Yevamot 98b — the Talmud in English

And if he married his paternal aunt,

on his father’s side—

then

he may remain married to her.

And if he married

his maternal aunt on her mother’s side,

then

he must divorce her.

And if he married his maternal aunt

on her father’s side:

Rabbi Meir says: He must divorce her,

since there is here an aspect of maternal kinship.

And the Sages say: He may remain married to her.

For Rabbi Meir would say: Any forbidden relation that is due to maternal kinship,

then

he must divorce her,

but any forbidden relation that is

due to

kinship through

the father,

then

he may remain married to her.

And he is permitted to marry his brother’s wife,

even if she is his maternal brother’s wife.

And he is permitted to marry his paternal uncle’s wife,

even if she is his maternal uncle’s wife.

And all other forbidden relations are permitted to him, including his father’s wife.

And if a

gentile married

a

woman and her daughter,

and he and his wives converted, then

he may marry one of them and must divorce the other.

Although they are not relatives, since a convert who converted is considered like a newborn child, and they therefore have no familial relationship, it is nevertheless prohibited by rabbinic decree, lest people come to permit a Jewish man to marry a woman and her daughter.

Initially, he may not marry either of them,

as the Gemara—the Talmudic discussion of the Mishna—explains.

But if

his wife died, he is permitted to marry his mother-in-law,

meaning that if he married a woman, and he, his wife, and his mother-in-law all converted, and afterward his wife died, although his mother-in-law remains prohibited to him after his wife’s death, and we might have prohibited him from marrying her lest people come to permit such a case among Jews, the Sages did not issue a decree to such an extent.

And some teach: He is prohibited from marrying his mother-in-law,

and their dispute will be explained below.

In any event, it teaches: He is permitted to marry his brother’s wife—

and

does this not mean that his brother married her while he was a convert?

This would contradict the one who prohibits only the wife of his maternal brother!

And they answer:

No; he married her while he was a gentile.

What is the point of stating this!?

You might have said that when he married her as a gentile, the Sages should issue a decree because of the case in which he married her as a convert.

It teaches us

that the Sages do not issue such a decree.

The Master said: “If he married a woman and her daughter,”

then

he may marry one and must divorce the other. “Initially, he may not marry either of them” ...

And it entered our minds that this is what it means: If one of them was married to him and he had relations with her after converting, so that she became his fully valid wife, he may not afterward marry the second one. Therefore, the Gemara asks:

This follows by an a-fortiori inference:

Now, if he must divorce one

[if the Sages required him to divorce her],

initially—

is it necessary to say so!?

[It is obvious that he may not marry her.] Why, then, did the tanna need to state this!?

And they answer: The statement “Initially, he may not marry either of them” does not refer to the case of a woman and her daughter.

Rather,

there—

at the beginning of the baraita—

is where it applies.

And this is what it means:

In the case where the Sages said that he may remain married,

such as his paternal sister—nevertheless,

initially, he may not marry her.

We learned above:

If his wife died, he is permitted to marry his mother-in-law; and some teach that he is prohibited from marrying his mother-in-law.

The Gemara explains:

One

baraita

follows the opinion of Rabbi Yishmael.

And one

baraita

follows the opinion of Rabbi Akiva,

as it proceeds to explain.

The one who prohibits

[the one who prohibits her] holds

in accordance with Rabbi Yishmael, who says: “After her death, a mother-in-law remains under the prohibition”

[she remains under her original prohibition]. Just as while she is alive she is subject to the penalty of burning, so too after her death;

and

since that is so,

with regard to a convert as well, the Sages issued a decree against him.

And the one who permits

[the one who permits her] holds

in accordance with Rabbi Akiva, who says: “After her death, the prohibition of a mother-in-law is weakened for him”

[her prohibition is weakened], since she is no longer subject to the penalty of burning;

and

therefore,

with regard to a convert, the Sages did not issue a decree against him.

Mishna:

Five women

who were unrelated to one another

whose male children became intermingled, while each woman also had one certain son from the same husband—

and each of them also had a certain son from that same husband—

and when

the

children

of the intermingled group grew up, they married women and died.

The result was that the five women required levirate marriage with the five certain sons. However, each woman did not know which of the deceased men was her husband’s brother, who must either perform levirate marriage with her or release her through chalitza, the ceremony that releases a woman from the levirate bond, since the identities had become intermingled.

How can they be permitted to remarry?

Four

certain sons

perform chalitza with one of the women

[the first woman who comes to obtain permission to remarry].

And one

of them, if

he and she wish,

performs levirate marriage with her.

For regardless of which possibility is true, she is permitted to him: If he is indeed her levirate brother-in-law, all is well; and if not, one of the four who already performed chalitza must be her levirate brother-in-law, and she has thereby been released from the levirate bond and is permitted to marry anyone.

In this manner, the first woman is permitted.

And again,

he

[the man who performed levirate marriage with the first woman]

and three

other certain sons

perform chalitza with one woman

[the second woman who comes to obtain permission to remarry],

and one

performs levirate marriage with her;

and likewise, the third woman receives chalitza from four certain sons—including the two who performed levirate marriage with the other women—and one performs levirate marriage with her; and the same applies to the fourth and fifth women.

The result is four acts of chalitza, and levirate marriage for each and every one of them.

Gemara:

We learned in the Mishna: Four perform chalitza with one woman, and one performs levirate marriage with her.

The Gemara explains:

Specifically, chalitza first and levirate marriage afterward.

The procedure must be carried out specifically in the order stated by the Mishna: First, the four must perform chalitza with her, and afterward the fifth performs levirate marriage with her. As a result, at the time of the fifth man’s levirate marriage, this woman is permitted to him in either event: Either the levirate bond was removed through the acts of chalitza and she is no longer a levirate widow prohibited to marry anyone else, or she is his levirate wife.

But levirate marriage first is not permitted.

It is prohibited for one of them to perform levirate marriage with her before the other four perform chalitza, because there is concern

that he may encounter a levirate widow who is prohibited to marry anyone else: It is possible that she is not his levirate wife and has not yet received chalitza from her actual levirate brother-in-law, and a levirate widow is prohibited from marrying anyone else.

for it is possible that she is not his yevama and has not yet received halitza from her yavam, whereas a yevama is prohibited to the general public.

The Gemara further explains:

What does “He and three perform chalitza with one woman” mean?

That is: Why did we learn that the man who performed levirate marriage with the first woman performs chalitza with the second, and that the second woman is not taken in levirate marriage by the man who performed levirate marriage with the first woman [and likewise in all the cases]?

Lest you say: Let one man perform levirate marriage with all of them—

that is, why should one of them not perform levirate marriage with two or with all of them?

Rather, each and every one performs levirate marriage with one.

Each of the certain sons performs levirate marriage with only one woman—

because

perhaps she will happen to be his

levirate wife. In this way, perhaps each woman will reach her actual levirate brother-in-law and the mitzva of levirate marriage will be fulfilled. But if one man performs levirate marriage with two women, then certainly one of them did not perform levirate marriage with her actual levirate brother-in-law.

The Sages taught:

If

some

of the certain sons

were brothers, and some

of the certain sons

were not

brothers,

the brothers

should

perform chalitza, while those who are not brothers

should

perform levirate marriage,

as the Gemara proceeds to explain.

What is it saying?

Rav Safra said: This is what it means:

The law of our Mishna—that each of the certain sons may perform levirate marriage—is stated only when each of those certain sons is a paternal brother [or a paternal and maternal brother] of one of the intermingled sons, while he is unrelated to the other intermingled sons. Therefore, he may perform levirate marriage: Our uncertainty concerning him is only whether he is the levirate brother-in-law—if this is his levirate wife, in which case he may perform levirate marriage with her—or whether he is unrelated to her—if she is not his levirate wife, in which case he may marry her after all the others perform chalitza and she is released from the levirate bond.

But if only

some

of the certain sons were related to one of the intermingled sons, then they were

brothers

through the father,

and had no relationship whatsoever with the other intermingled sons.

And if

those

some other certain sons—besides being paternal brothers of some of the intermingled sons—were also

brothers of one of the intermingled sons

through the mother

only—

that is, among the intermingled sons, those certain sons had one brother through the father and another brother through the mother, then each of them is prohibited from performing levirate marriage with any of the women, lest she be the wife of his maternal brother; and he must perform chalitza with each one, lest she be the wife of his paternal brother.

This is their law:

Those who are maternal brothers,

that is, those certain sons who have among the intermingled sons also a brother through the mother only,

perform chalitza

in order to permit the women to marry others, because perhaps a woman is the wife of their paternal brother; but they do not perform levirate marriage, because perhaps she is the wife of their maternal brother.

And those who are paternal brothers,

that is, those certain sons who have among the intermingled sons only a paternal brother, are the ones who

perform levirate marriage,

because if she is not the wife of their brother, then she is unrelated to them and is permitted to them after she has received chalitza from the other certain sons.

If

some

of the certain sons are

kohanim, members of the priestly class who are subject to special restrictions,

and are prohibited from marrying a woman who has undergone chalitza,

and

some

of the certain sons

are not kohanim,

then

the kohanim perform chalitza

and are prohibited from performing levirate marriage. Since they can perform levirate marriage only after the women have received chalitza from the other certain sons, each woman would then be either a woman who underwent chalitza or their levirate wife, and a woman who underwent chalitza is prohibited to a kohen.

And

those who are not kohanim are the ones who

perform yibbum.

perform levirate marriage.

If

some

of the certain sons are

kohanim, and some

of the certain sons also have among the intermingled sons

maternal brothers only,

as explained above—that they have among the intermingled sons an additional brother through the mother only, and it has already been explained that these certain sons also cannot perform levirate marriage, lest she be the wife of their maternal brother—

both these and those perform chalitza but do not perform levirate marriage: The kohanim do not perform levirate marriage lest she be a woman who underwent chalitza, and the others do not perform levirate marriage lest she be the wife of their maternal brother only.

the kohanim do not perform yibbum, lest she be a woman who has undergone halitza, and the others do not perform yibbum, lest she be the wife of a maternal brother only.