Yevamot 30b — the Talmud in English

For they say

the School of Shammai:

a maamar effects acquisition ![](pamud.bmp "

exact page location")

a complete acquisition,

and according to them, a maamar alone suffices to make the non-relative a complete co-wife of an erva, who does not even require halitza.

Therefore

it informs us

that our Mishna requires halitza, since a maamar does not effect a complete acquisition, and

not like the School of Shammai.

And now the Gemara asks in the opposite direction:

And for Rav Naḥman,

who inferred from the Mishna at the beginning of the previous page that there is no zika even when there is one brother, to prohibit the co-wife of an erva through zika—

there is a difficulty

with the proof

of Rav Ashi

from our Mishna, that there is zika to prohibit the co-wife of an erva through zika, even when there are two brothers!

And if you would say

to answer that one should not infer as Rav Ashi does from our Mishna, because

the same law applies even if: he died

first—the brother who was married to the non-relative—and the non-relative fell before the two brothers who were married to the sisters.

And afterward he divorced

one of the husbands of the sisters his wife.

And he married the non-relative, and died—

his co-wife is permitted,

and we do not prohibit her because she had been the co-wife of an erva through zika before her marriage to the second brother, since zika does not prohibit the co-wife of an erva through zika.

There is still a difficulty:

Rather,

according to this, the conclusion of the Mishna’s words—

“This is

what they said: All of them [the ervot] who died or were divorced, their co-wives are permitted”]]—

to exclude what

does it come?

For the expression “this is what they said” means that it comes to exclude something else. And this exclusion is the innovation that the Mishna innovates.

Necessarily, the Mishna’s innovation is as follows: only when the non-relative was merely the co-wife of an erva through zika is the non-relative not prohibited, because zika does not prohibit the co-wife of an erva through zika.

And

to exclude

if

he married

the non-relative, and the non-relative then became the co-wife of an erva, when she was married together with the sister of his wife to the same brother,

and

only

afterward,

after the non-relative had already become the co-wife of an erva,

he divorced

this brother divorced the sister, and he died, and the non-relative fell before the third brother—for this one is indeed considered the co-wife of an erva, and she goes out to the marketplace without halitza.

And this is what the Mishna said: This one, where the erva died or was divorced before he married her co-wife, is the one concerning whom they said, “All of them who died or were divorced, their co-wives are permitted.”

But if he married the co-wife while the erva was still under him, and only afterward divorced the erva, the co-wife is prohibited because of “the co-wife of an erva.” And if he dies, the co-wife will be exempt from yibum, even though at the time of the death she is not actually the co-wife of an erva, since he had divorced the erva before his death.

However, this explanation depends upon the dispute of amoraim in explaining the Mishna:

For above, on page 13a, the Gemara raises a contradiction between the first Mishna in Tractate Yevamot and our Mishna.

For the first Mishna implies that if, at the time of his death, the non-relative does not fall together with the erva, she does not have the exemption of the co-wife of an erva—whether he divorced the erva and afterward married the non-relative, or married the non-relative and afterward divorced the erva.

Whereas our Mishna implies that only if he divorced the erva and afterward married the non-relative is she not called the co-wife of an erva; but if he married the non-relative and afterward divorced the erva, she has the exemption of the co-wife of an erva, despite the fact that at the time of his death only she falls and not the erva, since he had already divorced the erva.

And the amoraim disagreed in answering the contradiction:

According to Rabbi Yirmeya, the two Mishnayot are taught as the dispute of tannaim:

And the dispute is: Is death what causes the fall to yibum, so that the non-relative must fall at the time of death together with the erva in order for her to have the status of the co-wife of an erva? This is the view of the first Mishna.

Or do the first marriage cause the fall to yibum, so that already from the time of the marriage of the deceased brother, the woman is considered as one who is destined to fall before the yavam when her husband dies without children?

And in order to receive the status of the co-wife of an erva, it is sufficient that the non-relative be married together with the erva, even if at the time of the brother’s death the co-wife alone falls to yibum, without the erva.

Thus, even if he divorced the erva before his death, and at the time of his death the non-relative falls alone, she is exempt—exempt—from halitza as the co-wife of an erva.

Whereas according to Rava, both Mishnayot hold that death causes the fall, and the tanna formulated both of them in the manner of “this, and it is unnecessary to say that.”

That is, the Mishna at the beginning of the tractate says that any woman who does not fall at the time of death together with an erva is not called the co-wife of an erva, despite the fact that at the time of her marriage there was a period during which she was the co-wife of the erva.

And our Mishna adds and says that it is unnecessary to say that if he divorced the erva and ultimately married the non-relative, she is not the co-wife of an erva, and she is permitted to undergo yibum.

This works if Rav Naḥman holds

Rav Naḥman

like Rabbi Yirmeya, who said

above, on 13b:

“It is divided,”

one must distinguish between the Mishnayot and say:

The one who taught

this Mishna—

did not teach this

Mishna

one!

And this tanna,

who taught the first Mishna,

holds that death causes the fall,

and the co-wife of an erva is the one who falls together with the erva at the time of death.

And this tanna,

who taught our Mishna,

holds that the first marriage causes the fall,

and the co-wife of an erva is the one who was married together with the erva to one man, even if the erva was divorced before the death, and the co-wife fell alone—

that is satisfactory.

Since the intention of our Mishna is to say

“This is

[that he first divorced the sister, and ultimately married the non-relative], concerning which they said: All of them [the ervot] who died or were divorced, their co-wives are permitted”]]—

to exclude [the case where] he married

the non-relative

and ultimately divorced

the sister, for she is prohibited as the co-wife of an erva, since the tanna of our Mishna holds, “the marriage causes the fall to yibum.”

Rather, if he holds

Rav Naḥman

like Rava, who said that, in all cases

our Mishna and the Mishna at the beginning of the tractate,

are one tanna,

who holds that death causes the fall to yibum—

and

the tanna formulated the two Mishnayot in the manner of

“this, and it is unnecessary to say that,”

then

“This is”

which the tanna said in our Mishna—

to exclude what?

What does our Mishna come to exclude when it said, regarding the case where he divorced the sister and ultimately married the non-relative, “This is what they said: All of them who died or were divorced, their co-wives are permitted”!?

For according to him, it is impossible to say as Rav Ashi excludes: that if the first brother died, and afterward the second brother divorced, and afterward married her, she is indeed prohibited by virtue of the co-wife of the erva of the sister of his wife through zika.

For according to Rav Naḥman, even when he married the non-relative and ultimately divorced the sister, she is not the co-wife of an erva, and she is permitted—and all the more so she is permitted when he divorced and ultimately married.

And the conclusion of the Gemara is:

necessarily,

Rav Naḥman—

holds like Rabbi Yirmeya.

Our Mishna follows the tanna who says that marriage causes the fall to yibum.

And our Mishna innovates that only if he married the non-relative and ultimately divorced the sister does the non-relative become the co-wife of an erva, but not when he divorced and ultimately married the non-relative, because the zika that existed before he married her does not make a co-wife of an erva through zika.

And now the Gemara discusses according to Rava, according to whom the two Mishnayot follow one tanna, who holds that death causes the fall, and he formulated them as “this, and it is unnecessary to say that.”

And according to him, even if he married the non-relative and afterward divorced the sister, she is permitted:

And for Rava, this works if he holds like Rav Ashi,

concerning the matter of there being zika—

for we can say that the exclusion of the Mishna,

“This is,”

comes—

to exclude [the case where] one died

of the husbands of the sisters

without

divorcing,

for even so, the non-relative is prohibited as the co-wife of an erva!

And for Rava, an additional law is innovated here, which Rav Ashi does not need to innovate, as will be explained!

That is, Rava agrees with Rav Ashi in only one detail: that there is zika, and a state of marriage is created between the yevama and the yavam; therefore there is a prohibition of “the co-wife of an erva through zika,” as Rav Ashi said.

But Rav Ashi holds that marriage causes the fall, and this is how he explained [on the previous page] and inferred from the Mishna.

And in this point Rava disagrees with him, and holds that that Mishna too follows the one who says that death causes the fall.

Accordingly, Rava must state an innovation: that there is a fall to yibum from the zika of his brother who did not perform yibum.

For otherwise, how is the non-relative prohibited by the law of the co-wife of an erva? The co-wife of an erva is prohibited only at the time of the fall, and according to Rava only death causes the fall, and not marriage, as Rav Ashi holds.

Therefore, Rava holds that if one of the husbands of the sisters dies without performing yibum or halitza with the non-relative, then at the time of his death she falls from him, through his zika, to the remaining brother.

For the marital zika that he has with her has the power to cause her to fall for yibum before his brother. It follows that she now falls from the zika of the second brother before the third brother, who remains of the three brothers, together with the erva of the sister of his wife who is married to the second brother; and she is therefore the co-wife of an erva at the time of death.

As stated, Rava agrees with Rav Ashi only regarding the matter of “there is zika.”

But he does not agree with him in his placing our Mishna according to the view of the tanna who says that marriage causes the fall; rather, he places it according to the view of the tanna who says that death causes the fall.

Therefore, Rava does not infer as Rav Ashi does from the fact that the Mishna placed the case as one where he divorced the sister and finally married the non-relative, that if he married and ultimately divorced, she becomes the co-wife of an erva.

For according to him, in such a case she does not become the co-wife of an erva, because he holds that death causes the fall, and at the time of death she must be the co-wife of an erva; here, however, the erva was divorced before the death.

Therefore Rava infers the Mishna that says “This is” as follows: “

This is”—the reason is that the brother divorced his wife; therefore, at the time of his death, the non-relative does not fall from him, through her zika to him, as the co-wife of an erva through zika.

But if the second brother did not divorce her, then even if he did not marry the non-relative at all, if he dies, she is prohibited by virtue of being the co-wife of an erva, in her fall through the zika of the second brother. [

And the reason that according to Rava there is no prohibition here of the wife of two dead men is explained in Rashi]

Rather,

but

if Rava holds

Rava

like Rav Naḥman,

it is difficult: there is no zika, there is no fall through zika, and there is no co-wife of an erva through zika.

“This is”

which our Mishna said—

to exclude what!?

And the conclusion of the Gemara:

necessarily,

Rava

holds like Rav Ashi

in that there is zika.

Mishna:

And all of them,

all fifteen ervot that we learned in the first Mishna, at the beginning of the tractate, that they exempt their co-wives,

with whom there were

for the deceased brother

doubtful betrothals or divorces, these are the co-wives

of theirs, who are “co-wives of an erva in doubt”—

they perform halitza,

since perhaps they are not co-wives of an erva.

But they do not undergo yibum,

since perhaps they are co-wives of an erva.

And the Mishna explains:

How

was there for the deceased brother with regard to them

“a doubtful betrothal”?

For example, he

threw to her

money of

betrothal

in the public domain, within a precise eight cubits.

And since a person’s four cubits acquire for him, if the money reached within her four cubits, she acquired the betrothal money, and she was betrothed to him.

But since the money was lying in a place that was

of doubtful proximity to him,

within the four cubits of the brother who threw the money, and the woman did not acquire it and was not betrothed—

of doubtful proximity to her,

for the money entered within her four cubits, and she acquired it and was betrothed to him—

this is “a doubtful betrothal.”

And what is

“a doubtful divorce”?

For example, he

wrote

a bill of divorce for her

in his own handwriting, and there are no witnesses on it.

Or he gave her a bill of divorce that was not in his own handwriting, and

there are witnesses on it, but it contains no date.

Or he gave her a bill of divorce that was not in his own handwriting, and

it contains a date but only one witness—

this is “a doubtful divorce.”

For all these bills of divorce are valid, and if she married another after receiving them, the child is valid.

However, the Sages ordained that one should not divorce with them ab initio, as is explained in Tractate Gittin [86a]; therefore her divorce with them is called “a doubtful divorce,” for one may not rely upon them ab initio.

Therefore, when the co-wife of an erva—the erva having been divorced with such a bill of divorce—and the husband dies, one must treat her as though the erva had been divorced doubtfully: she does not undergo yibum, but she requires halitza.

And even though here we are speaking after the fact, after the erva has already been divorced with this bill of divorce, nevertheless we must prohibit the co-wife of the erva from yibum, since the bill of divorce with which she was divorced is called a bill of divorce that is invalid ab initio; if she were to undergo yibum, people would come to say that the co-wife of an erva undergoes yibum.

And in the Gemara it will be explained why the Mishna did not state, in the case of divorce, the example of betrothal—for example, that he threw a bill of divorce to her, of doubtful proximity to him and doubtful proximity to her.

Gemara:

We learned in the Mishna: What is a doubtful betrothal? He threw betrothal money to her, of doubtful proximity to him and doubtful proximity to her.

And the Gemara infers:

But with regard to divorce, “of doubtful proximity to him and doubtful proximity to her,”

it did not teach

in the Mishna, because in such a doubt the co-wife of the erva does not even require halitza; rather, she is certainly the co-wife of an erva, who goes out without halitza.

And we inquire:

What is the reason

that the Mishna distinguishes between doubtful betrothal and doubtful divorce?

Rabba said: This woman,

who was the co-wife of an erva before the erva was divorced,

stands with the presumption of being permitted to the marketplace,

if her husband dies.

And on the basis of doubt

regarding the divorce

you come to prohibit her

from marrying in the marketplace until she performs halitza.

And by the laws of presumptions we determine with certainty that

you should not prohibit her on the basis of doubt,

but leave her in her presumption, that she is permitted to the marketplace!

But in the three cases in the Mishna, called “doubtful divorces,” she is not doubtfully divorced; rather, this is not an optimal bill of divorce, and the Sages were concerned that people would come to think that it is not a bill of divorce, and would come to say that the co-wife of an erva undergoes yibum. Therefore they decreed that she perform halitza and not undergo yibum.

Abaye said to him,

to Rabba:

If so,

that you establish her on the presumption that she is permitted to the marketplace—

with regard to

doubtful

betrothal, as well, let us say: This woman,

until he betrothed the erva with doubtful betrothal,

stood with the presumption of being permitted to the yavam,

she

stood,

in the event that her husband should die.

And on the basis of doubt

regarding the betrothal of the erva

you come to prohibit her

from undergoing yibum, as the co-wife of an erva.

Do not prohibit her on the basis of doubt,

but establish her on her presumption, that she is permitted to the yavam!?

Rabba said to him:

There,

in the case of doubtful betrothal, we follow

stringency,

and prohibit her from undergoing yibum.

And below the Gemara will explain why, in the case of the erva’s doubtful divorce, we are not stringent on the basis of doubt to prohibit her from the marketplace without halitza.

And Abaye wondered at him: But

this stringency—

stringency

that leads to leniency it is!

For there is concern that, as a result of your being stringent to take account of the erva’s doubtful betrothal and prohibiting her co-wife from undergoing yibum as the co-wife of an erva, conduct resulting in leniency will emerge, and people will err and permit a married woman. For—

sometimes he goes,

the man who betrothed the erva with doubtful betrothal,

and betroths her sister,

the second one [of the erva whom he betrothed doubtfully], with

certain betrothal.

And according to the law the second sister is betrothed to him, for the doubtful betrothal of the first sister did not take effect, since we must establish her on her presumption that she is not betrothed to him.

Or alternatively, sometimes another man comes

a man

and betroths her herself,

the erva who was betrothed with doubtful betrothal, during her husband’s lifetime, with

certain betrothal.

And according to the law she is betrothed to the second man, for the first man’s betrothal did not take effect on the basis of doubt, since she has the presumption that she was not betrothed to him.

And since you prohibited her,

Rabba,

from undergoing yibum with regard to the co-wife

[and that is, according to Rabba’s explanation of the reason for the Mishna, that we follow stringency concerning the co-wife, and therefore prohibit her from undergoing yibum as the co-wife of an erva]—

people say,

people will come to err and say, from the fact that her co-wife is prohibited from undergoing yibum,

that

the betrothals of

the first are betrothals,

which is why her co-wife is the co-wife of an erva,

and if his betrothals

of the latter

—

are not betrothals!

They will err and think that she does not require a bill of divorce from the second man, since they will consider the second man as one who betrothed a married woman, whose betrothal does not take effect, whereas in truth the second man’s betrothal is a betrothal by Torah law, and the concern regarding the first betrothal is only a rabbinic stringency.

And likewise, if the man who betrothed her returns and betroths the sister of the erva, and he dies, and we prohibit the co-wife of the erva from undergoing yibum, people will err and think that his betrothal of the erva took effect, which is why her co-wife is the co-wife of an erva, while his betrothal of her sister did not take effect [since betrothal does not take effect with the sister of one’s wife].

And he will come to marry his maternal brother’s wife, since he will think that she was not married to his brother.

Whereas in truth his brother’s betrothal took effect with her, and she is prohibited to him as his maternal brother’s wife, with whom there is no permission of yibum, and she remains prohibited even after his brother’s death.

And if so, how can we be stringent in a place where the stringency can lead to a stumbling block, permitting a married woman or his maternal brother’s wife!?