Yevamot 41a — the Talmud in English

And we answer: the prohibition of the “co-wife of the relative of his chalutza” who was married to a foreign man is a special decree, which the Sages decreed so that people would not come to error.

For it is the practice of the world that the relatives of women undergoing chalitza go with them to the court at the time when they undergo chalitza. But other yevamot do not customarily go with the yevama undergoing chalitza to the court to see her chalitza.

And the Sages were concerned that all the people might not distinguish which woman was the one undergoing chalitza, but there would be people who would err and say that the relative of the woman undergoing chalitza, who was with her in court at the time of the chalitza, was the one who underwent chalitza.

Therefore,

this one

relative

who goes with her,

who goes together with the woman undergoing chalitza

to the court—

the Sages decreed concerning them

that her co-wife shall be forbidden.

For example, if a woman named Leah brings her sister Rachel to the court, so that she will be present with her during her chalitza, people may err and think that Rachel is the wife of the deceased who is undergoing chalitza, and not Leah.

And because of this error, they will think that Rachel’s co-wife is the second wife of the deceased, who becomes permitted to marry outside through Rachel’s chalitza.

And therefore, if the yavam takes Rachel’s co-wife, people will say that he took the co-wife of a woman who underwent chalitza, who according to everyone is forbidden to him by Torah law.

And therefore they forbade taking the co-wife of the relative of a woman who underwent chalitza.

But

this one,

the yevama who does not undergo chalitza,

who does not go,

for it is not the way of the yevama who does not undergo chalitza to go

with her,

together with her co-wife, the yevama who undergoes chalitza,

to the court,

and people will not err concerning her—

the Sages did not decree concerning them

to forbid her sister, since people would not come to err and say that he married the sister of a woman who underwent chalitza, who is forbidden to him.

And therefore they did not forbid the relative of the co-wife of a woman who underwent chalitza.

Mishna:

1.

One who performed chalitza with his yevama, and his brother married her sister

of the woman who underwent chalitza,

and died

the brother—

she is

to undergo chalitza and not to undergo yibum.

By Torah law she is fit for yibum, but she does not undergo yibum by rabbinic law, because she is forbidden to him as the sister of a woman who underwent chalitza, which is a rabbinic prohibition.

2.

And likewise, one who divorces his wife, and his brother marries her sister and dies—

she is exempt

entirely from yibum and from chalitza, because she is forbidden to him by the Torah prohibition of the sister of a wife, which applies even after he divorced his wife, as long as his wife remains alive.

The Gemara discusses why the tannai used the expression “and likewise,” since here she is entirely exempt.

3.

A woman awaiting yibum,

who fell before several brothers and became subject to them for yibum,

whose brother betrothed [

one of the brothers]

her sister

of the yevama, and his yevama became forbidden to this brother by the karet prohibition of the sister of a wife—

According to the Sages, the bond of the yevama to him ceased from the moment she became entirely a forbidden relation to him, and her sister is no longer forbidden to him under the prohibition of “the sister of one subject to a bond.” For the yevama is no longer subject to him by Torah law, and he has no bond with her by which her relatives could be forbidden because of the “bond.”

Nevertheless,

in the name of Rabbi Judah ben Beteira they said: They say to him

to that yavam who betrothed her sister:

Wait

before taking into your house your yevama’s sister, whom you betrothed as a wife, because she is still forbidden to you under the rabbinic prohibition of “the sister of one subject to a bond,”

until your brother performs [

one of the brothers]

an act

of yibum or chalitza with the yevama. Then her bond will cease, and she will no longer be forbidden to you as “the sister of one subject to a bond.”

If his brother performed chalitza with her, or took her into his house—

her bond ceased entirely, and her sister is not forbidden as the sister of one subject to a bond. And therefore then

he may take into his house

the yavam

his wife,

the sister of his yevama, whom he betrothed.

And likewise, if

the yevama died—

he may take his wife into his house,

her sister!

For even if he took his yevama into his house and she died, her sister becomes permitted to him after the death of his wife.

If the yavam died,

and there is no other brother who can perform chalitza or yibum, and the sister of the yevama, whom he betrothed as a wife, is forbidden to him under the prohibition of the sister of one subject to a bond—

he shall send out

that man

his wife,

who is forbidden to him under the prohibition of the sister of one subject to a bond,

with a bill of divorce.

And

the

wife of his brother,

the yevama, the sister of his wife whom he betrothed, he shall send out

through chalitza.

But he cannot perform yibum with her, because she is forbidden to him as the sister of a wife, even after he divorces his wife.

And by Torah law she leaves without chalitza, since she is an entirely forbidden relation to him; but the Sages instituted that he perform chalitza with her.

Gemara:

We learned in the Mishna:

One who performed chalitza with his yevama, and his brother married her sister and died—she undergoes chalitza and does not undergo yibum.

And likewise, one who divorces his wife, and his brother marries her sister and dies—she is exempt.

And we raised an objection concerning it:

What is “and likewise”?

For there is no comparison between the sister of a woman who underwent chalitza and the sister of a divorced woman, since this one undergoes chalitza, whereas that one is exempt from chalitza!?

And we answer: Indeed, there is no comparison between them.

And therefore

say,

say in the language of the Mishna:

But one who divorces

his wife, and his brother marries her sister and dies—she is exempt.

Reish Lakish said: Here,

in our Mishna,

Rabbi

taught

a teaching:

The sister of a divorced woman—

she is forbidden

by Torah words.

And therefore she is exempt from chalitza and yibum.

The sister of a woman who underwent chalitza—

she is forbidden

by the words of the Scribes!

And therefore she is obligated in chalitza, but she does not undergo yibum.

We learned in our Mishna:

A woman awaiting yibum, whose brother betrothed

her sister,

etc.

Samuel said: The halakha is in accordance with the words of Rabbi Judah ben Beteira,

that the one who betrothed her must wait until his brother performs chalitza with the yevama or performs yibum with her, since we say that “there is a bond,” to forbid the yavam from the relatives of his yevama.

And this bond that exists between the yevama and the yavam has the power to forbid the relatives of the yevama even after he betrothed her sister to another man, and the yevama became forbidden to him by a karet prohibition!

For the Sages regarded her bond to him as though it overcomes the betrothal of her sister, which is by Torah law, and the bond still exists by rabbinic law, although by Torah law she is an entirely forbidden relation to him!

They raised a dilemma:

if afterward

his wife died [

the sister of his yevama, whom he betrothed as a wife]—

what is the law regarding his yevama?

The basis of the question is: Since, when she was forbidden to him for yibum because she was the sister of a wife, the prohibition of the wife of a brother for whom there is no possibility of yibum took effect upon her, defined by the designation “the wife of a brother who has children”—

can this prohibition cease when his wife dies, so that she again becomes permitted as the wife of a brother who has no children?

Or perhaps, since the designation of the wife of a brother for whom there is no possibility of yibum, defined by the designation “the wife of a brother who has children,” took effect upon her, it can no longer cease, and she is forbidden forever.

Rav and Rabbi Hanina both say: If his wife died—

the yavam again becomes

permitted to his yevama.

Samuel and Rav Asi both say: If his wife died—

he is forbidden to his yevama.

Rava said: What is Rav’s reason

for permitting her for yibum after his wife’s death? For she was already forbidden to him for one period, when she was the sister of a wife, like the wife of a brother for whom there is no possibility of yibum, since at that time when she was the sister of a wife I do not apply to her “the yevama, he shall come upon her”—?

Because she was,

for she was

a yevama who became permitted

for yibum at the time of her falling for yibum, at the time of her brother-in-law’s death,

and became forbidden

for yibum only after the falling, when she subsequently became the sister of a wife, when he betrothed her sister.

And

again

became permitted

through his wife’s death, from which time she is no longer the sister of a wife—

and Rav held that since at the time of the falling she was permitted for yibum, she is not forbidden forever as “the wife of a brother who has children,” even when she becomes the sister of a wife after the time of the falling.

For the law that she becomes forbidden forever as “the wife of a brother who has children” was stated only with regard to a yevama for whom, at the time of the falling for yibum, at the time of the brother’s death, I do not apply “the yevama, he shall come upon her.”

Since the prohibition of the wife of a brother was not permitted then, it becomes forbidden forever; once the prohibition takes effect, there is nothing that can permit it afterward.

But this woman, for whom at the time of her falling for yibum I apply “the yevama, he shall come upon her,” and the prohibition of the wife of a brother in her was permitted, but afterward she became forbidden because she was the sister of a wife, and only from then do I not apply “the yevama, he shall come upon her”—she is not forbidden forever as “the wife of a brother who has children.”

Rather, the law is that she

returns to her original permission,

as the wife of a brother who has no children.

Rav Hamnuna raised an objection

to Rava from the Mishna [above, 29a], in which we learned:

Three brothers

who were,

two

of them,

married to two sisters, and

one brother

was single,

unmarried.

One of the husbands of the sisters died, and the single one performed maamar with her,

the betrothal that the Sages instituted for a yavam before he has intercourse with his yevama.

And afterward the second brother died,

who was married to the second sister, and she was the sister of the woman who received maamar.

And then the woman who received maamar becomes forbidden to the third brother because she is “the sister of one subject to a bond,” of the second brother’s wife, who has now fallen for yibum. For the maamar with the first sister does not make her his wife, so that one could say that the second sister is not subject to him.

And afterward his wife died

of the second brother

after him,

and the woman who received maamar remained, and she is no longer considered “the sister of one subject to a bond,” since her sister died—

that yevama,

the woman who received maamar—

undergoes chalitza [

and also requires a bill of divorce for the maamar]

and does not undergo yibum,

because she was forbidden to him for one period, when she was “the sister of one subject to a bond.”

And why

does the woman who received maamar leave him?

Let

the woman who received maamar

be like

as

a yevama who became permitted, became forbidden, and again became permitted,

according to Rav—

she should return to her original permission!?

Rava was silent

and did not answer Rav Hamnuna.

After he left,

after Rav Hamnuna went out,

he said,

Rava wondered about himself and asked himself:

Why did you not say to him

to Rav Hamnuna that the Mishna above, according to

Rabbi Elazar,

was taught according to the view that “marriage causes the falling,” that the marriage is what causes the falling for yibum, and from the time of the marriage the yevama is considered as one who has fallen for yibum, and if she becomes forbidden at the time of the marriage to his brother, she has no permission ever again?

For

Rabbi Elazar says below [in the chapter “Beit Shammai,” 109a]: If the brother divorced his wife, and afterward returned and married her, and died, she does not undergo yibum. The reason is:

Since

when his brother divorced her,

the yevama stood

the yevama

before him,

before his brother,

for one period in a state of prohibition [

when his brother divorced her], for at that time she was under the prohibition of the wife of a brother for whom there is no possibility of yibum—

even though this occurred after the time of the falling [according to his view, the time of the marriage]—

she became forbidden to him forever!

But I, Rava, do not hold like Rabbi Elazar.

He then said

Rava:

I would say that Rabbi Elazar said

that she becomes forbidden forever only

where she was not fit at the time of the falling,

when she was not actually permitted for yibum and was not fit to undergo yibum at the time of the brother’s death; then we say that since she became forbidden when she was divorced, she is forbidden forever.

But where she was fit

the yevama

at the time of the falling

for yibum, as here, where she became the sister of a wife only after she was actually able to undergo yibum,

who said

that Rabbi Elazar says that she is forbidden forever!?

He then,

afterward he again

said

Rava:

Indeed!

Rabbi Elazar indeed said that even if she was actually permitted to undergo yibum and became forbidden, she is forbidden forever, even if her prohibition was removed.

And it was taught

in a beraita concerning our Mishna, in accordance with the words of:

For it was taught: One who betroths the sister of his yevama after the falling for yibum:

Rabbi Elazar says:

If

his yevama died—

he is permitted to his wife,

for she is no longer considered “the sister of one subject to his bond.”

But if

his wife died—

that yevama undergoes chalitza and does not undergo yibum,

since she was forbidden to him [after the falling] for one period, under the law of the wife of a brother for whom there is no possibility of yibum, when she was the sister of his wife.

And it is proven that according to Rabbi Elazar, even if she was actually permitted for yibum and afterward became forbidden, she becomes forbidden forever. But she requires chalitza!

And we raised an objection concerning it:

Let us say,

shall we say that

Samuel and Rav Asi,

who disagree with Rav and hold that if his wife died he is forbidden to his yevama—

say this in accordance with Rabbi Elazar,

and not in accordance with the Rabbis!?

And we answer:

Even you may say,

it is possible to say that Samuel and Rav Asi, even

in accordance with the Rabbis,

hold their view.

For

it is only here that

we find, regarding one who divorces a woman and takes her back, that

the Rabbis disagree with Rabbi Elazar,

and say that she is permitted to undergo yibum, and we do not say “she became forbidden forever”—

rather, because from

the time of

the falling [

the brother’s death]

and onward she did not become forbidden to them

the yevama under the prohibition of the wife of a brother for whom there is no possibility of yibum.

For according to the Rabbis, only “death causes the falling,” and not “marriage causes the falling,” as Rabbi Elazar held.

And therefore, the fact that she was forbidden at the time of the divorce, when she had not yet fallen for yibum, does not forbid her forever according to the Rabbis.

But here, where she became forbidden,

here, where the yevama became forbidden after the brother’s death, after the time of the falling—

even the Rabbis agree

that she becomes forbidden forever, according to Samuel and Rav Asi.

Mishna:

The yevama may neither undergo chalitza nor undergo yibum—

until she has three months.

And the reason will be explained in the Gemara.

And likewise, all other women may neither become betrothed nor marry

after the death of their husbands or after their divorces—

until they have three months,

in order to distinguish between the offspring of the first husband and the offspring of the second husband.

For if she marries before three months, and gives birth seven months after the marriage, we will not know whether the child is the son of a nine-month pregnancy from the first husband, or whether he is the son of a seven-month pregnancy from the second husband.

Whether virgins or women who have had intercourse, whether divorced women or widows, whether married women or betrothed women.

Rabbi Judah says: Married women may become betrothed

immediately, but may not marry until three months.

And betrothed women,

who did not have intercourse, and there is no concern for distinguishing between the offspring of the first husband and the offspring of the second husband,

may marry

immediately.

Except for the betrothed women of Judea,

where there is concern that they had intercourse while still betrothed,

because the heart

of the betrothed man

is familiar with her.

In Judea they would set aside the bridegroom and the bride during the period after the betrothal, before the time of entering the bridal canopy, so that the bridegroom’s heart would be “familiar” with her, so that he would be accustomed to her and they would not be embarrassed by one another at the time of the mitzva intercourse; therefore there is concern lest he have intercourse with her when he is secluded with her.

Rabbi Yose says:

I too hold like Rabbi Judah, that

all women

whose husbands died while they were married to them

may become betrothed,

without the need to wait, and we do not decree that they may not become betrothed lest they marry.

And I am even more lenient than he regarding distinction: in my view, from betrothal they are permitted even to marry, and we did not decree concerning betrothed women because of married women.

And women divorced from betrothal may marry immediately, while married women may marry only after thirty days.

And I did not come to disagree with Rabbi Judah except in one matter.

For Rabbi Judah permits all of them to become betrothed, both divorced women and widows.

Whereas I hold:

except for the widow

from marriage, regarding whom I do not hold like Rabbi Judah.