Yevamot 44a — the Talmud in English

There was one

of the two yevamot

fit

for marrying into the priesthood,

and one unfit,

for example, because she had been divorced by a previous husband—

If he performed halitza—

he performs halitza for the unfit one,

and not for the fit one, so that he should not disqualify her from marrying into the priesthood. And even though he is not a priest, and this does not concern him, he must take care that others do not suffer a loss on his account.

And if he performed yibum—

he performs yibum

both

with the fit one

and with the unfit one.

Gemara:

We learned in the Mishna: Four brothers were married to four women, and they died.

And it is implied from the language of the Mishna that all four of them died.

And we raised an objection: Is it possible that

four brothers

alone

entered your mind

to say that there were here?

If so, it follows that all the brothers died and no brother remained alive; and who is the one who performs yibum with all four yevamot!?

Rather, say

this: If

four

brothers died

from

among many

brothers—

the authority is his,

the eldest of the brothers, to perform yibum with all four yevamot.

And we raised an objection:

And

is it so that

they leave

and give

him

permission to marry all of them for himself? But must we not take care of how he will support them?

And it was taught: It is stated in the passage concerning yibum [Deuteronomy 25]:

“And the elders of his city shall call for him”—

they, and not their agent.

именно их, а не их посланников.

“And they shall speak to him”—

this teaches that they give him advice appropriate for him.

If he was young and she was old,

or if

he was old and she was young, they say to him: What do you have to do with a young woman?

What do you have to do with an old woman?

Go to one like yourself, and do not place quarrel in your home!

And we answer: They did not permit every person to perform yibum with all of them.

And

it is necessary

for our Mishna only in the case of a wealthy man,

for it is possible for him

to support all of them.

And we challenge this:

If so, even many more

women

also

should he be permitted to marry through yibum; and why did the Mishna mention four yevamot!?

And we answer:

It teaches us good advice: Four

women—

yes.

More,

more than four—

no!

So that there should reach each of them

the fulfillment of the mitzva of

conjugal duty

once

a month.

For the conjugal duty of Torah scholars is once a week, from Friday night to Friday night, and in a month there are four weeks.

We learned in the Mishna:

One who was married

to two women, and died: the intercourse or the halitza of one of them exempts her rival-wife.

And we raised an objection:

And let him perform yibum with both of them, with both of them! And we answer:

Rabbi Hiyya bar Abba said that Rabbi Yohanan said: The verse says [Deuteronomy 25]:

“Who does not build his brother’s house.”

He builds one house, and he does not build two houses.

We raised another objection:

And let us perform halitza with both of them!

And we answer:

Mar Zutra bar Toviyya said: The verse says [Deuteronomy 25]:

“The house of the one whose shoe was removed.”

He removes the shoe from one house, and he does not remove the shoe from two houses.

We raised another objection:

And let him perform yibum

first

with one,

with one yevama,

and

afterward

let him perform halitza with one!

For the verses excluded only yibum with two houses and halitza with two houses; but we have no exclusion stating that yibum with one of them exempts the other from halitza.

And we answer:

The verse says [Deuteronomy 25] that

“if he does not desire”

the yavam to take the yevama as a wife, to establish a name for his brother in Israel, he shall perform halitza.

If he desires

to establish a name for his brother in Israel—

he performs yibum.

The verse teaches that

anyone who ascends

to the gate, to the court,

for yibum—

ascends for halitza. And anyone who does not ascend

for yibum—

does not ascend for halitza!

And after the first one has undergone yibum, the second yevama does not ascend for yibum, for he builds one house and does not build two houses.

And since she does not ascend for yibum, she is also exempt from halitza.

And furthermore,

another reason not to perform yibum with one and halitza with the second: so that

people should not say:

One house is partly built and partly stripped of its shoe.

Furthermore,

there is another reason not to perform yibbum with one and halitza with the other: so

people will not say

:

“The house is partly built and partly released.”

And we ask:

Let them say!

That is to say, this is precisely what one should do, so what is there to fear that they will say, “One house is partly built and partly stripped of its shoe”!?

And we answer:

If he performs yibum

with one

and afterward performs halitza

with the second—

so too, we do not care that they will say this, because this is what must be done.

Rather,

the concern is

that

perhaps he performs halitza

with one first,

and afterward

only afterward

performs yibum

with the second.

And

then

he stands liable,

he transgresses concerning the yibum of the second,

through “he shall not build.”

Since we expound: Once he did not build [when he first performed halitza], he shall no longer build!

And we still raised an objection: Since you expound, “He builds one house and does not build two houses”—

Then say, say that this is the meaning of the exposition, “He does not build two houses”:

Only

when there is

a yevama

one,

that he builds one house—only then

the mitzva of yibum shall be fulfilled.

But

when there are two,

two yevamot, such that he does not build two houses—

the mitzva of yibum shall not be fulfilled

at all! And we answer: If you say that the meaning of the verse is that wherever there are two yevamot from one house there is no mitzva of yibum at all,

if so, “the rival-wife of a forbidden relation,” which the Merciful One prohibited—

why do I need

a verse to exclude her from halitza and yibum!?

Now,

if there were

two

yevamot

in general,

neither of whom is the rival-wife of a forbidden relation,

you said that

they are not fit for halitza and yibum—

when one of the two is a

rival-wife of a forbidden relation—

is it necessary for the verse to say that they are not fit for halitza and yibum!?

And from the fact that the verse was required to prohibit the rival-wife of a forbidden relation, it revealed to us that two yevamot who come from one house were not excluded from yibum and halitza.

And we challenge this:

Why not say that even if two yevamot in general are exempt from halitza and yibum, nevertheless

it was necessary for the verse specifically to exclude two yevamot one of whom is the rival-wife of a forbidden relation?

For

it might enter your mind to say that

the forbidden relation—

stands outside. She is considered outside the framework of yibum, since she is a forbidden relation to the yavam.

And here there are not two houses standing for yibum, but only one house.

And I would say that

her rival-wife should undergo yibum, since she is not excluded by the exclusion, “He builds one house and not two houses.”

It teaches us the verse concerning the rival-wife of a forbidden relation,

that she is prohibited from yibum by a separate law, that of “the rival-wife of a forbidden relation.”

And if so, the question returns: From where do we know that the meaning of the exposition, “He builds one house and does not build two houses,” is not to exempt two yevamot coming from one house from both yibum and halitza?

And we answer:

Rather, from here we know that the intention of the verse is not to exclude two yevamot coming from one house, since the verse repeated the words

“his yevama, his yevama,”

and thereby

included two yevamot coming from one house for yibum and halitza.

We learned in the Mishna:

There was one fit

and one unfit—he performs halitza with the unfit one!

Rav Yosef said: Here,

in our Mishna,

Rabbi taught

the principle:

A person should not pour out the water of his cistern while others need it.

Mishna:

One who remarries his divorcee,

after she married, and transgresses the prohibition, “Her first husband, who sent her away, may not again take her.”

And one who marries his halutza,

and transgresses the prohibition, “Since he did not build, he shall no longer build.”

And one who marries a relative of his halutza [the Gemara will ask: after all, this is not a prohibition from the Torah]—

he must remove

her from beneath him,

and the offspring is a mamzer, the words of Rabbi Akiva.

And the Sages say: he must remove her, but

the offspring is not a mamzer.

And they concede [the Sages]

with regard to one who marries a relative of his divorcee, that the offspring is a mamzer.

For example, the sister of his divorcee. Since all the relatives of his wife are forbidden to him by a prohibition punishable by karet after her divorce, just as they were before her divorce. And offspring born from those liable for karet is a mamzer.

Gemara:

And we raised an objection:

And does Rabbi Akiva hold that

one who marries a relative of his halutza—

the offspring is a mamzer?

But Rish Lakish said: Here,

[in the earlier Mishna, 41a]

Rabbi taught:

the sister of a divorcee—

from the words of the Torah; the sister of a halutza—

from the words of the Sages!?

And we answer:

Teach in our Mishna, in place of “one who marries a relative of his halutza”—one who marries

a relative of his divorcee [such as her mother or her sister], who is forbidden by a prohibition punishable by karet.

And the Gemara adds proof that this is how the Mishna should be read:

This too is logical, that “a relative of his divorcee” should be read in place of “a relative of his halutza.” From this,

that it teaches at the end: And they concede, with regard to one who marries a relative of his divorcee, that the offspring is a mamzer.

Granted, if you say that it deals with her, that our Mishna deals with a relative of his divorcee, as in the emendation of the wording of the Mishna,

this is why it teaches, “And they concede [the Sages] with regard to one who marries a relative of his divorcee, that the offspring is a mamzer.”

But if you say that it does not deal with her,

but rather the Mishna deals with a relative of his halutza—

what is “And they concede with regard to a relative of his divorcee, that the offspring is a mamzer”? But we did not deal with this!

And we challenge this: This is not proof for emending the wording. And in truth, the Mishna deals with a relative of his halutza.

And perhaps, this teaches us the tanna, by saying, “And they concede with regard to a relative of his divorcee, that the offspring is a mamzer,” to say that although the Sages disagree with Rabbi Akiva, who makes a mamzer from those liable for ordinary prohibitions, they concede

that there is a mamzer from those liable for karet!

And for this purpose the tanna mentioned below the example of a relative of his divorcee.

And we answer: For this purpose, the tanna should not have said it here.

For

he teaches it later [on 49a]:

For we learned:

Who is a mamzer?

Anyone who is a blood relative with whom relations are prohibited by “he shall not enter,” the words of Rabbi Akiva.

Rabbi Shimon the Timnite says: Anyone for whom one is liable to karet at the hands of Heaven.

And the halakha is in accordance with his words.

And therefore the proof returns: From the fact that the tanna stated that the Sages concede that there is a mamzer from the relatives of his divorcee, it follows that the earlier Mishna deals with a relative of his divorcee and not with a relative of his halutza.

And we ask:

And perhaps the tanna simply teaches us in our Mishna [in an anonymous Mishna] that the halakha is

in accordance with Rabbi Shimon the Timnite, and therefore he mentioned that there is a mamzer from a relative of his divorcee, who is among those liable for karet; and this is what the tanna came to teach. But in truth, earlier it should read “a relative of his halutza.”

And we answer:

If so, if the tanna came to state anonymously in the Mishna that the halakha follows Shimon the Timnite,

let him teach: the rest of those liable for karet, and not specifically a relative of his divorcee.

“A relative of his divorcee,”

which the tanna mentioned specifically—

why do I need

to mention it?

Rather, infer from this that he mentioned it because

he deals with her

earlier. And it is proven that in place of “a relative of his halutza” one should read “a relative of his divorcee.”

But it is still possible to challenge:

And perhaps, in truth, he does not deal with her,

the tanna does not deal with a relative of his divorcee, and earlier it should read “a relative of his halutza.”

And as for what you challenged—if so, why did the tanna mention specifically a relative of his divorcee as an example of those liable for karet—

your answer is:

And since he taught

in Rabbi Akiva’s words

one who remarries his divorcee, one who marries his halutza, and a relative of his halutza, and the Sages disagree with Rabbi Akiva and hold that from those liable for ordinary prohibitions the offspring is not a mamzer—

he also taught

the opposing side: that, on the other hand, they concede with regard to

a relative of his divorcee [in contrast to a relative of his halutza] that the offspring is a mamzer!

And on the basis of this difficulty, the Gemara answers and reaches a new conclusion:

Rather, indeed the offspring born from

a relative of his halutza, according to Rabbi Akiva—

is a mamzer!

And the Gemara explains Rabbi Akiva’s reason:

Rabbi Hiyya bar Abba said that Rabbi Yohanan said: This is the reason of Rabbi Akiva, because

the verse says: “The house of the one whose shoe was removed.”

The verse called the one who performed halitza—

“his house.”

For the halutza is considered as though she entered his house and went out from it through halitza.

And therefore, the relatives of the halutza are forbidden to him like the relatives of his divorcee, and they do not perform halitza and do not undergo yibum!

Rav Yosef said that Rabbi Shimon son of Rabbi [his son]:

in accordance with Rabbi Shimon HaTimni,

and therefore mentioned that there is a mamzer from a relative of a divorced woman, who is subject to karet; this is what the tanna came to teach. But in the earlier clause the text should indeed read, “a relative of the woman with whom he performed halitza.”

And we answer:

If so,

if the tanna came to state anonymously in the Mishna that the halakha is in accordance with Shimon HaTimni,

let him teach “the other relationships punishable by karet,”

and not specifically a relative of his divorced wife.

“A relative of his divorced wife,”

which the tanna mentioned specifically—

why do I need

him to mention it?

Rather, infer from this that he mentioned it because

he

was discussing her

earlier. It is thus proven that, in place of “a relative of the woman with whom he performed halitza,” the text should read “a relative of his divorced wife.”

But it can still be challenged:

Perhaps he was in fact not discussing her

the tanna was not discussing a relative of his divorced wife, and the earlier clause should read “a relative of the woman with whom he performed halitza.”

And as for your question why, in that case, the tanna mentioned specifically a relative of his divorced wife as an example of those subject to karet—

this is your answer:

And since the tanna taught

in connection with Rabbi Akiva

“one who remarries his divorced wife, one who marries the woman with whom he performed halitza, and a relative of the woman with whom he performed halitza,”

and the Sages disagree with Rabbi Akiva, maintaining that offspring from relationships forbidden by negative commandments are not mamzerim—

he also taught

the converse, namely, that on the other hand they agree with regard to

a relative of his divorced wife

[as opposed to a relative of the woman with whom he performed halitza] that the offspring is a mamzer!

On the basis of this difficulty, the Gemara offers a different resolution and reaches a new conclusion:

Rather, indeed, the offspring born from

a relationship with

a relative of the woman with whom he performed halitza, according to Rabbi Akiva—

is a mamzer!

The Gemara explains Rabbi Akiva’s reasoning:

Rabbi Hiyya bar Abba said that Rabbi Yohanan said: This is the reason for Rabbi Akiva’s opinion:

because

the verse states: “The house of the one whose shoe was removed.”

The verse calls

the man who performs halitza

“his house.”

The woman with whom he performed halitza is therefore considered as though she entered his house and left it through halitza.

Consequently, the relatives of the woman with whom he performed halitza are forbidden to him like the relatives of his divorced wife, and they may undergo neither halitza nor yibbum!

Rav Yosef said that Rabbi Shimon bar Rabbi

[Rabbi’s son]: