Yevamot 3b — the Talmud in English

One count came

to exclude

the view

of Rav

, who holds that if a woman committed adultery while married, she herself may not perform yibbum; likewise her co-wife, called the “co-wife of a sotah,” is exempt from yibbum and from chalitza.

And the Mishna came to exclude this and reject his words.

And

a second count came in order to exclude the view

of Rav Asi

, who holds that an ailonit, who is incapable of bearing children and may herself not perform yibbum, also exempts her co-wife from yibbum and from chalitza.

And the Mishna came to reject this.

And the Gemara continues to explain:

And

for Rav and Rav Asi

, who add the co-wife of a sotah and the co-wife of an ailonit, the count at the beginning of the Mishna and the count at the end—

to exclude what

? What did each one come to exclude?

And the Gemara answers:

If they hold

—Rav and Rav Asi—

the one the other’s view

, one may say that the two counts come to exclude:

One

, one comes

to exclude the co-wife of a girl who refused

the yavam.

For if a minor yevama fell before the yavam, whom her mother and brothers had married off, and her marriage was only rabbinic, and the minor refused her husband’s marriage after she had fallen before the yavam, then both she and her co-wife are forbidden in yibbum [by the decree of the Sages, as will be explained in this chapter], but they are obligated in chalitza.

And this is what the Mishna comes to exclude: the co-wife of one who refused is not like an ordinary co-wife of a forbidden relation; rather, she is obligated in chalitza, since her entire prohibition against yibbum is only by rabbinic enactment.

And one

, one count comes

to exclude the co-wife of one who remarries his divorced wife.

For if the deceased brother had been married to a woman, divorced her, and the woman went and married another man, thereby becoming forbidden to return to her first husband, and the second husband died or divorced her, and the first husband returned and took her as a wife in prohibition—

then she herself may not perform yibbum, since she had been forbidden to the deceased brother by the prohibition of “one who remarries his divorced wife after she married another.”

But her co-wife may perform yibbum [according to the Sages; and according to Rabbi Yosei ben Kippar, the Gemara raises a doubt below, 11b].

And the Mishna comes to exclude this and say that the co-wife of one who remarries his divorced wife is not like other co-wives of forbidden relations.

And if Rav and Rav Asi do not hold

—Rav and Rav Asi—

the one the other’s view

, they will explain, each according to his view, the two exclusions from the two counts as follows:

One

count in the Mishna comes

to exclude

his companion’s view,

the other’s.

And one

count comes

to exclude either the co-wife of one who refused or the co-wife of one who remarries his divorced wife.

But it is still possible to raise an objection:

For Rav

, who holds that a sotah [an adulteress] and her co-wife are exempt from yibbum,

and

likewise

for Rav Asi

, who holds that the co-wife of an ailonit also may not perform yibbum,

let us teach them!

Why did the tannai not teach them in our Mishna, and say that an ailonit and a sotah also exempt their co-wives?

And we answer:

because

the co-wife of a sotah or the co-wife of an ailonit

is not a “co-wife of a co-wife.”

For the prohibition of the “co-wife of an ailonit” or the “co-wife of a sotah” is a prohibition that applies equally with respect to all the brothers, and it is not possible that one of the brothers should perform yibbum with the co-wife of the sotah or the co-wife of the ailonit, and that she should fall again, in a second falling, together with her co-wife, who would be considered a “co-wife of a co-wife.”

And now the Gemara discusses the source of the law taught in the Mishna, that a forbidden relation, her co-wife, and her co-wife’s co-wife are exempt from yibbum and chalitza:

And we inquire concerning it:

From where are these words?

From where do we know that a forbidden relation, her co-wife, and her co-wife’s co-wife can never perform yibbum and cannot perform chalitza?

Since it is stated

For the Sages taught:

It is written in the section of forbidden relations [Leviticus 18], concerning the prohibition of a wife’s sister: “

And

you shall not take a woman together with her sister, to make her a rival, to uncover her nakedness beside her, during her lifetime.”

The word

“beside her”

is superfluous, and it comes to be expounded!

And

what does it teach

? What does the addition of the word “beside her” come to teach?

Since it is stated

in the section of yibbum [Deuteronomy 25]:

“Her yevama shall come upon her.”

Since Scripture commanded, “Her yevama shall come upon her,”

I might understand

that there was room to say that the Torah permitted all prohibitions of forbidden relations in the place of the mitzva of yibbum,

and

even with one of all the forbidden relations stated in the Torah, the verse “Her yevama shall come upon her”

speaks.

One should not say so.

For it can be learned by a gezera shava that the Torah did not command one to perform yibbum with a woman who is forbidden to the yavam as a forbidden relation. For:

It is stated here, concerning the forbidden relation of a wife’s sister, “And you shall not take a woman together with her sister, to make her a rival, to uncover her nakedness

beside her

during her lifetime.”

And it is stated there, concerning the mitzva of yibbum, “Her yevama shall come

upon her.”

Just as there, in the section of yibbum, it is stated, “Her yevama shall come upon her”

in the place of the mitzva

of yibbum,

so too here, in the section of forbidden relations, it is stated, “And you shall not take a woman together with her sister, to make her a rival, to uncover her nakedness beside her”—

even

in the place of the mitzva

of yibbum!

And the Merciful One said:

Even if a yevama from the deceased brother falls before you, whom it is a mitzva to take in yibbum, here, since she is your wife’s sister—

Her rival,

the rival of a man’s wife’s sister—

from where

do we know that she too may not perform yibbum?

The verse states: “A woman and her sister you shall not take,

you shall not take

her!

Thus far is the derivation to exempt the forbidden relation.

And from here is the derivation to exempt the co-wife of a forbidden relation:

And I have only

from this verse to forbid

her alone

, the yevama herself who is a wife’s sister.

Her co-wife

—of a wife’s sister—

from where

do we know that she too may not perform yibbum?

The verse teaches: “And you shall not take a woman together with her sister,

to make her a rival.”

The wording “you shall not take to make her a rival” teaches that you shall not take even the co-wife of your wife’s sister. And, as stated, the verse speaks even in the place of the mitzva of yibbum.

And I have only

from here a source

only

to forbid in yibbum

the

co-wife

of a wife’s sister.

The co-wife of her co-wife

—of a wife’s sister—when the co-wife of the forbidden relation went and was taken in yibbum by another brother, and she had a co-wife also in that household, and the brother who performed yibbum with her died, and the co-wife of the forbidden relation fell a second time, together with her co-wife, before a yavam to whom she had been forbidden in the first falling because she was the co-wife of a forbidden relation—

she herself may not perform yibbum, since she became forbidden to him in the first falling as the wife of a brother who has children, and thereafter she has no permission ever.

But

from where

do we know that even the co-wife of the co-wife, for whom this is her first falling for yibbum and who had never been forbidden, may likewise not perform yibbum?

The verse teaches: “To make her a rival,”

with a doubled expression,

and not

did Scripture say

“to make a rival”

alone.

The verse teaches, through the expression “to make her a rival,” to forbid many co-wives: even a co-wife of a co-wife, and so on forever, is forbidden.

And I have only

learned from this verse, which deals with the nakedness of a wife’s sister,

only

forbidden to the levir,

a wife’s sister

, who may not perform yibbum.

The other forbidden relations—

from where

do we know that they too may not perform yibbum?

You say

: You can learn them by what we find with a wife’s sister, and say as follows:

Just as a wife’s sister

is

distinctive

in this,

that she is a forbidden relation, and for her intentional violation one is liable to excision and for her unwitting violation a sin-offering

—

and she is

forbidden to the yavam,

so too any woman who is a forbidden relation, and for whose intentional violation one is liable to excision and for whose unwitting violation a sin-offering

—she is

forbidden to the yavam.

And I have only

learned

them

, the forbidden relations themselves, who may not perform yibbum.

Their co-wives

—of the other forbidden relations—

from where

do we know that they too may not perform yibbum?

You say: You can learn them as well, by what we find concerning the co-wife of a wife’s sister, and say as follows:

Just as a wife’s sister

is

distinctive

in this,

that she is a forbidden relation, and for her intentional violation one is liable to excision and for her unwitting violation a sin-offering, and she is forbidden to the yavam

—

her co-wife is forbidden.

So too any woman who is a forbidden relation, and for whose intentional violation one is liable to excision and for whose unwitting violation a sin-offering, and she is forbidden to the yavam

—her

co-wife is forbidden.

From here the Sages said: Fifteen women—

exempt their co-wives, and their co-wives’ co-wives, from chalitza and from yibbum, to the end of the world.

And now the beraita explains that one should not learn from the verse “to make her a rival” that every “co-wife of a forbidden relation” is forbidden like the prohibition of the forbidden relation itself, even not in the place of the mitzva of yibbum. It would then be forbidden for every person to marry all the co-wives of all the women who are forbidden to him as forbidden relations.

For it would be reasonable to say that the verse “to make her a rival,” which does not deal with the mitzva of yibbum, comes to teach that if the forbidden relation was married to a stranger, and he had an additional wife, then the very relationship between the two women, since they were married to one man, assigns the other woman the designation “co-wife of a forbidden relation,” and by virtue of this designation she would be forbidden to him like the forbidden relation herself.

That is, if the husband of the co-wife of the forbidden relation died or divorced her, she would be forbidden to marry one to whom the forbidden relation herself is forbidden:

I might include [from the implication of “to make her a rival”] the prohibition of the “co-wife of the forbidden relation” everywhere, even not in the place of yibbum.

That is, I might include from this verse

even

the

six forbidden relations

[his mother, his father’s wife, his father’s sister, his paternal half-sister, his father’s brother’s wife, and his paternal brother’s wife who has children].

And these six forbidden relations are

“more severe” than these

, than the fifteen forbidden relations in our Mishna, in that they cannot marry any of the brothers, because they are forbidden equally to all the brothers.

And one might say that

their

So too, any

co-wives

as well, the co-wives of these six forbidden relations, are

forbidden

.

That is, the verse “to make her a rival” does not speak specifically of the co-wife of a forbidden relation in the place of yibbum, but also not in the place of yibbum!?

It is impossible to include this, for:

You say

: You must answer and say that one can learn by what we find that the prohibition of a co-wife of a forbidden relation applies only in the place of yibbum.

Just as a wife’s sister

is

distinctive

in this,

that she is

a forbidden relation, and for her intentional violation one is liable to excision and for her unwitting violation a sin-offering, and it is possible

for her

to marry

the other

brothers, but she is forbidden to this yavam

who married her sister—

her co-wife is forbidden.

So too every

woman

who is a forbidden relation, and for whose intentional violation one is liable to excision and for whose unwitting violation a sin-offering, and it is possible

for her

to marry

the other

brothers, but she is forbidden to this yavam

—

her co-wife is forbidden.

The six forbidden relations more severe than these are excluded, since it is impossible

for them

to marry the brothers—

their co-wives are permitted.

And the reason for the matter is:

for a co-wife is not

of a forbidden relation forbidden

unless

she is a co-wife

of a brother.

For the Torah does not forbid the co-wife of a forbidden relation with a new prohibition called “the co-wife of a forbidden relation”; rather, it only exempts her from yibbum, and then she is automatically forbidden to the yavam by the prohibition of a brother’s wife, like the wife of a brother who has children.

But a co-wife of a forbidden relation not in the place of yibbum is not forbidden, since she is not a brother’s wife, and she is not forbidden merely because of the designation “co-wife of a forbidden relation.”

And the beraita continues and asks:

The warning

of a negative commandment, for the forbidden relation and her co-wife in the place of yibbum,

we have heard.

The warning concerning a wife’s sister is from “You shall not take a woman together with her sister,” and from it we learned the other forbidden relations by what we find.

The warning concerning the co-wife of a wife’s sister is from “to make her a rival,” and from it the other forbidden relations, by what we find.

But since the verse “And you shall not take a woman together with her sister, to make her a rival,” in its plain sense, does not deal with a place in which there is a mitzva of yibbum, and only by the gezera shava of “upon her” did we learn that it also applies in the place of the mitzva of yibbum, it is possible that the derivation from “upon her” reveals that only the prohibition of the negative commandment stated in this verse applies even in the place of yibbum.

But

the punishment

of excision, which is not mentioned in this verse—

from where

do we know that the punishment of excision is stated for the forbidden relation and her co-wife even in the place of yibbum?

The verse says, at the end of that section [which contains warnings for all the forbidden relations], that there is a punishment of excision for everyone concerning whom there is a warning in this section:

But when the matter involves overriding

“For whoever shall do any of all these abominations

—shall be cut off.”

And since, in the warning concerning a wife’s sister, the Torah added the word “upon her,” to teach you that this verse speaks even in the place of the mitzva of yibbum, and likewise through the word “to make her a rival” the Torah included the prohibition of a co-wife of a forbidden relation in the place of yibbum, it follows that both of them, the forbidden relation and her co-wife, are also included in the general punishment of excision at the end of the section.

For they too are considered included among “all these abominations,” for which there is a punishment of excision.

It follows that the principal novelty of the beraita is that there is a special derivation in the Torah, from the superfluous word “upon her,” teaching that even in the place of the mitzva of yibbum there is a prohibition of uncovering nakedness.

And now the Gemara discusses the novelty learned from the word “upon her.”

The reason is that the Merciful One wrote “upon her.”

If not for this

—

I might have understood

that

a wife’s sister performs yibbum.

What is the reason? How was the prohibition of the forbidden relation permitted?

For we say: the

mitzva of

doing

yibbum

pushes aside

the prohibition of

“You shall not do”

of forbidden relations.

And the Gemara objects:

1.

I grant that we say, “the doing pushes aside the ‘You shall not do,’”

when the matter concerns the rejection of a prohibition of

“You shall not do” alone

.

But when the matter concerns the rejection of a

“You shall not do” for which there is excision

—

does it push aside

a positive commandment!?

2.

Furthermore, we still need to know: a prohibition of

“You shall not do” alone—

from where do we know that

a positive commandment

pushes it aside

?