Yevamot 30a (ל.) — the Talmud in English

Mishna:

a.

Three brothers,

who were

two of them married to two sisters, and one married to

a

stranger,

one of the husbands of the sisters died.

And

the brother

married

the

stranger, the wife

of his brother,

and died—

His two wives now fall before the third brother, one of them being forbidden to him by the prohibition of his wife’s sister, while the other is her rival wife

The

sister of his wife, who was

the first

to fall, having already fallen before him from his first brother and now falling before him again from his second brother,

goes out

to the marketplace

because she is his wife’s sister.

And the

other,

the second,

her rival wife with regard to the fall, the second brother’s wife, who falls before him only now [for the first time], goes out

because she is her rival wife.

Since she is the rival wife of a forbidden relative, his wife’s sister, she neither performs halitza nor undergoes yibbum.

b. And if the brother married to the stranger did not marry his wife’s sister, but only

performed ma’amar with her

[the betrothal that the Sages instituted for a yavam before he has intercourse with his yevama],

and died—

The stranger wife of the second brother does not become, by Torah law, the rival wife of his wife’s sister; rather, she is her rival wife only by virtue of the ma’amar, and is therefore the rival wife of a forbidden relative by rabbinic law.

Therefore, the

stranger

performs halitza but does not undergo yibbum.

She does not undergo yibbum, since she is the rival wife of a forbidden relative by virtue of rabbinic ma’amar.

And she performs halitza, since she is not the rival wife of a forbidden relative by Torah law.

Gemara:

The Gemara infers from the fact that if the brother married to the stranger performed ma’amar with his wife’s sister, her rival wife performs halitza but does not undergo yibbum:

The reason is that he performed

the brother married to the stranger

ma’amar

with his yavam’s wife’s sister; only for that reason does his stranger wife not undergo yibbum, because she became the rival wife of his wife’s sister as a result of the ma’amar he performed with her.

But had he not performed

the brother married to the stranger

ma’amar

and died—

then his

stranger wife would

also undergo yibbum

with the surviving brother, since she had not been the rival wife of the forbidden relative.

Rav Naḥman said: This indicates that there is no zika, even when there is only one brother!

The zika of the yevama to the yavam does not make her comparable to a woman who has a marital bond with him, even when the zika is to only one brother.

For if the zika between the yavam and his yevama were considered a marital bond between them, a marital state would have been created between the brother married to the stranger and the first brother’s wife, the wife of the deceased, who fell before him for yibbum.

The stranger wife of the second brother would then be considered “the rival wife by virtue of zika of the first brother’s wife.”

And since the first brother’s wife is the sister of the third brother’s wife, the stranger wife of the second brother would be forbidden to the third brother because she is “the rival wife by virtue of zika of his wife’s sister.”

Here the zika is to only one brother, and the problem of zika to two brothers does not apply, according to the one who maintains that there is no zika to two brothers.

For when the first brother, who was married to his wife’s sister, died, she fell for yibbum only to the brother married to the stranger; she did not fall for yibbum before the brother married to her sister, since she is a forbidden relative to him.

And if “there is zika” [at least where the zika is to one yavam], then when the brother married to the stranger died, the stranger should have become forbidden to the surviving brother as “the rival wife by virtue of zika of his wife’s sister.”

Rav Naḥman therefore proves from here that “there is no zika,” and that the stranger is not considered the rival wife by virtue of zika of his wife’s sister.

Mishna:

a.

Three brothers,

who were

two of them married to two sisters, and one married a stranger

The brother married to the stranger died.

And one of the husbands of the sisters married his

stranger

and died—

The first

in marriage [one of the sisters, who married her husband first, before he performed yibbum with the stranger]

goes out because she is his wife’s sister.

And the second—

goes out

because she is her rival wife.

This law is obvious and is stated here for the continuation of the Mishna:

b. And if one of the husbands of the sisters did not marry the stranger, but

performed ma’amar with her and died—

then the

stranger

performs halitza but does not undergo yibbum!

She does not undergo yibbum, since she is the rival wife of a forbidden relative by virtue of rabbinic ma’amar of the yevamin.

And she performs halitza, since she is not the rival wife of a forbidden relative by Torah law.

Gemara:

The entire novelty of the Mishna concerns ma’amar, since the law that the rival wife of a forbidden relative is exempt from both yibbum and halitza was already taught in the first chapter.

And we raised a difficulty concerning it:

This additionally,

our Mishna, whose entire novelty concerns the rival wife of a forbidden relative by virtue of ma’amar—

why is it necessary

for the tanna to teach it?

But it is

the same thing

as the preceding Mishna!

Moreover, the inference is certainly a fortiori:

Now, and what of there,

in the preceding Mishna,

where the wife’s sister

is the one who

becomes a “rival wife” to the stranger,

for the stranger is the primary wife married to the brother, while the wife’s sister, who is the forbidden relative, is only joined to her because he betrothed her through rabbinic ma’amar—

and nevertheless

you said that the

stranger is forbidden!

The woman joined through ma’amar is the forbidden relative, and nevertheless she renders the primary wife forbidden under the designation “rival wife of a forbidden relative.”

Here,

in our Mishna, where the brother is married to his wife’s sister and betroths the stranger through rabbinic ma’amar,

the stranger

who is joined through ma’amar is the one who

becomes a “rival wife” to the wife’s sister,

while the primary wife to whom he is married is the forbidden relative, and she renders forbidden the rival wife joined to her through ma’amar—

all the more

she should render her rival wife, who is joined to her, forbidden under the prohibition of “the rival wife of a forbidden relative”!

If so, why did the tanna teach our Mishna?

And we answer: The

tanna

who taught these mishnayot—

this

one,

our Mishna, he

taught first,

teaching it initially.

And

if he had taught

this one,

the preceding Mishna, which speaks of a stranger who is the primary wife married to him, while the forbidden relative was betrothed to him only through ma’amar, he would not have taught it at all.

For

it appeared

to him

permissible, that the stranger should not become forbidden as a “rival wife of a forbidden relative” on account of the forbidden relative joined to her husband, and there was no need to teach it at all.

And he permitted it, permitting the stranger to undergo yibbum.

And afterward,

but subsequently the tanna reconsidered what had initially appeared permissible to him, and

it appeared

to him

forbidden, to prohibit the stranger as a rival wife of a forbidden relative, and he taught it in the Mishna.

And since

this Mishna, which was novel for him, since he had initially held that she was permitted,

was dear to him—

he placed it first!

He taught it first, and therefore it precedes our Mishna.

And a Mishna does not move from its place.

Although by placing this Mishna before our Mishna, our Mishna becomes superfluous, since its law follows a fortiori from the preceding Mishna, nevertheless the tanna continued to teach it, because once a Mishna has been taught, it does not move from its place; it continues to be taught.

Mishna:

Three brothers,

who were

two of them married to two sisters, and one married a stranger

One of the husbands of the sisters died,

and the sister fell before the brother married to her sister and before the brother married to the stranger.

The brother married to her sister cannot perform yibbum with her, since she is forbidden to him as his wife’s sister.

Since she is forbidden to him as his wife’s sister, the prohibition of a brother’s wife that applies to her was not lifted with regard to him; she remains forbidden to him like a brother’s wife whose husband had children.

And the brother married to the stranger married

the sister,

his wife,

of the first brother.

And

afterward

the second wife died,

the wife

of

the

second brother, and from that point she is no longer forbidden to him as his wife’s sister, since the prohibition of a wife’s sister applies only while his wife is alive.

And afterward the brother married to the stranger died—

We do not tell the surviving brother to perform yibbum with the sister now, since she became permitted to him after his wife’s death, or with the stranger, her rival wife.

Rather, since she became forbidden to him at her first fall from the first brother as a brother’s wife who has no permitted status—that is, as a brother’s wife whose husband had children [because at that time she was forbidden to him as his wife’s sister]—

she remains forbidden to him forever,

under this prohibition, and the prohibition of a brother’s wife who has no permitted status does not lapse from her,

since she was forbidden to him for one moment

at the time of her fall from the first brother.

By virtue of this, she also exempts her rival wife.

Gemara:

Rav Yehuda said that Rav said: Any yevama with regard to whom I cannot apply, at the time of her fall, [Deuteronomy 25]

“the yevama shall come to him”—

she is like a brother’s wife whose husband has children, and she is forbidden

forever, even if she subsequently falls before him from another brother, when she is no longer subject to the prohibition of the forbidden relative that applied to her at her first fall.

Rav derived this law by logical reasoning, and not through an exposition of the verse.

For if the yevama was not permitted for yibbum at the time of her fall, at the time of her husband’s death, she does not have the permission granted to the wife of a brother who has no children when she falls for yibbum.

It follows that at the time of her fall she assumes the status of a brother’s wife who has no permitted status, like the wife of a brother who has children, who is not permitted.

And once this status has taken effect upon her, the mitzva of yibbum through another brother cannot permit her for yibbum!

For the Torah permitted yibbum only with a brother’s wife who has a permitted status, not with a woman who has already become forbidden as a brother’s wife who has no permitted status, which is like the wife of a brother who has children and is forever without permission.

And we questioned this:

What does this teach us,

Rav?

But

we already learned

this in our Mishna: We learned there that if his wife’s sister fell before him and was forbidden to him for yibbum, and another brother performed yibbum with her, and his wife died, so that the prohibition of his wife’s sister no longer applies to her, nevertheless, if the second brother dies, he may not now perform yibbum with her, because

she remains forbidden to him forever, since she was forbidden to him for one moment!

And we answer:

It might have been said: This applies only

when she became forbidden forever,

where she was not fit for him

to undergo yibbum

at the time of the

first fall,

as in the Mishna, since only after his brother performed yibbum with her did his wife die, and only then did the prohibition of his wife’s sister lapse from her.

Since she was not permitted to him during that fall, she became forbidden forever.

But where she was fit for him at the first fall,

having become fit for him [because of his wife’s death] after her husband’s death, before she underwent yibbum with another brother—

say that she should become permitted,

that she might be permitted to him for yibbum, since during this very fall she became permitted to him, and perhaps she did not then become like a brother’s wife whose husband has children, as she still had the possibility of becoming permitted for yibbum during that fall.

This teaches us Rav Yehuda’s statement in the name of Rav: Since she was not permitted at the time of her fall, the prohibition of a brother’s wife who has no permitted status took effect upon her then, and by virtue of it she became forbidden forever.

But the Gemara still raises an objection to Rav Yehuda’s statement in the name of Rav:

This too we already learned

in a Mishna [below, 32a], as we learned:

Two brothers

who were

married to two sisters.

One of them died,

and his wife fell before the second brother, who was married to her sister; she thereby leaves under the law of the wife’s sister, a forbidden relative.

And afterward the wife of

the

second

brother died, and the prohibition of her sister was lifted—

she remains forbidden to him forever,

under the prohibition of a brother’s wife who has no permitted status,

since she was forbidden to him for one moment!

Here, too, this occurred during the same fall, since there were only two brothers and the second brother did not perform yibbum with her. The Mishna explicitly says that even though she became permitted during that fall, she remains forbidden to him forever.

The Gemara answers that this is the novelty of Rav Yehuda’s statement in the name of Rav:

It might have been said that she becomes forbidden forever only in the case described in the Mishna, since

there she was completely rejected from this household.

The yevama was completely rejected there at the time of her husband’s death.

For she fell before only one brother, and she was forbidden to him as a forbidden relative; she then went out to the marketplace without halitza and without yibbum.

The fact that she subsequently became permitted when his wife died is not permission at the time of the fall, since at that point she was no longer considered a yevama who had fallen for yibbum. She had no zika for yibbum; rather, she was a woman permitted to the marketplace.

But here,

[Rashi’s version reads: “where”], in the statement of Rav Yehuda in the name of Rav,

where she was not completely rejected from this household,

as in a case where there is another brother, married to a stranger, who is permitted to perform yibbum with her, and she has zika for yibbum,

say—

Since,

because

she is

fit for this one,

fit for yibbum with the brother

married to the stranger,

therefore she should

also be fit for this one, the second brother, to whom she had been forbidden because she was his wife’s sister.

Now that his wife has died and the prohibition of his wife’s sister has lapsed from her, she should become permitted to him as well, since she still has zika for yibbum and her permission with regard to him exists at the “time of the fall.”

Therefore,

this teaches us, Rav Yehuda’s statement in the name of Rav, that since she was forbidden at the time of her husband’s death, her prohibition took effect forever.

Mishna:

Three brothers,

who were

two of them married to two sisters, and one married a stranger

Afterward, three events occurred, one after the other and in the following order:

a.

One of the husbands of the sisters divorced his wife.

b.

The brother married to the stranger died.

c.

And the brother who divorced

the sister

married her, the stranger,

after he had already divorced the sister,

and died.

In the concise formulation of the Gemara below, the three events are stated as follows:

He divorced—he died—he married.

Thus, the wife’s sister and the stranger were not married to him at the same time, but one after the other.

Therefore, the stranger is not considered the rival wife of a forbidden relative, despite the fact that her husband had previously been married to a forbidden relative, since he was not married to the forbidden relative together with her.

When she falls before the third brother, she is permitted to him.

The Mishna now adds a rule intended to exclude a certain case, which will be explained at length in the Gemara:

This is what they said

[at the beginning of the tractate]:

And all of them,

all the forbidden relatives listed in the first Mishna, if it happened that

they died or were divorced,

the forbidden relatives, then

the stranger and died.

their rival wives are permitted.

Gemara:

The Gemara infers from the wording of the Mishna:

Only if the order was: he divorced—he died—he married.

That is, first one of the husbands of the sisters divorced his wife, and only afterward the brother married to the stranger died; then the brother who had divorced the sister married the stranger—

only then is the stranger not forbidden under the law of a rival wife of a forbidden relative:

The reason

that the stranger is permitted is

because he divorced

one of the husbands of the sisters his wife,

and afterward he died,

the brother married to the stranger. At that point the stranger did not become the rival wife of a forbidden relative, not even by virtue of zika, since she had never become subject to yibbum before the yavam who was married to one of the sisters.

But

if the order was: he died—he divorced—he married,

that is, first

the brother married to the stranger died, and she fell before the husbands of the sisters, becoming subject to them for yibbum and becoming “the rival wife by virtue of zika of the forbidden relative, the wife’s sister.”

And only

afterward he divorced, one of the husbands of the sisters his wife.

After her divorce, he married the stranger and died—

the stranger is

forbidden, because she is the rival wife by virtue of zika of his wife’s sister.

one of the husbands of the sisters divorced his wife,

and afterward he died

the brother married to the stranger. In that case, the stranger did not become the rival wife of a forbidden relation, not even through a levirate connection, because she had never come into a levirate connection with the levir who was married to one of the sisters.

But

if the order was: he died—he divorced—he married—

That is, first

the brother married to the stranger died,

and she came before the husbands of the sisters and entered into a levirate connection with them for levirate marriage, becoming “the rival wife through a levirate connection of his wife’s sister, a forbidden relation.”

And

only

afterward he divorced

one of the husbands of the sisters divorced his wife.

And after divorcing her, he married the stranger and died—

The stranger is forbidden

because she is the rival wife through a levirate connection of his wife’s sister, a forbidden relation.

And based on this inference,

Rav Ashi said: This indicates that there is zika even when there are two brothers!

The bond of zika to the yavam is considered a marital bond to him, even when there are two brothers [and one woman cannot be the wife of two men].

For with regard to zika, there is a bond to both yevamim, because zika is not an actual marital bond.

Therefore, the unrelated woman is forbidden here when she fell before the two husbands of the sisters, because she thereby became the “co-wife of an erva, the sister of one’s wife, through zika.”

And there is zika even when she falls before two yevamim, rendering her forbidden to the second one.

However, her prohibition becomes manifest when the second brother who married her dies, and she falls before the third brother.

Rav Ashi holds in accordance with the one who says, “marriage causes the fall,” meaning that the fall to levirate marriage begins already from the time the brother takes his wife, because by virtue of his marriage, his brother performs levirate marriage with his wife. Therefore, the designation “co-wife of an erva” takes effect even during the brother’s lifetime, despite the fact that at the time of the brother’s death only the co-wife falls before the yavam, since the erva herself had already been divorced.

However, according to the one who says, “death causes the fall,” and the co-wife receives the designation “co-wife of an erva” only at the time of death, here, at the time of the second brother’s death, since the erva had been divorced, the unrelated woman is not a “co-wife of an erva,” and she is permitted for levirate marriage.

And we raise a difficulty:

But according to Rav Ashi,

who proved from our Mishna that there is zika even when there are two brothers—

it is difficult

from

Rav Naḥman,

who proved at the top of the page from the Mishna that there is no zika that renders the co-wife of an erva forbidden, even when there is only one brother!

Rav Ashi could say to you:

Rav Naḥman’s inference above, from the fact that the Mishna required maamar in order to render the co-wife of an erva forbidden, namely, that zika alone does not render the co-wife of an erva through zika forbidden, is not a valid inference.

For it is possible to say that

the same law applies: even though he did not perform

the husband of the unrelated woman

maamar

with the wife of one of the husbands of the sisters, and he died—

the unrelated woman requires ḥalitza but may not enter levirate marriage—

because there is a co-wife of an erva through zika, and the unrelated woman received the designation of a co-wife of an erva at the time of her marriage to his brother.

And when her husband died, she fell with the designation “co-wife of an erva,” by rabbinic law, which prevents levirate marriage but does not exempt her from ḥalitza.

Here, the zika is to only one brother, because the erva who is the sister of one’s wife falls for levirate marriage only before the brother who is married to the unrelated woman, and not before the brother who is married to her sister. It follows that the zika is to one brother, and there is zika to one brother that renders the co-wife of an erva through zika forbidden.

And that which it teaches, “

he performed

maamar”―

to exclude Beit Shammai!