Yevamot 29a — the Talmud in English

(see note on the previous page]

For since this law and the law preceding it are a novel matter only according to Rabbi Shimon [the reason the tanna needed to repeat and teach them here, even though they were already stated in the preceding Mishna, is in order to state them also according to Rabbi Shimon]

therefore the Gemara raises the question: why do both of them require halitza?

But Rabbi Shimon said: Two sisters neither perform halitza nor undergo yibbum!

For he maintains: since they became each other’s co-wives through the bond, there is no acquisition in even one of them. And here, in the case of an issur mitzva, which is only rabbinic, according to Torah law both sisters fall for yibbum and become each other’s co-wives through the bond; and according to Rabbi Shimon they are exempt from yibbum and from halitza. Why, then, did we require both of them to perform halitza here?!

And we answer:

It is a decree on account of an ordinary issur mitzva!

They must be required to perform halitza, so that people will not come to permit an ordinary woman forbidden with an issur mitzva or an issur kedusha, even when it is not a case in which two sisters fell.

And we challenge this:

This works well with regard to her,

the issur mitzva herself, for she properly performs halitza, so that people will not come to permit an issur mitzva when it is not a case involving sisters.

But

her sister

of the issur mitzva, whom they also required to perform halitza, even though she herself is not an issur mitzva—

what is there to say?

Why does she need to perform halitza when she is exempt according to Rabbi Shimon, as is the law of the sister of a woman subject to the bond?!

And we answer: They required the sister of the issur mitzva to perform halitza—because they decreed

a decree

upon

her sister, on account of

her association

Rashi wrote that this word is a redundancy of expression

with her

the issur mitzva.

They required her sister to perform halitza, like her, so that they would not err concerning her and say: just as this one is exempt from halitza, so too is her sister.

And if they exempt the issur mitzva from halitza, they will come to err and permit every ordinary issur mitzva, even when it is not a case involving sisters.

And we refute this:

But with regard to

one of the two sisters having been

an erva,

we taught according to Rabbi Shimon that her sister undergoes yibbum, whereas the erva herself departs without halitza. And there

we do not decree

upon the sister who is the erva that she perform halitza, as a decree on account of her sister who is not an erva, who undergoes yibbum!

Why, then, were we stringent here, in the case of an issur mitzva, to obligate her sister to perform halitza? After all, here too her sister is forbidden with an issur erva, after the two of them became each other’s co-wives through the bond. And what is different about her sister here, that she does require halitza despite her being an erva?!

And we answer:

It is different

when one of the two sisters was

an erva

before the falling

for people have fully learned this, and she has a public reputation.

People know that she is an erva and does not require halitza, and that her sister is not the sister of a woman subject to the bond. Therefore, they were not stringent to require the erva to perform halitza, out of concern that they might come to permit her sister without halitza, whereas her sister undergoes yibbum.

But when two sisters fall together for yibbum, not everyone knows Rabbi Shimon’s novel ruling: that since they became each other’s co-wives through the bond, they no longer require halitza, and they are an erva to the yavam.

Mishna:

Three brothers,

who

two

of them

were married to two sisters, and one

was

unattached.

One of the husbands of the sisters died, and the unattached one performed maamar with her.

And afterward his second brother died,

who was married to the second sister; and she thereby falls before the unattached brother, who had already performed maamar with her sister—

Beit Shammai say: His wife

of the woman with whom he performed maamar remains

with him,

and she is not now forbidden to him on account of the sister of a woman subject to the bond.

Since they maintain that maamar acquires according to Torah law, the first sister with whom he performed maamar is like one who was taken in by him according to Torah law, and her sister is an erva to him, and she is not subject to his bond. Therefore, his wife is not considered the sister of a woman subject to the bond.

And this one,

her wife’s sister,

shall depart

even without halitza,

on account of

the nakedness of

a wife’s sister.

And Beit Hillel say:

Maamar does not acquire according to Torah law, but only rabbinically; therefore, when her sister falls before him, his wife with whom he performed maamar becomes forbidden to him by the law of the sister of a woman subject to the bond.

Therefore, he

takes his wife out with a bill of divorce

for his maamar, which is rabbinic,

and with halitza

for his bond, which is from Torah law.

And

his

brother’s wife

he takes out

with halitza,

and he is not permitted to perform yibbum with her, for rabbinically she is his wife’s sister through the maamar.

This is what they said: Woe to him because of his wife, and woe to him because of his brother’s wife.

Gemara:

And we examine this: The wording

“This is”

comes to exclude: this and no other—

to exclude what?

Later, on folio 109a, the tannaim disputed the case of two sisters who were married to two brothers: one of them was an adult and married to a brother by Torah law, and the second was a minor, who was married to the second brother through a rabbinic marriage.

And the brother who was married to the adult sister died, and she thereby falls for yibbum by Torah law before the second brother, who is married to her younger sister through a rabbinic marriage.

And it follows that his minor wife is forbidden to him by the law of the sister of a woman subject to the bond, if we maintain that “there is a bond” to forbid the relatives of his yevama to him. Whereas his yevama is rabbinically forbidden to him as his wife’s sister.

Rabbi Elazar says: We instruct his minor wife to refuse him, and then his yevama, her older sister, will be permitted to him.

Rabban Gamliel says: We do not instruct her to refuse. Rather, if she refused, she refused; and if not, the yevama shall wait until his wife comes of age, and her betrothal will become a Torah betrothal, and then his yevama, who is her sister, shall depart by the law of the erva of a wife’s sister.

Whereas Rabbi Yehoshua says: Woe to him because of his wife, whom he must take out with a bill of divorce, and woe to him because of his brother’s wife, his yevama, whom he must take out with halitza.

And our Mishna comes

to exclude this ruling of Rabbi Yehoshua, for we do not act according to him.

Rather, either according to Rabban Gamliel,

who wait,

or according to Rabbi Elazar,

who instruct his wife to refuse him.

Rabbi Elazar said: Do not say

do not say that

a maamar according to Beit Shammai acquires

according to Torah law

a complete acquisition,

as though he had already truly taken her as a wife and she had become his wife in every respect, to the extent that

if he wishes to take her out,

to divorce her from him,

it is sufficient

that it is enough

for her with a bill of divorce,

and she does not require halitza.

Rather, a maamar according to Beit Shammai does not acquire

a complete acquisition, and if he wishes to take her out, she still requires halitza in addition to the bill of divorce!

Rather,

maamar acquires according to Torah law only in order

to reject the co-wife alone.

And the meaning of “co-wife” here is not the co-wife of an erva, but rather her sister, who is her “co-wife” in sisterhood.

Rabbi Avin said: We too have learned this,

in support of Rabbi Elazar’s statement that a maamar does not acquire for Beit Shammai a complete acquisition, in the Mishna at the beginning of the chapter:

Four brothers, two of whom were married to two sisters, and the brothers married to the sisters died: the sisters may not undergo yibbum with the two remaining brothers, but must perform halitza. And if they nevertheless preceded and took them in—

Beit Shammai say: They shall remain

under them.

And it is implied:

“They shall remain”

after the fact, if they already preceded and took them in;

no,

only then shall they remain under them.

But

at the outset, no,

it is not possible for Beit Shammai to take them in and keep them.