Yevamot 2b — the Talmud in English

14.

And the wife of his brother who was not in his world.

The mitzva of yibum was stated only when the two brothers were together in the world, as it is stated in the passage concerning yibum: “When brothers dwell together”—that they had one dwelling together in the world.

But if a brother was born after the death of his brother, the brother who was born does not perform yibum with the wife of his brother who died before the birth of this brother, and she is forbidden to him like “the wife of a brother who has children.”

That is, every wife of a brother in whom there is no mitzva of yibum is not included among the wife of a brother who has no children [whom the Torah permitted to the brother for yibum]; rather, she is under the prohibition of the forbidden relation of the wife of a brother who has no permission for yibum.

And this prohibition is permanent, and there is no possibility of permitting it even in a place where there is a mitzva of yibum!

For example, the wife of the deceased brother performed yibum with another brother who had been with him in his world. Afterward, this brother died, and she now falls before the brother who was born, through this brother who had been with him in his world, and there is a mitzva of yibum concerning her.

But since she is forbidden to him on account of being the wife of the first brother, which is the forbidden relation of a wife of a brother who has children, whose prohibition is permanent—therefore the mitzva of yibum arising from her falling from the second brother does not have the power to permit the prohibition of the forbidden relation of the wife of a brother that took effect upon her because of the first brother, who was not with him in his world. Thus she is exempt from chalitza and from yibum, like the forbidden relation of his wife’s sister.

And she also exempts her fellow-wife who falls with her from the marriage to the second brother.

For so we shall learn below: every forbidden relation whose punishment is karet, which falls for yibum together with a fellow-wife, both are exempt from chalitza and from yibum.

And they are forbidden to him forever under the prohibition of karet of a wife of a brother that was not permitted for yibum—that is, like the wife of a brother who has children, for whose prohibition there is no permission.

And this is a permanent prohibition, which cannot be permitted even if she should fall before him again for yibum [when she performs yibum with another brother, and he dies, and she again falls before him through that brother].

15.

And his daughter-in-law.

If, after his son died, or after his son divorced her, his brother married her and the brother died, then his son’s wife, who is a forbidden relation to him [and is forbidden to him forever], falls before him.

And she is exempt from chalitza and from yibum, according to the law of a forbidden relation, and she exempts her fellow-wife.

And the Mishna returns and states what it said at the beginning:

Behold

fifteen women

these—

exempt their fellow-wives, and the fellow-wives of their fellow-wives, from chalitza and from yibum, until the end of the world.

And the Mishna adds and defines that a “fellow-wife of a forbidden relation” is considered only one who fell for yibum at the time of the brother’s death, together with the forbidden relation.

But if it happened that before the brother’s death the forbidden relation ceased to be the brother’s wife, as the Mishna will explain, and at the time of the brother’s death the fellow-wife alone falls for yibum—she is not exempt by the law of a fellow-wife of a forbidden relation, despite the fact that she had been married together with the forbidden relation to this brother.

And all of them,

all the women who are forbidden to perform yibum because they are forbidden relations—

if they died

during the brother’s lifetime, so that at the time of his brother’s death only the fellow-wife falls, and not the forbidden relation,

or they performed refusal,

if it happened that those forbidden relations were married to his brother while they were minors, for their brothers or their mother married them to him in marriages instituted for them by the Sages [for a minor cannot marry according to Torah law except through her father],

and the Sages instituted for them that they could perform refusal and say, “I do not want the betrothal with which my mother or brother betrothed me to this husband,” and by this statement alone she leaves him, without the need for a bill of divorce.

Therefore, if it happened that the minor forbidden relation performed refusal with regard to her husband’s betrothal, it is found that she does not fall before him for yibum together with her fellow-wife; rather, the fellow-wife alone falls.

or they were divorced

by the brother before his death.

or it was found

that those forbidden relations were

incapable of bearing children

[a woman who cannot give birth]. And it is found that their betrothals were mistaken, and they had not been married to his brother who died.

All these, since the forbidden relations do not fall for yibum at all,

therefore,

their fellow-wives are permitted

to perform yibum, because at the time of death they are not fellow-wives of a forbidden relation.

And the tanna adds that what it said, “and all of them who performed refusal,” does not apply to all these women, and likewise it is not possible for all these women to be found incapable of bearing children.

And what it said, “and all of them who performed refusal”—this is not specifically so.

Rather, all those forbidden relations who can become forbidden relations to him only when they are adults, when they become his relatives through his marriage to his wife, must be excluded from this rule; and since they are adults, they cannot perform refusal.

And likewise, with regard to those women it is impossible to say that they were found incapable of bearing children, as will be explained:

And you cannot say concerning his mother-in-law, the mother of his mother-in-law, and the mother of his father-in-law: “they were found incapable of bearing children,” or “they performed refusal.”

For the prohibition of his mother-in-law is possible only after he married his wife, the daughter of his mother-in-law; and since his mother-in-law has a daughter, she is not incapable of bearing children. She is necessarily an adult who cannot perform refusal, since a minor does not give birth.

And now the Mishna explains

how

they

exempt their fellow-wives:

And the Mishna takes the forbidden relation of his daughter as an example, because it appears at the beginning of the list of the fifteen women.

If his daughter, or one of all these forbidden relations, was married

to his deceased brother,

and

there was

to him,

to his deceased brother, also

another wife.

And he died

without children—

behold,

just as his daughter,

who is forbidden to him under the prohibition of a forbidden relation,

is exempt

from chalitza and from yibum [and this refers to a case in which there is no additional brother, but only he; for if there were another brother, she would not be exempt from yibum and chalitza, and the tanna would have had to say, “just as she is forbidden to this brother for yibum”]—

so her fellow-wife is exempt

from chalitza and from yibum.

And now the Mishna explains how the fellow-wives of the forbidden relation exempt their fellow-wives?

If there was an additional brother,

and the fellow-wife of his daughter went and married,

she performed yibum

with his second brother,

who is permitted to her.

And

there was

to him,

to his second brother, yet another

wife, and he died

the second brother, without children—

and the fellow-wife of his daughter returned and fell before him a second time, through his second brother, together with her fellow-wife—

just as the fellow-wife of his daughter is exempt

from chalitza and from yibum, since she became forbidden to him permanently through her first falling, when she fell before him together with his daughter, according to the law of “the wife of a brother who has children,” which has no permission forever.

so her fellow-wife’s fellow-wife,

the second wife of his second brother,

is exempt

from chalitza and from yibum.

[And see the introduction and the notes on the Mishna, where all the great later authorities discussed the fundamental question: does a fellow-wife of a forbidden relation exempt her fellow-wife by virtue of a new status, that of a “fellow-wife of a fellow-wife of a forbidden relation,” or, since a fellow-wife of a forbidden relation is the forbidden relation of a wife of a brother, is she like every forbidden relation that exempts her fellow-wife, and is there no exemption here by virtue of a new status called a “fellow-wife of a fellow-wife of a forbidden relation”?]

And according to that same principle, the fellow-wife of a fellow-wife of a forbidden relation is also exempt,

even if they are one hundred

brothers, and the fellow-wife’s fellow-wife went and married his third brother, and so on.

And now the Mishna explains what it said above: “And all of them, if they died or were divorced, their fellow-wives are permitted.”

How is it meant by “if they died

the forbidden relations,

their fellow-wives are permitted”?

If his daughter

of the brother performing yibum,

or one of all these forbidden relations, was married to his brother,

and there was

to him,

to his brother, yet another

wife.

And

his daughter died, or was divorced

by his brother,

and afterward his brother died—

her fellow-wife is permitted!

Because she was not a fellow-wife of a forbidden relation at the time of falling for yibum, which is the time at which his brother died.

And the Mishna adds another law:

And every

minor forbidden relation

who can perform refusal

with regard to her husband’s betrothal

and did not perform refusal

with her husband—

since her betrothal is only rabbinic, she does not exempt her fellow-wife.

Nevertheless, since her fellow-wife is a rabbinic fellow-wife of a forbidden relation, therefore

her fellow-wife performs chalitza but does not perform yibum.

And this law applies even if the forbidden relation now performs refusal with the brother performing yibum, and says that she does not want the betrothal of her deceased husband, and even though her betrothal would thereby now be annulled retroactively, so that it is found that her fellow-wife was never a fellow-wife of a forbidden relation, and her law should have been like the law of a fellow-wife of a forbidden relation who performed refusal, in which case she is permitted to perform yibum.

Nevertheless, here, since the forbidden relation did not perform refusal with her husband during his lifetime, but performed refusal with regard to her betrothal to him only after she fell before the brother performing yibum, the Sages prohibited her fellow-wife from performing yibum.

For since the forbidden relation did not perform refusal with her husband while he was alive, and only now, after his death, refuses his betrothal, her marriage appears in people’s eyes to have been a complete marriage, and her fellow-wife appears to them as a fellow-wife of a forbidden relation. If we permit her to perform yibum, people will come to err and think that a fellow-wife of a forbidden relation is permitted.

Gemara:

The Gemara explains the order of the list of the fifteen women:

And we raised an objection concerning it:

Granted,

behold,

all of them,

the entire exemption of the fifteen forbidden relations from yibum—

from

the exemption of

a wife’s sister

from yibum

we derive

them.

As will be clarified below, the exemption of the forbidden relation and her fellow-wife is derived from the verse: “And a woman to her sister you shall not take, to make her a rival, to uncover her nakedness upon her during her lifetime.”

And if so,

let him teach

the forbidden relation of

a wife’s sister at the beginning,

for it is the source of the exemption of the forbidden relation and her fellow-wife!

And should you say

to answer that the

tanna,

according to the order of

the severity of severities

of the punishments of the forbidden relations,

listed them,

and

according to the method of

Rabbi Shimon, who says that the death of

burning

is the most severe

death

among

the four deaths imposed by the court.

Therefore the tanna began with his daughter, whose punishment is the most severe, death by burning. He then continued and listed the relatives of the daughter, and his mother-in-law and the mother of his mother-in-law, all of whose punishment is burning.

It is impossible to answer in this way. For:

If so,

that the tanna lists them according to the order of the severity of the punishment, and follows the method of Rabbi Shimon, that death by burning is the most severe, the following difficulty arises:

Let him teach

the forbidden relation of

his mother-in-law at the beginning,

before his daughter, since

the principal

law of death by

burning—

is written concerning his mother-in-law!

For the source of the law of burning with regard to his daughter is derived below by a gezera shava from his mother-in-law, concerning whom the law of burning is stated explicitly.

And since his mother-in-law is the source of the law of burning, she should be placed before his daughter.

And furthermore,

there is another difficulty:

after

his

mother-in-law, let him teach

the forbidden relation of

his daughter-in-law,

whose punishment is stoning, and not list her last, since

after

the death of

burning—

the death of

stoning

is at the

severe

level after burning!

And why did the tanna list his daughter-in-law, whose punishment is stoning, only at the end of the list, after the other forbidden relations, which are only those liable to karet, and for which there is no judicial death at all!?

Therefore, the Gemara returns and brings another explanation for placing his daughter first:

Rather, the forbidden relation of

his

daughter, since

she is not written explicitly in the Torah, but

comes from a derivation,

she is learned from a derivation of the verses—

she is beloved to him,

she is dear to the tanna to teach, and therefore he placed her before all the forbidden relations.