Yevamot 30a — the Talmud in English

Mishna:

1.

Three brothers,

who were

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

a

non-Jewish woman.

One of the husbands of the sisters died.

And

the brother

married

the

non-Jewish woman, the wife

of his brother,

and died—

and his two wives fall before the third brother, when one of them is forbidden to him by the prohibition of the ervah of his wife’s sister, and the other is her co-wife—

the

sister of his wife, who is

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 of the wife’s sister.

And

the

second,

her co-wife with regard to the falling, the wife of his second brother who falls before him only now [for the first time], goes out—

because of her being a co-wife.

Since she is the co-wife of the ervah of his wife’s sister, she neither performs halitza nor undergoes yibbum.

2. And if the brother married to the non-Jewish woman did not marry his wife’s sister, but only

performed maamar with her

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

and died—

the non-Jewish wife of the second brother does not become his wife’s sister’s co-wife by Torah law; rather, she is her co-wife through maamar alone, and is a co-wife of an ervah by rabbinic law.

Therefore, the

non-Jewish woman—

performs halitza but does not undergo yibbum.

She does not undergo yibbum—since she is a co-wife of an ervah through rabbinic maamar.

And she performs halitza—since she is not a co-wife of an ervah by Torah law.

Gemara:

The Gemara infers from the fact that if the brother married to the non-Jewish woman performed maamar with his wife’s sister, her co-wife performs halitza but does not undergo yibbum:

The reason is that he performed with her

the brother married to the non-Jewish woman

maamar,

with the wife’s sister of the yavam; only for this reason his non-Jewish wife does not undergo yibbum, because she is a co-wife of the ervah of his wife’s sister as a result of the maamar that he performed with her.

But if he did not perform with her

the brother married to the non-Jewish woman

maamar,

and died—

then his

non-Jewish wife—

may indeed undergo yibbum

with the brother who remained, since she was not the co-wife of the ervah.

Rav Naḥman said: This indicates that “there is no zika,” even with one brother!

For the zika of the yevama to the yavam does not make her as though there were a marital bond between them, 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 state of marriage would have been created between the brother married to the non-Jewish woman and the wife of the first brother who died, who falls before him for yibbum.

Then the non-Jewish wife of the second brother would be considered “the co-wife through zika of the first brother’s wife.”

And since the first brother’s wife is the sister of the third brother’s wife, the non-Jewish wife of the second brother would be forbidden to the third brother because she is “a co-wife of an ervah through the zika of a wife’s sister.”

Here the zika is to only one brother, and there is not the deficiency of zika to two brothers, for there is one who holds that there is no zika to two.

For when the first brother died, he having been married to his wife’s sister, she fell for yibbum only to the brother married to the non-Jewish woman, and did not fall for yibbum before the brother married to her sister, since she is an ervah forbidden to him.

And if “there is zika” [at least where the zika is to one yavam], then when the brother married to the non-Jewish woman died, the non-Jewish woman should have become forbidden to the brother who remained because of “a co-wife of the wife’s sister through zika.”

From here Rav Naḥman proves that “there is no zika,” and the non-Jewish woman is not considered a co-wife of an ervah through the zika of a wife’s sister.

Mishna:

1.

Three brothers,

who were

two of them married to two sisters, and one married to a non-Jewish woman.

The brother married to the non-Jewish woman died.

And one of the husbands of the sisters married

the non-Jewish woman,

and died—

the first

with regard to marriage [one of the sisters, who married her husband first, before he performed yibbum with the non-Jewish woman],

goes out because of the wife’s sister.

And the second—

goes out

because of her being a co-wife.

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

2. And if one of the husbands of the sisters did not marry the non-Jewish woman, but

performed maamar with her and died—

then the

non-Jewish woman—

performs halitza, but does not undergo yibbum!

She does not undergo yibbum—since she is a co-wife of an ervah through the maamar of the yevamin, by rabbinic law.

And she performs halitza—since she is not a co-wife of an ervah by Torah law.

Gemara:

The entire novelty of the Mishna concerns maamar, since the law that a co-wife of an ervah is exempt from yibbum and halitza was already taught in the first chapter.

And we raised a difficulty concerning it:

This additionally,

our Mishna, whose entire novelty is the matter of a co-wife of an ervah through maamar—

why is it necessary

for the tanna to teach it?

But it is

exactly the same thing,

as the preceding Mishna!

Furthermore, it follows all the more so:

Now, and what of there,

in the preceding Mishna,

where it is the wife’s sister

who

becomes a “co-wife” to the non-Jewish woman,

for the non-Jewish woman is the principal wife married to the brother, while the wife’s sister, who is the ervah, is only attached to her because he betrothed her through rabbinic maamar—

and nevertheless

you said

that the

non-Jewish woman is forbidden!

The woman attached through maamar is the ervah, and nevertheless she renders the principal wife forbidden with the status of a “co-wife of an ervah.”

Here,

in our Mishna, where the brother is married to a wife’s sister and betroths the non-Jewish woman through rabbinic maamar,

where the non-Jewish woman

who is attached is the one who

becomes a “co-wife” to the wife’s sister,

and the principal wife married to him is the ervah, and she renders her co-wife, who is attached to her through maamar, forbidden—

is it not all the more so

that she should render her attached co-wife forbidden through the prohibition of a “co-wife of an ervah”?

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 first.

And

if

this one,

the preceding Mishna, which speaks of the non-Jewish woman who is the principal wife married to him, while the ervah is betrothed to him only through maamar, he did not teach at all.

For

it appeared to him

that this matter seemed

permissible,

that the non-Jewish woman is not rendered forbidden as a “co-wife of an ervah” because of the ervah attached to her husband, and he did not need to teach it at all.

And he permitted it,

permitting the non-Jewish woman to undergo yibbum.

And afterward,

but afterward the tanna retracted what had initially appeared permissible to him, and

it appeared to him

that the matter was

forbidden, to forbid the non-Jewish woman as a co-wife of an ervah, and he taught it in the Mishna.

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

And since

this Mishna, which was a novelty for him, since at first he held that it was permitted,

was dear to him—

he placed it first!

He taught it first, and therefore it is taught before our Mishna.

And a Mishna does not move from its place.

Even though by placing this Mishna before our Mishna, our Mishna becomes superfluous, since it follows all the more so from the preceding Mishna, nevertheless the tanna continues to teach it, since once a Mishna has been taught, it does not move from its place; rather, they continue to teach it.

Mishna:

Three brothers,

who were

two of them married to two sisters, and one married to a non-Jewish woman.

One of the husbands of the sisters died,

and the sister falls before the brother married to her and before the brother married to the non-Jewish woman.

The brother married to her cannot perform yibbum with her, since she is the ervah of a wife’s sister to him.

And since she is forbidden to him because of a wife’s sister, the prohibition of a brother’s wife that applies to her was not permitted with regard to him; thus, she is forbidden to him like a brother’s wife whose husband has children.

And the brother married to the non-Jewish woman married

the sister,

the wife

of the first brother.

And

afterward

the second sister died,

the sister

of the wife of

the

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

she remains forbidden to him forever,

And afterward the brother married to the non-Jewish woman died—

we do not tell the brother who remained to perform yibbum with the sister now, since she became permitted to him after the death of his wife, or with the non-Jewish woman, her co-wife.

Rather, since she became forbidden to him at the time of her first falling from the first brother as a brother’s wife for whom there is no permitted outlet—that is, as a brother’s wife who has children [since she was then forbidden to him by the ervah prohibition of a wife’s sister]—

she is forbidden to him eternally,

through this prohibition, for the prohibition of a brother’s wife for whom there is no permitted outlet does not leave her,

since she was forbidden to him for one moment

at the time of her falling from the first brother.

And by virtue of this she also exempts her co-wife.

Gemara:

Rav Yehuda said in the name of Rav: Any yevama with regard to whom I cannot apply at the time of her falling

[Deuteronomy 25]

“the yevama shall come upon him”—

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

eternally, even if she subsequently falls to him from another brother when she is free of the ervah prohibition that applied to her at her first falling.

Rav derived this law from reasoning, and not from an exposition of the verse.

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

Consequently, at the time of her falling she assumes the status of a brother’s wife for whom there is no permitted outlet, like a brother’s wife who has children, who was not permitted.

And once this status applies to her, the mitzva of yibbum from another brother cannot permit her for yibbum!

For the Torah permitted for yibbum only a brother’s wife who has a permitted outlet, and not a woman who has already become forbidden through the prohibition of a brother’s wife for whom there is no permitted outlet, which is like a brother’s wife who has children and has no eternal permission.

And we raise a difficulty:

What does he teach us

Rav?

But

we learned

this in our Mishna, in which we learned that if his wife’s sister fell before him and became forbidden to him for yibbum, and another brother performed yibbum with her, and his wife died, so that she no longer has the prohibition of a wife’s sister, nevertheless, if the second brother dies, he is now forbidden to perform yibbum with her, because

she is forbidden to him eternally, since she was forbidden to him for one moment!

And we answer:

It might have been said: This applies

to her being forbidden eternally

where she did not become fit for him,

not becoming fit for yibbum

at

the time of her

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

as in the Mishna, because only after his brother performed levirate marriage with her and his wife died did the prohibition of his wife’s sister leave her.

And since she was not permitted to him during this falling, she became forbidden eternally.

But where she became fit for him at the first falling,

becoming fit for him [because of the death of his wife] 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 in this very falling she became permitted to him, and we might say that she did not then become forbidden as a brother’s wife who has children, since she still has the possibility of becoming permitted for yibbum during this falling.

He teaches us

Rav Yehuda in the name of Rav that since at the time of the falling she had no permission, the prohibition of a brother’s wife for whom there is no permitted outlet applied to her then, and by virtue of it she became forbidden eternally.

But the Gemara still raises a difficulty against Rav Yehuda in the name of Rav:

This too we learned

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

Two brothers

who were

married to two sisters.

One of them died,

and she fell before his second brother, who was married to her sister, and she goes out by the law of the ervah of a wife’s sister.

And afterward the wife of

the

second brother died, and the prohibition of her sister was removed—

there she was completely rejected from this household.

she is forbidden to him eternally

through the prohibition of a brother’s wife for whom there is no permitted outlet,

since she was forbidden to him for one moment!

And here it was during the same falling, since there were only two brothers, and the second brother did not perform yibbum with her; yet the Mishna explicitly says that even though she became permitted during that falling, she is forbidden to him eternally.

And the Gemara answers that this is the novelty of Rav Yehuda in the name of Rav:

It might have been said,

I would have said that she becomes forbidden eternally only in the case described in the Mishna, since

there she was entirely rejected from this household.

For the yevama was entirely rejected there at the time of her husband’s death.

For she falls before only one brother, and she is forbidden to him because of an ervah, and she then goes out to the marketplace without halitza and without yibbum.

And the fact that she subsequently became permitted through the death of his wife is not permission at the time of the falling, since at that point she is no longer considered a yevama falling for yibbum: she has no zika of yibbum, but is a woman permitted to the marketplace.

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

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

where she was not entirely rejected from this household,

completely,

for the case is one in which there is another brother, married to a non-Jewish woman, to whom she is permitted for yibbum, and she has zika of yibbum—

say—

by virtue of the fact that,

since

she

is

fit for this one,

she is fit for yibbum with this brother, the brother

married to the non-Jewish woman,

therefore let her be

fit also for this one,

the second brother, who was forbidden to her because she was his wife’s sister.

And since his wife has now died, and the prohibition of a wife’s sister has left her, let her also become permitted to him, since she still has zika of yibbum, and her permission with regard to him is at the “time of the falling.”

Therefore,

he teaches us

Rav Yehuda in the name of Rav that since at the time of her husband’s death she was forbidden, her prohibition applies eternally.

Mishna:

Three brothers,

who were

two of them married to two sisters, and one married to a non-Jewish woman,

and afterward three things occurred, one after the other and in this order:

1.

One of the husbands of the sisters divorced his wife.

2.

The brother married to the non-Jewish woman died.

3.

And the brother

who had divorced

married

the non-Jewish woman, after he had already divorced the sister,

and died.

the stranger and died.

And in the language of the Gemara below, the three events should be stated briefly:

He divorced—he died—he married.

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

Therefore, the non-Jewish woman is not considered a co-wife of an ervah, even though her husband had formerly been married to an ervah, since he was not married to the ervah together with her.

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

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

This is what they said [at the beginning of the tractate]:

[at the beginning of the tractate]:

And all of them,

all the arayot enumerated in the first Mishna, if it happened that the

women died or were divorced,

the arayot—

their co-wives are permitted.

Gemara:

The Gemara infers from the wording of the Mishna:

Only if: he divorced—he died—he married.

That is, if one of the husbands of the sisters first divorced his wife, and only afterward the brother married to the non-Jewish woman died, and then the brother who had divorced the sister married the non-Jewish woman—

only then is the non-Jewish woman not forbidden by the law of a co-wife of an ervah:

The reason

that the non-Jewish woman is permitted is

because he divorced

one of the husbands of the sisters his wife,

and afterward he died,

the brother married to the non-Jewish woman. For then the non-Jewish woman did not become a co-wife of an ervah, not even through zika, since she was not at all subject to the yavam who was married to one of the husbands of the sisters.

But

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

That is, first

the brother married to the non-Jewish woman died, and she fell before the husbands of the sisters, became subject to them for yibbum, and became “a co-wife through zika of the ervah, the wife’s sister.”

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 his wife.

And after her divorce he married the non-Jewish woman, and died—

the non-Jewish woman is forbidden, because she is a co-wife through zika of the ervah of a wife’s sister.

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

And from this precision

Rav Ashi said: This indicates: there is zikah even with two brothers!

for the zikah to the yavam is considered as marital union to him, even when there are two brothers [and one woman cannot be the wife of two men].

For with regard to zikah, there is zikah to both yevamin, because the zikah is not actual marital union.

And therefore the foreign woman is forbidden here when she fell before the two husbands of the sisters, because she becomes “the tzarat erva of a wife’s sister through zikah.”

And there is zikah even when she falls before two yevamin, to forbid her to the second one.

But her prohibition will find expression when the second brother who took her dies, and she falls before the third brother.

And Rav Ashi holds in accordance with the one who says, “marriage causes the fall,” that the fall to yibbum begins already from the time when the brother takes his wife, for by virtue of his marriage his brother performs yibbum with his wife; therefore the designation “tzarat erva” applies even during the brother’s lifetime, although at the time of the brother’s death the tzarat erva falls by herself, since the erva herself had already been divorced.

But according to the one who says, “death causes the fall,” and only at the time of death does the rival wife receive the designation of “tzarat erva,” here, at the time of the second brother’s death, since the erva had been divorced, the foreign woman is not a tzarat erva, and she is permitted for yibbum.

And we raise an objection:

And according to Rav Ashi,

who proved from our Mishna that there is zikah even with two brothers—

it is difficult

from this

of Rav Naḥman,

who proved at the top of the page from the Mishna that there is no zikah to forbid a tzarat erva even with one brother!

Rav Ashi could say to you:

Rav Naḥman’s precision above, from the fact that the Mishna required maamar in order to forbid her through a tzarat erva, that zikah alone does not forbid a tzarat erva through zikah, is not a precision.

For it is possible to say that

the same law applies: even though he did not perform

the husband of the foreign woman

maamar

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

the foreign woman must undergo ḥalitza, but he may not perform yibbum with her—

because there is a tzarat erva through zikah, and the foreign woman received the designation of tzarat erva at the time of her marriage to his brother.

And when her husband died, she falls with the designation of “tzarat erva” by rabbinic enactment, which prevents yibbum, but does not exempt her from ḥalitza.

And here the zikah is to only one brother, because the erva of a wife’s sister falls for yibbum only to the brother who is married to the foreign woman, and not to the brother who is married to her sister; and it follows that the zikah is to one brother, and there is zikah to one brother to forbid a tzarat erva through zikah.

And that which it teaches “

he performed

maamar”—

to exclude Beit Shammai!