Yevamot 98b (צח:) — the Talmud in English

And if he married his paternal aunt

on his father's side

then

he may retain 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 retain her.

For Rabbi Meir would say: Any forbidden relationship that is on account of maternal kinship,

then

he must divorce her,

and any forbidden relationship that is

on account of

kinship through

the father,

then

he may retain her.

And he is permitted to marry his brother's wife

even when she is related to him only through the mother.

And his paternal uncle's wife

even when she is related to him only through the mother.

And all other forbidden relationships 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 marries one and divorces one.

Although they are not relatives, since a convert who converted is considered like a newborn, nevertheless it is prohibited by rabbinic decree, lest people come to permit a woman and her daughter among Jews.

Initially, he may not marry her,

as the Gemara explains.

But if

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

that is, if he married a woman, and he, his wife, and her mother converted, and afterward his wife died, although after her death his mother-in-law remains prohibited, and we might have prohibited her in order to prevent people from coming to permit such a relationship among Jews—in such an extreme case the Sages did not issue a decree.

And some taught: He is prohibited to marry 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

is that not referring to a case where his brother married her when he was a convert,

which would contradict the one who prohibits his maternal brother's wife alone?

And we answer:

No; it is referring to a case where he married her when he was a gentile.

What is the purpose of stating this!?

Lest you say: Let us issue a decree with regard to his marriage to her as a gentile, due to his marriage to 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 marries one and divorces one. Initially, he may not marry her ...

And it had entered our minds that this is what it means: If one of them was already married to him and he had relations with her after he converted, making her his fully married wife, he may not subsequently marry the other one. Therefore, the Gemara was astonished:

The matter follows a kal va-chomer:

Now, if he must take one out

[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 we answer: The statement that they said, “Initially, he may not marry her,” does not refer to a woman and her daughter.

Rather,

there—

at the beginning of the beraita—

it refers.

And this is what it says:

In the case where the Sages said that he may retain her,

such as his paternal sister—in any event,

initially, he may not marry her.

We learned above:

If his wife died, he is permitted to marry his mother-in-law, and some taught that he is prohibited to marry his mother-in-law.

And the Gemara explains:

One

beraita

follows Rabbi Yishmael.

And one

beraita

follows 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 death, one's mother-in-law remains subject to the prohibition

[she remains in her previous state of prohibition]; just as during his wife's lifetime she is subject to burning, so too after her death,

and

since this is so, even

with regard to a convert the Sages issued a decree.

And the one who permits

[the one who permits her] holds

in accordance with Rabbi Akiva, who says: After death, the prohibition of one's mother-in-law is weakened

[her prohibition is weakened], since she is no longer subject to burning,

and

therefore

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

Mishna:

Five women

who were unrelated to one another,

whose male offspring became intermingled,

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

and when

the

sons

of mixed identity grew up, married women, and died.

The result was that the five women required yibbum from the five certain sons, but none of them knew which one was her husband's brother who was to perform yibbum with her or perform halitza for her, since they had become intermingled.

How may they become permitted?

Four

certain sons

perform halitza for one

[the first one who comes to obtain permission for herself].

And one

of them, if he and she wish,

performs yibbum with her.

performs levirate marriage with her.

For, whichever way one looks at it, she is permitted to him: If he is indeed her yavam, all is well; and if not, it is necessarily one of the four who already performed halitza who is her yavam, and she has thereby been released from yibbum and is permitted to marry anyone.

In this manner the first woman has been permitted.

And again:

he

[the one who performed yibbum with the first woman]

and three

other certain sons

perform halitza for one

[the second one who comes to obtain permission for herself],

and one

performs yibbum with her;

and likewise, the third receives halitza from four certain sons—including the two who performed yibbum with the others—and one performs yibbum with her, and the same applies to the fourth and fifth.

The result is four acts of halitza, and yibbum for each and every one.

Gemara:

We learned in the Mishna: Four perform halitza for one, and one performs yibbum with her:

The Gemara explains:

Specifically, halitza and then yibbum,

the procedure must be specifically as stated in the Mishna: First the four perform halitza for her, and afterward the fifth performs yibbum with her. As a result, at the time the fifth performs yibbum, this woman is permitted to him whichever way one looks at it: Either her bond has been released through the acts of halitza, so that she is no longer a yevama prohibited to the general public, or she is his yevama.

But yibbum first, no,

one of them may not perform yibbum before the other four perform halitza for her, because there is concern

that he may encounter a yevama prohibited to the general public,

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 is the meaning of “He and three perform halitza for one,”

that is, why did we say that the one who performs yibbum with the first performs halitza for the second, and does not perform yibbum with the second—the same applying to all of them]?

Lest you say: Let one perform yibbum with all of them,

that is, this is why one of them may not perform yibbum with two or all of them:

rather, each and every one performs yibbum with one,

each and every one of the certain sons performs yibbum with only one—

because

perhaps his own one will happen to come to him,

perhaps in this manner each yevama will reach her own yavam, and the mitzva of yibbum will be fulfilled. But if one person performs yibbum with two, then certainly one of them did not perform yibbum with her own yavam.

The Sages taught:

If

some

of the certain sons

were brothers, and some

of the certain sons

were not

brothers,

the brothers

then

perform halitza, while those who are not brothers

are the ones who

perform yibbum,

as the Gemara proceeds to explain.

What is he saying?

Rav Safra said: This is what he is saying:

The law of our Mishna—that each of the certain sons may perform yibbum—applies only when each of those certain sons is a paternal brother [or a brother through both the father and the mother] of one of the sons of mixed identity, while he is unrelated to the other sons of mixed identity. Therefore, he may perform yibbum: We are uncertain about him only in this way—perhaps he is her yavam [if she is his yevama], in which case he may perform yibbum with her, or he is unrelated to her [if she is not his yevama], in which case he may marry her after all the others have performed halitza and she has been released from her bond.

But if only

some

of the certain sons—each of them with regard to one of the sons of mixed identity—were

brothers

through the father

and had no relationship whatsoever with the other sons of mixed identity,

and

if

some

of the other certain sons—in addition to being paternal brothers of one of the sons of mixed identity, like the first group—were also, with regard to one of the sons of mixed identity,

maternal brothers

only—

that is, among the sons of mixed identity, those certain sons had one who was his paternal brother and another who was his maternal brother, then it follows that he is prohibited from performing yibbum with any of them, lest the woman be his maternal brother's wife, and he must perform halitza for each one, lest she be his paternal brother's wife.

This is their law:

The maternal brothers,

that is, those certain sons who have among the sons of mixed identity also a maternal brother only,

perform halitza

in order to permit the women to the general public, because perhaps she is their paternal brother's wife, but they do not perform yibbum, because perhaps she is their maternal brother's wife.

And the paternal brothers,

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

perform yibbum,

since if she is not his brother's wife, she is merely unrelated to him and is permitted to him after she has received halitza from the other certain sons.

If

some

of the certain sons were

kohanim

who are prohibited from marrying a woman who has undergone halitza,

and some

of the certain sons

were not kohanim.

are not kohanim,

Then the

kohanim perform halitza

and are prohibited from performing yibbum, because since they can perform yibbum only after the women have received halitza from the other certain sons, every woman is found to be possibly a woman who has undergone halitza and possibly his yevama, and a woman who has undergone halitza is prohibited to a kohein.

And these

who are not kohanim are the ones who

perform yibbum.

If

If

some

of the certain sons

were kohanim, and some

of the certain sons also had among the sons of mixed identity

maternal brothers

only, as explained above—that they had among the sons of mixed identity an additional brother through the mother only; it has already been explained that these, too, cannot perform yibbum, lest she be their maternal brother's wife—

both these and those perform halitza and do not perform yibbum,

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.