Jerusalem Talmud Yevamot 1:1

משנה: חֲמֵשׁ עֶשְׂרֵה נָשִׁים פּוֹטְרוֹת צָרוֹתֵיהֶן וְצָרוֹת צָרוֹתֵיהֶן מִן הַחֲלִיצָה וּמִן הַיִּבּוּם עַד סוֹף העוֹלָם. וְאֵלּוּ הֵן בִּתּוֹ וּבַת בִּתּוֹ וּבַת בְּנוֹ בַּת אִשְׁתּוֹ וּבַת בְּנָהּ וּבַת בִּתָּהּ חֲמוֹתוֹ וְאֵם חֲמוֹתוֹ וְאֵם חָמִיו אֲחוֹתוֹ וַאֲחוֹת אִמּוֹ וַאֲחוֹת אִשְׁתּוֹ אֵשֶׁת אָחִיו מֵאִמּוֹ וְאֵשֶׁת אָחִיו שֶׁלֹּא הָיָה בְעוֹלָמוֹ וְכַלָּתוֹ. MISHNAH: Fifteen [categories of] women¹Deuteronomy.25.5">Deut. 25:5 requires that the widow of any man who died without legitimate or illegitimate issue be married by the man’s brother. If, however, that brother is forbidden one of the deceased’s wives by the incest prohibition of Leviticus.18">Lev. 18 or the rules of Deuteronomy.25.5-10">Deut. 25:5–10, she may not be married by the brother to whom she is forbidden. free their co-wives²The House of Hillel hold that if one widow is forbidden, all co-widows are forbidden. This is not accepted by the House of Shammai, Yevamot 1:6:1" href="/Jerusalem_Talmud_Yevamot.1.6.1">Mishnah 6. and the co-wives of their co-wives from ḥalîṣah and levirate forever³If one of three brothers had married the second brother’s daughter and another woman, died childless, the other wife was married by the third brother who already had another wife, if the third also dies childless both of his widows are forbidden because one of them is forbidden. This scenario can be extended to n polygamous brothers; n arbitrary.. They are the following: one’s daughter⁴This statement seems to be needed only for an illegitimate daughter, except the daughter from a gentile or a slave woman who are not legally his relatives (Rashi ad loc.). Legitimate children are covered by Leviticus.18.17">Lev. 18:17. However, the Yerushalmi (Note 135) does not make any distinction between legitimate and illegitimate daughters.
Sadducees (followed by Karaites and Christians) did forbid marriage with a niece since marriage with an aunt is a biblical prohibition and they held that the incest prohibitions of Leviticus.18">Lev. 18 are gender symmetric. Pharisaic opinion is that “one does not introduce punishable offence by argument;” what is written is forbidden, what is not written is not (biblically) forbidden., his daughter’s daughter and his son’s daughter⁵Leviticus.18.10">Lev. 18:10., his wife’s daughter and her daughter‘s daughter and her son’s daughter⁶Leviticus.18.17">Lev. 18:17: “The genitals of a women and her daughter (including mother-in-law and wife) you may not [both] uncover, her son’s daughter (wife’s granddaughter or wife as paternal grandmother’s daughter) or her daughter’s daughter (this forbids the wife’s maternal grandmother) you may not marry to uncover her genitals; they are relatives, it is tabu.”, his mother-in-law and his mother-in-law’s mother and his father-in-law’s mother, his sister⁷This is needed only for the maternal halfsister (Leviticus.18.9">Lev. 18:9) married to a paternal halfbrother. It will be established that the levirate applies only to paternal brothers; the first marriage of the halfsister was legitimate. and his maternat aunt⁸Leviticus.18.13">Lev. 18:13. and his wife’s sister⁹Leviticus.18.18">Lev. 18:18., his maternal halfbrother’s wife¹⁰Leviticus.18.16">Lev. 18:16. It is assumed that the halfbrother died or divorced his wife who then married a paternal halfbrother of the man in question to whom she was not related. The earlier marriage to the maternal halfbrother forbade her permanently to the levir, the brother-in-law on the husband’s side.
Since in Deuteronomy.25">Deut. 25, “brother” is assumed to mean “paternal brother”, it needs some discussion in the Halakhah why in Leviticus.18">Lev. 18 “brother” may mean “maternal or paternal brother” since the usual stance is that in legal texts one word can have only one meaning., the wife of his brother who did not live in his world¹¹Deuteronomy.25.5">Deut. 25:5 introduces the rules of the levirate with the statement “If brothers live together”. This means that a brother born after the death of another cannot marry the widow of the deceased, i. e., the childless widow does not have to wait until the newborn baby grows up to marry her but, if there is no other brother, she may immediately marry outside the family., and his daughter-in-law¹²This is obvious (Leviticus.18.15">Lev. 18:15) except for the case that the son had died and his widow married a brother of her father-in-law unrelated to her. The prohibition of 18:15 is permanent; the earlier marriage to the son forbade her permanently to the father-in-law..

הלכה: חֲמֵשׁ עֶשְׂרֵה נָשִׁים פּוֹטְרוֹת צָרוֹתֵיהֶן כול׳. כְּתִיב מַצּוֹת תֵּאָכֵל. לְפִי שֶׁהָֽיְתָה בִּכְלַל הֵיתֵר וְנֶאֶסְרָה וְחָֽזְרָה וְהוּתְּרָה. יָכוֹל תַּחֲזוֹר לְהֵיתֵירָהּ הָרִאשׁוֹן. תַּלמוּד לוֹמַר מַצּוֹת תֵּאָכֵל. מִצְוָה. כְּיוֹצֵא בוֹ יְבָמָהּ יָבוֹא עָלֶיהָ. מִצְוָה. לְפִי שֶׁהָֽיְתָה בִּכְלַל הֵיתֵר וְנֶאֶסְרָה וְחָֽזְרָה וְהוּתְּרָה. יָכוֹל תַּחֲזוֹר לְהֵיתֵירָהּ הָרִאשׁוֹן. תַּלְמוּד לוֹמַר יְבָמָהּ יָבוֹא עָלֶיהָ. מִצְוָה. HALAKHAH: “Fifteen [categories of] women free their co-wives”, etc. ¹³Sifra Ṣaw Parashah 2(9–10); another version of 2(10) in Yevamot.39b">Babli Yebamot 39b. The basis of the argument is the 12th exegetical rule of R. Ismael [Introduction to Sifra (2)]: If anything was in some set and was removed from it for another purpose, you cannot return it to that set unless the verse returns it explicitly. See Midraš Gen.rabba 85(6) for a formulation of 2(10) referring more directly to the rule. (For an introduction to these rules, see H. Guggenheimer, Logical Problems in Jewish Tradition, in: Confrontations with Judaism, Ph. Longworth, ed., London 1966, pp. 171–196; Über ein bemerkenswertes logisches System aus der Antike, Methodos 1951, pp. 150–161.) What exactly was permitted, became forbidden, and is now commanded is a matter of interpretation in the next paragraphs. It is written¹⁴Leviticus.6.9">Lev. 6:9, speaking of the leftovers of cereal offerings in the Tabernacle. These leftovers must be eaten by priests, in the holy precinct, and unleavened, after the prescribed rites were performed. “unleavened it must be eaten”. Since it was permitted¹⁵Before dedication as offering, the flour was profane and permitted to everybody. It is in the set of unrestricted permitted food. and then forbidden¹⁶After dedication and before the prescribed rites were performed, the flour is forbidden to everybody, including priests. It is no longer in any set of permitted food., when it became permitted again¹⁷After the prescribed rites were performed, it cannot return to the set of unrestricted permitted food. should one think it returned to its prior permission? The verse states “unleavened it should be eaten” as commandment. Similarly, “her levir shall come upon her” as a commandment. Since she was permitted and then forbidden, when she became permitted again should one think she returned to her prior permission¹⁸A rhetorical question; this is impossible by rule 12.? The verse states “her levir shall come upon her” as commandment.

רִבִּי יוֹסֵי פָּתַר מַתְנִיתָא. מַצּוֹת תֵּאָכֵל. מִצְוָה. לְפִי שֶׁהָֽיְתָה בִּכְלַל הֵיתֵר עַד שֶׁלֹּא הִקְדִּישָׁהּ. רוֹצֶה לוֹכַל אוֹכֵל. שֶׁלֹּא לוֹכַל אֵינוֹ אוֹכֵל. הִקְדִּישָׁהּ וְנֶאֶסְרָה קָרַב קוּמְצָהּ וְחָֽזְרָה וְהוּתְּרָה. יָכוֹל תַּחֲזוֹר לְהֵיתֵירָהּ הָרִאשׁוֹן. רוֹצֶה לוֹכַל אוֹכֵל. שֶׁלֹּא לוֹכַל אֵינוֹ אוֹכֵל. תַּלְמוּד לוֹמַר מַצּוֹת תֵּאָכֵל. מִצְוָה. כְּיוֹצֵא בוֹ יְבָמָהּ יָבוֹא עָלֶיהָ. מִצְוָה. לְפִי שֶׁהָֽיְתָה בִּכְלַל הֵיתֵר עַד שֶׁלֹּא נִישֵּׂאת לְאָחִיו. רָצָה לִכְנוֹס כּוֹנֵס. שֶׁלֹּא לִכְנוֹס אֵינוֹ כוֹנֵס. נִישֵּׂאת לְאָחִיו וְנֶאֶסְרָה וּמֵת אָחִיו בְּלֹא בָנִים חָֽזְרָה וְהוּתְּרָה. יָכוֹל תַּחֲזוֹר לְהֵיתֵירָהּ הָרִאשׁוֹן. רָצָה לִכְנוֹס כּוֹנֵס. שֶׁלֹּא לִכְנוֹס אֵינוֹ כוֹנֵס. תַּלְמוּד לוֹמַר יְבָמָהּ יָבוֹא עָלֶיהָ. מִצְוָה. Rebbi Yose¹⁹The Amora. In the Yevamot.40a">Babli, Yebamot 40a, the parallel arguments, in inverse order, are attributed to Rava, a preeminent authority. He is known sometimes to represent Yerushalmi positions, cf. צבי דוֹר, תוֹרת ארץ ישׂראל 1971. בבבל, דביר, תל אביב explains the baraita: “Unleavened it must be eaten”. Since it was permitted before it was dedicated, if one wants to eat it, he eats, not to eat, he does not eat. When he dedicated it became forbidden. When the fistful²⁰A fistful of the offering with all the incense, Leviticus.6.8">Lev. 6:8, brought to the altar to be burned. Once the offering starts to burn, the remainder is permitted to the priests. was brought it became permitted again; should one think it returned to its prior permission? If he wants to eat it, he eats, not to eat, he does not eat²¹This is also Rava’s argument in the Babli. The Babli corrects the statement since the obligation to eat the remainders of the offering is repeated several times in Ex. and Lev.? The verse states “unleavened it must be eaten” as commandment. Similarly, “her levir shall come upon her” as a commandment. Since she was permitted before she was married to his brother, if he wanted to bring her into his house²²As his bride., he could bring her, not to bring her into his house, he would not bring her. When she was married to his brother she became forbidden. When his brother died childless she became permitted again. Should one think she returned to her prior permission, if he wanted to bring her into his house, he could bring her, not to bring her into his house, he would not bring her? The verse states “her levir shall come upon her” as commandment²³He has to marry her whether he likes her or not..

רִבִּי הוּנָא פָּתַר מַתְנִיתָא. מַצּוֹת תֵּאָכֵל. מִצְוָה. לְפִי שֶׁהָֽיְתָה בִּכְלַל הֵיתֵירָה עַד שֶׁלֹּא הִקְדִּישָׁהּ. רוֹצֶה לוֹכַל חָמֵץ אוֹכֵל. מַצָּה אוֹכֵל. תַּלְמוּד לוֹמַר מַצּוֹת יֵאָכֵל. מִצְוָה. כְּיוֹצֵא בוֹ יְבָמָהּ יָבוֹא עָלֶיהָ. מִצְוָה. לְפִי שֶׁהָֽיְתָה בִּכְלַל הֵיתֵר עַד שֶׁלֹּא נִישֵּׂאת לְאָחִיו. רָצָה לִכְנוֹס לְשֵׁם תּוֹאָר כּוֹנֵס. לְשֵׁם מָמוֹן כּוֹנֵס. נִישֵּׂאת לְאָחִיו וְנֶאֶסְרָה. מֵת אָחִיו בְּלֹא בָנִים חָֽזְרָה וְהוּתְּרָה. יָכוֹל תַּחֲזוֹר לְהֵיתֵירָהּ הָרִאשׁוֹן. רָצָה לִכְנוֹס לְשֵׁם תּוֹאָר כּוֹנֵס. לְשֵׁם מָמוֹן כּוֹנֵס. תַּלְמוּד לוֹמַר יְבָמָהּ יָבוֹא עָלֶיהָ. מִצְוָה. Rebbi Huna²⁴In the Babli (l. c. 39b) this is the opinion of Rav Isaac ben Eudaimon, a minor figure. Here also, the author R. Huna of this paragraph does not have the authority of R. Yose of the preceding paragraph. explains the baraita: “Unleavened it must be eaten”. Since it was permitted before it was dedicated, if one wants to eat it leavened, he eats it, unleavened, he eats it. ²⁵The argument of the preceding paragraph has to be inserted here. Since the corrector of the ms. did not insert anything here, it probably was not in the ms. before the copyist; the lacuna can be replaced by three dots. The verse states “unleavened it should be eaten” as commandment. Similarly, “her brother-in-law shall come upon her” as commandment. Since she was permitted before she was married to his brother, if he wanted to bring her into his house because of her shapeliness, he could bring her, because of her money, he could bring her. When she was married to his brother she became forbidden. When his brother died childless she became permitted again. Should one think she returned to her prior permission, if he wanted to bring her into his house because of her shapeliness, he could bring her, because of her money, he could bring her? The verse states “her levir shall come upon her” as commandment²⁶She remains forbidden if the levir has any intention other than to fulfill the commandment. This means that in practice the brother has to refrain from marrying the sister-in-law to avoid enjoying her sexually..

אַתְיָא דְרִבִּי חוּנָא כְּאַבָּא שָׁאוּל. דְּתַנָּא אַבָּא שָׁאוּל אוֹמֵר. הַכּוֹנֵס אֶת יְבִימְתּוֹ לְשׁוּם נוֹי אוֹ לְשׁוּם דְּבָרִים אֲחֵרִים הֲרֵי זֶה בְּעִילַת זְנוּת וְקָרוֹב לִהְיוֹת הַװְלָד מַמְזֵר. It turns out that Rebbi Ḥuna follows Abba Shaul, as we have stated²⁷A different formulation, stressing the opposition of the anonymous majority, in Yevamot.39b">Babli 39b.: “Abba Shaul says, one who brings his sister-in-law into his house because of beauty or another reason²⁸Other than fulfilling the biblical commandment. commits intercourse of prostitution and the child is close to be a bastard²⁹Who is forbidden to marry a Jewish partner, Deuteronomy.23.3">Deut. 23:3..”

מַה אַבָּא שָׁאוּל כְּרִבִּי עֲקִיבָה. דְּרִבִּי עֲקִיבָה אָמַר. יֵשׁ מַמְזֵר בִיבָמָה. מַה דְאָמַר רִבִּי עֲקִיבָה בִּיבָמָה שֶׁזִּינָת. מַה דְאָמַר אַבָּא שָׁאוּל בִּיבִמְתּוֹ. אַתְיָא כְּרִבִּי יוֹסֵי בֶּן חֲלַפְתָּא. דְּרִבִּי יוֹסֵי בֶּן חֲלַפְתָּא יִיבֶּם אֶת אֵשֶׁת אָחִיו. חָמֵשׁ חֲרִישׁוֹת חָרַשׁ וְחָמֵשׁ נְטִיעוֹת נָטַע וְדֶרֶךְ סַדִּין בָּעַל. אֵילּוּ הֵן. רִבִּי יִשְׁמָעֵאל בֵּירִבִּי יוֹסֵי רִבִּי לָֽעְזָר בֵּירִבִּי יוֹסֵי רִבִּי מְנַחֵם בֵּירִבִּי יוֹסֵי וְרִבִּי חֲלַפְתָּא בֵּירִבִּי יוֹסֵי רִבִּי אֵבְדִּימוֹס בֵּירִבִּי יוֹסֵי. Does Abba Shaul hold with Rebbi Aqiba? Since Rebbi Aqiba said, there exists a bastard from a sister-in-law! What Rebbi Aqiba said refers to a sister-in-law who whored³⁰R. Aqiba holds that any child born of any forbidden union is a bastard; the majority opinion is that bastards are created only by incestuous relations that either are capital crimes or sanctioned by extirpation (cf. Yevamot 4:15:2-4" href="/Jerusalem_Talmud_Yevamot.4.15.2-4">Halakhot 4:15, Yevamot 11:1:2-13" href="/Jerusalem_Talmud_Yevamot.11.1.2-13">11:1). Since it is written (Deuteronomy.25.5">Deut. 25:5) “the wife of the deceased may not belong to any outside unrelated man” he holds that any marriage of a widow not released from levirate duty to another man is invalid and her relationship is one of whoring.
A parallel, but more differentiated, statement is in the Yevamot.92a">Babli 92a.. What Abba Shaul said refers to his sister-in-law³¹In a completely legal situation.. It comes like Rebbi Yose ben Ḥalaphta³²The Tanna, who is a much more important authority than the older Abba Shaul. The formulation as a story implies that R. Yose followed Abba Shaul as a matter of personal piety but did not impose his discipline on others. since Rebbi Yose ben Ḥalaphta contracted a levirate marriage with his brother’s wife. He ploughed five times and planted five saplings and had intercourse using a bedsheet³³He avoided direct contact with his levirate wife following Abba Shaul. In a regular marriage, such behavior permits the wife to force a divorce (Ketubot.48a">Babli Ketubot 48a). The story contradicts Yevamot 4:4:1" href="/Jerusalem_Talmud_Yevamot.4.4.1">Mishnah 4:4 which states that once married, the sister-in-law becomes a wife in all respects, including the husband’s duty to satisfy her sexual needs. Tosaphot (Babli Šabbat 118b) discuss the Yerushalmi versions but they read that R. Yose contracted levirate marriages with the widows of his brothers implying that he married five widows, had with each of them only the one biblically required intercourse (Deuteronomy.25.5">Deut. 25:5) and then divorced them. This custom was followed by some Jewish Berber groups in the Atlas mountains to modern times. (R. Moses Margalit restricts the avoidance of direct contact to the first intercourse in fulfillment of the biblical command. R. David Fraenckel concludes that R. Yose rejects Yevamot 4:4:1" href="/Jerusalem_Talmud_Yevamot.4.4.1">Mishnah 4:4 except that he agrees that the wife acquired in levirate can be divorced by the rules applying to any other wife.)
The parallel in Shabbat.118b">Babli Šabbat 118b, formulated as personal statement of R. Yose does not mention either the sheet or levirate marriage, and appears in a completely different context.. These are they: Rebbi Ismael ben Rebbi Yose, Rebbi Eleazar ben Rebbi Yose³⁴Only the first two are renowned; R. Ismael ben R. Yose was the teacher of R. Yehudah the Prince., Rebbi Menaḥem ben Rebbi Yose, and Rebbi Ḥalaphta ben Rebbi Yose, Rebbi Eudaimon ben Rebbi Yose.

כְּתִיב עֶרוַת אֵשֶׁת אָחִיךָ לֹא תְגַלֵּה. מַשְׁמַע הוּא בֵין אֵשֶׁת אָחִיו מֵאָבִיו בֵּין אֵשֶׁת אָחִיו מֵאִמּוֹ. בֵּין אֵשֶׁת אָחִיו שֶׁהָיָה בְעוֹלָמוֹ בֵּין אֵשֶׁת אָחִיו שֶׁלֹּא הָיָה בְעוֹלָמוֹ. בֵּין לְחַיִּים בֶּין לְאַחַר מִיתָה. בֵּין שֶׁיֵּשׁ לוֹ בָנִים בִּין שֶׁאֵין לוֹ בָנִים. הוּתְּרָה מִכְּלָלָהּ עַל יְדֵי יִיבּוּם. יָכוֹל לְכָל־דָּבָר. נֶאֱמַר כָּאן כִּי יֵשְׁבוּ אַחִים יַחְדָּיו. וְנֶאֱמַר לְהַלָּן שְׁנֵים־עָשָׂר עֲבָדֶיךָ אַחִים אֲנַחְנוּ. מַה אַחִים שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר לְהַלָּן בְּאַחִים מִן הָאַב הַכָּתוּב מְדַבֶּר. אַף אַחִים שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר כָּאן בְּאַחִים מִן הָאַב. It is written³⁵Leviticus.18.16">Lev. 18:16.: “The genitals of your brother’s wife you may not uncover.” One understands both his paternal and his maternal brothers’ wives, both the wife of a brother who lived concurrently with him or onewho did not live concurrently with him, whether he had children or did not have children³⁶The verse is discussed in the Yevamot.55a">Babli, 55a, independently from the verse quoted next. Therefore, the Babli engages in a series of arguments to indicate that “brother” in this verse has a wider meaning than “brothers” in Deuteronomy.25.5">Deut. 25:5; among them a reference to Leviticus.18.9">Lev. 18:9, where “sister” is expressly defined as at least a halfsister from any side. [A tannaitic source, Sifra Qedošim Pereq 11(8), restricts the meaning of “brother” in this verse to that in Deuteronomy.25.5">Deut. 25:5. Cf. R. Abraham ben David’s commentary ad loc.] The Yerushalmi has no need for an additional argument since this paragraph is still a continuation of the first one in this Halakhah, an application of the 12th exegetical rule (Yevamot 1:1:2" href="/Jerusalem_Talmud_Yevamot.1.1.2">Note 13), only that the argument is inverted. Since we know that if something was permitted, forbidden, and permitted again, the set of second permissions must be a proper subset of that of first permissions, it is necessary that the restrictions applied to the meaning of “brother” in the second set cannot apply to the prohibition. {The Babli avoids using rules 7–13 of R. Ismael and never has systematic comparisons between arguments following R. Ismael and those following R. Aqiba.}. She became permitted, excluded from this set, by levirate. Should I think unconditionally? It is said here³⁷Deuteronomy.25.5">Deut. 25:5.: “When brothers live together”; and it is said there³⁸Genesis.42.13">Gen. 42:13. להלן is a Babylonism; in true Galilean style it would be תמן. The parallel argument is in Yevamot.17b">Babli 17b; because the constructive framework of the Yerushalmi is missing in the Babli, the latter has a lengthy discussion why the definition of “brother” for levirate is narrower than that for incest prohibitions.: “We, your servants, are twelve brothers.” Since the “brothers” mentioned there are paternal brothers, so the “brothers” mentioned here must be paternal brothers.

יַחדָּיו. פְּרָט לְאֵשֶׁת אָחִיו שֶׁלֹּא הָיָה בְעוֹלָמוֹ. וּמֵת אֶחָד מֵהֶן. הֵן בַּחַיִּים. אֲפִילוּ גֵּירְשָׁהּ וּמֶת זוּ פְטוּרָה. וּבֵן אֵין לוֹ. הָא אִם יֵשׁ לוֹ בֵן פְּטוּרָה. ³⁹Deuteronomy.25.5">Deut. 25:5. The parallel in the Yevamot.17b">Babli, 17b, follows Sifry Deut. #288 in inferring from “together” not only to exclude the wife of a predeceased brother but also the wife of the maternal halfbrother who in a patriarchal world would not live in their clan.“Together”, this excludes the wife of his brother who did not live in his world. “And one of them died”, of those who lived. Even if he divorced her and then died? This one is exempted⁴⁰Exempted from the rules of the levirate.. “Without child”. Therefore, if he has a child she is exempted.

כְּתִיב כִּי אֶת־כָּל־אֲשֶׁר יַעֲשֶׂה מִכֹּל הַתּוֹעֵבוֹת הָאֶל וְנִכְרָת. וַהֲלֹא אֵשֶׁת אָחִיו בִּכְלָל כָּל־הָעֲרָיוֹת הַװָת וְהוּתְּרָה מִכְּלָלָהּ עַל יְדֵי יִיבּוּם. יָכוֹל אַף שְׁאָר כָּל־הָעֲרָיוֹת הוּתְּרוּ מִכְּלָלָן עַל יְדֵי יִיבּוּם. רִבִּי זְעוּרָה בְשֵׁם רִבִּי יוֹסֵי בֶּן חֲנִינָה. עָלֶיהָ עָלֶיהָ. יִבָמָהּ יָבֹא עָלֶיהָ. מַה עָלֶיהָ שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר לְהַלָּן בַּאַחִים מִן הָאַב הַכָּתוּב מְדַבֵּר. אַף עָלֶיהָ שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר כָּאן בַּאַחִים מִן הָאַב הַכָּתוּב מְדַבֵּר. It is written⁴¹Leviticus.18.29">Lev. 18:29. The verse is not quoted exactly. The argument is in Sifra Qedošim Pereq 10(10). A similar version in Yevamot.3b">Babli 3b.: “For anyone who is acting out any of these abominations will be extirpated”⁴²The argument is made explicit (in the name of the 5th generation Galilean Amora R. Jonah) in Yevamot.8a">Babli 8a: The verse considers all incest prohibitions as equivalent.. Was not the brother’s wife in the set of all incest prohibitions and was removed from this set by the levirate? Could one say that all other incest prohibitions were removed from this set by levirate? Rebbi Ze‘ira in the name of Rebbi Yose ben Ḥanina: “upon her⁴³Leviticus.18.18">Lev. 18:18: “Do not take a woman in addition to her sister to be ‘bundle’ together, to uncover her genitals in addition [to the sister’s] in her lifetime.” Cf. also Yevamot 1:1:11" href="/Jerusalem_Talmud_Yevamot.1.1.11">Note 51.”, “upon her⁴⁴Deuteronomy.25.5">Deut. 25:5.”: “her levir shall come upon her.⁴⁴Deuteronomy.25.5">Deut. 25:5.” Since with respect to “upon her” which was said there, the verse speaks about paternal brothers, so with respect to “upon her” which was said here⁴³Leviticus.18.18">Lev. 18:18: “Do not take a woman in addition to her sister to be ‘bundle’ together, to uncover her genitals in addition [to the sister’s] in her lifetime.” Cf. also Yevamot 1:1:11" href="/Jerusalem_Talmud_Yevamot.1.1.11">Note 51., the verse speaks about paternal brothers⁴⁵This implies (a) that a sister which also is a sister-in-law cannot be subject to the levirate and (b) no woman subject to an incest prohibition of Leviticus.18">Lev. 18 can be subject to the levirate, as spelled out in the Mishnah..

רִבִּי בִּנְיָמִין בַּר גִּידַל וְרִבִּי אָחָא הֲווּ יָֽתְבִין. אָמַר רִבִּי אָחָא הָדָא דְּרִבִּי יוֹסֵי בֶּן חֲנִינָה. אָמַר לֵיהּ רִבִּי בִּנְיָמִין בַּר גִּידַל. אוֹ מַה עָלֶיהָ שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר לְהַלָּן בְּשֶׁאֵינָה יְבָמָה הַכָּתוּב מְדַבֵּר. אַף עָלֶיהָ שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר כָּאן בְּשֶׁאֵינָה יְבָמָה הַכָּתוּב מְדַבֵּר. אָמַר לֵיהּ רִבִּי אָחָא. הַתּוֹרָה אָֽמְרָה בִּיבָמָה וְאַתְּ אוֹמֵר בְּשֶׁאֵינָה יְבָמָה. אָמַר לֵיהּ רִבִּי בִּנְיָמִין בַּר גִּידַל. הַתּוֹרָה אָֽמְרָה בְּשֶׁאֵינָה יְבָמָה וְאַתְּ אוֹמֵר בִּיבָמָה. ואִיקְפִּיד רִבִּי אָחָא לְקוֹבְּלֵיהּ. אַמָר רִבִּי יוֹסֵי. לֹא דְרִבִּי אָחָא פַּלִּיג אֶלָּא דְהוּא מְפַקַּד עַל לִישְׁנָא דְשָׁמַע מִן רַבֵּיהּ. מַה כְדוֹן. יְבָמָהּ יָבֹא עָלֶיהָ. מַה עָלֶיהָ שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר לְהַלָּן בְּ(שֶׁאֵינָה) יְבָמָה. אַף עָלֶיהָ שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר כָּאן אֲפִילוּ יְבִמְתּוֹ. Rebbi Benjamin ben Gidal and Rebbi Aḥa were sitting together. Rebbi Aḥa mentioned the statement of Rebbi Yose ben Ḥanina. Rebbi Benjamin bar Gidal said to him: Or maybe: Since with respect to “in addition” which was said there⁴³Leviticus.18.18">Lev. 18:18: “Do not take a woman in addition to her sister to be ‘bundle’ together, to uncover her genitals in addition [to the sister’s] in her lifetime.” Cf. also Yevamot 1:1:11" href="/Jerusalem_Talmud_Yevamot.1.1.11">Note 51., the verse speaks about one who is not a sister-in-law, so with respect to “in addition” which was said here⁴⁴Deuteronomy.25.5">Deut. 25:5., does the verse speak about one who is not a sister-in-law⁴⁷Since an argument based on the invariable meaning of words in legal texts must work both ways and Leviticus.18.18">Lev.18:18 obviously includes the prohibition of a sister-in-law who is not a brother’s wife, R. Yose ben Ḥanina’s argument seems illogical.? Rebbi Aḥa said to him: The Torah mentions⁴⁴Deuteronomy.25.5">Deut. 25:5. the brother’s wife and you say, the verse speaks about one who is not a sister-in-law! Rebbi Benjamin bar Gidal said to him: The Torah mentions⁴³Leviticus.18.18">Lev. 18:18: “Do not take a woman in addition to her sister to be ‘bundle’ together, to uncover her genitals in addition [to the sister’s] in her lifetime.” Cf. also Yevamot 1:1:11" href="/Jerusalem_Talmud_Yevamot.1.1.11">Note 51. one who is not a sister-in-law and you say a sister-in-law⁴⁸The implication from Deut. to Lev. would restrict the prohibition of the sister-in-law to a brother’s widow!! Rebbi Aḥa was offended by him. Rebbi Yose said, not that Rebbi Aḥa disagreed but he insisted on the formulation he had heard from his teacher. What about it? Since “in addition” mentioned there⁴⁴Deuteronomy.25.5">Deut. 25:5. is about a brother’s widow, so “in addition” here⁴³Leviticus.18.18">Lev. 18:18: “Do not take a woman in addition to her sister to be ‘bundle’ together, to uncover her genitals in addition [to the sister’s] in her lifetime.” Cf. also Yevamot 1:1:11" href="/Jerusalem_Talmud_Yevamot.1.1.11">Note 51. is even about a brother’s widow⁴⁹The correct implication, parallel to the argument of R. Yose ben Ḥanina, is that Leviticus.18.18">Lev. 18:18 applies even to the widow of the childless brother as claimed in the Mishnah..

אָֽמְרָה תוֹרָה וְאִשָּׁה עַל אֲחוֹתָהּ לֹא תִקַּח. אֵין לִי אֶלָּא הִיא. צָרָתָהּ מְנַיִין. תַּלמוּד לוֹמַר לִצְרוֹר. לֹא לְצָרָתָהּ וְלֹא לְצָרַת צָרָתָהּ. אֵין לִי אֶלָּא אֲחוֹת אִשְׁתּוֹ. שְׁאָר כָּל־הָעֲרָיוֹת מְנַיִין. רִבִּי זְעוּרָה בְשֵׁם רִבִּי יוֹסֵה בַּר חֲנִינָה. קַל וַחוֹמֶר. מַה אֲחוֹת אִשְׁתּוֹ מְיוּחֶדֶת עֶרְוָה שֶׁיֵּשׁ לָהּ הֵיתֵר לְאַחַר אִיסּוּרָהּ הֲרֵי הִוא אֲסוּרָה לְהִתְייַבֶּם. שְׁאָר כָּל־הָעֲרָיוֹת שֶׁאֵין לָהֶן הֵיתֵר לְאַחַר אִיסּוּרָן לֹא כָּל־שֶׁכֵּן. מַה זוֹ עֶרְוָה פּוֹטֶרֶת צָרָתָהּ אַף שְׁאָר כָּל־הָעֲרָיוֹת פּוֹטְרוֹת צָרוֹתֵיהֶן. עַד כְּדוֹן כְּרִבִּי עֲקִיבָה. The Torah said⁵⁰Leviticus.18.18">Lev. 18:18.: “Do not take a woman in addition to her sister”. Not only her, her co-wife from where? The verse says “to ‘bundle’ together”, not her co-wife nor her co-wife’s co-wife⁵¹The problem is the verb form לִצְרוֹר which has been translated as “to ‘bundle’ together” (from צרר II, Arabic صرّ) but which might also be taken as “to be a co-wife” (from צרה II, Arabic ضرّ). The Yerushalmi opts for the first version. In the Yevamot.13a">Babli, 13a, the argument is that the verb appears in two forms, צרר here and צור in Deuteronomy.14.25">Deut. 14:25. The duplication of consonants is taken to imply “many bundlings together”, to exclude the co-wives’ co-wives. That argument is more in the line of R. Aqiba’s teaching than the bare argument here.. Not only his wife’s sister, all other incest prohibition from where? Rebbi Ze‘ira in the name of Rebbi Yose ben Ḥanina: A conclusion de minore ad majus⁵²The first of R. Ismael’s rules (cf. Yevamot 1:1:2" href="/Jerusalem_Talmud_Yevamot.1.1.2">Note 13) which is universally accepted, also by R. Aqiba.. Since his wife’s sister, who is under an incest prohibition which may be lifted after being imposed⁵³After the wife’s death., nevertheless is prohibited from the levirate, all other women under incest prohibitions which cannot be lifted after being imposed not much more so! Since in the first case the incest prohibition exempts the prohibited co-wife, all other incest prohibitions also exempt their co-wives⁵⁴Since there is no argument pointing to the opposite conclusion.. This follows Rebbi Aqiba.

כְּרִבִּי יִשְׁמָעֵאל. תַּנִּי רִבִּי יִשְׁמָעֵאל. קַל וַחוֹמֶר. מַה אֲחוֹת אִשְׁתּוֹ מְיוּחֶדֶת עֶרְוָה שֶׁחַייָבִין עַל זְדוֹנָהּ כָּרֵת וְעַל שִׁגְגָתָהּ חַטָּאת הֲרֵי הִיא אֲסוּרָה לְהִתְייַבֶּם. אַף כָּל־עֶרְוָה שֶׁחַייָבִין עַל זְדוֹנָהּ כָּרֵת וְעַל שִׁגְגָתָהּ חַטָּאת תְּהֵא אֲסוּרָה לְהִתְייַבֶּם. Following Rebbi Ismael? ⁵⁵Sifra Qedošim Pereq11(10); a version combining the argument with the argument excluding the co-wives in Yevamot.3b">Babli 3b. Both sources are anonymous. Rebbi Ismael stated an argument de minore ad majus. Since his wife’s sister is particular being under incest prohibition for whose violation one is punished if intentional by extirpation, if in error by an obligation to bring a purification offering, and is barred from the levirate, all other women under incest prohibitions for whose violation one is sanctioned if intentional by extirpation, if in error by the obligation to bring a purification offering, should be barred from the levirate.

מַה נִפַק מִן בֵּינֵיהוֹן. אַלְמָנָה לְכֹהֵן גָּדוֹל. מָאן דָּמַר עֶרְוָה שֶׁיֵּשׁ לָהּ הֵיתֵר לְאַחַר אִיסּוּרָהּ. זוֹ הוֹאִיל וְאֵין לָהּ הֵיתֵר לְאַחַר אִיסּוּרָהּ הֲרֵי הִיא אֲסוּרָה לְהִתְייַבֶּם. מָאן דָּמַר עֶרְוָה שֶׁחַייָבִין עָלֶיהָ זְדוֹנָהּ כָּרֵת וְעַל שִׁגְגָתָהּ חַטָּאת הֲרֵי זֶה אֲסוּרָה לְהִתְייַבֶּם. זֶה הוֹאִיל וְאֵין חַייָבִין עַל זְדוֹנָהּ כָּרֵת וְעַל שִׁגְגָתָהּ חַטָּאת תְּהֵא מוּתֶּרֶת לְהִתְייַבֶּם. What is the difference between them? A widow for the High Priest. For him who says, a woman under an incest prohibition which may be lifted after being imposed, this one, not being permitted after being prohibited⁵⁶A widow is forbidden for the High Priest as a new wife, Leviticus.21.14">Lev.21:14. No sanction in mentioned in this case, in contrast to violations of incest prohibitions whose punishment is detailed in Chapter 20. On the other hand, following the principle that “one ascends in holiness but does not descend”, a High Priest may become inactive but he cannot return to the status of common priest permitted to marry a widow., should be barred from the levirate. For him who says, a woman under an incest prohibition for which one is punished if intentional by extirpation, if in error by the obligation to bring a purification offering, is barred from the levirate, in this case since one is not sanctioned if intentional by extirpation, if in error by the obligation of a purification offering, should be permitted for the levirate⁵⁷This conclusion has to be shown to be faulty..

רִבִּי אַייְבוּ בַּר נַגָּרִי קְרִיסִפּי בְשֵׁם רִבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן בֶּן לָקִישׁ. לֹא תִהְיֶה אֵשֶׁת הַמֵּת הַחוּצָה לְאִישׁ זָר. זוֹ אִשָּׁה שֶׁהִיא זָרָה לוֹ. אָֽמְרָה הַתּוֹרָה. לֹא תִהְיֶה לוֹ לְאִשָּׁה אֲפִילוּ מִצְוָה. מֵעַתָּה לֹא תְהֵא צְרִיכָה חֲלִיצָה. אָמַר רִבִּי יִרְמְיָה. יְבִימְתּוֹ יְבִימְתּוֹ. הַתּוֹרָה רִיבְתָה בַּחֲלִיצָה. אִי יְבִימְתּוֹ יְבִימְתּוֹ הַתּוֹרָה רִיבְתָה בַּיִיבּוּם. תַּנִּי רִבִּי יִשְׁמָעֵאל. מָאֵן יַבְּמִי. זוֹ שֶׁמִּיאֵן יַבְּמִי. לֹא שֶׁמֵּיאֵינוֹ שָׁמַיִם. מֵעַתָּה לֹא תְהֵא צְרִיכָה חֲלִיצָה. הֲװֵי צוֹרְכָה לְהֵין דְאָמַר רִבִּי יִרְמְיָה. יְבִימְתּוֹ יְבִימְתּוֹ. הַתּוֹרָה רִיבְתָה בַּחֲלִיצָה. Rebbi Ayvu bar Naggari, Crispus, in the name of Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish. “The dead man’s wife should not be outside, to a strange man⁵⁸Deuteronomy.25.5">Deut. 25:5. “To be” referring to a woman means “to be married”, Deuteronomy.24.2">Deut.24:2. זר “strange” means “outside the clan”, cf. Numbers.17.5">Num. 17:5. This is interpreted here to mean “outside her marriage group”, e. g., the High Priest for the widow..” That is a wife who is a stranger to him. The Torah said, she should not be his wife even in case of a commandment. That being, she should not need ḥalîṣah! Rebbi Jeremiah⁵⁹In the differently formulated Babli parallel, 20a, the author is Rav. It seems therefore that one should read “Rav Jeremiah” (first generation Babylonian) rather than “Rebbi Jeremiah” (fifth generation Galilean). said: “his sister-in-law, his sister-in-law”, the Torah increased the cases of ḥalîṣah⁶⁰Deuteronomy.25.7">Deut. 25:7 reads: “If the man does not want to take his sister-in-law, then his sister-in-law shall go to the elders at the gate and she shall say: My levir refuses to sustain his brother’s name in Israel, my levir does not agree.” The second “sister-in-law” seems unnecessary; if it were written “then she shall go” it would have the same meaning. Since we hold that no word in the Torah is unnecessary, R. Jeremiah concludes that there is a sister-in-law who goes even though the levir did not refuse but Heaven refused for him. This is the subject of the next paragraph.! If from “his sister-in-law, his sister-in-law”, did the Torah not increase the cases of levirate⁶¹Since Deuteronomy.25.7">Deut. 25:7 also repeats “levir”, should there not be a levir who marries his sister-in-law even though the union otherwise would be forbidden?? Rebbi Ismael stated⁶²Sifry Deut. #289. There, the second “levir” is used to express what R. Jeremiah concluded from the first part of the verse: “My levir does not agree,” to exclude the case that the Omnipresent does not agree.: “My levir refuses”. That is, my levir refused, not that Heaven refused for him. In that case, she should not need ḥalîṣah! That means, the statement of Rebbi Jeremiah is needed, “his sister-in-law, his sister-in-law”, the Torah increased the cases of ḥalîṣah!

רִבִּי בּוּן בַּר חִייָה בְּעָא קוֹמֵי רִבִּי זְעוּרָא. אַלְמָנָה לְכֹהֵן גָּדוֹל מַהוּ שֶׁתְּהֵא צְרִיכָה חֲלִיצָה. אָמַר לֵיהּ. אֶיפְשַׁר לוֹמַר קִידּוּשִׁין תּוֹפְסִין בָּהּ וְאַתְּ אוֹמֵר. אֵינָהּ צְרִיכָה חֲלִיצָה. אָמַר לֵיהּ. הֲרֵי אַיילוֹנִית קִידּוּשִׁין תּוֹפְסִין בָּהּ וְאַתְּ אוֹמֵר. אֵינָהּ צְרִיכָה חֲלִיצָה. אָמַר לֵיהּ. הֲרֵי אַיילוֹנִית מִטַּעַם אַחֵר הוּצֵאתָה. אֲשֶׁר תֵּלֵד. יָֽצְתָה זוֹ שֶׁאֵינָהּ יוֹלֶדֶת. Rebbi Bun bar Ḥiyya asked before Rebbi Ze‘ira: Does a widow need ḥalîṣah? He said to him, is it possible to say that her qiddushin⁶³A Jewish marriage is performed in two stages. The first, qiddushin, requires the groom to hand over to the bride an object of value (today, a gold ring) or a written promise of marriage and to declare before two witnesses that the woman is betrothed to him. From that moment on they are married as far as penal law is concerned. In antiquity, the prospective bride (who probably was in her early teens) did not prepare any trousseau. Hence, after qiddushin she was given adequate time to prepare and then was married to live with her husband in a second public ceremony, nissuïn, the execution of the ketubah document, in which the groom mortgages all his possessions and earnings for the upkeep of his wife and the care of his children, followed by the public recitation of seven benedictions (in the presence of 10 adult males). From that moment on, the couple is required to live in intimacy. Today, the two ceremonies are separated only by the reading of the ketubah and, sometimes, by a rabbi’s sermon. The period between qiddushin and nissuïn is one in which the groom is legally married, but as he is forbidden marital relations with his wife, as yet has no financial responsibility. After nissuïn, since the wife has a claim on his property enforceable in court, he receives administration of her estate. The “preliminary marriage” contracted by qiddushin, in Greek speaking communities called πρωτογαμία (cf. Demay 6, Note 19), can be dissolved only by a valid bill of divorce. are legally recognized⁶⁴Incestual qiddushin (where the relationship is punished by extirpation by the Heavenly court or as a capital crime by the earthly court) are null and void. Forbidden marriages for which no particular penalties are indicated, such as marriages of priests with unsuitable women or marriages of bastards, are sinful but valid. Since the marriage of a High Priest with a widow would be valid, it is clear that a levirate union would be sinful but valid and, therefore, the widow needs ḥalîṣah. and you say she may not need ḥalîṣah? He answered him: But qiddushin of a she-ram⁶⁵A woman lacking secondary feminine sex characteristics held to be infertile. are legally recognized and one says that she does not need ḥalîṣah! He said to him, the she-ram was removed because of another reason: “she will bear⁶⁶Sifry Deut. #289, quoted in Yevamot.12a">Babli 12a. Deuteronomy.25.6">Deut. 25:6: “It shall be that the firstborn she will bear should replace the name of his dead brother”.”, this excludes the one who cannot have children.

עַד שֶׁאַתְּ לָמֵד כָּל־הָעֲרָיוֹת מֵאֲחוֹת אִשְׁתּוֹ לְאִיסּוּר. לְמַד כָּל־הָעֲרָיוֹת מֵאֵשֶׁת אָחִיו לְהֵיתֵר. אָמַר רִבִּי מָנָא. לְמֵידִין שְׁנֵי אִיסּוּרִין מִשְּׁנֵי אִיסּוּרִין. וְאֵין לְמֵידִין שְׁנֵי אִיסּוּרִין מֵאִיסּוּר אֶחָד. רִבִּי לָֽעְזָר בְּשֵׁם רִבִּי אָבוּן. כָּל־דָּבָר שֶׁהוּא בָא מַחְמַת הַגּוֹרֵם בָּטֵל הַגּוֹרֵם בָּטֶל הָאִיסּוּר. וְדָבָר שֶׁאֵינוֹ בָא מַחְמַת הַגּוֹרֵם אַף עַל פִּי שֶׁבָּטֵל הַגּוֹרֵם הָאִיסּוּר בִּמְקוֹמוֹ. וּמַה אִית לָךְ. אָמַר רִבִּי יוֹסֵי בֵּירִבִּי בּוּן. כְּגוֹן אֵילּוּ חֲמֵשׁ עֶשְׂרֵה נָשִׁים. שֶׁלֹּא תֹאמַר. בִּתּוֹ עַד שֶׁלֹּא נִישֵּׂאת לְאָחִיו אֲסוּרָה לוֹ. נִישֵּׂאת לְאָחִיו מוּתֶּרֶת לוֹ. Instead of inferring from his wife’s sister that all women under incest prohibitions remain prohibited⁶⁷For levirate; see above, Notes 50–55., deduce from his brother’s wife that all women under incest prohibitions become permitted⁶⁸That the prohibitions are eliminated by the duty of levirate. The argument is repeated in the Yevamot.8a">Babli, 8a, by Amoriam of the last Babylonian generation who add an additional argument.! Rebbi Mana⁶⁹Since the authors quoted in the following are of early generations, this must be R. Mana I. said,one infers two prohibitions from two prohibitions⁷⁰One pre-existing prohibition to which was added the additional prohibition of adultery when she married the brother. but one does not infer two prohibitions from one prohibition⁷¹In the case of an unrelated woman, the prohibition of adultery and that of marrying the brother’s wife are one and the same.. Rebbi Eleazar in the name of Rebbi Abun: For anything induced by a cause, if the cause is removed the prohibition is removed. But for anything not induced by a cause, if the cause is removed the prohibition remains. What is that? Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Bun said, e. g., those fifteen categories of women. That you should not say that his daughter is forbidden to him before she is married to his brother; once she is married to his brother she is permitted to him.

לֵוִי בַּר סוּסַיי בְּעָא קוֹמֵי רִבִּי. נִיתְנֵי שֵׁשׁ עֶשְׂרֵה נָשִׁים. אִמּוֹ אֲנוּסַת אָבִיו נְשׂוּאָה לְאָחִיו מֵאָבִיו. אָמַר לֵיהּ. נִיכַּר אוֹתוֹ הָאִישׁ שֶׁאֵין לוֹ מוֹחַ בְּקָדְקֳדוֹ. וְלָמָּה. אָמַר לֵיהּ. בְּגִין דְּרִבִּי יוּדָה. דְּרִבִּי יוּדָה אוֹסֵר בַּאֲנוּסַת אָבִיו וּמְפוּתַּת אָבִיו. וְלֹא מוֹדֵי רִבִּי יְהוּדָה שֶׁאִים קִידְּשָׁהּ שֶׁתָּֽפְסוּ בָהּ קִידֻּשִׁין. אֶלָּא בְגִין דְּתַנִּינָן שֵׁשׁ עֲרָיוֹת חֲמוּרוֹת מֵאֵילּוּ. מִפְּנֵי שֶׁהֵן נְשׂוּאוֹת לָאֲחֵרִים צָרוֹתֵיהֶן מוּתָּרוֹת. וְתַנֵּי רִבִּי חִייָה כֵן. אִם יְכוֹלוֹת לְהִינָּשֵׂא לְאָחִיו שֶׁלֹּא בַעֲבֵירָה צָרוֹתֵיהֶן פְּטוּרוֹת מִן הַחֲלִיצָה וּמִן הַיִּיבּוּם. וּמִכּוּלָּם אֵין לָךְ אֶלָּא אִמּוֹ אֲנוּסַת אָבִיו נְשׂוּאָה לְאָחִיו מֵאָבִיו. לָמָּה לֹא תַנִּיתָהּ. בְּגִין דְּתַנִּיתָהּ רִבִּי חִייָה לֹא נִיתְנִינָהּ. כָּל־שֶׁכֵּן נִיתְנִינָהּ. אֶלָּא בְגִין דְתַנִּינָן. אֲחוֹתָהּ שֶׁהִיא יְבִימְתָּהּ אוֹ חוֹלֶצֶת אוֹ מִתִייַבֶּמֶת. וְאַתְּ מִשְׁכַּח בְּכוּלְּהוֹן אֲחוֹתוֹ שֶׁהִיא יְבִימְתּוֹ מִתְייַבֶּמֶת. חוּץ מֵאִמּוֹ אֲנוּסַת אָבִיו נְשׂוּאָה לְאָחִיו מֵאָבִיו. ⁷²Yevamot.9a">Babli 9a. There, many other interpretations are given and the discussion extends up to fol. 10b. Levi bar Sisi asked before Rebbi: Should we not state “sixteen women”? One’s mother who was raped by his father married to his paternal halfbrother⁷³According to the majority interpretation, Deuteronomy.23.1">Deut. 23:1 does not forbid the unmarried mother of a son to his paternal halfbrothers. R. Jehudah disagrees but even he must hold that the prohibition of the unwed mother to the halfbrothers of her son is not severely penalized and therefore, a marriage would be legally valid. The incest prohibitions of Leviticus.18">Lev. 18 all speak of the “father’s wife”.. He said to him, it is evident that this person has no brain in his head. And why? He said to him, because of Rebbi Jehudah, because Rebbi Jehudah forbids the one who was raped or seduced by his father. Does Rebbi Jehudah not agree that if [the halfbrother] gave her qiddushin, the preliminary marriage is legally recognized? But because we have stated⁷⁴Yevamot 1:5:1" href="/Jerusalem_Talmud_Yevamot.1.5.1">Mishnah 1:5.: “Six incest prohibitions more severe than these; because they are married to others their co-wives are free.” And Rebbi Ḥiyya stated thereupon: ⁷⁵Tosephta Yebamot 1:7. In that case, the marriage is valid and the co-wives are freed as co-wives of a forbidden one. But if the “marriage” of the brother was in sin, it was in deadly sin and the marriage was not legally recognized. In that case, the brother was not married to the forbidden woman and the so-called co-wife was in fact the only wife and subject to the laws of the levirate.“If they may marry his brother without sin their co-wives are freed from ḥalîṣah and levirate.” And among all of them there is only his mother who was raped by his father married to his paternal halfbrother. Why did we not state this? Because Rebbi Ḥiyya stated it, should we not state it? Certainly we should state it! But because we have stated⁷⁶Yevamot.9b">Babli 9b, in the name of R. Ḥiyya.: “Her sister who also is her sister-in-law either takes ḥalîṣah or accepts the levirate.” We find in all cases⁷⁷The complicated scenario for all 15 cases of the Mishnah is given in detail by Yevamot 9b" href="/Rashi_on_Yevamot.9b">Rashi in his Commentary to Yebamot 9b. In the 16th case, if the raped woman married a son of the man who raped her, her sister cannot marry her son since the maternal aunt is forbidden in Leviticus.18.13">Lev. 18:13. Therefore, her sister cannot be her sister-in-law in a case involving prohibited levirate. that her sister who also is her sister-in-law accepts the levirate except for his mother who was raped by his father married to his paternal halfbrother.

יִצְחָק בַּר אִיסָטַייָה אָמַר. רִבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן בֶּן לָקִישׁ בָּעֵי. נִיתְנֵי. שֵׁשׁ עֶשְׂרֵה נָשִׁים. חֲלִיצָה פּוֹטֶרֶת צָרָתָהּ. אָמַר רִבִּי יַעֲקֹב דְּרוֹמַייָא קוֹמֵי רִבִּי יוֹסֵי. וְלָמָּה לֹא תַנִּינָתָהּ. בְּגִין רִבִּי עֲקִיבָה. דְּאָמַר רִבִּי עֲקִיבָה. יֵשׁ מַמְזֵר בַּחֲלוּצָה. נִיתְנִינָהּ עַל דְּרַבָּנִן. לֹא אָתִינָן מִיתְנֵי אֶלָּא מִילִין דְּכָל־עַמָּא מוֹדֵיי בְהוֹן. אַתְייָא דְּיִצְחָק בַּר אִיסָטַייָה כְּרִבִּי אִמִּי. רִבִּי יָסָא אָמַר. אִיתְפַּלְּגוֹן רִבִּי יוֹחָנָן וְרִבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן בֶּן לָקִישׁ. רִבִּי יוֹחָנָן אָמַר הוּא אֵינוֹ חַייָב עַל הַחֲלוּצָה וְהָאַחִין חַייָבִין עַל הַחֲלוּצָה. בֵּין הוּא וּבֵין אַחִים חַייָבִין עַל הַצָּרָה. רִבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן בֶּן לָקִישׁ אָמַר. בֵּין הוּא בֵין אַחִין אֵינָן חַייָבִין לֹא עַל הַחֲלוּצָה וְלֹא עַל הַצָּרָה. רִבִּי אִימִּי מַחֲלִיף שְׁמוּעָתָא. אָמַר רִבִּי זְעִירָא קוֹמֵי רִבִּי יָסָא. וְהָא רִבִּי אִימִּי מַחֲלִיף שְׁמוּעָתָא. אֶלָּא דֵעוֹן דֵּעוֹן אִית לֵיהּ לְרִבִּי יוֹחָנָן. וַאֲפִילוּ תֹאמַר. דֵעוֹן דֵּעוֹן אִית לֵיהּ לְרִבִּי יוֹחָָנָן. דֵעוֹן דֵּעוֹן אִית לְרִבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן בֶּן לָקִישׁ. מִילְתֵיהּ דְּיִצְחָק בַּר אִיסָטַייָה מְסַייְעָא לְרִבִּי אִמִּי וּמִילֵּיהוֹן דְּרַבָּנִן מְטַייְעִין לְרִבִּי יָסָא. דְּאָמַר רִבִּי יִרְמְיָה רִבִּי בָּא תְּרֵיהוֹן בְּשֵׁם רִבִּי חִייָא בַּר בָּא. הַכֹּל מוֹדִין בְּצָרָה שֶׁהוּא חַייָב. מַה פְלִיגִין. בַּחֲלוּצָה. רִבִּי יוֹחָנָן אָמַר. הוּא אֵינוֹ חַייָב עַל הַחֲלוּצָה וְהָאַחִין חַייָבִין עַל הַחֲלוּצָה. Isaac, the son of the isatis grower⁷⁸His name appears only here., said that Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish asked, should we state sixteen women? Ḥalîṣah frees her co-wife⁷⁹This cryptic argument is explicit in Yevamot.10b">Babli 10b in the form of a discussion between R. Joḥanan and R. Simeon ben Laqish. It is generally agreed that when a levir freed his brother’s widow from the levirate by the ceremony of ḥalîṣah, she is forbidden to him and all other brothers. The majority opinion is that she is forbidden not as his brother’s wife since that prohibition was eliminated when levirate became possible but because it is written in Deuteronomy.25.5">Deut. 25:5 אֲשֶׁר לֹא־יִבְנֶה אֶת־בֶּית אָחִיו which is interpreted not as “who would not build his brother’s house but as “who will not build”; if he refused once he will not build in the future. If the brother who performed ḥalîṣah nevertheless afterwards marries his sister-in-law, that marriage is recognized since no special penalties are attached to this prohibition. If he then dies childless, according to R. Simeon ben Laqish she is forbidden to any remaining brothers as wife of the first brother since for them that prohibition was never lifted. Since she is severely forbidden, the co-wife is free without ceremony.! Rebbi Jacob the Southerner said before Rebbi Yose, why was this not stated? Because of Rebbi Aqiba, since Rebbi Aqiba said there is a bastard from a woman who got ḥalîṣah⁸⁰R. Aqiba, who denies any difference between severely or simply forbidden marriages, declares all children born from all kinds of forbidden marriages as bastards forbidden to marry untainted Jewish partners.. One should have stated it for the rabbis⁸¹Who disagree with R. Aqiba.! We came to state only things everybody agreed to. It turns out that Isaac, the son of the isatis grower, holds with Rebbi Immi. Rebbi Yasa said, Rebbi Joḥanan and Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish disagreed⁸²The Babli quotes only the tradition here attributed to R. Immi.. Rebbi Joḥanan said, he is not guilty⁸³“Guilty” of the severe sin of incest with the brother’s wife. for the woman who got ḥalîṣah, but the brothers are guilty for the woman who got ḥalîṣah. Both he and the brothers are guilty for the co-wife⁸⁴Since she was not selected for the ceremony, her status vis-à-vis the brother performing ḥalîṣah is not different from that vis-à-vis the other brothers.. Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish said, neither he nor the brothers are guilty for the woman who got ḥalîṣah or for the co-wife⁸⁵Since any of the brothers could have performed the ceremony, the severe prohibition was lifted for all of them and was never re-instituted.. Rebbi Immi switches the attributions⁸⁶Since the position of R. Simeon as quoted by R. Yasa contradicts the position of R. Simeon quoted by R. Isaac the isatis grower’s.. Rebbi Ze‘ira said before Rebbi Yasa, does not Rebbi Immi switch the attributions? But Rebbi Joḥanan had several opinions⁸⁷He taught different positions to different students (R. Immi and R. Yasa).. Did Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish have several opinions⁸⁸Should he have changed his position just to oppose R. Joḥanan?? The statement of Isaac, the son of the isatis grower, supports Rebbi Immi and the statements of the rabbis support Rebbi Yasa, as both Rebbi Jeremiah, Rebbi Abba, said in the name of Rebbi Ḥiyya bar Abba: Everybody agrees about the co-wife that one is guilty. Where do they disagree? About the woman who got ḥalîṣah. Rebbi Joḥanan said, he is not guilty for the woman who got ḥalîṣah, but the brothers are guilty for the woman who got ḥalîṣah.

מִילֵּיהוֹן דְּרַבָּנִין אָֽמְרִין. חֲלוּצָה פְטוֹר. שִׁמְעוֹן בַּר בָּא בְּעָא קוֹמֵי רִבִּי יוֹחָנָן. מַה בֵין חוֹלֵץ וּמַה בֵין מְגָרֵשׁ. אָמַר לֵיהּ. אַתְּ סָבוּר חֲלִיצָה קִנְייָן. אֵינָהּ אֶלָּא פְטוֹר. אֵין הָאַחִין חַייָבִין עָלֶיהָ מִשֵּׁם אִשְׁתּוֹ שֶׁלְּחוֹלֵץ אֲבָל חַייָבִין עָלֶיהָ מִשֵּׁם אִשְׁתּוֹ שֶׁל מֵת. ⁸⁹This paragraph belongs to Yevamot 3:1:2-10" href="/Jerusalem_Talmud_Yevamot.3.1.2-10">Halakhah 3:1 where the main discussion is whether ḥalîṣah gives the widow the additional status of divorcee, a position endorsed by Rebbi. Samuel holds that ḥalîṣah is simply the removal of an impediment for the widow to remarry and does not create new marriage restrictions. The words of the rabbis mean that ḥalîṣah is freeing. Simeon bar Abba asked before Rebbi Joḥanan: What is the difference between having ḥalîṣah and divorcing⁹⁰Since in relation to a Cohen the woman freed by ḥalîṣah is at least rabbinically treated as a divorcee.? He said to him: You think that ḥalîṣah is acquisiton, but it is only freeing. The brothers are not guilty⁹¹If they would engage in sexual relations with her. for her under the category of “wife of the one acting in ḥalîṣah” but they are guilty under the category of “wife of the deceased.”

רִבִּי יוּדָן בְּעָא. כְּמַה דְּאָמַר. בֵּין הוּא בֵין אַחִין אֵין חַייָבִין עַל הַחֲלוּצָה אֲבָל חַייָבִין עַל הַצָּרָה. נִיחָא הוּא אֵינוֹ חַייָב עַל הַחֲלוּצָה. שֶׁכְּבָר נִרְאֶה לִפְטוֹר בָּהּ. וְחַייָב עַל הַצָּרָה. שֶׁלֹּא נִרְאֶה לִפְטוֹר בָּהּ. אַחִין מַה בֵּין חֲלוּצָה אֶצְלוֹ מַה בֵּין צָרָה אֶצְלוֹ. חָזַר וְאָמַר. אֵין אַתְּ יוֹדֵעַ מִשֵּׁם מַה אַתְּ מְחַייְבוֹ. אִי מִשּׁוּם אִשְׁתּוֹ שֶׁלְּחוֹלֵץ אִי מִשּׁוּם אִשְׁתּוֹ שֶׁל מֵת. אָמַר רִבִּי יוֹסֵי מַה אַתְּ סָבוּר חֲלִיצָה קִנְייָן. אֵינָהּ אֶלָּא פְטוֹר. אֵין הָאַחִין חַייָבִין עָלֶיהָ מִשֵּׁם אִשְׁתּוֹ שֶׁלַּחוֹלֵץ אֲבָל חַייָבִין עָלֶיהָ מִשֵּׁם אִשְׁתּוֹ שְׁלַּמֵת. Rebbi Yudan asked: Following him who says, neither he nor the brothers are guilty for the woman who got ḥalîṣah but are guilty for the co-wife. It is fine that he is not guilty about the woman who got ḥalîṣah since he was cleared to have her freely⁹²Since he could have married her in levirate. The Yevamot.9a">Babli, 9a, rejects this kind of argument since any one of the brothers could have acted as levir of any of the widows which, therefore, were potentially available to all brothers and none of them could be accused of incest with any of the women.. He is guilty about the co-wife since he was never cleared to have her freely. What is the difference for one of the brothers between the woman who got ḥalîṣah and the co-wife? He turned around and said, you do not know under which head to declare him guilty, whether as wife of the one performing ḥalîṣah or wife of the deceased. Rebbi Yose said, do you think ḥalîṣah is acquisiton? But it is only freeing. The brothers are not guilty for her under the category of “wife of the one acting in ḥalîṣah” but they are guilty under the category of “wife of the deceased”.

רִבִּי יוּדָן בָּעֵי. כְּמָאן דְּאָמַר. הַכֹּל מוֹדִין בְּצָרָה שֶׁהוּא חַייָב. קִידֵּשׁ אֶחָד מִן הַשּׁוּק אֶת אַחַת מֵהֶן וּבָא הַיָּבָם וְחָלַץ לָהּ וּבָא עָלֶיהָ. וּפָֽקְעוּ מִמֶּנּוּ קִידּוּשִׁין. חָלַץ לַחֲבֵירָתָהּ וּבָא עָלֶיהָ. לְמַפְרֵיעָה חָלוּ עֲלֶיהָ קִידּוּשִׁין. אָמַר רִבִּי שַׁמַּי. לֹא כֵן אָמַר רִבִּי יַנַּאי. נִימְנוּ שְׁלֹשִׁים וְכַמָּה זְקֵינִים. מְנַיִין שֶׁאֵין קִידּוּשִׁין תּוֹפְסִין בִּיבָמָה. תַּלְמוּד לוֹמַר לֹא תִהְיֶה אֵשֶׁת הַמֵּת הַחוּצָה לְאִישׁ זָר. שֶׁלֹּא יְהֵא לָהּ הֲוָייָה אֵצֶל אַחֵר. אָמַר לֵיהּ רִבִּי יוֹחָנָן. וְלֹא מַתְנִיתָה הִיא. אוֹ לְאַחַר שֶׁיַּחֲלוֹץ לֵיךְ יַבְּמֵיךְ. אֵינֶהּ מְקוּדֶּשֶׁת. וְהָיָה רִבִּי יוֹחָנָן מְקַלֶּס לָהּ. הַזָּלִים זָהָב מִכִּיס. בְּנִי אַל יָלוּזוּ מֵעֵינֶיךָ. חֲכַם בְּנִי וְשַׂמַּח לִבִּי. תֵּן לְחָכָם וְיֶחְכַּם עוֹד. יִשְׁמַע חָכָם וְיוֹסֵף לֶקַח. אָמַר רִבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן בֶּן לָקִישׁ בָּתַר כָּל־אִילֵּין קִילּוּסַייָא יְכוֹל אֲנָא פָּתַר לָהּ כְּרִבִּי עֲקִיבָה. דְּרִבִּי עֲקִיבָה אוֹמֵר. יֵשׁ מַמְזֵר בִּיבָמָה. אֶלָּא תַּמָּן יְבָמָה אַחַת וְהָכָא שְׁתֵּי יְבָמוֹת. שַׁנְייָא הִיא אִיסּוּר יְבָמָה אַחַת שַׁנְייָא הִיא אִיסּוּר שְׁתֵּי יְבָמוֹת. Rebbi Yudan asked: Following him who says that everybody agrees about the co-wife that he is guilty, if somebody from the market gave qiddushin to one of them and then the levir came and performed ḥalîṣah with her or had intercourse with her, did the qiddushin become invalid? If he performed ḥalîṣah with her companion but then had intercourse with her, were qiddushin validated retroactively? Rebbi Shammai said, did not Rebbi Yannai say the following: More than 30 elders voted, from where that qiddushin have no legal effect on a sister-in-law? The verse says, ⁹³Deuteronomy.25.5">Deut. 25:5.“the wife of the deceased may not belong to any outside unrelated man”, that she cannot have any existence with another man⁹⁴This is the unquestioned doctrine of the Yerushalmi. In the Yevamot.92b">Babli, 92b, it is the position only of Rav; Samuel doubts whether the verse invalidates qiddushin or simply makes them sinful like other non-incestuous forbidden unions. The editors of the Babli explicitly follow Samuel and reject the opinion of the Yerushalmi. That a transgression which is not a capital crime either before the human or the heavenly court is invalid is a very exceptional statement.. Rebbi Joḥanan said to him, is that not a Mishnah? ⁹⁵Kiddushin 3:5:2-7" href="/Jerusalem_Talmud_Kiddushin.3.5.2-7">Qiddušin 3:5. The Mishnah enumerates situations in which consummation of the marriage is impossible at the moment but may become possible later on. If consummation of the marriage is impossible then qiddushin are impossible since they make the bride a wife for all aspects of criminal law. She becomes a wife for matters of civil law only by entering the husband’s house in nissuïn, the marriage ceremony. (R. Meїr disagrees and acknowledges inoperative qiddushin which become activated once the impediment to marriage is removed. The second question of R. Yudan must refer to R. Meїr’s position.)“Or after your levir will have performed ḥalîṣah with you, she is not preliminarily married.” And Rebbi Yannai⁹⁶The text here reads “R. Joḥanan”. This has been changed in the translation following the parallel text in Sotah 2:1:2-11" href="/Jerusalem_Talmud_Sotah.2.1.2-11">Soṭah 2:1 and a similar text in Kilayim 8:1:2-11" href="/Jerusalem_Talmud_Kilayim.8.1.2-11">Kilaim 8:1 (p. 258). praised him “those who pour out gold from the wallet⁹⁷Isaiah.46.6">Is. 46:6.,” “my son, they should not be removed from your eyes,⁹⁸Proverbs.3.21">Prov. 3:21.” “get wise, my son, and make me happy⁹⁹Proverbs.27.11">Prov. 27:11.”, “give to the wise that he shall become wiser¹⁰⁰Proverbs.9.9">Prov. 9:9.,” “let the wise listen that he increase in knowledge.¹⁰¹Proverbs.1.5">Prov. 1:5.” Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish said, after all these praises I can explain it following Rebbi Aqiba since Rebbi Aqiba said that there exists a bastard from a sister-in-law³⁰R. Aqiba holds that any child born of any forbidden union is a bastard; the majority opinion is that bastards are created only by incestuous relations that either are capital crimes or sanctioned by extirpation (cf. Yevamot 4:15:2-4" href="/Jerusalem_Talmud_Yevamot.4.15.2-4">Halakhot 4:15, Yevamot 11:1:2-13" href="/Jerusalem_Talmud_Yevamot.11.1.2-13">11:1). Since it is written (Deuteronomy.25.5">Deut. 25:5) “the wife of the deceased may not belong to any outside unrelated man” he holds that any marriage of a widow not released from levirate duty to another man is invalid and her relationship is one of whoring.
A parallel, but more differentiated, statement is in the Yevamot.92a">Babli 92a.! But there¹⁰²Mishnah Qiddušin. is one sister-in-law, here are two sisters-in-law. The prohibition of a single sister-in-law is different from that of two sisters-in-law¹⁰³The biblical argument of R. Yannai does not imply anything about the status of a co-wife; cf. Note 92 for the opposition of the Babli.!

רִבִּי יוּדָן בְּעָא. כְּמָאן דְּאָמַר. הוּא אֵינוֹ חַייָב עַל הַחֲלִיצָה אֲבָל חַייָב הוּא עַל הַצָּרָה. חֲלִיצָה פְּטוֹר. בִּיאָה פְּטוֹר. כְּמַה דְתֵימַר. חָלַץ לָהּ נֶאֶסְרָה לָאַחִין. וְדִכְװָתָהּ בָּא עָלֶיהָ נֶאֶסְרָה לָאַחִין. תַּנֵּי רִבִּי חִייָה. מֵת הָרִאשׁוֹן יְיַבֵּם הַשֵּׁינִי. מֵת הַשֵּׁינִי יְיַבֵּם הַשְּׁלִישִׁי. אָמַר רִבִּי יוֹסֵי מַה אַתְּ סָבַר. הִיא חֲלִיצָה הִיא בִּיאָה. כֵּיוָן שֶׁחָלַץ לָהּ נֶעֶקְרָה הִימֶּינָּה זִיקַת הַמֵּת לְמַפְרֵיעָה. לְמַפְרֵיעָה חָל עָלֶיהָ אִיסּוּרוֹ שֶׁלְּמֵת אֵצֶל הָאַחִין. אֲבָל אִם בָּא עָלֶיהָ אִשְׁתּוֹ הִיא. וְתַנֵּי רִבִּי חִייָה. מֵת הָרִאשׁוֹן יְיַבֵּם הַשֵּׁינִי. מֵת הַשֵּׁינִי יְיַבֵּם הַשְּׁלִישִׁי. Rebbi Yudan asked: Following him who said, a man is not guilty for the woman who got ḥalîṣah but he is guilty for the co-wife, ḥalîṣah is freeing; is intercourse freeing¹⁰⁴Intercourse is the only way a sister-in-law can be married, Deuteronomy.25.5">Deut. 25:5. The act not only is one of binding the woman to him but also of freeing him from the incest prohibition of the brother’s wife.? As you say, if he performed ḥalîṣah with her, she became forbidden to the brothers. Similarly, if he had intercourse with her, she became forbidden to the brothers. Rebbi Ḥiyya stated: If the first husband died, the second brother shall take her in levirate. If the second dies, the third shall take her in levirate¹⁰⁵How can the third man marry her if she is forbidden to him by the levirate of the second?! Rebbi Yose said, what do you think? That ḥalîṣah is the same as intercourse? Once he performed ḥalîṣah, the claim of the dead is removed from her retroactively. Retroactively fell on her the prohibition¹⁰⁶The incest prohibition. of the dead man regarding the brothers. But if he had intercourse with her, she is his wife¹⁰⁷“In every respect”, Yevamot 4:4:1" href="/Jerusalem_Talmud_Yevamot.4.4.1">Mishnah 4:4. Her relationship with the first husband is legally dissolved.. On that did Rebbi Ḥiyya state: If the first husband died, the second brother shall take her in levirate. If the second dies, the third shall take her in levirate¹⁰⁸But if two husbands die (except in war or during an epidemic) she is considered a danger to a husband’s life and must have ḥalṣîah..

אֲחוֹתוֹ מֵאִמּוֹ. נְשׂוּאָה לְאָחִיו מֵאָבִיו. אֲחוֹת אִמּוֹ. גְּבַר וּבְרֵיהּ נָֽסְבִין תַּרְתֵּין אַחֲװָן. אֲחוֹת אִשְׁתּוֹ. תְּרֵין אַחִין נְסִיבִין לְתַרְתֵּין אַחֲװָן. “His maternal halfsister,” married to his paternal halfbrother. “His mother’s sister,” a man and his son married two sisters. “His wife’s sister,” two brothers being married to two sisters¹⁰⁹From here to the end of the Halakhah one constructs cases in which the prohibitions of levirate can actually apply..

וְאֵשֶׁת אָחִיו מֵאִמּוֹ. נֶאֱמַר כָּאן אַחֲוָה וְנֶאֱמַר לְהַלָּן שְׁנֵים־עָשָׂר עֲבָדֶיךָ אַחִים אֲנַחְנוּ. מַה אַחִים שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר לְהַלָּן בְּאַחִים מִן הָאַב הַכָּתוּב מְדַבֶּר. אַף אַחִים שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר כָּאן בְּאַחִים מִן הָאַב הַכָּתוּב מְדַבֶּר. אָמַר רִבִּי יוֹנָתָן. נֶאֱמַר כָּאן יְשִׁיבָה וְנֶאֱמַר לְהַלָּן יְשִׁיבָה. וִירִשְׁתָּהּ וְיָשַׁבְתָּ בָּהּ. מַה יְשִׁיבָה שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר לְהַלָּן יְשִׁיבָה שֶׁיֵּשׁ עִמָּהּ יְרוּשָּׁה. אַף יְשִׁיבָה שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר כָּאן יְשִׁיבָה שֶׁיֵּשׁ עִמָּהּ יְרוּשָּׁה. רִבִּי אָבוּן בַּר בִּיסנָא בְשֵׁם רִבִּי יוֹנָתָן דְּבֵית גּוּברִין. יָֽשְׁבוּ. אֶת שֶׁיְּשִׁיבָתָן בְּבַיִת אֶחָד. יָֽצְאוּ אַחִים מִן הָאֵם שֶׁזֶּה הוֹלֵךְ לְבֵית אָבִיו וְזֶה הוֹלֵךְ לְבֵית אָבִיו. “His maternal halfbrother’s wife.¹¹⁰One explains why the scenario described in Yevamot 1:1:1" href="/Jerusalem_Talmud_Yevamot.1.1.1">Note 10 is intended, that there is no levirate among maternal halfbrothers.” It mentions here brotherhood and it is said there: “We, your servants, are twelve brothers.” Since the “brothers” mentioned there are paternal brothers, so the “brothers” mentioned here must be paternal brothers¹¹¹See above, Yevamot 1:1:7" href="/Jerusalem_Talmud_Yevamot.1.1.7">Note 37.. Rebbi Jonathan said, it is said here dwelling and it says there dwelling. “You will inherit and dwell there¹¹²Deuteronomy.17.13">Deut. 17:13..” Since with “dwelling” mentioned there, inheritance is connected. so with “dwelling” mentioned here, inheritance is connected. Rebbi Abun bar Bisna in the name of Rebbi Jonathan from Bet Gubrin: “they dwell¹¹³Deuteronomy.25.5">Deut. 25:5. The argument is based on the expression “dwell together”. Cf. Sifry Deut. #288, first paragraph. The argument is hinted at in the Yevamot.17b">Babli, 17b, as a side remark.”. Those whose dwelling is in one house. This excludes maternal halfbrothers where one goes to his own father’s house and the other one goes to his own father’s house.

יַחדָּיו. פְּרָט לְאֵשֶׁת אָחִיו שֶׁלֹּא הָיָה בְעוֹלָמוֹ. רִבִּי בּוּן בַּר חִייָה אָמַר. רִבִּי בָּא בַּר מָמָל בָּעֵי. אַיילוֹנִית וְאֵשֶׁת אָחִיו שֶׁלֹּא הָיָה בְעוֹלָמוֹ הָיוּ בְפָרָשָׁה. מֶה חָמִית מֵימַר. אַיילוֹנִית צָרָתָהּ מוּתֶּרֶת וְאֵשֶׁת אָחִיו שֶׁלֹּא הָיָה בְעוֹלָמוֹ צָרָתָהּ אֲסוּרָה. אָמַר לֵיהּ. אַיילוֹנִית מִטַּעַם אַחֵר הוּצֵאתָה. אֲשֶׁר תֵּלֵד. יָֽצְתָה זוֹ שֶׁאֵינָהּ יוֹלֶדֶת. לא דַייֵךְ שֶׁאֵינָהּ מִתְייַבֶּמֶת אֶלָּא שֶׁאַתְּ מְבַקֵּשׁ לֶאֱסוֹר צָרָתָהּ. אֲבָל אֵשֶׁת אָחִיו שֶׁלֹּא הָיָה בְעוֹלָמוֹ עֶרְוָה הִיא וְעֵרְוָה פוֹטֶרֶת צָרָתָהּ. אַסִּי אָמַר. צָרַת אַיילוֹנִית אֲסוּרָה. מַתְנִיתָא פְלִיגָא עַל אַסִּי. וְכוּלָּן אִם מֵתוּ אוֹ מֵיאֵינוּ אוֹ נִתגָּֽרְשׁוּ אוֹ שֶׁנִּמְצְאוּ אַיילוֹנִיוֹת צָרוֹתֵיהֶן מוּתָּרוֹת. רִבִּי בּוּן בַּר חִייָה בְשֵׁם רִבִּי בָּא בַּר מָמָל. מַה דָמַר אַסִּי כְּרִבִּי מֵאִיר. דְּרִבִּי מֵאִיר אָמַר. כֹּל שֶׁאֵין אַתְּ מְייַבְּמֵנִי אֵין אַתְּ מְייַבֵּם צָרָתִי. “Together”, this excludes the wife of his brother who did not live in his world^11,Deuteronomy.25.5">Deut. 25:5 introduces the rules of the levirate with the statement “If brothers live together”. This means that a brother born after the death of another cannot marry the widow of the deceased, i. e., the childless widow does not have to wait until the newborn baby grows up to marry her but, if there is no other brother, she may immediately marry outside the family.³⁹Deuteronomy.25.5">Deut. 25:5. The parallel in the Yevamot.17b">Babli, 17b, follows Sifry Deut. #288 in inferring from “together” not only to exclude the wife of a predeceased brother but also the wife of the maternal halfbrother who in a patriarchal world would not live in their clan.. Rebbi Abun bar Ḥiyya said, Rebbi Abba bar Mamal asked: The she-ram⁶⁵A woman lacking secondary feminine sex characteristics held to be infertile. and the wife of his brother who did not live in his world were in the paragraph. Why do you see fit to say that the co-wife of the she-ram is permitted but the co-wife of the wife of his brother who did not live in his world is forbidden? He said to him, the she-ram was removed because of another reason: “she will bear”, this excludes the one who cannot have children⁶⁶Sifry Deut. #289, quoted in Yevamot.12a">Babli 12a. Deuteronomy.25.6">Deut. 25:6: “It shall be that the firstborn she will bear should replace the name of his dead brother”.. Is it not enough that she cannot be eligible for the levirate but you also want to forbid her co-wife? But the wife of his brother who did not live in his world is under an incest prohibition and any incest prohibition frees the co-wife. Assi¹¹⁴He is Rav Assi; his statement is in Yevamot.12b">Babli 12b. Since he is Babylonian and slightly older than Rav for whom the title of “Rav” was invented, it seems correct to leave him without title. said, the co-wife of a she-ram is forbidden. The Mishnah¹¹⁵Yevamot 1:2:1" href="/Jerusalem_Talmud_Yevamot.1.2.1">Mishnah 1:2. disagrees with Assi: “All of these, if they died, or refused, or were divorced, or turned out to be she-rams, their co-wives are permitted.” Rebbi Abun bar Ḥiyya in the name of Rebbi Abba bar Mamal: Assi follows Rebbi Meїr since Rebbi Meїr said, in any case where you cannot take me in levirate you cannot take my co-wife¹¹⁶The Babli holds that the Mishnah speaks about a girl whose first husband never realized that she was congenitally sterile. Therefore, we assume that had he known this, he would not have married her; the marriage act was in error and she is not his widow. But if he knowingly married a sterile woman she is his wife and her co-wife is forbidden (accepting R. Meiir’s reasoning without quoting him.).

וְכַלָּתוֹ. אָמַר רִבִּי יוֹסֵי. זֹאת אוֹמֶרֶת שֶׁמּוּתָּר לָאָדָם לִישָּׂא אֶת אֵשֶׁת בֶּן אָחִיו. “And his daughter-in-law.” Rebbi Yose said, this implies that a man is permitted to marry his brother’s son’s wife¹¹⁷A daughter-in-law becomes a sister-in-law only if the son dies or divorces her and she marries a brother. The statement is attributed to R. Ḥaggai in Halakhah 11:4..