הָאִשָּׁה שֶׁהָלַךְ בַּעְלָהּ לִמְדִינַת הַיָּם, וּבָאוּ וְאָמְרוּ לָהּ, מֵת בַּעְלֵךְ, וְנִסֵּת, וְאַחַר כָּךְ בָּא בַעְלָהּ, תֵּצֵא מִזֶּה וּמִזֶּה, וּצְרִיכָה גֵט מִזֶּה וּמִזֶּה. וְאֵין לָהּ כְּתֻבָּה וְלֹא פֵרוֹת וְלֹא מְזוֹנוֹת וְלֹא בְלָאוֹת, לֹא עַל זֶה וְלֹא עַל זֶה. אִם נָטְלָה מִזֶּה וּמִזֶּה, תַּחֲזִיר. וְהַוָּלָד מַמְזֵר מִזֶּה וּמִזֶּה. וְלֹא זֶה וָזֶה מִטַּמְּאִין לָהּ, וְלֹא זֶה וָזֶה זַכָּאִין לֹא בִמְצִיאָתָהּ וְלֹא בְמַעֲשֵׂה יָדֶיהָ, וְלֹא בַהֲפָרַת נְדָרֶיהָ. הָיְתָה בַת יִשְׂרָאֵל, נִפְסְלָה מִן הַכְּהֻנָּה, וּבַת לֵוִי מִן הַמַּעֲשֵׂר, וּבַת כֹּהֵן מִן הַתְּרוּמָה. וְאֵין יוֹרְשִׁים שֶׁל זֶה וְיוֹרְשִׁים שֶׁל זֶה יוֹרְשִׁים אֶת כְּתֻבָּתָהּ. וְאִם מֵתוּ, אָחִיו שֶׁל זֶה וְאָחִיו שֶׁל זֶה חוֹלְצִין וְלֹא מְיַבְּמִין. רַבִּי יוֹסֵי אוֹמֵר, כְּתֻבָּתָהּ עַל נִכְסֵי בַעְלָהּ הָרִאשׁוֹן. רַבִּי אֶלְעָזָר אוֹמֵר, הָרִאשׁוֹן זַכַּאי בִּמְצִיאָתָהּ וּבְמַעֲשֵׂה יָדֶיהָ, וּבַהֲפָרַת נְדָרֶיהָ. וְרַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן אוֹמֵר, בִּיאָתָהּ אוֹ חֲלִיצָתָהּ מֵאָחִיו שֶׁל רִאשׁוֹן פּוֹטֶרֶת צָרָתָהּ, וְאֵין הַוָּלָד מִמֶּנּוּ מַמְזֵר. וְאִם נִסֵּת שֶׁלֹּא בִרְשׁוּת, מֻתֶּרֶת לַחֲזֹר לוֹ: With regard to a woman whose husband went overseas, and witnesses came and they said to her: Your husband is dead, and she married another man on the basis of this testimony, and afterward her husband came back from out of the country, she must leave both this man and that one, as they are both forbidden to her. And she requires a bill of divorce from this one and that one. And furthermore, she has a claim to neither payment of her marriage contract, nor the profits of her property used by either of them, nor sustenance, nor the worn clothes she brought to the marriage. She has rights to these claims neither against this man nor against that one, i.e., she cannot collect these payments from either her first or second husband. And if she took any of these items from this man or from that one, she must return them to him. And the offspring is a mamzer from this one and from that one. Her child from the second husband is a definite mamzer, as she was never divorced from her first husband, and the Sages decreed that if she returned to her first husband, a child born later from him is also a mamzer. And neither this man nor that man may become impure for her upon her death, if they are priests. And neither this one nor that one is entitled to the rights that stem from the marriage bond: Neither to her found articles, nor to her earnings, nor to the nullification of her vows. If she was a regular Israelite woman, she is disqualified from marrying into the priesthood, as her intercourse with the second husband is considered an act of illicit sexual relations, and the daughter of a Levite is disqualified from partaking of the first tithe, and the daughter of a priest is disqualified from partaking of teruma. And neither the heirs of this man nor the heirs of that one inherit her marriage contract, as she is not considered married to either of them. This clause will be explained in the Gemara. And if they both died childless, the brothers of this one and the brothers of this one must perform ḥalitza and they do not enter into levirate marriage. Rabbi Yosei disagrees with the first tanna and says that she does receive payment of her marriage contract, and the obligation of her marriage contract is upon the property of her first husband. Rabbi Elazar says: The first husband is entitled to her found articles, to her earnings, and to the nullification of her vows. Since her second marriage was an error, the first husband does not forfeit his rights. Rabbi Shimon says an even more far-reaching ruling: Her sexual relations or her ḥalitza with the brothers of the first husband exempts her rival wife, as it is considered a proper levirate marriage or ḥalitza, and certainly she does not require ḥalitza from the brother of the second husband. And if she returns to her first husband, the child from him is not a mamzer. All these halakhot refer to a situation when she married with the permission of the court, after hearing that her husband had died. But if she married without the consent of the court, basing herself entirely on the testimony she heard, and her husband returned, it is permitted for her to return to her first husband. The mishna adds another difference between these two scenarios: If she married by permission of the court, she must leave both of them and she is exempt from bringing the offering, i.e., the sin-offering for her unwitting adultery, as she had the authorization of the court and is therefore considered to have acted under duress.
נִסֵּת עַל פִּי בֵית דִּין, תֵּצֵא, וּפְטוּרָה מִן הַקָּרְבָּן. לֹא נִסֵּת עַל פִּי בֵית דִּין, תֵּצֵא, וְחַיֶּבֶת בַּקָּרְבָּן. יָפֶה כֹּחַ בֵּית דִּין, שֶׁפּוֹטְרָהּ מִן הַקָּרְבָּן. הוֹרוּהָ בֵית דִּין לִנָּשֵׂא, וְהָלְכָה וְקִלְקְלָה, חַיֶּבֶת בַּקָּרְבָּן, שֶׁלֹּא הִתִּירוּהָ אֶלָּא לִנָּשֵׂא: If, however, she did not marry by permission of the court, she must leave her second husband and is liable to bring an offering for mistakenly having relations with a man forbidden to her. In this regard, the power of the court is greater, as she is exempt from bringing an offering. If the court instructed her to marry on the basis of inaccurate testimony, and she went and ruined herself by engaging in licentious relations outside matrimony, she is liable to bring an offering, as they permitted her only to marry, and not to engage in licentious relations.
הָאִשָּׁה שֶׁהָלַךְ בַּעֲלָהּ וּבְנָהּ לִמְדִינַת הַיָּם, וּבָאוּ וְאָמְרוּ לָהּ, מֵת בַּעְלֵךְ וְאַחַר כָּךְ מֵת בְּנֵךְ, וְנִשֵּׂאת, וְאַחַר כָּךְ אָמְרוּ לָהּ, חִלּוּף הָיוּ הַדְּבָרִים, תֵּצֵא, וְהַוָּלָד רִאשׁוֹן וְאַחֲרוֹן מַמְזֵר. אָמְרוּ לָהּ, מֵת בְּנֵךְ וְאַחַר כָּךְ מֵת בַּעְלֵךְ, וְנִתְיַבְּמָה, וְאַחַר כָּךְ אָמְרוּ לָהּ, חִלּוּף הָיוּ הַדְּבָרִים, תֵּצֵא, וְהַוָּלָד רִאשׁוֹן וְאַחֲרוֹן מַמְזֵר. אָמְרוּ לָהּ, מֵת בַּעְלֵךְ, וְנִסֵּת, וְאַחַר כָּךְ אָמְרוּ לָהּ, קַיָּם הָיָה וּמֵת, תֵּצֵא, וְהַוָּלָד רִאשׁוֹן מַמְזֵר, וְהָאַחֲרוֹן אֵינוֹ מַמְזֵר. אָמְרוּ לָהּ, מֵת בַּעְלֵךְ, וְנִתְקַדְּשָׁה, וְאַחַר כָּךְ בָּא בַעְלָהּ, מֻתֶּרֶת לַחֲזֹר לוֹ. אַף עַל פִּי שֶׁנָּתַן לָהּ אַחֲרוֹן גֵּט, לֹא פְסָלָהּ מִן הַכְּהֻנָּה. אֶת זוֹ דָרַשׁ רַבִּי אֶלְעָזָר בֶּן מַתְיָא, וְאִשָּׁה גְּרוּשָׁה מֵאִישָׁהּ (ויקרא כא), וְלֹא מֵאִישׁ שֶׁאֵינוֹ אִישָׁהּ: With regard to a woman whose husband and child went overseas, and witnesses came and said to her: Your husband died and afterward your child died, she does not require levirate marriage, as she had a child when her husband died. And for this reason she married another man. And if afterward they said to her that the matters were reversed, i.e., the child died before the husband, which means that she did require levirate marriage, she is therefore a yevama who married a stranger without ḥalitza and she must consequently leave her second husband. And with regard to the first child, the one born before they heard about the reversal, and the last one, born after they realized who actually died first, each of these children is a mamzer. Conversely, if they said to her: Your child died and afterward your husband died, and she therefore entered into levirate marriage, and afterward they said to her that the matters were reversed, which means she married her husband’s brother when there was no obligation of levirate marriage, she must leave her husband, and the first child and the last one are each a mamzer. If they said to her: Your husband died, and she married, and afterward they said to her that he was alive at the time of her marriage and he later died, she must leave the second husband. And the first child, born when her original husband was still alive, is a mamzer, and the last one, born after his death, is not a mamzer. If they said to her: Your husband died, and she became betrothed to another man, and afterward her husband came, she is permitted to return to him, as betrothal alone does not render her forbidden to her husband. Furthermore, although the last man, i.e., her betrothed, gave her a bill of divorce, he has not thereby disqualified her from marrying into the priesthood. She was never his wife, for the betrothal was invalid, and a bill of divorce given to the wife of another man does not disqualify her. This was taught by Rabbi Elazar ben Matya: The verse states with regard to priests: “Neither shall they take a woman divorced from her husband” (Leviticus 21:7), which indicates: And not one who was divorced from a man who is not her husband, e.g., the second man in this case.
מִי שֶׁהָלְכָה אִשְׁתּוֹ לִמְדִינַת הַיָּם, וּבָאוּ וְאָמְרוּ לוֹ, מֵתָה אִשְׁתְּךָ, וְנָשָׂא אֶת אֲחוֹתָהּ, וְאַחַר כָּךְ בָּאת אִשְׁתּוֹ, מֻתֶּרֶת לַחֲזֹר לוֹ. הוּא מֻתָּר בִּקְרוֹבוֹת שְׁנִיָּה, וּשְׁנִיָּה מֻתֶּרֶת בִּקְרוֹבָיו. וְאִם מֵתָה רִאשׁוֹנָה, מֻתָּר בַּשְּׁנִיָּה. אָמְרוּ לוֹ, מֵתָה אִשְׁתְּךָ, וְנָשָׂא אֶת אֲחוֹתָהּ, וְאַחַר כָּךְ אָמְרוּ לוֹ, קַיֶּמֶת הָיְתָה, וּמֵתָה, הַוָּלָד רִאשׁוֹן מַמְזֵר, וְהָאַחֲרוֹן אֵינוֹ מַמְזֵר. רַבִּי יוֹסֵי אוֹמֵר, כָּל שֶׁפּוֹסֵל עַל יְדֵי אֲחֵרִים, פּוֹסֵל עַל יְדֵי עַצְמוֹ. וְכָל שֶׁאֵין פּוֹסֵל עַל יְדֵי אֲחֵרִים, אֵינוֹ פוֹסֵל עַל יְדֵי עַצְמוֹ: In the case of one whose wife went overseas and people came and told him: Your wife is dead, and he married her sister, and afterward his wife came back from overseas, the original wife is permitted to return to him, as his erroneous marriage to her sister is considered licentious sexual relations, and one who has intercourse with his wife’s relatives has not rendered his first wife forbidden to himself. And he is permitted to the relatives of the second woman, e.g., her daughter, and this second woman is permitted to his relatives, e.g., his son, as the marriage was entirely invalid. And if the first woman died he is permitted to the second woman, despite the fact that he has already engaged in forbidden relations with her. If they said to him that his wife is dead, and he married her sister, and afterward they said to him that she was alive when he married the sister and only later died, in this case the first child, born to the sister while his wife was still alive, is a mamzer, as he was born from the union of a man and his sister-in-law, and the last one is not a mamzer. Rabbi Yosei says: Whoever disqualifies others also disqualifies himself, and whoever does not disqualify others does not disqualify himself either. Rabbi Yosei’s obscure statement will be explained by the Gemara.
אָמְרוּ לוֹ, מֵתָה אִשְׁתְּךָ, וְנָשָׂא אֲחוֹתָהּ מֵאָבִיהָ, מֵתָה, וְנָשָׂא אֲחוֹתָהּ מֵאִמָּהּ, מֵתָה, וְנָשָׂא אֲחוֹתָהּ מֵאָבִיהָ, מֵתָה, וְנָשָׂא אֲחוֹתָהּ מֵאִמָּהּ, וְנִמְצְאוּ כֻלָּן קַיָּמוֹת, מֻתָּר בָּרִאשׁוֹנָה, בַּשְּׁלִישִׁית, וּבַחֲמִישִׁית, וּפוֹטְרוֹת צָרוֹתֵיהֶן, וְאָסוּר בַּשְּׁנִיָּה וּבָרְבִיעִית, וְאֵין בִּיאַת אַחַת מֵהֶן פּוֹטֶרֶת צָרָתָהּ. וְאִם בָּא עַל הַשְּׁנִיָּה לְאַחַר מִיתַת הָרִאשׁוֹנָה, מֻתָּר בַּשְּׁנִיָּה וּבָרְבִיעִית, וּפוֹטְרוֹת צָרוֹתֵיהֶן, וְאָסוּר בַּשְּׁלִישִׁית וּבַחֲמִישִׁית, וְאֵין בִּיאַת אַחַת מֵהֶן פּוֹטֶרֶת צָרָתָהּ: Witnesses said to a husband: Your wife is dead, and he married her paternal sister, and witnesses subsequently told him that his second wife was dead and he married her maternal sister; afterward witnesses said that this one too was dead and he married her paternal sister; finally they told him that she was dead and he married the last woman’s maternal sister, and then they were all discovered to be alive. In this case he is permitted to his first wife, and to the third and to the fifth. Since these women are not sisters, his betrothal to them is effective. Consequently, if he died and one of them entered into levirate marriage, they exempt their rival wives. But he is forbidden to the second and fourth wife, each of whom is the sister of his original wife. Therefore, if he passed away and the yavam had relations with one of them, his relations with any one of them does not exempt her rival wife, as she was forbidden to his brother, which means there was no mitzva of levirate marriage here at all. And if he had relations with the second woman in the aforementioned list after the death of the first, i.e., the first one indeed died but the other rumors were all false, in that case he is permitted to the second and the fourth, who are his lawful wives, and they exempt their rival wives, and he is forbidden to the third and the fifth, the sisters of the women married to him, and the sexual relations of the brother with any one of them does not exempt her rival wife.
בֶּן תֵּשַׁע שָׁנִים וְיוֹם אֶחָד, הוּא פוֹסֵל עַל יְדֵי אַחִין, וְהָאַחִים פּוֹסְלִין עַל יָדוֹ, אֶלָּא שֶׁהוּא פוֹסֵל תְּחִלָּה, וְהָאַחִין פּוֹסְלִין תְּחִלָּה וָסוֹף. כֵּיצַד, בֶּן תֵּשַׁע שָׁנִים וְיוֹם אֶחָד שֶׁבָּא עַל יְבִמְתּוֹ, פָּסַל עַל יְדֵי אַחִין. בָּאוּ עָלֶיהָ אַחִין, וְעָשׂוּ בָהּ מַאֲמָר, נָתְנוּ גֵט אוֹ חָלְצוּ, פָּסְלוּ עַל יָדוֹ: The mishna addresses a different issue: If a boy aged nine years and one day had relations with his yevama he thereby disqualifies his brothers from levirate marriage, despite the fact that as a minor he has not acquired the yevama through this act of intercourse, and the brothers likewise disqualify the woman from him if they have intercourse with the yevama. However, there is a difference between them, as he disqualifies them only if he engaged in relations with her first, and the brothers disqualify him whether they had relations first or last. The mishna explains: How so? A boy aged nine years and one day who had relations with his yevama has disqualified his brothers, as they are no longer eligible to marry her. If his brothers had relations with her, or performed levirate betrothal with her, or gave her a bill of divorce, or performed ḥalitza with her, they permanently disqualify him from engaging in relations with her.
בֶּן תֵּשַׁע שָׁנִים וְיוֹם אֶחָד שֶׁבָּא עַל יְבִמְתּוֹ, וְאַחַר כָּךְ בָּא עָלֶיהָ אָחִיו שֶׁהוּא בֶן תֵּשַׁע שָׁנִים וְיוֹם אֶחָד, פָּסַל עַל יָדוֹ. רַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן אוֹמֵר, לֹא פָסַל: If a boy aged nine years and one day had sexual relations with his yevama, and afterward his brother, who is also nine years and one day old, had relations with her, the second brother disqualifies her to the first one. Rabbi Shimon says he does not disqualify her.
בֶּן תֵּשַׁע שָׁנִים וְיוֹם אֶחָד שֶׁבָּא עַל יְבִמְתּוֹ, וְאַחַר כָּךְ בָּא עַל צָרָתָהּ, פָּסַל עַל יְדֵי עַצְמוֹ. רַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן אוֹמֵר, לֹא פָסָל. בֶּן תֵּשַׁע שָׁנִים וְיוֹם אֶחָד שֶׁבָּא עַל יְבִמְתּוֹ, וּמֵת, חוֹלֶצֶת וְלֹא מִתְיַבֶּמֶת. נָשָׂא אִשָּׁה וּמֵת, הֲרֵי זוֹ פְטוּרָה: If a minor aged nine years and one day had relations with his yevama, and afterward that same boy had relations with her rival wife, he thereby disqualifies her to himself, and both women are now forbidden to him. Rabbi Shimon says he does not disqualify her. If a boy aged nine years and one day had relations with his yevama and died, that yevama performs ḥalitza and may not enter into levirate marriage. If the minor married a woman in a regular manner and died, she is exempt from levirate marriage and ḥalitza, as by Torah law a minor cannot marry.
בֶּן תֵּשַׁע שָׁנִים וְיוֹם אֶחָד שֶׁבָּא עַל יְבִמְתּוֹ, וּמִשֶּׁהִגְדִּיל נָשָׂא אִשָּׁה אַחֶרֶת וּמֵת, אִם לֹא יָדַע אֶת הָרִאשׁוֹנָה מִשֶּׁהִגְדִּיל, הָרִאשׁוֹנָה חוֹלֶצֶת וְלֹא מִתְיַבֶּמֶת, וְהַשְּׁנִיָּה אוֹ חוֹלֶצֶת אוֹ מִתְיַבֶּמֶת. רַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן אוֹמֵר, מְיַבֵּם לְאֵיזוֹ שֶׁיִּרְצֶה, וְחוֹלֵץ לַשְּׁנִיָּה. אֶחָד שֶׁהוּא בֶן תֵּשַׁע שָׁנִים וְיוֹם אֶחָד, וְאֶחָד שֶׁהוּא בֶן עֶשְׂרִים שָׁנָה שֶׁלֹּא הֵבִיא שְׁתֵּי שְׂעָרוֹת: If a boy aged nine years and one day had relations with his yevama, and after he matured he married a different woman and then died childless, if he did not carnally know the first woman after he matured, but only when he was a minor, the first one performs ḥalitza and may not enter into levirate marriage, as she is in essence a yevama who had relations with a minor, and the second woman either performs ḥalitza or enters into levirate marriage, as she is his full-fledged wife. Rabbi Shimon says: The brother consummates levirate marriage with whichever woman he chooses, and performs ḥalitza with the second one. The mishna comments: This is the halakha both for a boy who is nine years and one day old, and also for one who is twenty years old who has not developed two pubic hairs. He has the status of a nine-year-old boy in this regard, as his intercourse is not considered a proper act of intercourse.