibited at the time she fell before him, but only when her sister fell.

But the tanna of our Mishna maintains that there is no bond, and that the yevamot are not prohibited as the sisters of a bound yevama. Rather, the reason that neither of them may undergo yibbum is only

a decree,

because if one brother performs yibbum with one sister, there is concern

that the other brother may die

before performing yibbum with the second sister. In that case, the first brother would be unable either to perform yibbum with her or to perform ḥalitza with her, because she would be prohibited to him as the sister of his wife, and she would leave him without ḥalitza;

and it is prohibited to nullify the mitzva of yibbum!

Therefore, they instituted that the brothers should be accustomed not to perform yibbum at all, so that if the second brother dies, the first brother can return and perform ḥalitza with the second sister as well, and the mitzva of yibbum will thereby be fulfilled.

But in the case I stated—two sisters who fell before one yavam—if the second dies, this decree does not apply, and the first is permitted.

And we answer:

Rabbi Yoḥanan

did not want to establish the tanna’s reasoning in this manner, since

with regard to death

he

does not have concern,

and he did not want to explain the tanna’s position in the Mishna on the basis of something which he himself holds is not a matter of concern.

We raise another difficulty:

Let Rabbi Yoḥanan say to him:

Our Mishna is in accordance with

Rabbi Eliezer, who said

that marriage causes the fall before the yavam, and if a brother divorced his wife and then remarried her, she is prohibited from undergoing yibbum,

since once she was subject to him for one moment in a state of prohibition,

at the time his brother divorced her, when she was prohibited as the wife of a brother who has no possibility of permitting her, she

became prohibited to him

from that point

forever!

And Rabbi Eliezer does not maintain that a yevama who was permitted, then prohibited, and then permitted again returns to her original state of permissibility.

Therefore, here too, once the first sister became prohibited from undergoing yibbum when the second fell before them, she became prohibited forever and does not return to her original state of permissibility, even when the second brother performs ḥalitza with the second sister and thereby removes the first sister’s prohibition as the sister of his bound yevama.

And we answer:

Since the latter clause

of our Mishna

is Rabbi Eliezer’s,

as we subsequently learned Rabbi Eliezer’s statement when he cites the words of Beit Shammai and Beit Hillel—

the first clause is not Rabbi Eliezer’s

statement!

And we raise another difficulty:

Let him say to them

that our Mishna is dealing with a case

where

the two sisters fell

simultaneously,

and became prohibited at the same time; there is therefore no yevama who fell first and was permitted at the time of her fall,

and

it is in accordance with

Rabbi Yosei HaGelili, who said: It is possible to establish exact simultaneity,

so that two events occur at precisely the same moment. Here too, the case is one in which the two brothers died at exactly the same time, and therefore there is no yevama who was initially permitted.

And we answer:

The tanna did not formulate an anonymous Mishna in accordance with Rabbi Yosei HaGelili!

We raise another difficulty:

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 tell one of the brothers to perform ḥalitza with the second sister in order to permit the first to undergo yibbum!?

And we answer:

If so,

if we establish the case as one in which it is unknown who fell first, how will we explain

the phrase: “If they preceded and married them—

they must send them away”!?

For

granted,

the one whom they married

first

can properly be made to leave, because

we say to him,

to the yavam who married first: This woman—

who permitted you

to marry her!? Even if she is in fact the one who fell first, she is prohibited to you as the sister of a bound yevama; which of your brothers performed ḥalitza with the bound yevama, so that this sister should become permitted to you!?

But

the one whom they married

second—

why should she be made to leave? Her husband, who married her second,

said: Since it is unknown which of them fell first, it is possible that

my colleague,

who

married the one who fell

second,

is the one who

performed yibbum.

It follows that

I

am performing yibbum with the one who fell

first:

I

am performing yibbum with her!

And she is entirely permitted, since she was permitted at the time of her fall, and now as well, once my brother has performed yibbum with her sister, her sister’s bond has terminated, and she is no longer the sister of a bound yevama!

And in a case where there is uncertainty as to whether a woman is the sister of a bound yevama, if they preceded and married them, we do not remove the women from their husbands, as we learned above.

And since it is impossible to explain our Mishna,

that is why Rabbi Yoḥanan said to him

that this Mishna, concerning

“sisters”,

is not a Mishna, and

I do not know who taught it!

The Gemara now raises a difficulty from the continuation of the Mishna, both according to Rav and according to Rabbi Yoḥanan:

We learned

in our Mishna:

If one of them,

of the two sisters,

was prohibited to

one

brother by a prohibition of forbidden relations—

he

is prohibited to her, but permitted to her sister,

since she is not the sister of a bound yevama, as her sister is forbidden to him as a forbidden relation.

And

the

second brother is prohibited to both of them,

because each of them is the sister of his bound yevama.

It might enter your mind,

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

where

the sister who was

his mother-in-law fell first,

and her sister fell second.

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

And

according to this, the difficulty is:

Why

is the second brother prohibited to both of them?

Let the son-in-law arise

—the brother who is the mother-in-law’s son-in-law—and

perform yibbum with this one,

with his mother-in-law’s sister,

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

since she is permitted to him, as she is not prohibited to him as the sister of a bound yevama.

Once one of the yevamot has undergone yibbum, her sister is no longer prohibited as the sister of a bound yevama, since the bond of the woman who underwent yibbum has already terminated.

And let

the sister who remains waiting for yibbum, who is

his mother-in-law, and who was the one who fell first,

become—

from this point onward

with regard to the other one,

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

like a yevama who was permitted,

when she fell initially,

and became prohibited,

as the sister of a bound yevama, when her second sister subsequently fell,

and then became permitted again,

when his brother performed yibbum with the sister who fell second.

And why should she not

return to her original state of permissibility

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

Rav Pappa said:

The Mishna must be established as a case

where this sister

—the sister

who is not his mother-in-law—fell first, and his mother-in-law fell afterward.

Thus, even if the brother who is the mother-in-law’s son-in-law performs yibbum with his mother-in-law’s sister, who fell first, so that his mother-in-law would no longer be prohibited to his brother as the sister of a bound yevama, she may not thereby be permitted to him.

For at the time of her fall, which occurred after her sister’s fall, she became prohibited as the sister of a bound yevama, and she became prohibited at that point forever.

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

It was taught in a beraita: Rabbi Eliezer says: Beit Shammai say: They may remain married.

And Beit Hillel say: They must send them away.

Rabbi Shimon says: They may remain married.

Abba Shaul

disagrees and

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

That is, the version must be reversed, and Beit Hillel’s statement must be substituted for Beit Shammai’s statement, so that Beit Hillel are lenient:

For Beit Shammai say: They must send them away.

And Beit Hillel: They may remain married.

And we inquire:

Rabbi Shimon,

who said that they may remain married—

in accordance with whom

does he hold?

After all, he is not an independent position, as he is not a disputant of theirs.

If it is in accordance with Beit Shammai—

that is Rabbi Eliezer,

who said this in accordance with their position; what did Rabbi Shimon add!?

If it is in accordance with Beit Hillel—

that is Abba Shaul,

who said this in accordance with their position!

And we answer: Rabbi Shimon

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

but everyone agrees that they may remain married!

We learned in the Mishna:

If one of them

was prohibited to one brother by a prohibition of forbidden relations, he is prohibited to her but permitted to her sister.

And we raise a difficulty:

This

was already

taught

in connection with

this

once

“Her sister, when she is his levirate widow”—

Her sister, when she is his yevama—

either performs ḥalitza or undergoes yibbum!

And we answer:

It is necessary

to repeat and teach it here as well.

For if it had been stated

only

there,

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

because there is no basis for instituting a decree because of

a

second brother.

But here,

where she falls before two brothers,

there is basis for instituting a decree

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

because of

his

second brother, so that he will not err and come to perform yibbum as well, although for him she is prohibited as the sister of a bound yevama—

say that we should not

permit the brother to whom one of the sisters is forbidden as a forbidden relation to perform yibbum with the other.

And if it had been stated here,

I would say that she is permitted only here,

because there is

a

second

brother

who does not perform yibbum,

which demonstrates

the prohibition of the sister of a bound yevama.

But there, where there is no second brother,

and it is not demonstrated there that the sister of a bound yevama is prohibited,

say that we should not

permit him to perform yibbum with her sister, so that people will not err and permit the sister of a bound yevama.

Therefore,

it is necessary

to state both cases.

We learned in the Mishna: If one of them was prohibited to him by

a prohibition stemming from a mitzva

or by a prohibition of sanctity, she performs ḥalitza and does not undergo yibbum.

And we inquire:

Was this too not already taught

above 20a]: