כֵּיצַד אֵשֶׁת אָחִיו שֶׁלֹּא הָיָה בְעוֹלָמוֹ. שְׁנֵי אַחִים, וּמֵת אֶחָד מֵהֶם, וְנוֹלַד לָהֶן אָח, וְאַחַר כָּךְ יִבֵּם הַשֵּׁנִי אֶת אֵשֶׁת אָחִיו, וָמֵת, הָרִאשׁוֹנָה יוֹצֵאת מִשּׁוּם אֵשֶׁת אָחִיו שֶׁלֹּא הָיָה בְעוֹלָמוֹ, וְהַשְּׁנִיָּה מִשּׁוּם צָרָתָהּ. עָשָׂה בָהּ מַאֲמָר וָמֵת, הַשְּׁנִיָּה חוֹלֶצֶת וְלֹא מִתְיַבֶּמֶת:
Each of the women enumerated in the first chapter causes exemption from levirate marriage and ḥalitza for her rival wives. This is due to the close family relationship she has with her brother-in-law, making her forbidden to him. The single exception is the case explained in this mishna. What is the case of the wife of a brother with whom he did not coexist? For example: If there were two brothers, and one of them died childless, and subsequently a brother of theirs was born, after which the second brother, the elder, took his deceased brother’s wife in levirate marriage, and then died as well. Consequently, two women require levirate marriage: The widow of the first brother who had been taken in levirate marriage by the second brother, and the widow of the second brother, the first widow’s rival wife. The first widow, who had been the wife of the first brother to die, goes out without any obligation to be taken in levirate marriage by the youngest brother who was born later, since she is the wife of a brother with whom he did not coexist. The first deceased brother never lived at the same time as the newly born brother. The second widow, who had been married to the second brother, is exempt due to her rival wife. The mishna discusses an additional situation: If the second brother had performed only levirate betrothal with her, meaning that he had not yet consummated the marriage, and then died, both the wife betrothed by a levirate betrothal to the second brother and the wife of the second brother fall before the youngest brother born after the death of the first brother. In that case, the first wife certainly goes out and is exempt from both ḥalitza and levirate marriage, since she is to him the wife of a brother with whom he did not coexist. The second, however, was never effectively the rival wife of the first brother’s wife, as the first brother’s wife had only been betrothed by levirate betrothal and was not fully married to the second brother. Therefore, she performs ḥalitza and may not enter into levirate marriage.
שְׁנֵי אַחִים וּמֵת אֶחָד מֵהֶן, וְיִבֵּם הַשֵּׁנִי אֶת אֵשֶׁת אָחִיו, וְאַחַר כָּךְ נוֹלַד לָהֶן אָח, וָמֵת, הָרִאשׁוֹנָה יוֹצֵאת מִשּׁוּם אֵשֶׁת אָחִיו שֶׁלֹּא הָיָה בְעוֹלָמוֹ, וְהַשְּׁנִיָּה מִשּׁוּם צָרָתָהּ. עָשָׂה בָהּ מַאֲמָר, וָמֵת, הַשְּׁנִיָּה חוֹלֶצֶת וְלֹא מִתְיַבֶּמֶת. רַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן אוֹמֵר, מְיַבֵּם לְאֵיזוֹ מֵהֶן שֶׁיִּרְצֶה, אוֹ חוֹלֵץ לְאֵיזוֹ מֵהֶן שֶׁיִּרְצֶה:
If there were two brothers, and one died, and the second entered into levirate marriage with his brother’s wife while he was already married to another woman, and subsequently a third brother was born to them, and the second brother then died, whereby both of his wives happened before the third brother for levirate marriage, then the first woman, who was the wife of the first brother, is exempt due to the fact that she is the wife of a brother with whom the third brother did not coexist, and the second woman, who was the first wife of the second brother, is exempt due to her rival wife. If the second brother had performed only levirate betrothal with her and then died before fully marrying her, the second woman performs ḥalitza and may not enter into levirate marriage, as the levirate betrothal is not considered a sufficiently valid marriage so as to render her the rival wife of a relation forbidden to the third brother. Rabbi Shimon says with regard to the first clause of the mishna: The third brother either enters into levirate marriage with whichever one he wishes, or he performs ḥalitza with whichever one he wishes. Since he was born after his second brother had already entered into levirate marriage with the first brother’s widow, she is considered the wife of a brother with whom he did coexist, not the wife of a brother with whom he did not coexist. Therefore, he may enter into levirate marriage with her.
כְּלָל אָמְרוּ בַיְבָמָה. כָּל שֶׁהִיא אִסּוּר עֶרְוָה, לֹא חוֹלֶצֶת וְלֹא מִתְיַבֶּמֶת. אִסּוּרָהּ אִסּוּר מִצְוָה, וְאִסּוּר קְדֻשָּׁה, חוֹלֶצֶת וְלֹא מִתְיַבֶּמֶת. אֲחוֹתָהּ שֶׁהִיא יְבִמְתָּהּ, חוֹלֶצֶת אוֹ מִתְיַבֶּמֶת:
The Sages stated a principle about a yevama: Whoever is forbidden by a prohibition of forbidden relations to her yavam neither performs ḥalitza nor enters into levirate marriage and is completely exempt. If she is forbidden by a prohibition resulting from a mitzva or by a prohibition stemming from sanctity, as will be explained later, then since in these cases the obligation of levirate marriage is not fundamentally nullified she performs ḥalitza in order to become free of the levirate bond, and due to her prohibition she does not enter into levirate marriage. The Sages stated another principle: If two sisters who had been married to two brothers who subsequently died happened before the third brother for levirate marriage, and one of those sisters is a close relation to this third brother and is therefore forbidden to him, she is exempt from levirate marriage. But the other, her sister who is her yevama, i.e., her sister-in-law, performs ḥalitza or enters into levirate marriage. In this case, they are not ruled to be two sisters who happened before him simultaneously for levirate marriage, since one of them is prohibited to him as a forbidden relation, and therefore she never actually happened before him at all.
אִסּוּר מִצְוָה, שְׁנִיּוֹת מִדִּבְרֵי סוֹפְרִים. אִסּוּר קְדֻשָּׁה, אַלְמָנָה לְכֹהֵן גָּדוֹל, גְּרוּשָׁה וַחֲלוּצָה לְכֹהֵן הֶדְיוֹט, מַמְזֶרֶת וּנְתִינָה לְיִשְׂרָאֵל, וּבַת יִשְׂרָאֵל לְנָתִין וּמַמְזֵר:
The mishna explains: A prohibition resulting from a mitzva is referring to secondary forbidden relationships, which are prohibited by rabbinic law. The Sages prohibited marriage to certain women who were not forbidden by the Torah but were nevertheless deemed forbidden incestuous relations. A prohibition stemming from sanctity is referring to marriage of a widow to a High Priest, a divorcée or a woman who has performed ḥalitza [ḥalutza] to a common priest, a daughter born from an incestuous or adulterous relationship [mamzeret] or a Gibeonite woman to an Israelite, and also an Israelite woman to a Gibeonite or to a son born from an incestuous or adulterous relationship [mamzer].
מִי שֶׁיֶּשׁ לוֹ אָח מִכָּל מָקוֹם, זוֹקֵק אֶת אֵשֶׁת אָחִיו לְיִבּוּם, וְאָחִיו לְכָל דָּבָר, חוּץ מִמִּי שֶׁיֶּשׁ לוֹ מִן הַשִּׁפְחָה וּמִן הַנָּכְרִית. מִי שֶׁיֶּשׁ לוֹ בֵּן מִכָּל מָקוֹם, פּוֹטֵר אֵשֶׁת אָבִיו מִן הַיִּבּוּם, וְחַיָּב עַל מַכָּתוֹ וְעַל קִלְלָתוֹ, וּבְנוֹ הוּא לְכָל דָּבָר, חוּץ מִמִּי שֶׁיֶּשׁ לוֹ מִן הַשִּׁפְחָה וּמִן הַנָּכְרִית:
In the case of anyone who has a brother of any kind, that brother creates a levirate bond causing his yevama to be required to perform levirate marriage if the first brother dies childless. And he is his brother in all respects, except for one who has a brother born from a Canaanite maidservant or from a gentile woman, as these do not have the legal status of brothers. Similarly, in the case of anyone who has a child of any kind, that child exempts his father’s wife from levirate marriage, since his father did not die childless. And that child is liable to receive capital punishment if he strikes his father or curses him. And he is his child in all respects, except for whoever has a child born from a Canaanite maidservant or from a gentile woman, as these do not have the halakhic status of children.
מִי שֶׁקִּדֵּשׁ אַחַת מִשְּׁתֵּי אֲחָיוֹת וְאֵינוֹ יוֹדֵעַ אֵיזוֹ מֵהֶן קִדֵּשׁ, נוֹתֵן גֵּט לָזוֹ וְגֵט לָזוֹ. מֵת, וְלוֹ אָח אֶחָד, חוֹלֵץ לִשְׁתֵּיהֶן. הָיוּ לוֹ שְׁנַיִם, אֶחָד חוֹלֵץ וְאֶחָד מְיַבֵּם. קָדְמוּ וְכָנְסוּ, אֵין מוֹצִיאִין מִיָּדָם:
In the case of one who betrothed one of two sisters and does not know which of them he betrothed, so that both are forbidden to him, he gives a bill of divorce to this one and a bill of divorce to that one due to the uncertainty. If the man who had betrothed one of these women died before he could give a bill of divorce, and he had one brother, that brother performs ḥalitza with both of them, but he may not take either in levirate marriage. This is because he does not know which woman is his yevama and which is forbidden to him as the sister of a woman with whom he has a levirate bond. If the man who betrothed one of these women had two brothers, one of them performs ḥalitza with one of the sisters, but he may not enter into levirate marriage with her due to the possibility that she is the sister of a woman with whom he has a levirate bond. And one takes the other in levirate marriage if he so desires. If the two brothers married the two sisters before consulting the court, the court does not remove them from their marriage and they are permitted to remain married. The couple who performed levirate marriage second was even permitted to do so, since there was no longer any doubt about the levirate bond.
שְׁנַיִם שֶׁקִּדְּשׁוּ שְׁתֵּי אֲחָיוֹת, זֶה אֵינוֹ יוֹדֵעַ אֵיזוֹ קִדֵּשׁ, וְזֶה אֵינוֹ יוֹדֵעַ אֵיזוֹ קִדֵּשׁ, זֶה נוֹתֵן שְׁנֵי גִטִּין, וְזֶה נוֹתֵן שְׁנֵי גִטִּין. מֵתוּ, לָזֶה אָח, וְלָזֶה אָח, זֶה חוֹלֵץ לִשְׁתֵּיהֶן, וְזֶה חוֹלֵץ לִשְׁתֵּיהֶן. לָזֶה אֶחָד וְלָזֶה שְׁנַיִם, הַיָּחִיד חוֹלֵץ לִשְׁתֵּיהֶן, וְהַשְּׁנַיִם, אֶחָד חוֹלֵץ וְאֶחָד מְיַבֵּם, קָדְמוּ וְכָנְסוּ, אֵין מוֹצִיאִין מִיָּדָם. לָזֶה שְׁנַיִם וְלָזֶה שְׁנַיִם, אָחִיו שֶׁל זֶה חוֹלֵץ לְאַחַת, וְאָחִיו שֶׁל זֶה חוֹלֵץ לְאַחַת, אָחִיו שֶׁל זֶה מְיַבֵּם חֲלוּצָתוֹ שֶׁל זֶה, וְאָחִיו שֶׁל זֶה מְיַבֵּם חֲלוּצָתוֹ שֶׁל זֶה. קָדְמוּ שְׁנַיִם וְחָלְצוּ, לֹא יְיַבְּמוּ הַשְּׁנַיִם, אֶלָּא אֶחָד חוֹלֵץ וְאֶחָד מְיַבֵּם. קָדְמוּ וְכָנְסוּ, אֵין מוֹצִיאִין מִיָּדָם:
Furthermore, in the case of two unrelated men who betrothed two sisters: If this one does not know which sister he betrothed and that one does not know which sister he betrothed, this one gives two bills of divorce, one to each of the women, and that one gives two bills of divorce. If the two men died before they divorced, and this one had a brother and that one had a brother, then this brother performs ḥalitza with both of them, and that brother performs ḥalitza with both of them. If this one had one brother and that one had two brothers, the single brother performs ḥalitza with both of them, and of the two brothers, one performs ḥalitza and one performs levirate marriage if he so desires. If they married the sisters before consulting the court, the court does not remove them from the marriage and they are not told to divorce them. If this one had two brothers and that one had two brothers, the brother of this one performs ḥalitza with one sister, and the brother of that one performs ḥalitza with one sister. The brother of this one who performed ḥalitza may take the woman who performed ḥalitza [ḥalutza] of that other’s brother in levirate marriage, and the brother of that second one who performed ḥalitza may take the ḥalutza of that other’s brother in levirate marriage. If the two brothers performed ḥalitza with both wives before consulting the court, the two brothers of the second man may not take sisters in levirate marriage lest one marry the sister of a woman who with whom he had a levirate bond. Rather, one performs ḥalitza and one performs levirate marriage if he so desires. If they married their wives before consulting the court, the court does not remove them from the marriage.
מִצְוָה בַגָּדוֹל לְיַבֵּם. וְאִם קָדַם הַקָּטָן, זָכָה. הַנִּטְעָן עַל הַשִּׁפְחָה וְנִשְׁתַּחְרְרָה, אוֹ עַל הַנָּכְרִית וְנִתְגַּיְּרָה, הֲרֵי זֶה לֹא יִכְנוֹס. וְאִם כָּנַס אֵין מוֹצִיאִין מִיָּדוֹ. הַנִּטְעָן עַל אֵשֶׁת אִישׁ, וְהוֹצִיאוּהָ מִתַּחַת יָדוֹ, אַף עַל פִּי שֶׁכָּנַס, יוֹצִיא:
It is a mitzva for the eldest to consummate the levirate marriage, i.e., the eldest takes precedence over the other brothers, though they too are obligated. But if the younger brother consummated the levirate marriage first, he acquires the yevama as his wife. One suspected by others of engaging in sexual relations with a Canaanite maidservant and she was later set free, or one suspected of relations with a gentile woman and she subsequently converted, may not marry that woman, since this will strengthen the suspicions against him. But if he did marry her, they, the judges of the court, do not remove her from him, i.e., they do not require him to divorce her. With regard to one who is suspected of illicit relations with a married woman and they, the judges of the court, removed her from her husband, i.e., required them to divorce due to this, even if the man suspected of the illicit relations subsequently married her, he must divorce her.
הַמֵּבִיא גֵט מִמְּדִינַת הַיָּם, וְאָמַר בְּפָנַי נִכְתַּב וּבְפָנַי נֶחְתַּם, לֹא יִשָּׂא אֶת אִשְׁתּוֹ. מֵת, הֲרַגְתִּיו, הֲרַגְנוּהוּ, לֹא יִשָּׂא אֶת אִשְׁתּוֹ. רַבִּי יְהוּדָה אוֹמֵר, הֲרַגְתִּיו, לֹא תִנָּשֵׂא אִשְׁתּוֹ. הֲרַגְנוּהוּ, תִּנָּשֵׂא אִשְׁתּוֹ:
An agent who brought a bill of divorce from a country overseas and said: It was written in my presence and it was signed in my presence, as required in order to establish the bill of divorce as valid, may not marry the wife, i.e., the divorcée. Since the validity of the bill of divorce is based upon his testimony, marrying the divorcée creates the impression that he had an ulterior motive for his testimony. Similarly, a witness who testified that a certain man died, or testified: I killed him, or: We killed him, may not marry that man’s wife. Rabbi Yehuda says: If he testified: I killed him, his wife may not be married at all based on that evidence, as his testimony is unreliable, but if he said: We killed him, his wife may be married to anyone other than those witnesses.
הֶחָכָם שֶׁאָסַר אֶת הָאִשָּׁה בְּנֶדֶר עַל בַּעְלָהּ, הֲרֵי זֶה לֹא יִשָּׂאֶנָּה. מֵאֲנָה, אוֹ שֶׁחָלְצָה בְפָנָיו, יִשָּׂאֶנָּה, מִפְּנֵי שֶׁהוּא בֵית דִּין. וְכֻלָּן שֶׁהָיוּ לָהֶם נָשִׁים, וָמֵתוּ, מֻתָּרוֹת לִנָּשֵׂא לָהֶם. וְכֻלָּן שֶׁנִּשְּׂאוּ לַאֲחֵרִים וְנִתְגָּרְשׁוּ אוֹ שֶׁנִּתְאַלְמְנוּ, מֻתָּרוֹת לִנָּשֵׂא לָהֶן. וְכֻלָּן מֻתָּרוֹת לִבְנֵיהֶם אוֹ לַאֲחֵיהֶן:
A Sage who refused to release a woman from a vow that rendered the wife forbidden to her husband by that vow, resulting in her being divorced from her husband, may not marry her, so as to avoid suspicion that he rendered her forbidden to her husband in order to marry her himself. However, a judge before whom a woman performed refusal when she was a minor, declaring that she did not desire the husband chosen for her by her family, or before whom she performed ḥalitza, may marry her because he was only one member of the court, thereby alleviating suspicion. And for all of these who were involved in permitting the wife to remarry, i.e., the judge, the agent who brought a bill of divorce, and the one who testified for a woman that her husband died, if they had wives at the time of the ruling or the testimony and their wives died thereafter, then those women they had set free are permitted to be married to them. There is no concern that while their wives were still alive these individuals set their eyes upon another woman. And with regard to all of these women who were prohibited from marrying a certain man due to some suspicion, if they were subsequently married to others and then were divorced or widowed from the second husband, they are permitted to be married to them, i.e., to the judge, messenger, or witness who permitted her to remarry. And all of these women who were prohibited from marrying due to some suspicion are permitted to the sons or to the brothers of those who set them free.